From ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk Mon Dec 2 08:59:24 1996 From: ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk (Anthony Brewer) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ==================== This is a reply to Michael Williams comment on my throw away remarks on Marxism. It is tangential to the main issues under discussion. My remark that Marxism is Whiggish in Ross Emmett's sense was aimed at the history of economics as done by Marxists, and was not a general comment on Marxist economics. It is, however, surely true that Marxists are sustained by a belief in the inevitability of future socialism, however vague that belief may be. That is a mainstream Marxist tenet, isn't it? My concern, however, was with the history of economics as done by Marxists. Taken out of context, that wasn't clear in what I wrote. Marx was wholly Whiggish in his (very extensive) writings on the history of economics. He constructed a story with himself at the apex and judged writers by their contribution to the line of thought that led up to his own writings. Those he judged to have deviated from the true path he subjected to violent, ignorant and unprincipled abuse (e.g. as 'vulgar' economists). His followers continue the tradition. Marxist influenced Sraffians, neo-Ricardians and the like should be added. How much has been written which praises Classical economics (and Marx himself) for using a concept of surplus while making little attempt to set it in the context of its own time? That is the Whiggish tradition I had in mind. For a very recent example (a substantial, scholarly work, I hasten to say) see Tony Aspromourgos's 'Origins of Classical Economics', which tries to construct a line of descent running all the way from Petty to Sraffa. Much, not all, modern Marxist writing about Marx himself, though Whiggish in a general sense, tends to fall into a different error, that of arguing that Marx said x therefore x is true and simultaneously that x is true, therefore Marx must have intended x, even if he didn't say it. This is not an interpretation of history, but its obliteration. I have read (alas) many papers in which arguments for (say) using a labour theory of value are mixed up with discussion of Marx's intentions with absolutely no sense of history or context at all (now I'm the one arguing for taking context seriously!). ---------------------- Tony Brewer (A.Brewer@bris.ac.uk) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From LEESON at SSCL.UWO.CA Mon Dec 2 09:04:15 1996 From: LEESON at SSCL.UWO.CA (Robert Leeson) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ==================== Explaining the outcomes of revolutionary battles involves an assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the forces mustered. This need not - nor should it - involve 'taking sides' in the manner described and (rightly criticised) by Bradley Bateman. But neither should historians assume that an author is taking sides because he finds a disparity of intellectual forces (or forces inappropriately alligned - like the guns in Singapore in 1941-2 facing the wrong way). Because we are aware of the existence and the emotions of civil war veterans from the recent revolutions in economics (econometrics, Walrasian, Keynesian, Monetarist, New Classical) this should not lead us to falsely assume that those who seek to explain the process of revolutionary victory or defeat are either Whiggish or embittered. Revolutions create their own mythology; often these mythologies becomes (via textbooks and authoritative repetition) deeply embedded in our collective wisdom. Too many scholars feel threatened by attempts to analyse our collective mythology; and prefer instead to label such work as 'partisan'. Hence it took me 5 or 6 attempts to explain on this list a few weeks ago that I was not praising George Stigler but recognising the superior intellectual equipment that he weilded in the Chicago counter-revolution (superior in his understanding of the sociology of professional economic knowledge construction and destruction, relative to his opponents). All the qualities that we admire in historical scholarship can be used to explain the outcomes of intellectual revolutions and the mythologies that they create. This is a much neglected area of research. For it to flourish, it requires that readers do not assume that an author is 'waving the bloody flag' for one side or another; neither subscribing to Whiggish or to 'what could have been' interpretations of history. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Leeson Bradley Fellow and Visiting Associate Professor Economics Department Social Science Centre The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C2 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu Mon Dec 2 09:04:57 1996 From: Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu (Esther-Mirjam Sent) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- Heilbronn Symposium in Econ and the Social Sciences Message-ID: ================= HES POSTING ================= CALL FOR ABSTRACTS AND PARTICIPANTS University of Limburg Tenth Annual Heilbronn Symposium in Economics and the Social Sciences Sunday, June 29, 1997 Heilbronn, Germany The Tenth Heilbronn Symposium in Economics and the Social Sciences will be devoted to the work of Karl Bucher (1847- 1930). SYMPOSIUM BACKGROUND: Deeply steeped in the tradition of German historical political economy, Bucher emphasized non-market forms of exchange, the theory of economic development and the theory of mass production, even including seemingly extraneous elements such as music into the realm of his explanatory endeavor. Fascinated by the institution of the newspaper, he can also be considered one of the founders of the modern theory of mass communication. SYMPOSIUM PURPOSE: In accordance with the mission of the Heilbronn symposia, the purpose of this conference is threefold. First, we want to systematically examine Bucher's work in the light of contemporary theory. Second, we want to look at his work from the point of view of current practical needs and challenges. And thirdly, the conference also serves the purpose of making this theoretical heritage in political economy available to the international community of scholars. SYMPOSIUM LOCATION: The conference will be held in Heilbronn on Sunday, June 29, 1997. The conference site is the traditional Schiefshaus at less than five minutes distance from the railroad station. On Saturday, June 28, at six o'clock, conference participants will gather in the Hotel Gotz and they will have dinner and get a chance to get to know each other. CONTACT: Please send your abstract and correspondence to: Name: Prof. Dr. Jurgen G. Backhaus E-Mail: MAILTO:f.schijlen@algec.rulimburg.nl Postal: University of Limburg, AE, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands Phone: 011-31-43-388-3652/3636 Fax: 011-31-43-325-8440 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From kquinn at cba.bgsu.edu Mon Dec 2 09:06:32 1996 From: kquinn at cba.bgsu.edu (Kevin Quinn) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ==================== On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Bradley W Bateman wrote: > I also think that an enormous amount of Whig history of thought has been > published that falls under Ross's point b: by people who are on the > "losing end" of the theeoretical debate in the last three decades > and who have gravitated to the "history of thought" as a place where > they can try to back up and show where and when their side should have > won. One finds this kind of "history" done by virtually every heterodox > school of thought; "histories" of this sort are published in the journals > of the dissenting groups and in mainstream journals by the leading lights > of these groups. But while I have sympathy with some of these > schools, I find the "history" they do to be poor history at best. > It is this kind of work that I think can be appropriately termed > both Whiggish and internal; it argues from narrow point of view > (whose equations are right) and focuses on the equations and their > derivation to the virtual exclusion of everything else. People can't be > stopped from doing this kind of work, but I wish they wouldn't call > it history. It certainly rarely qualifies. > This echoes comments by Tony Brewer that I've lost that allude to Whiggish history done by "Marxians and Sraffians". What I find odd about this is that if I were to pick an achievement in the history of economic thought in this century that did the sort of thing Quentin Skinner thinks ought to be done (surely Skinner's work lies behind both Roy's and Ross's methodological dicta)--i.e. that works to create enough context for us to see that the thinker we thought was groping towards "modern" neo-classical truth was actually engaged in a completely different endeavor, speaking a different language, in a different "world" therefore, in the Kuhnian sense--I would be hard-pressed to find a better example than Sraffa's work on Ricardo. This was the very opposite of whig history, surely? Moreover, it was certainly not the case here that Sraffa was reading back into history the "classical" paradigm he presents in *Production of Commodities*---the relationship was exactly the reverse: the reinterpretation of Ricardo drove the theoretical work. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 2 09:06:56 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: FUND -- Postdocs at Sydney Message-ID: ======================= HES POSTING ===================== University of Sydney. U2000 Postdoctoral Research Fellowships 1997. The University will be offering up to fifteen new U2000 Postdoctoral Fellowships to attract outstanding postdoctoral scholars to conduct full time research at the University in any of its disciplines. The Fellowships will be available from January 1997 for a period of three years and should be commenced within six months of an offer being made. Applicants will be doctoral graduates, of no more than five years standing. Salary will be within the range $A38,092 to $A40,889. A setting up grant of $A25,000 will be provided at commencement of the appointment. Applicants must complete an application form which can be obtained, together with details of the applications procedure and supplementary information, from Alf James or Gregg Andrews, research and Scholarships Office, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006. Telephone 612 9351 4153 or 612 9351 4469; Facsimile 612 9351 4812; Email alf@reschols.usyd.edu.au , gregg@reschols.usyd.edu.au or research@reschols.usyd.edu.au . Closing: 13 December 1996 LATE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 2 09:07:20 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: FUND -- VISITING SCHOLARS PROGRAM, Carl Albert Center Message-ID: ======================= HES POSTING ===================== {7} FUNDING: Carl Albert Center, U of Oklahoma From: Todd Kosmerick, Assistant Curator, Carl Albert Center, University of Oklahoma, kosmerick@ou.edu, (405) 325-6372 VISITING SCHOLARS PROGRAM The Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center at the University of Oklahoma seeks applicants for its Visiting Scholars Program, which provides financial assistance to researchers working at the Center's Congressional Archives. Awards of $500-$1000 are normally granted as reimbursement for travel and lodging. The archival holdings include the papers of many former members of Congress, such as Speaker of the House Carl Albert, Robert S. Kerr, and Fred Harris of Oklahoma, Helen Gahagan Douglas of California, Andrew Biemiller of Wisconsin, and Sidney Clarke of Kansas. In addition to the history of Congress, congressional leadership, national and Oklahoma politics, and election campaigns, these materials also document government policy affecting agriculture, Native Americans, energy, foreign affairs, the environment, and the economy. Among the topics that can be studied are the Great Depression, flood control and soil conservation, and tribal affairs. At least one collection provides insight on women in American politics. Most of these papers cover the twentieth century, although one dates to the 1850s. More information on collections can be found at our Web site: http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/ The Visiting Scholars Program is open to any applicant. Emphasis is given to those pursuing post-doctoral research in history, political science, and other fields. Graduate students involved in research for publication, thesis, or dissertation are encouraged to apply. Interested undergraduates and lay researchers are also invited to apply. The Center carefully evaluates each research proposal. Applications are accepted continuously; awards are made periodically throughout the year. For more information, please e-mail Todd Kosmerick at kosmerick@ou.edu or contact him at Carl Albert Center 630 Parrington Oval, Room 101 University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 Telephone: (405) 325-6372 Fax: (405) 325-6419 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From evanj at bullwinkle.econ.su.oz.au Mon Dec 2 09:19:44 1996 From: evanj at bullwinkle.econ.su.oz.au (Evan Jones - 448 - 3063) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ==================== Dear HES'ers Returning belatedly to Whig history, and Ross Emmett's outline on 24 Nov. My view, something of a spanner in the works, is that the notion behind the Whig interpretation of history really has to be confined to just that - the interpretation of history. I don't think it can be applied to intellectual history, unless one is dealing with the mediation of ideas and the historical/political process. Of course, a parallel version for intellectual history could be constructed - winners tell the story, losers get denigrated or (more likely) written out of the account of past exchanges. However, this needs another name. Nothing immediately comes to mind. The 'Wig' interpretation of the history of ideas (on account of the implied cover-up)? The Whig interpretation of history must necessarily be 'externalist', i.e. deal with context, even if it is pushing 'rightness' & 'inevitability'. (which by the way, is all it can do, as the notion of moving from error to truth in history doesn't apply). The Whig interpretation of ideas might be externalist, but it is more likely to depend on internalist mores (the evolution of falsehood to truth through reason and accumulated wisdom). [How can one interpret the rise and continued success of (the varieties of) neoclassical economics by an adequate externalist account? impossible without incorporating sociological elements which hardly give succour to any notion of the accumulation of 'truth content'.] Having said that, I think economics have does in its midst an excellent example of the Whig interpretation of history (but of course the example necessarily involves the mediation of ideas with historical process). The example is the interpretation of the nature of mercantilism as an historical epoch, and the doctrines which accompanied that 'period'. The conventional wisdom is that both the period and the ideas were a terrible mistake - mercantilist thought as incoherent and wrong-headed; mercantilist practice as wrong-headed. OUr authorities are Smith and Viner and, to a lesser extent, Heckscher. Viner, in particular, uses an internalist view of economic ideas (the medieavel and mercantilist periods were the dark ages because the theory of the specie flow mechanism had not come along. After Hume posited it, mercantilist thought and practice was doomed of necessity.) The people who thought differently - the historical schools before WWI, and a declining number of economic historians after WWI until about the 1960s - are treated as ill-informed. Well at least they were when there was a debate. The last 20 years has seen this lot not being reproduced, so the debate has been consigned to the archives. Whig history then in application - universal free trade as utopia; any divergence as a product of ignorance and the success of 'rent-seekers'. And in the process, economists deny themselves the possibility of an understanding of the whole history of trade policy and international economic relations. Evan Jones Economics Department University of Sydney Oz ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 2 16:24:04 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- Biography, Melbourne Australia, July 1997 Message-ID: ========================== HES POSTING =================== CONFERENCE: LIVES, STORIES, NARRATIVES CALL FOR PAPERS The History Department at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, is holding an interdisciplinary conference on writing biography, life course and personal narrative, 18-20 July 1997. We are seeking offers of papers on the following themes: .. Narrating lives .. Thinking about biography .. Biography and memory .. Collective biography .. Psychoanalysis and life-course writing .. Death, mourning and narratives of loss .. Family stories/ family secrets .. The politics of memory/ class, gender and memory .. Feminist biography .. Biography and fiction .. Shared stories/ generational stories/ place and stories Please send abstracts of about 100 words to us by 31 January 1997. We would also welcome suggestions or offerings for panel discussions. Barbara Caine, Esther Faye, Mark Peel and John Rickard History Department Monash University Clayton Vic 3168 Australia Fax: +61 3 9905 2210 Phone: +61 3 9905 2172 email: mark.peel@arts.monash.edu.au Barbara.Caine@arts.monash.edu.au ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From CARSTEN at UConnVM.UConn.Edu Mon Dec 2 20:09:17 1996 From: CARSTEN at UConnVM.UConn.Edu (Fred Carstensen) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- New Yorker article Message-ID: ========================== HES POSTING =================== Now what? Read the current New Yorker magazine commentary on the death of economics; it seems to shred the field--using the judgements of leading economists to do so. I would appreciate commentaries on the commentary. FC [Note from the moderator: The article is called "The Decline of Economics" and written by John Cassidy. It appeared in the December 2nd issue of the New Yorker on pp. 50-60. Here's a quote (for those of you who don't have access to the New Yorker) from pp. 50-51: "In the fifty years since Keynes's death, economics has been transformed into an abtruse discipline that often appears to resemble a branch of mathematics. Recently, the pace of change has accelerated to such an extent that many economists -- particularly middle-aged economists -- hardly recognize their own discipline." --E-MS] ********************************************************************** Prof. Fred V. Carstensen Office: (860) 486-0614 Department of Economics Dept: (860) 486-3022 341 Mansfield Road FAX: (860) 486-4463 University of Connecticut Home: (860) 242-6355 Storrs, CT 06269-1063 e-mail: CARSTEN@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU ********************************************************************** ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Tue Dec 3 11:27:21 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ================= HES POSTING ====================== The thoughtful responses by Anthony Brewer and Patrick Gunning to my discussion of Whig history carry the conversation further and require some kind of reply. Let me begin with Tony's comments because they incorporate some of the issues Patrick raises also, and then turn to the RELATIVISM that Patrick labels me with. I agree with Tony that my definition of Whig history differs somewhat from Butterfield's original conception. However, my emphasis on the "inevitability" of a particular group's victory in a Whiggish account is equivalent to the focus of Tony's reformulation of Butterfield -- Whig history is the production of a story that ratifies (if not glorifies) the present by emphasizing a particular set of principles regarding the nature of "progress." What is essential to recognize is that behind any Whig history is the *present's* principles of justification for knowledge--the historian's evaluation of the past is guided by the rules of justification used among the historian's contemporaries. This leads immediately to my response to Tony's remark: "We are surely concerned with the history of ideas and structures rather than groups. Hence Ross's 'losers' and 'winners' aren't relevant. To the extent that there is a current consensus, we are all (apparent) 'winners.'" Surely what is important for those who want to write histories of ideas is the *evaluation* of those ideas, and when historians choose to evaluate ideas by the principles of justification for which there is a current consensus, they are aligning themselves with the "group" (call it a "scientific community" if you want) which is, as Tony himself says, apparently the "winners." Whig history will surely follow. (BTW, I take the efforts to show why person or group "X" should be incorporated into the canon of *our* history as a branch of Whig history). The announcement of the death of Whig history of economics is therefore also the announcement that, among other things, historians of economics today are choosing to evaluate ideas in the context of the principles of justification contemporaneous with the ideas being studied. Or to be more precise, many historians of economics today are interested in how the ideas of past economists were accommodated to the contemporary principles of justification, and how they simultaneously resisted those principles (and hence de-/re-constructed those principles). Because the process of accommodation and resistance within economics has to be set in, and is in fact an integral part of, society's ongoing re-evaluation of those principles, non-Whig history of economics does not distinguish between internal and external factors. What matters is the answer to the question: how did that process of accommodation and resistance work in this particular instance? Tony closes with the questions "Can we tell the story of the history of science in terms of the growth of knowledge? Can we do so for economics?" and responds with an account of the history of science which suggests that we arrived at a "better criterion for judging theories." It would be hard for me to disagree with Tony regarding the judgement that the new criteria were "better" because every institutional aspect of my discursive context depends upon the preferential status our society gives to science. Yet I must say that discussions with medieval historians of science suggest to me that the story of the "growth" of scientific knowledge is not one from error (Church/ Aristotelianism) into truth (Newtonian science), but rather an interlocking set of processes of accommodation and resistance to church traditions, empirical evidence, philosophical traditions, new technologies, political movements, social norms (e.g., whom do you trust?), etc. Furthermore, and this is a point I will return to in a moment, we learn a lot more about the processes of accommodation and resistance within our own intellectual traditions by studying medieval history of science as an interlocking set of processes of accommodation and resistance than we do showing why the Church was "wrong" and Newton "right" (according to principles of justification which will always ratify Newton's claims as "advancements in knowledge" because they follow from or undergird his theory). Now we come to the heart of my differences with Patrick, and can address the dreaded sin of relativism. Patrick says: "In [Ross's] view, the historian should be free to choose which standards or modes of argumentative logic he/she will use. Whig history, in his view, takes away that freedom." Unfortunately, I DISAGREE WITH THE PERSPECTIVE PATRICK ASSIGNS TO ME: historians are not "free to choose" but rather are bound by the standards or modes of reasoning present in the discursive context in which the material they are studying is situated. The relevant questions are: what standards of rationality/modes of reasoning were dominant within the discursive context of the material I am studying (or if I am studying the reception of particular ideas, what were the standards/modes in the receiving interpretive community)? What were the key traditions, social norms, technologies, etc. that undergirded those standards/modes? In what ways was the material I am studying accommodated to those standards/modes? In what ways were those standards/modes resisted? etc. Notice that the historical study is one of arguments and counter-arguments, of interpretation and institutions/social conventions, and of the re-/de-con/struction of discursive contexts/interpretive communities. Historians also have the responsibility to find ways to communicate the historical material to their own contemporaries. What elements of my contemporary discursive context can I use as an entry point for introducing my readers to the alien context of my historical material? Are there elements of resistance /accommodation today that will make the historical material more accessible? My description of the twofold set of constraints faced by the historian implies that philosophical discussion of the categories rational/irrational, logical/illogical, absolute/relative are not ones the historian is particular comfortable with. In the process of historical study, we find that we can come to understand those whose standards of argumentation were different than our own, and we also recognize how their standards were shaped by the contingencies of their discursive context. Our historical studies suggest that, despite the contingencies of their experience, humans can understand those in other times/places (I once gave a lecture entitled -- "I began with the desire to speak with the dead" -- to which one of my friends replied, "I hope not: purgatory will be long enough"). They also suggest that much of what we describe as necessary/logical/ etc. in our own discursive context may be contingent. Quentin Skinner remarked in his famous essay "Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" that we learn from the history of thought that most of what we consider necessary is really contingent, and that aspects of what may appear to us as contingent are really universal. Our calling as historians requires us to remain open to being surprised by the universal and the contingent alike. I'm sure none of this will satisfy Patrick, but I'm happy to keep the conversation going. In the meantime, I'm off dancing for awhile -- after all, every human interest (including the desire to be understood) experiences diminishing returns! Ross Ross B. Emmett Editor, HES and CIRLA-L Augustana University College Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: emmer@corelli.augustana.ab.ca or emmett@augustana.ab.ca URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk Tue Dec 3 11:59:10 1996 From: ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk (Anthony Brewer) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ========================== HES POSTING =================== A very quick response to Kevin Quinn - I did not intend to include Sraffa's work on Ricardo in my comment on (some) 'Marxists and Sraffians'. My criticism was of those (whether neo-classicals or Sraffians) who know the conclusion they are going to reach before they start doing the history. I was, however, a bit worried by the following: > the sort of thing Quentin Skinner thinks ought to be done ... i.e. > that works to create enough context for us to see that the thinker > we thought was groping towards "modern" neo-classical truth was > actually engaged in a completely different endeavor, speaking a > different language, in a different "world" That is fine provided it really is the conclusion of the work, but this reads a bit as though we are obliged to find "difference". Sometimes we read writers who look very different from us and find they are more "modern" than we thought. For example, Cantillon looked antique and quaint when I first read him, until I realised that he was quietly building a model in a very "modern" sort of spirit. ---------------------- Tony Brewer (A.Brewer@bris.ac.uk) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From CARSTEN at UConnVM.UConn.Edu Tue Dec 3 12:08:22 1996 From: CARSTEN at UConnVM.UConn.Edu (Fred Carstensen) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- New Yorker article Message-ID: ========================== HES POSTING =================== Summary of "THE DECLINE OF ECONOMICS" New Yorker Magazine, 12/2/96 John Cassidy surveys the current state of economics. He opens with a portrait of William Vickery, who "refused to play along with [the] charade," and indicates that Vickery's recent Nobel prize was based on work that had practical relevance. He refused to expand on "the obscure mathematical theory" that won him the prize, insisting instead to talk about "practical ideas." Vickery himself characterized the comment by the Nobel committee as "one of my digressions into abstract economics. At best, it's of minor significance in terms of human welfare." >From that encouraging opening, Cassidy goes on to catalogue the rapid decline of economics--precipitous drop in majors, especially at leading institutions, corporations discovering they don't need their economists, high-tech firms never hiring one, and Wall Street firms refusing to hire doctorates in economics unless they have had "a three-to-four year cleansing experience to neutralize the brainwashing that takes place in these graduate programs." Cassidy then gives a brief profile of the evolution of the field--which has made none of the intellectual progress of physics or chemistry since Samuelson's Foundations. He has revealing interviews with several leading lights, including one with Lucas, who acknowledged the inaccuracy of his theories, and Greg Mankiw, who declares "economists are probably overfunded, given the rate at which we make progress." Mankiw continued: "We need more well-trained high-school teachers of economics, nor more Ph.D. economists. If you spend a year studying economics, you learn a tremendous amount. If you spend five years studying it the learning process slows down very quickly." Cassidy closes with a call for the abolition of the Nobel prize in economics, a prize which has, since 1969, "helped foster a professional culture that values technical wizardry above all else. ...A lot of contemporary economics has little to do with improving human welfare, which was supposed to be the whole point of Nobel's bequest." My comment: what I found striking was the degree to which Cassidy constructs his analysis with the statements of leading economists; this is not simply a critical editorial by an "outsider." FC ********************************************************************** Prof. Fred V. Carstensen Office: (860) 486-0614 Department of Economics Dept: (860) 486-3022 341 Mansfield Road FAX: (860) 486-4463 University of Connecticut Home: (860) 242-6355 Storrs, CT 06269-1063 e-mail: CARSTEN@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU ********************************************************************** ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu Tue Dec 3 14:58:44 1996 From: erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu (E. Roy Weintraub) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Participants in this thread may be interested in an exactly parallel set of discussions a few years ago among historians of mathematics. The eminent Joseph W. Dauben responded to Andre Weil's 1988 Helsinki International Congress talk which suggested that "The craft of mathematical history can best be practiced by those of us who are or who have been active mathematicians", or as Dauben says "...only mathematicians like [Weil] himself were qualified to write history of mathematics, and the better the mathematician, the better the history was likely to be ..." [pace Paul Samuelson on Whig History(?)] See Dauben's "Mathematics: An Historian's Perspective" in Chikara, Mitsuo, and Dauben, (eds.) _The Intersection of History and Mathematics_ .Boston: Birkhauser, 1994. E. Roy Weintraub, Professor of Economics Director, Center for Social and Historical Studies of Science Duke University, Box 90097 Durham, North Carolina 27708-0097 Phone and voicemail: (919) 660-1838 Fax: (919) 684-8974 E-mail: erw@econ.duke.edu URL: http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu Tue Dec 3 18:17:29 1996 From: pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu (Paul Wendt (SAR)) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Kress Seminar, Dec'96 Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== [Folks---- Note that the paper is available from the author, David Levy , not from me. ----Paul ] ========================================================================== KRESS SEMINAR IN THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT Paul Wendt 64 Riverside St #3 Watertown, MA 02172-2652 tel: 617-926-8253 email: pwendt@sar.usf.edu 3 Dec 1996 Kress seminar participants, Our next seminar is Thursday, 12 Dec, 7:40-10 pm, in Littauer M16 on the Harvard University campus. We feature a paper with two discussants: David Levy (George Mason U) Sharing Lashes From Carlyle's Whip Discussants: Tim Alborn (Harvard U) C.George Caffentzis (U Southern Maine) DAVID LEVY is known for patrolling the marches of the History of Economics, from economic aspects of the works of Homer in ancient Greece to statistical aspects of the works of academic economists today. Here he considers classical English economics and its literary critics --especially Thomas Carlyle, who coined "the dismal science"-- on race, slavery, wage labor, poverty, and more. Metaphorically, the classical economists proudly share the "lashes from Carlyle's whip" with the slaves whom they labored to emancipate. According to Levy, modern professional economics and its humanist critics are descended from the Victorian English version of the debate. Thus this paper contributes to the history of the criticism of economics, the history of the public image of economics, or the "history of anti- economics" for short (my term). The paper is available from the author: dlevy@vms1.gmu.edu TIM ALBORN (History, Harvard) is a historian of science, and of Victorian England, who focuses on economic thought outside the academy, by the "other economists": practitioners such as bankers, accountants, actuaries, regulators, and financial jounalists. Many of you know his project from his annual presentations here. A book is forthcoming with Routledge. GEORGE CAFFENTZIS (Philosophy, U.So.Maine) is reinterpreting the famous work of Locke [see __Clipped Coins...