I would like to take up a theme discussed by John Brown in a thread
commenced by an early posting from Roy Weintraub. John Brown wrote: 

“History of Economic Thought has its feet in two distinct
disciplines, intellectual history and economics. You certainly cannot
write intelligently about the history of thought without a deep
understanding of the discipline of economics.” 

On this I could not agree more. I have just written a paper on this
very issue, “Historians and the History of Economic Thought”, which
is about to be published in the next issue of History of Economics
Review. The paper looked at the economics embedded within three
biographies of Keynes that had been written by historians to identify
whether useful additional insight and analytical technique are brought
to the study of economics itself when historians undertake studies in
HET. 

In this paper I have come to the conclusion that historians of
economics, when looking at the actual development of theory, have little
that can be taken from professional historians. HET is almost entirely a
specialist area of economics. You cannot write intelligently about the
history of economic thought without a deep understanding of the
discipline of economics. 

The question raised by Roy Weintraub, if I understand him correctly, is
quite interesting. Where is the model, the template for studies in HET?
As he wrote, “there appears not to be any published discussion about
the craft of writing the history of economics that one could give to an
apprentice student”. He therefore asks "are there any ways of leading
students into our craft practices that are other than personal and
idiosyncratic"? And I apologise in advance if the words "model" and
"template" are too solid for what he had in mind. 

But in addressing his question, let me suggest that there are two
different dynamics in HET that need to be kept quite separate. There is,
firstly, teaching students of economics some of the history of their
subject. This should be a component in the education of every economist
for a variety of reasons that I need not get into in this brief note.
For myself, I doubt there is much “craft” involved in such student
essays. We just want our students to know who have been the most
influential economists of the past and what their contributions have
been. 

But then there is research into the history of economic thought that is
undertaken by scholars such as ourselves. As far as this part of
scholarship is concerned, I would argue that history of economics is
something that a proportion of economists independently find themselves
drawn to and that it is the questions that they raise themselves that
constitute the history of economic thought. We are the embedded cohort
of scholars within the body of economic theory with our not necessarily
intended contribution being not only to ensure that economic discussions
amongst economists maintain an historical perspective but also to do
what we can to make sure that such discussions are as accurate and as
comprehensive as possible. Few economists are grateful that we take on
this role and just as few seem to appreciate how important it is to the
development of economic theory that such scholarship exists. I am not
all that sure that historians of economics appreciate their own central
role in the development of economic theory and policy. 

How does this scholarly side of the history of economics get done? My
answer is this. Each of us finds something that interests us and then we
write about it. This historical knowledge of the theories and theorists
of the past is then built into the conversations that economists have
with each other and in this way even as we discuss modern economic
theory we find that when some aspect of theory is discussed, monetary
theory, for example, the views of Wicksell or Fisher or others far more
obscure are woven into the debates. 

Is there a template for any of this that can be taught? There may be
although it wouldn’t bother me if there isn’t. I think I would even
prefer that there isn’t since there seems no real point in having a
pro forma structure however loose it might be. But unless we separate
the teaching of HET to economics students from the body of scholarship
on HET we may be hunting for a phantom framework that does not exist. 


Dr Steven Kates
School of Economics, Finance
    and Marketing
RMIT University
Level 12 / 239 Bourke Street
Melbourne Vic 3000

Phone: (03) 9925 5878
Mobile: 042 7297 529