David Colander's interesting suggestion for reviving AEA literature surveys
raises a number of questions in my mind.

First, did the AEA Executive Committee members who were apparently so
dismissive of the suggestion give any reasons for being dismissive? If so
what were they? David Colander suggests it was because there is little
interest in history these days. But I am wondering if more was said other
than "why bother"?

Second, David Colander seems to elide a literature survey with interest in
the history of a given field. While I can see some congruence here, it
also seems to me they are distinct from each other--it is one thing to want
to read key articles in a field to encounter first hand the arguments and
evidence; it is another to be interested in tracing out historical
development of some line of economic inquiry.

Third, David Colander bemoans that these days few graduate courses
distribute 40 or 50 page reading lists. What about at least 2 or 3 page
reading lists--would that do a lot of the work? He later says that too
long a list would leave students little better off than using google
scholar. I am wondering if a 40 page single spaced reading list would be
so overwhelming as to leave students just as well to resort to google
scholar.

Fourth, might there be concerns about an orthodox source for this from a
major professional association in the field--some
official group handing down its "imprimatur" to use David Colander's term
as opposed to simply having prominent scholars post what they think are
key pieces in a given field. I am wondering if this might have been one of
the concerns of the AEA Exec committee. I think this concern about a
stifling orthodoxy was hinted at in his suggestion that various prominent
authorities might comment on each other's list. A related concern would be
that of offending those authors who found that their own seminal article
did not get coverage in the  relevant survey. It is one thing if a
prominent scholar does not cite my work. It somehow seems to me more
egregious if a leading professional association gives its imprimatur to
said glaring omission.

Fifth, how frequently if at all would these literature surveys be updated?
Might the fate of the previous Irwin surveys be a source of
concern--aren't they now something like a half century old?  Putting lots
of work into something that would only be updated every half century
doesn't suggest a forward moving source of intellectual endeavor.
And the work entailed in doing such a survey may well be non-trivial.

Sixth, what have been the trends on literature surveys in other
disciplines? Physics, Sociology, History, Political Science, Philosophy,
literary criticism?  Admittedly, whether or not other disciplines do this
doesn't mean or may not be good for economics. But as an issue in the
sociology of science, this interdisciplinary comparison could be
pertinent.

I am raising these questions as devil's advocate.  Organizing these
surveys could well be quite helpful for graduate education.

David Mitch