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]