================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
In his most recent note, Tony Brewer makes the reasonable point 
that many types of history of economic thought "make sense" and 
should be pursued. He argues that we might want internalist 
histories, externalist histories, and hybrid blends of the 
two. This seems a hard position with which to disagree. 
 
But I cannot help but reflect on the ironic juxtaposition of this 
argument with the reality of how the history of thought has been 
done in the past 30-odd years (in the post war period?) How much 
internalist history have we had? How much externalist? How much 
of the internalist history has been Whiggish? How much of this 
internalist, Whiggish history has been undertaken out of a fear 
that writing fuller, more complete histories would further marginalize 
the history of thought? How much of it has been written to appease 
the sensibilities of the people who have taken the whole discipline 
down a path that has removed historical reasoning and history itself 
from the study of economics? 
 
I realize as I reflect on Tony's note that some of the urgency 
with which I have argued for (and tried to write) histories of economic 
thought that consider external influences stems from what I see as 
the implicit acquiescence of (most) historians of thought to 
an unfortunate turn in the discipline. (By the way, my point here 
about the unfortunate turn is one made by Arrow, Solow, and Baumol 
in recent years, as well as the litany of "outsiders" who have railed 
against mainstream practice during this time.) It must certainly be true 
that there are still valuable, pure "internalist" histories of economic 
thought to be written. There must be, for instance, technical mistakes 
in past works that have led to ambiguities and/or misunderstandings. 
But how few of these get written in a year? In a decade? Not many, 
I judge. Instead we get the bad, Whiggish histories that don't tell 
us anything new or worth knowing. 
 
How ironic it seems that the majority of the "internalist" work 
produced may itself be a reflection of the current discipline and 
the myriad of external influences that have shaped it into an ahistorical 
project that has less and less influence in central banks and ministries 
of finance. Is it possible that some amongst us will be reluctant to 
do/accept externalist history because they can't or don't want to see their 
own position as compromised? 
 
My reflection here may be completely wrong, and it is always difficult to 
speculate reasonably about other people's motives; but it strikes 
me that the debate about writing a fuller, more complete history 
of economics is itself more complex than the kind of "purely theoretical" 
argument that Tony is making. In the abstract, his argument seems 
reasonable. Indeed, I can extend his defense along quite plausible lines. 
But there's the reality of who we are and what we have become in the 
last 3-4 decades; and my own belief that the more interesting, more 
satisfying work in our discipline will have a strong externalist impulse 
flows from my understanding of that reality. Thus, in part, I want more 
externally influenced histories simply because I find them more satisfying 
and richer. But I also want them because I see internalist histories as a 
product of what I don't like in contemporary economics. (The particular 
kind of external influences I am concerned with are those that reflect 
politics, the policy process, and public opinion and I see this as a 
way to get at a broader conception of "economic thought".) 
 
In the abstract, I understand Tony's desire to hold onto internalist 
histories, but my own desire for something else goes beyond the abstract. 
 
Brad Bateman 
Grinnell College 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]