------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- 
Date:          Fri, 17 Mar 1995 15:29 -0500 (EST) 
From:          [log in to unmask] Subject:       RE: history of econ thought/economics 
To:            [log in to unmask] 
Reply-to:      [log in to unmask] 
 
    Let me add something else to this interesting discussion.  I agree 
with Warren Samuels that economics has reached a size where numerous 
different conversations, in very different languages, take place 
within various sub-areas of economics.   
     I have been troubled by what I see as an outgrowth of that 
(which to me is very very obvious, but apparently not so to many 
economists).   
     On the one hand, many economists were "raised", so to speak 
(taught as they were learning to become professionals) a pattern of 
behavior shaped on the doctrine of scientifically discovered Truths; 
hypotheses that could be proven to be Right or Wrong.  Of course, 
MY Truth is Right, and YOUR Truth is Wrong.  Depending on how they 
were trained, that could reach astounding levels of arrogance.   
     There was a time I think when economists could be certain that 
within their own discipline, they understood their own language. 
Hence -- no need to cite, no need for footnotes, no need to define 
terms or explain the underlying assumptions (beyod lots of buyers and 
sellers).  Maybe a short bibliography of the most recent material, 
but sometmes not even that. 
     In the meantime, the methodology was taking the profession AWAY 
from a single, agreed upon, universal model.  The language always 
referred to the model as a starting place, but increasingly (I believe) 
research itself -- particularly applied micro, which became the most 
common form of everyday research in departments, I would argue -- 
tended to focus on a certain type of a market in which you would expect 
that one or another set of assumptions was going to be violated. 
     So, for example, an urban economist dealt with a "product" that 
was immobile; with structures that had an enormous built-in adjustment 
lag (buildings that are inappropriate for today's demand hang around 
deserted and empty in the old inner suburban rings within city limits); 
with an observable market entangled with location/quality/density/distance 
from a desired geographical spot -- all in a single price.  As they 
worked with solutions to these very specific problems, they became 
used to employing a certain vocabulary, referring to a certain set 
of studies of which they were all aware, using or adjusting a given 
set of generally employed models. 
     A specialist in money and banking might be completely unaware of 
this literature, this language, tehse assumptions, these models. 
     Pick a specialty and you'll find the same thing.  An internal 
convesration within the old "internal" conersation of economics. 
Perhaps we could call them dialects.   
     A young Ph.D. comes to your department and gives a seminar, and, 
um, it's interesting -- but can you always judge for yourself whether 
it's good?  Increasingly, economists have to rely on the judgment of 
others for this, because they don't have enough information to really 
judge for themselves.    
     This is already too long, but many of the economists I work with 
in ecnomic history absolutely refuse to admit such diversification 
within the profession is not only present -- it is perfectly legitimate. 
They are used to brusquely waving an arm and saying -- Oh, that stuff 
is WRONG.  Why?  Oh, it's never been proved theoretically.  Or some 
such toss-off response.   
     BUT.  I would contend that if it is being published regularly 
in respected economics journals, if it is showing up regularly in 
the best-selling textbooks if it is taught regularly by economists 
in university departments, IT IS ECONOMICS and it is not "WRONG". 
It may be different, but it is not WRONG. 
     I would further contend that scholars cannot dismiss literature 
by fellow scholars that they simply don't like.  They can disagree 
with it, but there should be a footnote somewhere that says, for 
a different view, see A, B, C, or D. 
     Because when you begin to cross over the little boundaries between 
dialects, there is considerable room for confusion.  And within that 
confusion, there is a lot of room for con artists. 
     A profession that can't differentiate between genuine scholars and 
con artists is in deep trouble. 
     How does this relate to the quesiton of what is history of economics 
or history of economic thought? 
     Simple:  the brain that cannot fathom anytying except a building 
block progression of crude theory to simple theory to good theory to 
today's theory (best of all, right?) will have a very hard time really 
understanding what economic theory has been about in the past.   
Conversely, learning that you cannot understand theory without a 
surrounding context would help make economists more self-aware of the 
limits of the contexts in which they work today.   
     The BROAD subject, economic thought/theory/dscourse in history, 
requires a way of thinking that many economists do not want to have to 
try on.  You realize it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong", but 
more of a case of "insights".  You learn to be more tolerant of 
different theories, and more tolerant of theories as they develop. 
     The same scholarly habits that lie behind the attitude that 
economy thought in history (how do you like the rewording?) is 
a frill, a consumption item, a hobby, "cute" -- are the same scholarly 
habits that refuse to admit there are different dialects in ecnomics 
today, and the same scholarly habits that prevent open discourse 
AMONG economists. 
     Not to mention BETWEEN economists and everyone else. 
     -- Mary Schweitzer