As someone who is not a historian of thought but who does economic methodology "part-time," I've been reading with interest the "contemporary history" discussion. Interesting discussions by non-historians that seem to me relevant to contemporary history of thought sometime appear. A prime example is a paper by the well-known development economist Dilip Mookherjee entitled "Is There Too Little Theory in Development Economics Today?" (Economics and Political Weekly, 40, 2005) Originally presented at a conference (at Cornell) on "75 Years of Development Research," it was of enough interest that EPW published it plus invited comments by several other leading development economists. It presents an interpretation of the "stages" of development economics over its recent history. The title suggests (correctly) that the paper tangentially addresses the issue Roy Weintraub raised about the apparent sea change in the focus in much of economics. There is some discussion of the Mookherjee paper in a paper by Jon Ratner and me, "Exploring Different Visions of the Model-Empirics Nexis: Solow versus Lipsey," scheduled to appear in the Journal of Economic Methodology. That paper uses the Mookerjee analysis as one of three case studies of the relation in recent economics between empirical work and modeling. Robert Goldfarb