The September 1996 SHOE discussion on this theme was not a "vitriolic debate". The editorial ("Legitimate contribution to H of E") described almost the entire HET community as illegitimate: to borrow Joan Robinson's phrase, "bastard" historians. The implication was that only a chosen few should be allowed to participate in HET. Remarkably civil related threads about "Stigler" and "Formalist revolution" followed. Only one contributor was vitriolic (and was chastised by Kevin Quinn); no-one responded with vitriol. 

RL     

----- Original Message -----
From: "Humberto Barreto" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 28 November, 2013 10:51:41 PM
Subject: [SHOE] RVW -- Duggan on Kates, _Defending the History of Economic Thought_

Published by EH.Net (November 2013)

Steven Kates, *Defending the History of Economic Thought*.  Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar, 2013. x + 140 pp. $100 (cloth), ISBN: 978-1-84844-820-9.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Marie Christine Duggan, Department of Economics,
Keene State College.


Steven Kates warns us that if the history of economic thought (HET) leaves
the field of economics, economics will lose a good bit of its theoretical
heart (p. 27).  He makes this argument against two opposing straw men.  The
first is those who define an economist as someone who can apply
sophisticated econometric techniques to data.  The other is the view among
HET practitioners that since HET has been shunted aside within economics by
mathematics, the wise make allies with historians.  He views this latter as
dangerous to economics as a discipline: “The core issue is whether the
subject area of the history of economic thought adds to the study of
economics.  The question is not whether there are a thousand other uses of
HET” (p. 67).

This book acts as a wake-up call that practitioners in HET may have an
honorable role to play in reversing the decline of theory in our
profession.  That’s a big task, and Kates certainly has the fighting
spirit. He has experience in battle tactics from what he terms “the dark
arts” of lobbying. This sound practical advice arrives in Chapter 5, which
discusses his successful effort to reverse the decision by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to take HET out of economics in 2007.  He
recommends finding out the logic for this decision; explaining the flaw in
the logic; and providing an alternative path of action (p. 111). Kates
learned that the primary reason ABS thought HET unimportant was because the
number of scholars receiving research funding for HET projects was small.
He pointed out that any applied field of economics would tend to result in
more research dollars, compared to a theoretical subfield.  Kates then
suggested other quantitative methods of comparing the output of a field,
such as Ph.D. completions and peer-reviewed publications.

In Chapter 2, Kates explains that he views HET as a method of studying
economic theory with contemporary policy relevance.  He turns in Chapter 3
to the debate on the relation of the subfield to economics. ABS had argued
that HET did not belong in economics, and Kates is particularly incensed by
those within the HET community who seemed to validate that perspective.  He
points (p. 49-59) to Margaret Schabas (1992) and E. Roy Weintraub (2002,
2007). A vitriolic debate from the HES listserv is reproduced (p. 57).
Kates asserts that the journal *History of Political Economy* wants
scholars to “examine the development of ideas within a historical context,
but ... must not use the history of economics as a means to debate economic
theory” (p. 46).  The truth is that Weintraub and Schabas provide sound
advice for individuals attempting to obtain resources and engage in
conversations in order to make a solid contribution during short
professional lifetimes.  On the other hand, Kates wants to protect
economics, not career paths (p. 67).  The heat seemed excessive since both
are essential; as a practical matter there are plenty of venues in which to
publish policy analysis, and not so many for the history of ideas.  If HET
is at the heart of economic theory, then the journal that deserves the
battering ram is the *American Economic Review*.

Chapter 4 is a guide to teaching HET and does not rise to the same quality
as the rest of the book. This reader raised an eyebrow when Kates left
Keynes off the short-list of HET content (p. 81), and concern mounted when
he asserted that neither Marx (p. 94) nor Bohm-Bawerk nor von Mises nor
Hayek (p. 95) belonged in an HET course.  Kates here steps away from his
own inclusive definition of an economist as someone who uses “an amalgam of
theories and techniques to make sense of the ways in which we provide for
our material wellbeing” (p. 116) to the narrow position so that an
economist is someone who understands modern textbook economic theory (p.
72).  Since neither Marx nor Bohm-Bawerk are found in modern textbooks, out
they go.  Instead, Kates suggests a student in HET compare Mankiw’s 2013
textbook with one written a hundred years ago (Taylor 1913).  Eschewing
Marx and Bohm-Bawerk for Taylor 1913 is not persuasive. Indeed, in Chapter
3 Kates argues against placating the mainstream, so this chapter seemed at
odds with the message of the book.

I would have appreciated data on HET in undergraduate and graduate programs
in Chapter 1, “Preliminary Thoughts.” Data on student reaction to his
comparative textbook approach to HET in Chapter 4 might have persuaded me
to consider it more carefully. One should note that infatuation with data
analysis rather than theory afflicts heterodox departments now in addition
to the mainstream.  Chapter 3 is an excellent guide to landmines in the
profession for a recent graduate.  In general, if colleagues or deans start
taking potshots at HET (or any subfield that you hold dear), take a deep
breath, and read Chapter 5 for some sound tactical advice.

References:

Schabas, Margaret (1992) “Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of
Science,” *History of Political Economy*, 24, 187-203.

Taylor, Fred M. ([1913], 2008) *Principles of Economics*, Second edition,
Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing’s Rare Reprints.

Weintraub, E. Roy (2002) “Will Economics Ever Have a Past Again?” *History
of Political Economy*, 34, supp. 1, 1-14.

Weintraub, E. Roy (2007) “Economic Science Wars,”*Journal of the History of
Economic Thought*, 29, 3:1-14.


Marie Christine Duggan teaches macroeconomics, HET, and economic history.
She published “The Laws of the Market versus the Laws of God: Scholastic
Doctrine in the Early California Economy” in *HOPE* 2005, and published in
2013 “Taking Back Globalization: A China-U.S. Counterfactual Using Keynes’
1941 International Clearing Union” in *Review of Radical Political Economy*.
She is writing a book on Spain’s colonization of California in the context
of the Spanish enlightenment.

Copyright (c) 2013 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 (November 2013). All EH.Net
reviews are archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview

Subject(s):    History of Economic Thought; Methodology
Geographic Area(s):    General, International, or Comparative
Time Period(s):    19th Century
20th Century: Pre WWII
20th Century: WWII and post-WWII