Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:32 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
====================== HES POSTING ==================
In response to Bradley W Bateman:
I come to this question from the perspective of being a theorist who
thinks that history is very important. I think that part of the problem
with the History of Economic Thought, and the reason why so many
economists neglect the history of their profession, is a feeling many
people have that this history is not really relevant to them. In part
this feeling is based on ignorance, but in part it is encouraged by the
balkanization of economics into subdisciplines, among which are theory
and history of thought.
I have done research both in the history of thought (my piece in the
September JEL) and on the economics of organizational structure. My
research on the history of economics was motivated precisely by a desire
to understand today's economics better, and such an understanding
necessitated an historical perspective. The research I do know is
greatly influenced by my exploration of the history of economics and
psychology. (I discovered that the economics/sociology nexus was much
more seriously neglected and decided to shift my emphasis in this
direction.)
When people ask me if I intend to do more work in the history of thought,
I answer that the ability to study such history is part of my toolbox.
Should another question come up which begs for some historical
perspective, I may engage in another historical exploration, but my
intention is always to contribute to our understanding of the economy. I
wish that more people would do historical research of this kind, and that
courses on the history of economics would emphasize the history of
current issues in economics. There is so much which we do not
understand about where we come from.
To me, a basic understanding of the history of thought is (or should be) a
basic part of the training of economists, training that is neglected
due to a misguided belief that science simply forges forward rather than
going in circles, taking occasional bad turns which should be reversed,
etc.
However, I think that a commitment to the progress of economic science is
also a prerequisite to good, RELEVANT research on the history of
economics. The discipline is far too balkanized. I welcome any movement
towards a greater integration of economic theory and the history of
economics.
--- Shira Lewin
Doctoral Candidate, Economics
Harvard University
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|