I want to echo Professor Backhouse's comments.  As an amateur in this field, I have come to the view that the chronological trip from one master to another is not very helpful to students. They have no context in which to fit the various masters.   Rather, they would be better served by a topic-oriented approach integrated into the study of today's theory.  For example, on money, the list might run from Hume to Thornton, Ricardo, et al, and then to Fisher and the early 20th c quantity theory, as a background to Keynes's liquidity preference and Friedman's invention of tradition.  Steve Marglin

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Backhouse
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] list of readings for graduate student

People have mostly listed what they think are classic texts, though three of Bruce's are secondary sources. But is that the right answer for David's question? If graduate students simply read 10 articles from the past, what will they learn about the the history of economic thought? Will they not get just a tiny selection of past ideas that might persuade them that these topics are more rigorously covered by modern economists and that they need read no further? They won't be exposed to the problems of interpreting past texts that make the field intellectually challenging. I am all for students reading original sources, but surely short extracts (what you are asking for) make sense only when read alongside interpretations of the past.

To put this another way, if people read a chapter from Smith, a chapter from Ricardo, etc, they will still never have read any history, just some of the source material. Perhaps you should be looking for 10 articles that challenge interpretations of history that students may have encountered (such as Emma Rothschild's "Smith and conservative economics" or David Laidler's article on Hawtrey and the Chicago school or Patinkin's article on Friedman and the Chicago tradition) or else works that will engage with theories that students are covering in their courses (such as Robert Leonard on von Neumann and Morgenstern on game theory, or James Forder on the Phillips Curve). Finding pieces that will engage the students would seem paramount.

Roger

On 17 Dec 2012, at 16:21, "Colander, David C." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> A couple of years ago, I organized a creativity workshop for a group of graduate students, and had some excellent discussions with them. I covered history of thought; Ed Leamer covered creativity in econometrics, and Herb Gintis covered creativity in theory.  Avinash Dixit and John Siegfried covered general creativity issues.  It was a useful workshop, and the students recognized that they were not getting any useful instruction in the history of thought.  They asked me to suggest a  general reading list that all economics students should have  read, which I didn't have right off the bat, but I thought would be useful.    So now, with your help,  I will try to develop one.
> 
> So my question is:   If one had to list, say, 20   articles  or chapters in books that all economists should definitely have read, what would be on that list?     My plan is to post this list on my website and to possiblly  take out an ad in the 2014 Program guide providing my suggestions for  the top 10 to graduate students, and picking on the professioin for not doing its job in training graduate students to have perspective on issues that a study of past literature provides. So my question: What suggestions would people have for me of "must reads"?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Dave