===================== HES POSTING ====================== Long have I been interested in this issue. The first time I decided to research it was when I was beginning to write a book on 'The Pre-History of Economics - From Machiavelli to Adam Smith' (published in Portuguese in 1988). I found some good clues in the Appendix to Katouzian's book Ideology and Method in Economics (McMillan, 1980). A few points are worthwile mentioning: 1. The etymological implications of the expression 'Political Economy' are well known, and can be analysed with the help of concepts borrowed from the sociology of knowledge. 2. There are also some 'ideological' implications. Throughout the times the expression referred to a certain approach to economic problems, as with the German Historical School or with Marxian economics. 3. The transition from Political Economy to Economics is clearly connected with the advent of Marginalism. It was sponsored by people like Walras, who began to talk about 'Pure Economics' in his books. 4. There is a further linguistic dimension to be considered, as Oskar Lange puts in the Foreword of his book. Whereas the English language has a specific expression for the 'neoclassical' approach to economic theory, the same does not hold for Latin languages. In French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese there is not a specific translation for Economics. The words for Political Economy are 'Economia Politica', while the word for Economics is 'Economia'. The latter designates both economic science (economics) and the economy of a country. 5. In part for this reason, many Latin languages still preserve the expression 'political economy' alongside economics, in spite of the internationalization process that economics is experiencing in late twentieth century, both as a field of knowledge and as a profession. There is not a necessary association between the expression and Marxian economic thought. 6. The maintenance of the expression 'Political Economy' has clear political and ideological implications. (It isn't trivial, as Perelman argued). It says something about the specific form in which economics is constructed in most European countries, in turn closely associated to the important role of economists as policy makers. We can learn more about this in a special 1991 issue of Kyklos. 7. There is a curious and somewhat paradoxical situation in countries like Brazil, which remained for a long time strongly influenced by the French culture - although not so much in the case of economics. French influence in economics further shrunk after the sixties, when the first graduate programs were created, based on US models. It did not disappear, however, and it remains strong in philosophy and the social sciences (sociology, anthropology). 8. The semantic problem persists of not having a Portuguese word for 'economics'. This has professional implications. In most if not all Latin American countries, economists have persistently played important roles in the definition and implementation of economic and social policies. As it is well known, the dynamics of Latin American economies still relies heavily on the Government. New winds are blowing (globalization, privatization, technological changes etc.) are not likely to induce radical changes in this overall picture. 9. Was transition towards Economics benefitial? In some senses, no. Although we should no longer think in 'embeddedness' terms, as pointed, the political dimension of economics should be still kept in mind, specially when dealing with subjects such as Welfare and Development. In other words, economics should keep its prescriptive role, and it seems that most economists in countries like Brazil are convinced of this. With little elaboration, these are some considerations that I thought might contribute to this ongoing discussion. Ana Maria Bianchi Universidade de Sao Paulo, Depto. de Economia [log in to unmask] ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]