Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In the 100th anniversary issue of _The Economic Journal_
James Buchanan writes:
"If my central prediction [that the post-socialist century will
be marked by a convergence of scientific understanding] economists
must, increasingly, begin to raise -- and try to answer the
following set of questions [including, first of all]: Why did
economists share in the 'fatal conceit' (Hayek, 1989) that socialism
represented?"
Buchanan adds:
"These and similar questions will occupy many man-years of effort
in the century ahead. In the examination of the flaws of economics
over the socialist century, the perspective of the discipline
itself will be challenged and perhaps changed in a dramatic fashion."
Question: How does Buchanan's comment relate to our ongoing
conversation about how to do 'good' economic history? Is this a
project 'internal' to economics, or 'external' to it? Does
this sort of question even make a distinction with any traction in
the case at hand? Is Buchanan's research project for folks outside of
the guild of the professional economist and his modern institutions,
or is it one that the academically trained economist can help us with?
Perhaps a research project better undertaken by sociologists,
philosophers, historians, and political scientists? Can it be done
without the contemporary academic economist?
Should it be undertaken? -- Does this question itself lie inside or
outside of economics?
Greg Ransom
Dept. of Philosophy
UC-Riverside
[log in to unmask]
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm
|
|
|