================= HES POSTING =================
I would have to say that Roy Weintraub's argument is of course
correct. Those working on the history of economic thought ought to write
in a manner that aspires to the best work in intellectual history
and history of science.
That much said, history of thought serves several purposes in the
curriculum of economists which are not limited to the scholarly
enterprise of intellectual history. On this point, I would simply
point to Mitchell's "On the study of the economic classics," in
_Types of Economic Theory_ or Viner's "A modest plea for some stress
on scholarship in graduate training" in _Essays on the Intellectual
History of Economics_. Recognizing the multiple purposes for which
the history of economic thought can serve does not undermine
Weintraub's basic point -- which is that a legitimate contribution to
the history of economic thought must be the type of work which is
historically persausive to _historians_.
There is also the problem of the Whigism of modern economics -- which
has undermined the recognition of both the scholarly merits and
educational value of the history of economic thought. What are we to
do about that? Well, in the early pages of HOPE Kenneth Boulding
wrote a wonderful essay "After Samuelson, Who Needs Smith?" -- the
basic thesis is that we all do. Why? Because Adam Smith is part of
the "extended present". If that is so, then history of thought can
be a legitimate tool in contemporary theory construction. This is
not a contribution to history, but to conceptual clarification,
perspective, judgement, etc. Wasn't this what Viner produced in his
_Studies in Theory of International Trade_? Viner wrote essays that
lived in both worlds -- serious intelletual history that met the
standards of historians, and yet, was able to glean from this work a
perspective and judgement for theory development. What is wrong with
this type of work?
Some of the most exciting work in contemporary history of thought has
been produced by Robert Leonard who is making a contribution not just
to economics, but to our broad understanding of the cultural
underpinnings. He has tuned us in to the broader movements within
which subsets of economic theory emerged. It is great stuff. But so
is the work of people like M. Rutherford's book on _Institutions in
Economics_ -- which is not history, but instead highlights through
the aid of history of thought lingering problems with which any attempt to
incorporate institutions within a research program in economics must
cope. [I apologize to Rob and Malcolm for using their work as examples, it is
just that I find it easier to think about these issues in concrete
rather than abstract conversation about standards]. I'd like to write
some papers along the lines that Rob is developing, but I am also
working on a book at the moment on the theory of comparative
political economy which tries to use history of thought as an aid in
constructing an alternative theoretical framework and research
program -- redirecting attention in some cases and rediscoverying
older themes in others. The theoretical debates of the past -- some
very distant -- are important because they are part of the extended
present as Boulding taught. Maybe the ancients knew more than the
moderns on some issues, if so then we need to incorporate that. Of
course that is not a contribution _to_ history of thought, rather it
is consuming history of thought for a research purpose rather than
hobby.
The either/or type reasoning or tone that I read in Roy's statement
(maybe I am wrong) would only have historians of economics pursuing
history of science type work, and forget the use of history of
thought (discovering dead ends, redirecting the path of development,
etc.) for theory construction. While certainly conceding his point
about standards, why isn't it legitimate to see the
need for both exercises and to admit that different standards apply?
Peter J. Boettke
Assistant Professor of Economics
Department of Economics
New York University
269 Mercer Street
New York, NY 10003
phone: (212) 998-8900
fax: (212) 995-4186
email: [log in to unmask]
alternative email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/boettke
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________
Department of Economics 426 Decio Hall
University of Notre Dame (219)631-6979 (O)
Notre Dame, IN 46556 (219)631-8809 (F)
http://www.nd.edu:80/~esent mailto:[log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________
|