----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
[NOTE: Discussion of the suggestions in this letter is welcomed on the 
list. The feedback would assist the HES Executive Committee in thinking 
about future options. -- RBE] 
 
Colleagues: The HES Executive Committee asked that the following letter be distributed
generally. The letter was sent following the HOPE 2001 conference on the "The Future of
the History of Economics." A copy of the agenda for the HOPE 2001 conference is available
at: http://www.econ.duke.edu/Events/HOPE_2001.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
                                                        June 7, 2001 
Professor John B. Davis 
President, History of Economics Society  
Economics, PO Box 1881 
Marquette University 
Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881   
 
Professor Daniel Hammond 
President-elect, History of Economics Society 
Box 7505, Wake Forest University 
Winston-Salem, NC 27109 
 
Dear Colleagues: 
 
As you know the annual HOPE spring conference this years was devoted  
to "The Future of the History of Economic Thought." We had an  
exciting three days of conversations and, as usual, the revised  
papers will appear as a special issue of HOPE. Since many of the  
topics explored and conclusions tentatively reached at the conference  
relate to the activities of the HES, we would like to bring these to  
you, and through you the HES Executive Committee for further  
discussion and possible action. 
 
A general consensus reached by the conferees was that after three  
decades it may be time for us as a community of historians of  
economic thought to think seriously once again about some innovative  
institutional architecture. The late 1960s and 1970s saw the  
establishment of HOPE, the HES, and ultimately JHET. These have all  
served us well and must be cherished. Yet the erosion of the position  
of the history of economics in the larger discipline of economics,  
against which these institutional developments occurred, has  
continued apace. The subject has virtually disappeared from the  
training of graduate students and is not taken seriously beyond a  
handful of major universities. The generalist journals in the  
discipline continue to ignore history, and sessions at the annual  
meetings take place only when instigated by the HES. 
 
What can be done to improve the situation? Here are some of the  
suggestions that were put forth at the conference.  
 
Provide for systematic lobbying on behalf of the subject with the  
AEA, NSF, ACLS, and individual leaders of the discipline. The goal  
here would be to increase the visibility of the subject and to seek  
allocation of resources as opportunities arise. To give one example,  
today the EHS, but not the HES, is a member of the ACLS. This limits  
significantly the representation of the subject. We could press for  
inclusion.  We might also urge the NSF to create a special funding  
category for HET. We might ask the AEA to create a special committee  
on HET to make recommendations about projects of value to all members  
of the Association. Several private foundations (Earhart, Kanzanjian,  
MacArthur, etc.) declare an interest in economics. We could discuss  
with them the importance of attending to the history of the  
discipline when you are discussing its future. 
 
Initiate a summer program on teaching and research in the history of  
economics directed toward two categories of participants: graduate  
students who have an interest in the subject but no access to  
expertise in their graduate programs, and young faculty interested in  
exploring a move into the field. We suggest a summer institute might  
last over a couple of weeks and bring in several of the most  
stimulating and innovative scholars 
for short periods. 
 
Pay more serious attention as a community of scholars to the  
resources of the field. Duke University has been developing a  
manuscript archive but would welcome collaboration and advice. What  
about electronic records? Oral histories? Do we need a standing  
commission on resources?  
 
Reconsider the content and structure of the HES annual meetings.  
These gatherings have been enormously valuable to members and  
effective as a device to gather interested colleagues for regular  
refreshment, interaction, and initiation of new members to the field.  
But could they do more? Could they, for example, become a tool to  
attract members of the larger discipline into history? Might this be  
done, for example, by selecting a theme for part of the meetings each  
year that would attract a particular sub-discipline? One year, a  
theme might be in public economics, one year in labor, etc. If this  
were undertaken it would be necessary to plan this portion of the  
meeting very carefully, hold more plenary sessions, exert more  
quality control, etc. If successful, this device could help to  
reconnect the history of economic thought to its mother discipline.  
Another innovation for the HES meetings suggested at the conference  
was an intensive one-day workshop on a focused theme in teaching or  
research, supported by a separate fee that would make possible  
careful planning. We hope that we have demonstrated that enough  
exciting possibilities present themselves for exploration at this  
time for the leadership of HES to contemplate establishing an ad hoc  
committee to reconsider the structure of the annual meetings. 
 
In conclusion, we trust that you will receive this communication in  
the constructive spirit with which we send it. We feel this is a time  
when we can make progress together and we urge that we attempt to do  
so. The first step is further planning and discussion and we suggest  
that we move there soon. 
 
 
Collegially yours,  
 
Professor E. Roy Weintraub, Duke University, Director -- HOPE 2001 
Professor William Barber, Wesleyan University 
Professor Bradley Bateman, Grinnell College 
Professor Mark Blaug, University of Amsterdam 
Professor A. A. Brewer, University of Bristol 
Professor Roger Backhouse, University of Birmingham 
Professor Peter J. Boettke, George Mason University 
Mr. Derek S. Brown, Duke University 
Professor José Luís Cardoso, CISEP - ISEG/UTL 
Professor John B. Davis, Marquette University 
Professor Ghislain Deleplace, University of Paris 8 
Professor Neil B. DeMarchi, Duke University 
Professor Sheila C. Dow, University of Stirling 
Professor Ross B. Emmett, Augustana University College 
Professor Evelyn L. Forget, University of Manitoba 
Professor Ted Gayer, Georgetown University 
Professor Craufurd D. W. Goodwin, Duke University 
Professor Aiko Ikeo, Waseda University 
Dr. Albert Jolink, Erasmus University  
Dr. Matthias Klaes, Keele University 
Prof. John Lodewijks, University of New South Wales 
Professor Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, University of Rome “La  Sapienza” 
Professor Stephen J. Meardon, Williams College  
Professor Steven G. Medema, University of Colorado at Denver 
Professor Annalisa Rosselli, University of Rome, “Tor Vergata” 
Ms. Shauna Saunders, Duke University 
Professor Margaret Schabas, University of British Columbia 
Prof. Dr. Bertram Schefold, University of Frankfurt 
Professor Esther-Mirjam Sent, University of Notre Dame 
Mr. Michael White,  Monash University 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]