__ 1989], Berkeley, and Hume through the lens of money, especially their forgotten writings on some practical monetary issues of the day. The British Empire looms large in the trilogy, including themes of race, ethnicity, slavery, and capitalism. --PW thruout Dinner Anyone interested in dinner and conversation before the seminar is invited to gather at the Singha House Thai restaurant (1105 Mass. Ave) at 6:00. The food is great, matched only by the company. The Singha House is prepared to handle late additions to a party (to about 6:30 for dinner or 7:00 for appetizer or drink, given our time constraint). I hope to see you Thursday, ----Paul [imagine my signature here, P/\/\/\/\t] ======================================================================== KRESS NEWSLETTER, 3 Dec 96 (this space may be yours; contact me) ======================================================================== Next session ??? - 16 Jan or later ---------------------------------- Isn't that the distant future? Our next session might feature Philippe Fontaine 16 Jan; if not him then probably a later date. I have several names and topics pencilled in for "Spring" 1997 but no firm dates yet. ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Wed Dec 4 10:27:41 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Conversation (and "intellection" generally) is aided by examples. It might help to clarify matters if an article or two (or a book or two) in the history of economic thought were picked out at random, and then discussed in terms of its virtues and defects as a contribution to the history of economic thought, e.g. an article or two out of HOPE or The European J. of the H. of Econ. Thought. For example, what is the relation of the current discussion of 'Whig' history to Donald Walker's "The Structure of Walras's Mature Model of Capital Goods Markets", or Nahid Aslanbeigui's "The Cost Controversy: Pigouvian Economics in Disequilibrium", in the Summer, 1996 issue of the European J. of the H. of Econ. Thought? Or to Bruna Ingrao and Giorgio Israel's _The Invisible Hand_ or Frank Machovec's _Perfect Competition and the Transformation of Economics_? Almost always we are better at evaluating examples than we are at evaluating abstractions untied to cases. What are the cases that inform the abstractions? Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU Wed Dec 4 12:21:43 1996 From: BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU (Bradley W Bateman) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Greg Ransom's idea to talk about some concrete examples is an excellent one. I agree that the level of abstraction in the discussions often keeps us away from the kind of full understanding we would most like to have. But...I suspect that at this time in the semester most members won't be up to a protracted discussion in any case and definitely not up to reading something new. I also wonder how willing people will be to openly discuss someone's work, at length, in public? Just wondering. Brad Bateman Grinnell College ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Wed Dec 4 14:11:11 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: Bibliographic note Message-ID: =================== HES POSTING ======================= I came across the following article recently, and thought I would post notice of it here, since it will not appear in any of the usual indices that historians of economics use. The article is a Foucaultian genealogy of political economy at the end of the eighteenth century. Meuret, Denis. 1993. A political genealogy of political economy. In _Foucault's New Domains_, ed. Mike Gane and Terry Johnson, 49-74. London: Routledge. The essay begins: "To do the genealogy, rather than the history, of political economy involves attempting to understand how, at a given moment, it succeeded in organising the production of truth, rather than recounting its progress towards scientific rigour or the way in which it followed the development of the economy itself. To what Michel Foucault called a *savoir* and what Paul Veyne calls a 'programme of truth', genealogy does not pose the question of the truthfulness of what it says. By rediscovering how, against what other discourses, it succeeded in imposing itself, it addresses the question of the pertinence of the truth it constructs." Ross Ross B. Emmett Editor, HES and CIRLA-L Augustana University College Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: emmer@corelli.augustana.ab.ca or emmett@augustana.ab.ca URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From sl08v at cc.usu.edu Thu Dec 5 00:47:10 1996 From: sl08v at cc.usu.edu (M. Royce Van Tassell) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- The Rule of Law and Knowledge in Society Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== [Request from the moderator: Please reply to this posting in a personal message to sl08v@cc.usu.edu rather than a posting to the list, unless you want to start an HES discussion on these issues. -- E-MS] Greetings I feel a little out of place participating in the HES list. I am more of a political scientist by training, although I am strengthening my economics background over the next few quarters. I am a graduate student in Political Economy at Utah State University. My interests include church-state issues, racial politics, the politics of higher education, public choice, the rule of law and monetary theory. I am preparing to write my Master's thesis over the next 3 months. I want to explore how Hayek's views of the rule of law help to solve the economic knowledge problem outlined in "The Use of Knowledge in Society" and "Rules and Order" (Vol.1 of Law, Legislation and Liberty). While authors implicitly recognize a connection between the information problem of economics (and society in a somewhat larger vein) and Hayek's rule of law, I have not run across papers that outline the mechanics of this relationship. If anyone on this list have similar interests, or who can point me to possible research done along these lines, I would greatly appreciate it. M. Royce Van Tassell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Royce Van Tassell Utah State University Department of Political Science Old Main, 3rd Floor Logan, UT 84322 Home Phone: (801)787-4172 Office Phone: (801)797-3971 Email: sl08v@cc.usu.edu ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From madarasz at zeus.colbud.hu Thu Dec 5 15:54:11 1996 From: madarasz at zeus.colbud.hu (Aladar Madarasz) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: Samuelson's paper on Schumpeter Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ====================== [NOTE: This message provides a bibliographic reference for a message posted almost one year ago, in January 1996. The original message can be accessed at http://cs.muohio.edu/Archives/hes/jan-96/0043.html -- RBE] Rhakesh Bhandari quoted an unpublished paper on the Schumpeter/Hayek debate written by Riccardo Bellofiore. His message was posted in HES Archive on 20 Jan 1996. The paper by Bellofiore was published as a comment in M.Colonna-H.Hagemann- O.F.Hamouda: Capitalism, Socialism and Knowledge The Economics of F.A.Hayek Vol. II. Edward Elgar 1994. Aladar Madarasz Collegium Budapest ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu Fri Dec 6 00:06:29 1996 From: pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu (Paul Wendt (SAR)) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Monetary Populism seminar, 13 Dec Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== The Economic History Seminar at Harvard University features a session on economic thought next Friday, 13 Dec: Jeffry Frieden (Government Dept, Harvard U) Monetary Populism in Nineteenth Century America Littauer M-16, Harvard U campus (above Mass. Ave & Cambridge St.) 2:00 pm, Friday 13 December [posted by Paul Wendt] ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Fri Dec 6 00:18:33 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- York-Toronto Workshop Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING =================== [NOTE: Posted on behalf of the York-Toronto Workshop organizers by Ross Emmett -- RBE] York-Toronto Workshop on the History of Economics 1996-97 Time: Thursdays 7:30-9:30 PM Place: Woodsworth College, Room 123 University of Toronto 119 St. George St. January 16 Samuel Hollander, University of Toronto "Explorations in the Canonical Classical Growth School" January 30 Robert Dimand, Brock University "A Neglected Early Macroeconomist: Minnie Throop England on Crises and Cycles" February 13 David Levy, George Mason University "Sharing Lashes from Carlyle's Whip" March 6 Donald Moggridge, University of Toronto "Keynes and the Post-War World" March 20 Knud Haakonssen, Boston University "Eighteenth-Century Systems of Morals as Seedbeds of Science" April 3 Laurence Moss, Babson College "The Advent of the Mathematical Mind in the United States: Historical Problems Raised by the Edgeworth-Seligman Exchange" Organizers: Samuel Hollander and Margaret Schabas. For further information, call (416) 978-5105 or e-mail Schabas@yorku.ca ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk Fri Dec 6 09:44:58 1996 From: ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk (Anthony Brewer) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== This discussion was started by James Henderson who argued, as I understood it, that we need to make a new start, to lessen the emphasis on internal history, and take up 'contextualizing and sociologizing' instead. My view is based on a belief that there is no conflict between internal history and context, that the appropriate mix of the two varies according to the question asked and the personal interests and skills of the historian, and that there is no need for any real change of direction. There has always been good and bad work in the field (as in all others), and we need to do what we already do and do it better, rather than abandoning it. I want to support this position by commenting on the work of Quentin Skinner. He has been mentioned in this discussion by Kevin Quinn ('surely Skinner's work lies behind both Roy's and Ross's methodological dicta'). Skinner's 1969 classic, 'Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas' presented a view of the history of philosophy (arguably) similar in general character to that argued about our field by several participants in this discussion. It is a splendid paper which every historian of economics should read. But I worry that he, like Henderson and Weintraub here, was attacking a straw man. So, consider an example of his approach in practice - his 1984 'The idea of negative liberty', which he himself explicitly presented as an examplar of how to do the history of philosophy and which seems to be well regarded (it is in Philosophy and History ed. R. Rorty et al). The heart of the 1984 paper is a careful examination of what Machiavelli said about liberty (where in 1969 Skinner had condemned work of the form 'what x said about y'). It is based entirely on a thorough exposition of the relevant arguments in one major work, Machiavelli's Discourses. It is set in context by summarizing the modern state of discussion of the topic and the views of key classical writers and by contrasting Machiavelli with Hobbes and the tradition he started - internal history, with no sociology or biography. I do not say this as a criticism of Skinner - it is an excellent paper - but to argue that we should feel free to do as he does, not as he says (or has sometimes been interpreted as saying). His 1984 seems to me to be very close in general character to what historians of economics do and have always done - examining classic works in detail, with the aim of understanding and perhaps learning from the arguments contained in them. ---------------------- Tony Brewer (A.Brewer@bris.ac.uk) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu Fri Dec 6 15:13:35 1996 From: erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu (E. Roy Weintraub) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Greg Ransom wrote: > Conversation (and "intellection" generally) is aided by examples. > It might help to clarify matters if an article or two (or a book or > two) in the history of economic thought were picked out at random, > and then discussed in terms of its virtues and defects as a contribution > to the history of economic thought, e.g. an article or two out of > HOPE or The European J. of the H. of Econ. Thought. > What are the cases that inform the abstractions? Ok, Greg, I'll "bite". Consider the current (Fall 1996) JHET paper by Horwitz, comment by Cottrell, and Horwitz's reply to Cottrell. Consider Cottrell's remarks, say on page 309: "Considered as an exercise in the history of economic thought, the paper is lacking ....Basically the paper is a piece of advocacy for (an augmented version of) Hayek's cycle theory." Horwitz replies that "In the sense that I was trying to set out an Austrian perspective on macroeconomic theory, it would be fair to call the paper a piece of `advocacy'... [But] I would hope that there is a place in economics for attempting to push forward particular approaches from, as it were, the inside." This, need I remark, appears in the "official journal" of the History of Economics Society. The exchange takes up 31 pages. I present Horwitz's paper as an exemplar of work that has been, and in the terms of my "Editorial" and Henderson's "Editorial", may be a contribution to (neo)Austrian economics, but is no contribution whatsoever to the history of economics. What editorial policy encourages such appearances in the JHET? Inquiring minds want to know. Is this specific enough, Greg? E. Roy Weintraub, Professor of Economics Director, Center for Social and Historical Studies of Science Duke University, Box 90097 Durham, North Carolina 27708-0097 Phone and voicemail: (919) 660-1838 Fax: (919) 684-8974 E-mail: erw@econ.duke.edu URL: http://www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Fri Dec 6 15:17:08 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- Buchanan research project & doing history Message-ID: In the 100th anniversary issue of _The Economic Journal_ James Buchanan writes: "If my central prediction [that the post-socialist century will be marked by a convergence of scientific understanding] economists must, increasingly, begin to raise -- and try to answer the following set of questions [including, first of all]: Why did economists share in the 'fatal conceit' (Hayek, 1989) that socialism represented?" Buchanan adds: "These and similar questions will occupy many man-years of effort in the century ahead. In the examination of the flaws of economics over the socialist century, the perspective of the discipline itself will be challenged and perhaps changed in a dramatic fashion." Question: How does Buchanan's comment relate to our ongoing conversation about how to do 'good' economic history? Is this a project 'internal' to economics, or 'external' to it? Does this sort of question even make a distinction with any traction in the case at hand? Is Buchanan's research project for folks outside of the guild of the professional economist and his modern institutions, or is it one that the academically trained economist can help us with? Perhaps a research project better undertaken by sociologists, philosophers, historians, and political scientists? Can it be done without the contemporary academic economist? Should it be undertaken? -- Does this question itself lie inside or outside of economics? Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm From delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU Fri Dec 6 16:24:39 1996 From: delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU (Brad De Long) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: Bibliographic note Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Ross Emmett wrote: >The essay begins: > >"To do the genealogy, rather than the history, of political economy >involves attempting to understand how, at a given moment, it succeeded in >organising the production of truth, rather than recounting its progress >towards scientific rigour or the way in which it followed the development >of the economy itself. >To what Michel Foucault called a *savoir* and what Paul Veyne calls a >'programme of truth', genealogy does not pose the question of the >truthfulness of what it says. By rediscovering how, against what other >discourses, it succeeded in imposing itself, it addresses the question of >the pertinence of the truth it constructs." > >Meuret, Denis. 