================= HES POSTING ================= I would have to say that Roy Weintraub's argument is of course correct. Those working on the history of economic thought ought to write in a manner that aspires to the best work in intellectual history and history of science. That much said, history of thought serves several purposes in the curriculum of economists which are not limited to the scholarly enterprise of intellectual history. On this point, I would simply point to Mitchell's "On the study of the economic classics," in _Types of Economic Theory_ or Viner's "A modest plea for some stress on scholarship in graduate training" in _Essays on the Intellectual History of Economics_. Recognizing the multiple purposes for which the history of economic thought can serve does not undermine Weintraub's basic point -- which is that a legitimate contribution to the history of economic thought must be the type of work which is historically persausive to _historians_. There is also the problem of the Whigism of modern economics -- which has undermined the recognition of both the scholarly merits and educational value of the history of economic thought. What are we to do about that? Well, in the early pages of HOPE Kenneth Boulding wrote a wonderful essay "After Samuelson, Who Needs Smith?" -- the basic thesis is that we all do. Why? Because Adam Smith is part of the "extended present". If that is so, then history of thought can be a legitimate tool in contemporary theory construction. This is not a contribution to history, but to conceptual clarification, perspective, judgement, etc. Wasn't this what Viner produced in his _Studies in Theory of International Trade_? Viner wrote essays that lived in both worlds -- serious intelletual history that met the standards of historians, and yet, was able to glean from this work a perspective and judgement for theory development. What is wrong with this type of work? Some of the most exciting work in contemporary history of thought has been produced by Robert Leonard who is making a contribution not just to economics, but to our broad understanding of the cultural underpinnings. He has tuned us in to the broader movements within which subsets of economic theory emerged. It is great stuff. But so is the work of people like M. Rutherford's book on _Institutions in Economics_ -- which is not history, but instead highlights through the aid of history of thought lingering problems with which any attempt to incorporate institutions within a research program in economics must cope. [I apologize to Rob and Malcolm for using their work as examples, it is just that I find it easier to think about these issues in concrete rather than abstract conversation about standards]. I'd like to write some papers along the lines that Rob is developing, but I am also working on a book at the moment on the theory of comparative political economy which tries to use history of thought as an aid in constructing an alternative theoretical framework and research program -- redirecting attention in some cases and rediscoverying older themes in others. The theoretical debates of the past -- some very distant -- are important because they are part of the extended present as Boulding taught. Maybe the ancients knew more than the moderns on some issues, if so then we need to incorporate that. Of course that is not a contribution _to_ history of thought, rather it is consuming history of thought for a research purpose rather than hobby. The either/or type reasoning or tone that I read in Roy's statement (maybe I am wrong) would only have historians of economics pursuing history of science type work, and forget the use of history of thought (discovering dead ends, redirecting the path of development, etc.) for theory construction. While certainly conceding his point about standards, why isn't it legitimate to see the need for both exercises and to admit that different standards apply? Peter J. Boettke Assistant Professor of Economics Department of Economics New York University 269 Mercer Street New York, NY 10003 phone: (212) 998-8900 fax: (212) 995-4186 email: [log in to unmask] alternative email: [log in to unmask] web: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/boettke ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________ Department of Economics 426 Decio Hall University of Notre Dame (219)631-6979 (O) Notre Dame, IN 46556 (219)631-8809 (F) http://www.nd.edu:80/~esent mailto:[log in to unmask] ______________________________________________________