A continuing problem facing both the historian of economic thought and 
those who have suggestions about how to prepare students is that of 
defining the subject matter. Warren points out that Roy's reference to 
the personal and idiosyncratic is too narrow a characterization of 
the"economist's conception of the scope and central problem of the 
economy." He goes on to introduce a characterization that draws 
attention to the different methodologies, conceptions of the market, 
conceptions of the agent, and conceptions of economic freedom that have 
been used in conceiving "the scope and central problem of the economy." 
He concludes that there are numerous ways to do economics. Because of 
this, students should be "trained" or at least motivated to deal with 
fundamental epistemological issues and also with the meaning of society 
itself.

As I have argued before on the list in a somewhat different context, 
this approach to the history of economics puts the cart before the 
horse. Warren assumes that because there are many conceptions of the 
scope and central problem (and of derivative concepts), it is the 
historian's first job to put himself in a position to report on as many 
of these as is reasonable.

On the contrary, I say. The first job -- or more accurately -- the 
ultimate goal is to define the scope and central problem in order to 
produce a means of separating economics from non-economics. It is, as I 
have argued, impossible to make choices about which of the numerous ways 
to "do economics" without first defining economics.

It may well be the case that before one can make a persuasive definition 
of economics, she must study epistemology and the meaning of society. 
However, the ultimate goal should be a definition of scope and central 
problem, not the reporting of what others, in some amorphously defined 
subject, believe the scope and central problem is. To adopt the latter 
approach is nothing more than an invitation to the teacher to 
surreptitiously insert his or her own values in the choice of materials 
to assign and the choice of how to assess students' performance.

With this in mind, I would suggest that the first topic in every course 
in the history of economic thought should be: what is economics?. Or, in 
Warren's terms, "what is the scope and central problem of the economy?" 
Send the students out on a discovery mission and have them report back 
their findings and subject those findings to the kind of scrutiny that 
can only be present in a community of scholars. I would go on to suggest 
that in pursuing the answer to this question, the best candidates for a 
Ph. D. or for whatever other credentials you might wish to bestow on 
them will lead themselves into their own exploration of epistemology and 
to a study of the nature of society.

If this procedure were adopted, I dare say that the teachers of these 
courses might well learn a thing or two themselves.



On 12/3/2010 8:07 AM, Warren J Samuels wrote:
> Much of that is indeed personal and idiosyncratic but much is 
> evolutionary and systemic; that is to say, much is methodologically 
> individualist and much is methodologically collecttivist. Each 
> methodology may be analytically useful in some but not all matters.

-- 
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm