====================== HES POSTING ================== In response to Kevin Quinn: I would be happy if richer, thicker history of economic thought led to better economic theory. But I see two problems with historians of economic thought trying to undertake the kind of work that Quinn finds so admirable in Herzog's work. First, I have read almost no satisfying intellectual history written by contemporary theorists. The gifts, and perhaps more importantly the time, necessary for doing mainstream theory seem to preclude, in most cases, the gifts, time, and effort necessary to do rich history. In fact, I fear (it's only a fear) that a history of thought driven by a desire to "Do Better Theory Today!" would largely be Whig histories that pushed out the kind of histories I'm interested in seeing. What I mean to say here is that if each article and book is supposed to make frontier contributions to economic theory, then the nature of the historical inquiry is likely to be etiolated and unsatisfying. This doesn't have to be the case and I would be happy to be surprised. Second, economic theory is for the most part radically different than political theory. There is mathematical political theory, but that's not the bulk of the field. Thus, I'm not sure that the situations are analogous enough to make Herzog a good role model for us. If we consider the work of Albert Hirschman, well, yes, there would seem to be someone doing Herzog-style work.....intellectual, social history blended with an effort at new theorizing. But if this is going to be what work in our field looks like (not a bad thing!) it necessarily means a change in the mainstream's sense of what theory is and who gets deemed a theorist. For despite the great respect with which Hirschman seems to be held in the (economics) profession, I think that his "theoretical" work in the last two decades has been much more influential with (here's my point) political scientists than it has been with economists. Let a million flowers bloom. I am not opposed to historians of economic thought who try to influence theory; but in my own case I would like to see it as a part of a division of labor in which people who write good histories are read by and are colleagues of theorists who "use" their work. In my best world, the hard work necessary to doing "good" history would be recognized and rewarded by the mainstream and that work would help to make all economists better at what they do. My fear is that when one person tries to be both historian and theorist that neither job gets done well. But maybe that opinion is too influenced by economic theory? Brad Bateman Grinnell College ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]