Hello All 
 
A few thoughts regarding the thread on the relationship between the 
history of economics and the history of economic thought.  There is an 
interesting recent book which address (in its introduction) the problems 
with the growing disjuncture between these two fields -- Jean-Claude 
Perrot, Une Histoire Intellectuelle de l'Economie Politique (XVIIe-XVIIIe 
siecle (Paris: E.H.E.S.S, 1992).   
 
As for a few of my own thoughts (and as someone coming to the question who 
is trained in cultural history), I find the separation disconcerting.  The 
analogies made to the history of science are instructive, for the most 
interesting and illuminating studies in the history of the 
Scientific Revolution in the last 20 years have sought to break away from 
the traditional Copernicus-Galileo-Descartes-Newton story line.  Instead 
the history of science has been contextualized within a much broader 
story about the changing attitudes toward the natural world.  It 
strikes me that one strength for the history of economic thought would be 
keeping a storyline closely connected to the history of economic 
development -- a linking together of the history of thought and practice.  
This would necessitate re-considering how to investigate economic thought 
in a less narrow context -- less Smith-Ricardo and more merchants and 
manufacturers (For two interesting examples, I'd suggest Jean-Pierre Hirsch, 
Les Deux Reves du Commerce:  Entreprise et institution dans la region 
lilloise (1780-1860) or William Reddy, The Rise of Market Culture:  The 
Textile Trade and French Society, 1750-1900).   
 
David K. Smith 
[log in to unmask]