SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Bruce Caldwell)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:18 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
================== HES POSTING ======================= 
 
Dear HES-ers: Today I received the latest JEL, and was initially  
delighted to read on the cover that it contained an article on "The  
Economics of Science" AND one on "Economics and Psychology: Lessons  
for our Own Day from the Early Twentieth Century".  Surely good  
evidence of generalist interest in topics usually relegated to the  
history of thought/methodology crowd.  My optimism soaring, I then 
looked at the articles.... 
 
The first was not on the topic I hoped: it was a "straight economics"  
handling of issues like the funding of science, reward structures,  
and the like.  But much worse, it had no idea that there was another  
part of economics concerned with the economics of science. Neither  
Sent nor Mirowski (nor Peirce) mentioned; nor any of the philosophical  
lit; though Merton and Polanyi did manage to get cited. 
 
The second was better.  But Bob Coats' superb piece "Economics and  
Psychology: Death and Resurrection of a Research Program," in the  
1976 Latsis volume METHOD AND APPRAISAL IN ECONOMICS and which covers  
the exact same territory, goes uncited. Nor are any historians of  
thought (with whom I'm familiar, anyway) thanked, though people like  
Gary Becker are. An earlier paper was supposedly "widely circulated"  
and this one was presented at the Kress seminar - so how is it  
possible that Coats' seminal earlier treatment was missed? 
 
So has it come to this: that history of thought will go undone  
within the profession, except for the rare instance when it is done  
by someone with no idea that a secondary literature by historians of  
thought exists?  I realize this is an overreaction and is unfair to  
the author of the second piece, whom I do not know; but the symbolic  
weight of the one-two punch I just received is almost enough to make  
me agree with Roy Weintraub. (Which probably is enough to make him  
reconsider his position.) ;-}  
 
 Have a nice weekend. Bruce C.   
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2