I'm covering this debate quickly because of deadlines on projects and
cannot comment in detail, but let me say that one of the characteristics
I would add in evaluating an "economist as [an] public intellectual" is
there use of economic theory with a political economy vision -- they
combine economic knowledge with a sense of politics and coming up with
policies that reflect that combination. Classical economists like Adam
Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill would be examples of public
"intellectuals" to me. Also Keynes and Milton Friedman would fit into
that group also. What in many ways moved economists away from being
public intellectuals is the shift during the beginning of the last
century of economics into strict formal models that tried to separate
economic "science" from political economy. Those that did not take the
route like Galbraith would fit into the traditional of view of an
economists being an public intellectual. Interesting idea for a
conference. I plan to submit a proposal.
Ric Holt
Southern Oregon University

>>> Pat Gunning <[log in to unmask]> 01/28/11 10:40 AM >>>
Dear Harshad:

As you probably realize, it is not easy to interpret your remarks. But I

think that I understand what you mean. Am I correct?

If I understand you correctly, you may have misinterpreted the term 
"public intellectual." As you interpret this term -- or perhaps, more 
accurately, as you want to interpret this term -- it refers to someone 
who "has definitely helped positively to public" as opposed to someone 
who "has de-shaped and confused the public." As I understand you, you 
would like the conference to help the public judge whether policy X is 
good or bad. My understanding of the conference announcement is that its

producers define the term "public intellectual" differently. They do not

care about helping the public, partly I suspect because to express such 
a desire, they would have to define "help."

Three other follow-up points on the conference:

1. A conference on shaping and transforming the public's imagination and

identity seems more appropriate for the field of social psychology than 
for political economy. But, then again, the producers of the conference 
may themselves be trying to "shape" and "transform" the meaning of 
political economy.

2. Such a conference is consistent with the premise that the history of 
political economy is about the history of people called "economists" or 
"political economists" rather than about the history of economic ideas 
or thought.

3. The title of the conference is misleading. Its main theme from 
paragraph three is "to investigate the strategies adopted by economists 
to intervene in the 'public sphere'". This purpose is consistent with 
the goal of the liberal-activist-George Soros-funded "Institute for New 
Economic Thinking (INET)" of "finding solutions for the challenges of 
the 21st century by returning economics 'to its core mission of guiding 
and protecting society.'" INET has recently contributed to CHOPE, as you

might recall. In light of the conference theme, as opposed to its title,

it seems to me gratuitous to mention the names  F.A. Hayek and Milton 
Friedman. The true intent of the producers of the conference is probably

revealed better by the inclusion of the names Walter Lippman and Noam 
Chomsky. Since when were these people regarded as economists?

Best wishes,

On 1/27/2011 11:24 PM, HH DAVE wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I pest the two points here bellow as in the trailing email and give my

> views as follow though I am not the participant of the meet/workshop.
>
> "1. Economists have shaped the public's imagination of the economy,
its
> prospects, its history, its institutions."
>
>
> 2. Economists have transformed the public's conception of its
> identity, as consumer, as investor, as taxpayer, as citizen.
>
>
> A person without having knowledge and detail study of world history, a

> person without having philosophical study of human society can never 
> be an "> "casted economists". Now it should be clear if the word "economist" 
> used in the above point no. 1 & 2 is in fact refers to "Economist" or 
> to "casted economist". If he is "Economist", then he has definitely 
> helped positively to public, otherwise "casted economist" has 
> de-shaped and confused the public.
>
> Regards,
>
> Harshad Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tiago Mata" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:05 AM
> Subject: [SHOE] CfP: HOPE Conference 2012 - "The Economist as Public 
> Intellectual."
>
>
> CFP: HOPE Conference 2012 - "The Economist as Public Intellectual."
> Organized by Tiago Mata and Steven G. Medema
>
> The annual HOPE conference for 2012 will take place in April of that
> year at Duke University, Durham, NC. The conference fits within the
> series of annual conferences that, starting in 1989, have addressed
> topics in the intellectual and social history of political economy.
>
> The 2012 Conference will examine how economists in the USA and the UK
> have taken up the role of public intellectual during the twentieth
> century, i.e. addressing the public with analysis or deliberation over
> questions of political or cultural concern.
>
> The "public intellectual" is a concept that evades definition as it
> has been shared and disputed by historians, political scientists, and
> sociologists, with contrasting approaches and interests. For the
> purpose of our conference we use the concept of “public intellectual”
> as a marker to investigate the strategies adopted by economists to
> intervene in the “public sphere”. Our contention is that economists
> have been a force in the dynamics of public debate along two
> dimensions:
>
> 1. Economists have shaped the public's imagination of the economy, its
> prospects, its history, its institutions.
>
> 2. Economists have transformed the public's conception of its
> identity, as consumer, as investor, as taxpayer, as citizen.
>
> While the first theme might lead us to engage with economic history
> and policy history literatures, the second theme brings us closer to
> the concerns of political sociology and social history.  All demand
> careful study of individual cases of public intellectuals in economics
> that pay attention to their biographies, their conceptions of the role
> of the scholar in society, and to their interactions with the public.
>
> The history of economics in the twentieth century offers a moving
> background against which these subjects find multiple configurations,
> several aspects of which are important for our purposes: the
> transformation of economics from a literary discipline to a
> mathematical and statistical science; the consolidation of some
> schools of economic thought and doctrine and the demise of others; the
> influence of the second world war and the expansion of universities;
> the fortunes of social and economic policy in western States; the Cold
> War; the labour movement and later social movements; the elevation of
> economics in public discourse as a result economic events, such as the
> Great Depression, the Arab Oil embargo and attendant recession and the
> current economic crisis; and the increased public importance of
> entities such as the President’s Council of Economic Advisors and the
> Chairman of the Federal Reserve; and the expansion of the domain of
> economics into other social science fields.
>
> Some of the authors who might be studied as examples of “public
> intellectuals” are: Henry George, Irving Fisher, J. M. Keynes, Lionel
> Robbins, Walter Lippmann, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, J. K.Galbraith,
> Paul Samuelson, Paul Sweezy, Herbert Stein, Daniel Bell, Noam Chomsky,
> George Schultz, and Gary Becker. We welcome suggestions of others.
> Alternatively, one might consider a focus on publications that have
> become synonymous of public intellectual work and within which
> revealing> National Review, New York Review of Books, London Review of Books,
> Partisan Review, Nation, New Republic, New Statesman, among others.
>
> We welcome submissions consistent with the above mentioned themes. All
> proposals should be accompanied by an abstract of not more than one
> page sent to [log in to unmask] and/or [log in to unmask] by
> March 1st, 2011.
>
>

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