David - While Bob certainly did work that popularized, he also did
scholarly work in the history of economic thought (and, with respect to
Bruce's criteria list, also participated in the Society (maybe not as
much as some of us would have liked, but some), trained students who
contributed to the field, and promoted knowledge and appreciation of the
history of thought). But as I argued on this list previously (see
http://www.eh.net/lists/archives/hes/oct-2003/0036.php ), Bob's work may
be thought of as part of a tradition that "is 'legitimate' history of
economics, and yet is infused with an implicit purpose (i.e., how can
these ideas inform our understanding of actual economies)?" (Of course,
Bob did also believe that studying the history of thought was valuable
in itself, for a number of reasons.)
My post at that time was in response to a list editorial by Roy on "What
defines a legitimate contribution to the history of economics" (see
http://www.eh.net/HE/hes_list/Editorials/weintraub.php ), in which he
argued that "In late twentieth-century departments of economics, all
individuals who resort on occasion to modes of argument which employ
historical devices or who in their work quote or comment on Keynes,
Marx, Veblen, et al., are regarded by their economics departmental
colleagues as de facto historians of economics; sometimes even those
individuals believe themselves to be historians of economics if they
quote or comment upon Keynes, Marx, Veblen, et al. I submit that such
individuals should not be so regarded, and that their work, however
valuable as economics, does not constitute a legitimate contribution to
the history of economics."
Mat
|