In the 100th anniversary issue of _The Economic Journal_ 
James Buchanan writes: 
 
"If my central prediction [that the post-socialist century will 
be marked by a convergence of scientific understanding] economists 
must, increasingly, begin to raise -- and try to answer the 
following set of questions [including, first of all]:  Why did 
economists share in the 'fatal conceit' (Hayek, 1989) that socialism 
represented?" 
 
Buchanan adds: 
 
"These and similar questions will occupy many man-years of effort 
in the century ahead.  In the examination of the flaws of economics 
over the socialist century, the perspective of the discipline 
itself will be challenged and perhaps changed in a dramatic fashion." 
 
Question:  How does Buchanan's comment relate to our ongoing 
conversation about how to do 'good' economic history?  Is this a 
project 'internal' to economics, or 'external' to it?  Does 
this sort of question even make a distinction with any traction in 
the case at hand?  Is Buchanan's research project for folks outside of 
the guild of the professional economist and his modern institutions, 
or is it one that the academically trained economist can help us with? 
Perhaps a research project better undertaken by sociologists, 
philosophers, historians, and political scientists? Can it be done 
without the contemporary academic economist? 
 
Should it be undertaken?  -- Does this question itself lie inside or 
outside of economics? 
 
Greg Ransom 
Dept. of Philosophy 
UC-Riverside 
[log in to unmask] 
http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm