----------------- 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]
|