----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- I have read Roy Weintraub's editorial* which he refers to in an earlier message. I now think I understand his position as regards what constitutes work in the history of economics. In response, I want to say that I agree that there is a distinction between work that applies the concepts and analytical frameworks of the great thinkers of the past to current problems in political economy and work that applies to economics what we can, using shorthand, call the history of science method (although there is also work that qualifies as both). But is there not also a tradition within the history of economic thought (is this the same as the history of economics, by the way?), that lies somewhere in the borderlands between these two, that is 'legitimate' history of economics, and yet is infused with an implicit purpose (i.e., how can these ideas inform our understanding of actual economies)? This work suggests the possible fruitfulness of some idea or ideas, rather than putting forward a complete application of them. Two current historians of economics who have done work in this tradition are Robert Heilbroner and Ingrid Rima. Both Heilbroner and Rima may be thought of as continuing in the tradition of, e.g., Adolph Lowe. His article "The Classical Theory of Economic Growth" (Social Research, 21, 1954), is legitimate history of thought--as he remarks, the growth 'models' in many of the classical economists' writings have to be pieced together from bits here and there--yet there is also the suggestion (sometimes explicit in this kind of work, but often implicit) that this is not a mere admiration of antique furniture--valuable as that can be in and of itself. In this case, Lowe suggests that the dynamic method of the classics may be recoverable and useful for analyzing modern industrial systems. Likewise, Heilbroner's own articles on Smith ("The Socialization of the Individual in Adam Smith," HOPE, 14, 1982; "The Paradox of Progress," in A. Skinner and T. Wilson, eds. Essays on Adam Smith, 1975), read as being in this tradition. In the final sentence of the 1982 paper, which offers another take on 'Das Adam Smith Problem,' Heilbroner writes that "This dilemma [in Smith, identified by the author as the achievement of social cohesion at the price of social compassion] is not only Smith's problem but our own as well," suggesting if not the applicability of Smith's analysis, at least a reminder of its continuing ability to raise issues of relevant concern. Many on the list will think of other examples, from some of Keynes's Essays in Biography and even portions of Marx's Theories of Surplus Value to Allyn Young, Piero Sraffa, and Nathan Rosenberg. I just now received Roy's latest message, assuring me that it is "not that complicated,": "a dissertation in HE...would not be considered economics." Since "Training in economics...is associated with learning particular core tools of the discipline, and employing them in a dissertation" (which we are reminded is very hard work that takes up all the students' time so none is leftover for HET), and "a dissertation in HE does not employ the economist's tools (but rather employs the historian's tools)" (also hard work that takes a long time), this work "would not be appropriate for a Ph.D. in Economics." This suggests that historians of economics do not benefit from learning, or even need to learn, the core tools of the discipline and how to apply them. I am not saying that one who comes to the study of the HET from the standpoint of the history of science, without learning the core tools of economics and how to employ them, has nothing valuable to offer, I am simply saying that coming at it from within economics is a valid route to the study of the history of the discipline as well, and an important one at that (I don't need to remind members of this list of the important contributions by many of the leading figures in the development of our discipline's core tools and their application also to the history of economics, e.g., Hicks, Baumol, Leontief, Samuelson). The fact of the matter is that both the ideas of the past and the 'disciplines' that study them are alive and evolving, and there are multiple 'legitimate' paths to, and varieties of, the HET, all of which must be evaluated according to the (alive, evolving) standards of sound (and original) scholarship. That many historians of economic thought find in the ideas of the past what constitute alternatives to the "particular core tools of the discipline" may be an irritant to Roy, but it is a tradition with a solid history and an ongoing vitality. I want to express my appreciation to Roy for his frank assessment of the issues and his participation in this dialogue, and also apologize to the list and its moderator for the number and length of my messages on this topic. Mat Forstater *(http://www.eh.net/HE/hes_list/Editorials/weintraub.php ) ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]