SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Roger Sandilands)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:35 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
A propos David Mitch's post on specialisation by economists, recall 
Keynes's famous statement as to the desirable characteristics of an 
economist. It was in his biography of Marshall (CW, X, "Essays in 
Biography", pp.173-74). 
 
When David was reminded of Marshall by Friedman's statement that 'a good 
economist cannot only be an economist', he may actually have been thinking 
of Keynes on Marshall, as follows: 
 
"... Alfred Marshall belonged to the tribe of sages and pastors; yet, 
...endowed with a double nature, he was a scientist too... 
 
This double nature was the clue to Marshall's mingled strength and 
weakness; to his own conflicting purposes and waste of strength... 
 
In another respect the diversity of his nature was pure advantage. The 
study of economics does not seem to require any specialised gifts of an 
unusually high order. Is it not, intellectually regarded, a very easy 
subject compared with the higher branches of philosophy and pure science? 
Yet good, or even competent, economists are the rarest of birds. An easy 
subject, at which few excel! The paradox finds its explanation, perhaps, in 
that the master-economist must possess a rare _combination_ of gifts. He 
must reach a high standard in several different directions and must combine 
talents not often found together. He must be mathematician, historian, 
statesman, philosopher -- in some degree. He must understand symbols and 
speak in words. He must contemplate the particular in terms of the general, 
and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of thought. He must 
study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of the future. 
No part of man's nature or his institutions must lie entirely outside his 
regard. He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood; as 
aloof and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near the earth as a 
politician." 
 
Can this description of the ideal economist be bettered? 
 
Roger Sandilands 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2