------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:29 -0500 (EST)
From: [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: history of econ thought/economics
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
Let me add something else to this interesting discussion. I agree
with Warren Samuels that economics has reached a size where numerous
different conversations, in very different languages, take place
within various sub-areas of economics.
I have been troubled by what I see as an outgrowth of that
(which to me is very very obvious, but apparently not so to many
economists).
On the one hand, many economists were "raised", so to speak
(taught as they were learning to become professionals) a pattern of
behavior shaped on the doctrine of scientifically discovered Truths;
hypotheses that could be proven to be Right or Wrong. Of course,
MY Truth is Right, and YOUR Truth is Wrong. Depending on how they
were trained, that could reach astounding levels of arrogance.
There was a time I think when economists could be certain that
within their own discipline, they understood their own language.
Hence -- no need to cite, no need for footnotes, no need to define
terms or explain the underlying assumptions (beyod lots of buyers and
sellers). Maybe a short bibliography of the most recent material,
but sometmes not even that.
In the meantime, the methodology was taking the profession AWAY
from a single, agreed upon, universal model. The language always
referred to the model as a starting place, but increasingly (I believe)
research itself -- particularly applied micro, which became the most
common form of everyday research in departments, I would argue --
tended to focus on a certain type of a market in which you would expect
that one or another set of assumptions was going to be violated.
So, for example, an urban economist dealt with a "product" that
was immobile; with structures that had an enormous built-in adjustment
lag (buildings that are inappropriate for today's demand hang around
deserted and empty in the old inner suburban rings within city limits);
with an observable market entangled with location/quality/density/distance
from a desired geographical spot -- all in a single price. As they
worked with solutions to these very specific problems, they became
used to employing a certain vocabulary, referring to a certain set
of studies of which they were all aware, using or adjusting a given
set of generally employed models.
A specialist in money and banking might be completely unaware of
this literature, this language, tehse assumptions, these models.
Pick a specialty and you'll find the same thing. An internal
convesration within the old "internal" conersation of economics.
Perhaps we could call them dialects.
A young Ph.D. comes to your department and gives a seminar, and,
um, it's interesting -- but can you always judge for yourself whether
it's good? Increasingly, economists have to rely on the judgment of
others for this, because they don't have enough information to really
judge for themselves.
This is already too long, but many of the economists I work with
in ecnomic history absolutely refuse to admit such diversification
within the profession is not only present -- it is perfectly legitimate.
They are used to brusquely waving an arm and saying -- Oh, that stuff
is WRONG. Why? Oh, it's never been proved theoretically. Or some
such toss-off response.
BUT. I would contend that if it is being published regularly
in respected economics journals, if it is showing up regularly in
the best-selling textbooks if it is taught regularly by economists
in university departments, IT IS ECONOMICS and it is not "WRONG".
It may be different, but it is not WRONG.
I would further contend that scholars cannot dismiss literature
by fellow scholars that they simply don't like. They can disagree
with it, but there should be a footnote somewhere that says, for
a different view, see A, B, C, or D.
Because when you begin to cross over the little boundaries between
dialects, there is considerable room for confusion. And within that
confusion, there is a lot of room for con artists.
A profession that can't differentiate between genuine scholars and
con artists is in deep trouble.
How does this relate to the quesiton of what is history of economics
or history of economic thought?
Simple: the brain that cannot fathom anytying except a building
block progression of crude theory to simple theory to good theory to
today's theory (best of all, right?) will have a very hard time really
understanding what economic theory has been about in the past.
Conversely, learning that you cannot understand theory without a
surrounding context would help make economists more self-aware of the
limits of the contexts in which they work today.
The BROAD subject, economic thought/theory/dscourse in history,
requires a way of thinking that many economists do not want to have to
try on. You realize it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong", but
more of a case of "insights". You learn to be more tolerant of
different theories, and more tolerant of theories as they develop.
The same scholarly habits that lie behind the attitude that
economy thought in history (how do you like the rewording?) is
a frill, a consumption item, a hobby, "cute" -- are the same scholarly
habits that refuse to admit there are different dialects in ecnomics
today, and the same scholarly habits that prevent open discourse
AMONG economists.
Not to mention BETWEEN economists and everyone else.
-- Mary Schweitzer
|