===================== HES POSTING ===================== 
 
Roy Weintraub wrote: 
 
>Ok, Greg, I'll "bite". Consider the current (Fall 1996) JHET paper by 
>Horwitz, comment by Cottrell, and Horwitz's reply to Cottrell. 
>Consider Cottrell's remarks, say on page 309: "Considered as an 
>exercise in the history of economic thought, the paper is lacking 
>...Basically the paper is a piece of advocacy for (an augmented 
>version of) Hayek's cycle theory." Horwitz replies that "In the 
>sense that I was trying to set out an Austrian perspective on 
>macroeconomic theory, it would be fair to call the paper a piece of 
>`advocacy'... [But] I would hope that there is a place in economics 
>for attempting to push forward particular approaches from, as it 
>were, the inside." 
> 
>This, need I remark, appears in the "official journal" of the History of 
>Economics Society. The exchange takes up 31 pages. I present 
>Horwitz's paper as an exemplar of work 
>that has been, and in the terms of my "Editorial" and Henderson's 
>"Editorial", may be a contribution to (neo)Austrian economics, but is 
>no contribution whatsoever to the history of economics. What 
>editorial policy encourages such appearances in the JHET? Inquiring 
>minds want to know. 
 
As the party in question, let me interrupt with two points: 
 
1) I don't object to being used as an example in this context; after all 
even bad publicity is better than none at all.  I must add that as soon 
as Greg issued his call for examples, I had this sinking feeling, 
knowing that the paper in question would be a perfect example for Roy 
or others to bring up. 
 
2) I have no argument with Roy's position.  Indeed the paper is not a 
contribution to the history of economics as Roy and others have argued 
the history of economics should be practiced.  I would add, though, that 
given the disagreement on this list over what the history of economics 
should consist of, we as a discipline have not "decided" the issue. 
Given that, it doesn't seem such a crime for the official journal of 
the HES to publish both (or many?) kinds of histories of economics until 
we sort out the issues. 
 
Thus, I feel not the least bit guilty for publishing that particular 
paper in that particular place.  As many others have argued, I think 
both the kind of work I do there (call it whatever one wants) and the 
kind of work Roy and others wish us to aspire to are both valuable.  If 
we decide not to call what I've done "history of economics," so be it. 
It surely is not "history of economics" as Roy would have it. 
 
I do hope that whatever we decide the history of economics should be 
that there remains a place for the work of taking a second look at the 
history of economic theory internally to see what might have been. 
 
Steven Horwitz 
Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics 
St. Lawrence University 
Canton, NY 13617 
TEL (315) 379-5731 
FAX (315) 379-5819 
EMAIL [log in to unmask] 
 
================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]