------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW ------
Title: At the Edge of Camelot: Debating Economics in Turbulent Times

Published by EH.Net (January 2012)

Donald W. Katzner, At the Edge of Camelot: Debating Economics in
Turbulent Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. xiv + 199 pp.
$50 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-0-19-976535-5.

Reviewed by David F. Ruccio, Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

Donald W. Katzner, in invoking the Arthurian legend, may have run the
risk of overselling the Department of Economics at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst. However, both the department he and his
colleagues built and his book documenting the history of that
department are, in fact, quite honorable.*

The department was remarkable because, with very few exceptions (then
or now) among the 125 or so Ph.D.-granting economics programs in the
United States, it challenged the prevailing orthodoxy by hiring a
significant number of “radical” economists and by training a much
larger number of graduate students. It literally defined and then
extended the frontiers of radical political economy. And it did so
with a neoclassical economist (Katzner himself) as the chair during
its early, formative years.

The book itself is noteworthy because it is the only history of an
economics department of which I am aware (Frederic Lee’s [2011]
effort, which can be usefully read as a companion volume, is a much
wider history of heterodox economics in the twentieth century), and it
was written by a key participant. The most valuable sections of the
book consist of Katzner’s recollections from the 1976-1981 period when
he served as chair (with the appropriate caveats about fallible
memory), supplemented by interviews he conducted with other
participants (both faculty and graduate students) and documents he
collected (from before and during his time as chair).

What Katzner has produced is, in my view (as a reader of the book but
also as a participant in the events he describes), an honest, candid
account of the golden age of the UMass (as it colloquially referred
to) economics department. That is no mean feat, considering the fact
that he names names and discusses difficult episodes and decisions,
and many of the people he mentions are still alive.

Katzner supplements his own participant-observation (including details
about his intellectual and administrative interactions with various
faculty members, graduate students, and university officials) with a
discussion of the context of the formation of the department: the
history of the University of Massachusetts, first as a land-grant
institution and then as a poor stepchild to the wealthy private
universities in that state; the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War
movements (which radicalized university students long before the
radical department was created, and not a few of the professors who
were later hired in the department); and the history of the American
economics profession (which, in his view, “sits today, with the
irrelevance of large portions of its research to the fundamental
issues facing the American economy exposed and glaring”).

Katzner’s account of why and how the department emerged is a complex
one of structure, randomness, and agency – combining the tendencies
within the general context mentioned above with unpredictable events
and decisions taken by key individuals. The arbitrariness stems from
the crisis during the late-1960s and early-1970s of the department as
a mostly mainstream program (when it counted among its members Hugo
Sonnenschein and Vernon Smith, with Michael Best the sole radical
exception), after which it was placed in receivership, and from the
fact that at the same time a number of well-known radical economists
(such as Stephen Resnick, Richard Wolff, Samuel Bowles, Leonard
Rapping, and James Crotty) and Katzner himself happened to be able and
willing to move to UMass. The crucial decisions included the agreement
on the part of the members of the “radical package” to overcome their
theoretical differences (which Katzner characterizes on page 127 as
“neoclassical, Marxism combined with political and social liberalism,
Marxism combined with Keynesian macroeconomics, and mutual interaction
of all analytical elements”) with the aim of building a unique
department of economics in which radical political economy could
flourish, as well as the choices made by a new generation of graduate
students (whose quality, Katzner remarks on page 132, “was comparable
to those admitted to schools like Harvard, Princeton, and such”) not
only to join the program but to have a hand in running it (through the
Economics Graduate Student Organization).

Given the richness of its detail and insightfulness of its author,
Katzner’s book will serve for years to come as a principal source of
how the UMass economics department was fundamentally transformed – in
many ways, against all odds – into the premier program of radical
political economy in the United States. It is also, in Katzner’s view,
a reminder of how the “ideal university is a place where free and open
discourse on any intellectual topic, no matter how mundane or
outlandish, frequently occurs.” Finally, it is a reminder to all of us
– who are debating economics in new turbulent times – that a
fundamental alternative to mainstream economic theory and to
departments devoted exclusively to mainstream economics at both the
undergraduate and graduate levels can be imagined and created.

*In the interests of full disclosure, after the debacle documented in
Inside Job and the American Economic Association’s belated approval of
a minimal set of ethical principles, I can state that the only
financial support I received for composing this review was my regular
salary. However, I do have multiple connections to the book itself: I
was in residence as a Ph.D. student in the Department of Economics at
the University of Massachusetts Amherst from 1977 until 1981; Katzner
served on my doctoral dissertation committee; I was consulted by
Katzner, especially in regard to the history of the Department of
Economics at the University of Notre Dame (which appears in Appendix
B); and I appear by name at least three times in the text.

Reference:
Lee, F. 2011. A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the
Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. New York: Routledge.

David Ruccio’s scholarly interests are in the areas of Marxian theory,
economic methodology, development economics (especially in Latin
America), and international political economy. His most recent books
are Development and Globalization: A Marxian Class Analysis
(Routledge), Economic Representations: Both Academic and Everyday
(Routledge), Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics (Princeton
University Press), Postmodernism, Economics, and Knowledge
(Routledge), and Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist
Theory (Wesleyan University Press).

Copyright (c) 2012 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]). Published by EH.Net
(January 2012). All EH.Net reviews are archived at
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.

Geographic Location: North America
Subject: History of Economic Thought; Methodology
Time: 20th Century: WWII and post-WWII