====================== HES POSTING ================== 
 
In response to Kevin Quinn: 
 
I would be happy if richer, thicker history of economic thought 
led to better economic theory. But I see two problems with historians 
of economic thought trying to undertake the kind of work that 
Quinn finds so admirable in Herzog's work. 
 
First, I have read almost no satisfying intellectual history written 
by contemporary theorists. The gifts, and perhaps more importantly 
the time, necessary for doing mainstream theory seem to preclude, 
in most cases, the gifts, time, and effort necessary to do rich 
history. In fact, I fear (it's only a fear) that a history of thought 
driven by a desire to "Do Better Theory Today!" would largely be 
Whig histories that pushed out the kind of histories I'm interested in 
seeing. What I mean to say here is that if each article and book is 
supposed to make frontier contributions to economic theory, then the 
nature of the historical inquiry is likely to be etiolated and 
unsatisfying. 
This doesn't have to be the case and I would be happy to be surprised. 
 
Second, economic theory is for the most part radically different than 
political theory. There is mathematical political theory, but that's not 
the bulk of the field. Thus, I'm not sure that the situations are analogous 
enough to make Herzog a good role model for us. If we consider the work 
of Albert Hirschman, well, yes, there would seem to be someone doing 
Herzog-style work.....intellectual, social history blended with an 
effort at new theorizing. But if this is going to be what work in our field 
looks like (not a bad thing!) it necessarily means a change in the 
mainstream's sense of what theory is and who gets deemed a theorist. 
For despite the great respect with which Hirschman seems to be held in 
the (economics) profession, I think that his "theoretical" work in the last 
two decades has been much more influential with (here's my point) political 
scientists than it has been with economists. 
 
Let a million flowers bloom. I am not opposed to historians of economic 
thought who try to influence theory; but in my own case I would like 
to see it as a part of a division of labor in which people who write good 
histories are read by and are colleagues of theorists who "use" their work. 
In my best world, the hard work necessary to doing "good" history would be 
recognized and rewarded by the mainstream and that work would help to 
make all economists better at what they do. My fear is that when one person 
tries to be both historian and theorist that neither job gets done well. 
But maybe that opinion is too influenced by economic theory? 
 
Brad Bateman 
Grinnell College 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]