====================== HES POSTING ================== 
 
In response to Bradley W Bateman: 
 
I come to this question from the perspective of being a theorist who 
thinks that history is very important.  I think that part of the problem 
with the History of Economic Thought, and the reason why so many 
economists neglect the history of their profession, is a feeling many 
people have that this history is not really relevant to them.  In part 
this feeling is based on ignorance, but in part it is encouraged by the 
balkanization of economics into subdisciplines, among which are theory 
and history of thought. 
 
I have done research both in the history of thought (my piece in the 
September JEL) and on the economics of organizational structure.  My 
research on the history of economics was motivated precisely by a desire 
to understand today's economics better, and such an understanding 
necessitated an historical perspective.  The research I do know is 
greatly influenced by my exploration of the history of economics and 
psychology.  (I discovered that the economics/sociology nexus was much 
more seriously neglected and decided to shift my emphasis in this 
direction.) 
 
When people ask me if I intend to do more work in the history of thought, 
I answer that the ability to study such history is part of my toolbox. 
Should another question come up which begs for some historical 
perspective, I may engage in another historical exploration, but my 
intention is always to contribute to our understanding of the economy.  I 
wish that more people would do historical research of this kind, and that 
courses on the history of economics would emphasize the history of 
current issues in economics.  There is so much which we do not 
understand about where we come from. 
 
To me, a basic understanding of the history of thought is (or should be) a 
basic part of the training of economists, training that is neglected 
due to a misguided belief that science simply forges forward rather than 
going in circles, taking occasional bad turns which should be reversed, 
etc. 
 
However, I think that a commitment to the progress of economic science is 
also a prerequisite to good, RELEVANT research on the history of 
economics.  The discipline is far too balkanized.  I welcome any movement 
towards a greater integration of economic theory and the history of 
economics. 
 
                    ---  Shira Lewin 
                         Doctoral Candidate, Economics 
                         Harvard University 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]