----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- It is of interest to note that when thick studies on the history of economics are done and come to the conclusion that there is a connection between economics/economists and maintaining the political-economic status quo such work is dismissed by most economists. And when some young economist has the gumption to speak up and say, given the story told with all its evidence, that seems reasonable to me, many economists say "oh I do not know any economist who sold their intellectual soul to the status quo and of course I would not do anything like that." But of course we know many economists (and academics in general) who have done this--read for example Ellen Schrecker, "No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities," David Montgomery et. al "The Cold War and the University," and Michael Bernstein, "A Perilous Progress: Economists and Public Purpose in Twentieth Century America". But how about particular examples that are well-known with documentation: (1) much of the economics department at Berkeley bowing if not supporting the California oath of allegiance and did not back one of their own economists who being a good American (and also a social economists--read not sufficiently a mainstream economist) objected to such an oath, (2)Gardner Ackley and the University of Michigan economists "forcing" the likes of Klein and two graduate students Edward Shaffer and Myron E. Sharpe to leave because of past and/or current association/interest with/in the Communist Party and/or Marxism, and (3) the Economics Department at the University of Michigan putting pressure on Kenneth Boulding not to issue a statement opposing military conscription during the Korean War. Then there is the long run tendency by economists to restrict economics in the academy to a broadly single body of theory that generally supports capitalism. By this I mean the efforts to exclude initially Marxian economic theory and later other forms of heterodoxy such as Post Keynesian-Institutional economic theory from being taught to students and being one part of "acceptable" economic discourse among economists because of their alternative and less panegyric view markets and capitalism. This historical story is well-known and documented, but how about more recent examples--the Notre Dame story is a case at hand. But something else--how about the progressive exclusion of heterodox economics from economic departments in the UK? There is much evidence showing that most if not all of the top ranked departments in the UK and their economists do not on principle teach alternative economic theories to their students, do not hire heterodox economists, and put pressure on their faculty/staff to publish near exclusively in Diamond List-type journals. Moreover, many of these departments have no or only a token heterodox economist on staff--such as the LSE, Warwick, Exeter, Leicester, Nottingham, Queen Mary, Southampton, York, Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, Kent, Newcastle, Royal Holloway, Sussex, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews, Swansea, Keele, Reading, Hull, and Loughborough. But what does this have to do with the above story? One possible reading of the Research Assessment Exercise is that it emerged from the Conservative government attempts in the early 1980s to have higher education serve their interests; and that the evolution of the RAE over the past 20 years has co-opted disciplines, departments, and academics (which implies many economists that we know) to do precisely that. This story is still very incomplete but what if in 30 years a historian (after studying all the evidence, taken oral statements and generally produced a thick history) comes to the same conclusion? Would economists on this listserve say that the historian has done a poor job? Just because thick histories produce conclusions that many economists do not like does not mean they are wrong. If the only possible outcome of explorations into the relationship of economists, economic theory and the status quo is one in which economists etc are not co-opted, then there is no need to do any of this work in the first place. If historians of economics/economic thought cannot accept or at least reflect upon disquieting conclusions from good research without being defensive and/or dismissive then perhaps they should chose a different area for their research activity. Fred Lee ------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]