1993. A political genealogy of political economy. In >_Foucault's New Domains_, ed. Mike Gane and Terry Johnson, 49-74. >London: Routledge. Can anyone tell me what this means--or if it means anything at all? Brad De Long ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Sat Dec 7 00:08:34 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== People who provide arguments are advocates. It tells me nothing to identify that someone is providing an argument. Is it history of ideas or just ideas to point out that, say, Darwin had extended and cast his picture of biology as X, instead of as Y, that his argument would have been more coherent and powerful, thus being accepted, rather than in fact is was, rejected by most biologists until the 1930's? I haven't read Horwitz's article, or Cottrell's commentary, so I am merely pointing out that the quoted sentences Roy has provided don't help much in seeing the point, but I will take a look at them (after I get back from the Hayek archive at the Hoover Institution -- digging again for more 'contextual history' for my own research project), and try to see what Weintraub's concern might be. ==== Here is another suggestion. Lets take an example or two from outside of economics, but within a science of undesigned order with a bit of the same controversy about its fit to the philosophers/ scientists standard picture of 'knowledge' or 'science' (i.e. the picture inherited and evolved from Aristotle's picture, and in light of the materialism, mechanism, and 'modernism' of 17th-century philosophy and physics). Looking at examples in familiar but different context is how we point out illogical arguments, and how we highlight patterns and pictures in a place where our own place in the scene doesn't distort what we see so very badly. I suggest that we look at Michael T. Ghiselin's _The Triumph of the Darwinian Method_, 1970 Pfizer Prize winner, and Ernst Mayr's _One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought_. Interestingly, both books provide 'augmentations' of Darwin's argument and reconstructions of it, pushing forward 'particular approaches' in different directions, and engaging in a good deal of what might correctly be labeled 'advocacy'. If you wanted to, you might even call it 'Whig' history. Is there anyone who hasn't understood Darwin, and the history of Darwin's biology better after reading these books, or its place in intellectual history? Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From SHOR at MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU Sat Dec 7 00:12:56 1996 From: SHOR at MUSIC.STLAWU.EDU (Steven Horwitz) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== Roy Weintraub wrote: >Ok, Greg, I'll "bite". Consider the current (Fall 1996) JHET paper by >Horwitz, comment by Cottrell, and Horwitz's reply to Cottrell. >Consider Cottrell's remarks, say on page 309: "Considered as an >exercise in the history of economic thought, the paper is lacking >...Basically the paper is a piece of advocacy for (an augmented >version of) Hayek's cycle theory." Horwitz replies that "In the >sense that I was trying to set out an Austrian perspective on >macroeconomic theory, it would be fair to call the paper a piece of >`advocacy'... [But] I would hope that there is a place in economics >for attempting to push forward particular approaches from, as it >were, the inside." > >This, need I remark, appears in the "official journal" of the History of >Economics Society. The exchange takes up 31 pages. I present >Horwitz's paper as an exemplar of work >that has been, and in the terms of my "Editorial" and Henderson's >"Editorial", may be a contribution to (neo)Austrian economics, but is >no contribution whatsoever to the history of economics. What >editorial policy encourages such appearances in the JHET? Inquiring >minds want to know. As the party in question, let me interrupt with two points: 1) I don't object to being used as an example in this context; after all even bad publicity is better than none at all. I must add that as soon as Greg issued his call for examples, I had this sinking feeling, knowing that the paper in question would be a perfect example for Roy or others to bring up. 2) I have no argument with Roy's position. Indeed the paper is not a contribution to the history of economics as Roy and others have argued the history of economics should be practiced. I would add, though, that given the disagreement on this list over what the history of economics should consist of, we as a discipline have not "decided" the issue. Given that, it doesn't seem such a crime for the official journal of the HES to publish both (or many?) kinds of histories of economics until we sort out the issues. Thus, I feel not the least bit guilty for publishing that particular paper in that particular place. As many others have argued, I think both the kind of work I do there (call it whatever one wants) and the kind of work Roy and others wish us to aspire to are both valuable. If we decide not to call what I've done "history of economics," so be it. It surely is not "history of economics" as Roy would have it. I do hope that whatever we decide the history of economics should be that there remains a place for the work of taking a second look at the history of economic theory internally to see what might have been. Steven Horwitz Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics St. Lawrence University Canton, NY 13617 TEL (315) 379-5731 FAX (315) 379-5819 EMAIL shor@music.stlawu.edu ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw Sun Dec 8 12:41:50 1996 From: gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Patrick Gunning) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- Editorials on Historiography Message-ID: ==================== HES POSTING ==================== I have taken some time to reply to Ross Emmet's response to my criticism of relativism. The reason is that I want to broaden the discussion. Let me explain. The heart of my criticism of recent HES editorials and of Ross Emmet's implicit defense of them is simple. The editorials purport to give advice on how do the history of economics. Yet they shy away from defining (1) history, (2) ideas, and (3) economics. I ask only one thing: that before one gives such advice or makes judgments about a piece of work claiming to be in the subject "history of economic ideas," one ought to have a clear idea about the meaning of these terms. If one talks about contexts, styles and modes, rational reconstructions, etc, and at the same time has no clear idea of what these three words mean, only mere chance will make what one writes relevant to the history of economics ideas. My quarrel with the recent editorials and with what appears to be the predominant view among HESers is that they appear to have very little idea of the subject they claim to be writing about. An example is Mary Schweitzer's (11-14-96) argument that economics is what she has been taught that it was, accompanied by a potpourri of definitions with no opinion about which is best. The reason for my delay is that before I presented this argument, I wanted to rethink my own views on these matters. Do I have clear and definite definitions of these terms? And are these definitions defendable. If not, I have no business criticizing others. This project has taken a bit longer than I anticipated. The point I have raised is critical to the future development of the history of economics profession. If my view is correct, the current gatekeepers of this profession are inhibiting the development of the history of economic ideas. They are treating genuine advances in economic theory the same as genuine retrogressions. When I say that this point critical to the development of the history of economic ideas, I am not writing abstractions. Four reviewers of a recent paper I wrote about Herbert J. Davenport, two at HOPE and two at JHET, had similar comments (http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/dav_valu). They criticized the paper on grounds that it fails to account for the historical context of Davenport's works and that it does not say enough about Davenport's contemporary colleagues and opponents. None of the four commented on my claim that the idea about which Davenport wrote was important in the progress of Austrian economics. Indeed, all wrote remarks to the effect that I was writing what Ross Emmet and others call "Whig history." I don't know how one can logically judge that a paper is a Whig history of an idea without evaluating the idea about which the history is written. But these reviewers did make judgments. Of course, I am not complaining about getting negative reviews. I have long since come to terms with this. Indeed, how can one legitimately complain about receiving opinions from reviewers who volunteer their time? True enough, the reviewers hold the keys to the gates of particular professions. But there are plenty of professions. And with the internet, who needs an academic profession, anyway? Nor am I the only one to face the gatekeepers. Greg Ransom drew our attention to the dispute between Steven Horwitz and Allin Cottrell in the most recent issue of JHET (Fall, 1966). One must be puzzled at the editorial decision to (a) publish Horwitz's piece and (b) allow criticism and response in the same issue of the journal. Such a decision would appear to be reasonable if there were some legitimate disagreement about the subject matter of the paper. However, the main disagreement seems to me to have been about how one should do the history of economic ideas. If the editor wants to have a forum on this subject, why not invite a set of papers? Or, if he/she prefers, why not wait until someone submits such a paper? I have completed my rethinking and have published a very preliminary version of my rethoughts on my home page in a paper entitled "What it Means to Be an Historian of Economic Ideas." It is available at the following web sites: http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/subjecti/workpape/histidea http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/subjecti/workpape/histidea If you do not have a browser, I would be happy to Email you a copy. Comments are welcome. Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From ecogf at lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk Sun Dec 8 12:59:20 1996 From: ecogf at lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk (G. FONTANA) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- Ludwig Von Mises Text Message-ID: ==================== HES POSTING ==================== [Note from the moderator: Please reply to this query in a private e-mail to ecogf@lucs-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk --E-MS] Dear all, I am sorry to disturb the list, but a colleague of mine is looking for Ludwig Von Mises's Die Geldtheoretische Seite des Stabilizierungsproblems, "Verein fur Sozialpolitik: Schriften", 164, 1923, and I would appreciate your help. Do you know if there is a English translation of it, and where is it? Thanking you in advance, Giuseppe Fontana ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Giuseppe Fontana 23 Clarendon place - LS2 9JY - Leeds (UK) tel. +44.113.2452037 (home); +44.113.2334649 (office) fax +44.113.2332640 Via Vic. dei Monti, 70 - 80126 Napoli - Italia tel. +39.81.7261238 (home); +39.81.675057 (office) fax +39.81.675013 ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From boettke at fasecon.econ.nyu.edu Sun Dec 8 13:02:53 1996 From: boettke at fasecon.econ.nyu.edu (Peter J. Boettke) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ==================== HES POSTING ==================== [Note from the moderator: This message was posted yesterday, but never made it to the list. I'm reposting it and apologize for possible multiple postings. --E-MS] Roy, First, as I said before, I agree with your standard for contributions to the intellectual history of economics. But the field of history of economic thought can also represent part of the "extended present" as Boulding wrote about in HOPE way back when. In other words, individuals can employ history of thought to explore dead ends. That is how I read Horwitz's paper ... an attempt to link up two literatures that have existed side by side, but never really met eye to eye. The monetary disequilibrium school of the pre-Keynesian monetarists (as now represented in the work of Yeager) with the Austrian theory of the trade cycle. In this case, Horwitz is a consumer of history of economic thought and using what he has "purchased" in another endeavor -- which is exploring a path not taken when the path taken led to a dead end. What I don't understand is why you are so willing to dismiss out of hand contributions of this type and to insist that only intellectual history should be accepted within our field. Certainly you are correct that work of an intellectual history type should be held up as the exemplars in our field, but even in a field that respects intellectual history -- such as political theory -- intellectual history can be employed as a method of contemporary theory construction. See, e.g., the work of Alsasdir MacIntyre. Cannot economics follow a similar model? Why has history of thought become the field for this type of work? Because what unites us is a passion for understanding the continuity and discontinuity within the conversation that represents the discipline of economics. Since we share this passion and concern with understanding, what has shaped that conversation and how has it evolved? Why seek to exclude? Some scholars are going to do original work _in_ the intellectual history of economics, others are going to employ that work, and some are going to misuse it. Just like in any field of scholarship. Of course, we want high standards. I suggested before that those standards should be (for original work) the standards that exist in the field of intellectual history in general, just as the standards for methodology should be those established in that literature, _and_ the standards for history of thought as contemporary theory should be those reflected in the work of scholars such as Jacob Viner (in his Studies in International Trade). But note, we wouldn't want to exclude Jacob Viner from the club simply because in that work he is not doing work like Q. Skinner, though we recognize that Q. Skinner is the one really doing intellectual history to the standard we hope to aspire. Viner is doing theory, but in a manner that is different from that which modern methods and prejudices allow, and in a manner which historians of thought can learn from. It seems to me we would be an impoverished field if we insisted on only one or the other model for our society. The Cottrell/Horwitz exchange I think is a poor example, for Cottrell's criticisms (whether valid or not) were not on your point, but instead on the idea that Horwitz was sneaking in a theoretical and ideological agenda that Cottrell opposes and that he has criticized in published articles (which Horwitz did not take into account in his paper). Horwitz can defend his paper himself, but what he did was link two literatures that alone run into problems, but together might avoid them. It was an exercise in non-Whig rational reconstruction (if you allow me that terminology). It is a work of synthesis, which might have contemporary relevance. Why is this not a contribution to "Historical perspectives on modern economics"? It is _not_ a contribution to understanding the intellectual history of Clark Warburton's theory of cummulative rot, but it doesn't pretend to be. I am just not sold on the idea that (1) everyone confuses the differences between an original contribution to the intellectual history of economics, and the deployment of history of thought in contemporary theory construction; and (2) that we should be excluding scholars from the community who deploy h.o.t., rather than produce it. Isn't our field wide and robust enough to sustain both types of work -- and recognize that different standards apply? Pete 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: boettke@fasecon.econ.nyu.edu alternative email: Peter.Boettke@econ.nyu.edu web: http://www.econ.nyu.edu/user/boettke ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Sun Dec 8 16:08:18 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (GREG RANSOM) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- Editorials on Historiography Message-ID: ==================== HES POSTING ==================== Contrary to Patrick Gunning (and contrary to the dogma of most intellectuals at the turn of the century), I would suggest that our understanding is better grounded and communicated in examples than it is in definitions (see, e.g., the arguments of Thomas Kuhn in his _The Essential Tension_, or contrast the views on language of Wittgenstein and that of Plato, Hobbes, Russell, or most analytic philosophers). However, I would also suggest that the best examples of the history of science in other fields support Gunning's own picture (and examples) of good work in the history of economics -- e.g., the work of Michael Ghiselin and Ernst Mayr in the history of Darwinian Biology. I'm still waiting for an argument explaining why the work of Ghiselin and Mayr isn't a legitimate form of the history of science. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Sun Dec 8 16:14:01 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ==================== HES POSTING ==================== I find Peter's categories of 'methodology of economics', 'intellectual history of science' and 'history of thought as contemporary theory', and his implication that there is some cut-and-dried distinction to be made between such 'logical categories' to be mostly rubbish -- the best work in the advance of thinking in Darwinian biology can't be 'cut-at-the-joints' in such clear categories -- e.g., see the work of Ghiselin, Mayr, and Hull. All at once, in one complex structure, Ghiselin, Mayr, and Hull have transformed our understanding of the logical status and explanatory strategy of Darwinian biology, its history, and how it should be understood -- while advocating this change, and attacking rival pictures, i.e. while acting as 'ideological advocates'. You can't isolate these endeavors as stand-alone domains of inquiry, they are inextricably part of a whole. I find so much of what passes to be 'methodology', 'history', or 'contemporary theory' to be both blind and sterile for the very reason that folks attempt to pretend that these are isolated endeavors. My criticism here goes beyond June Flanders' familiar point that contemporary theorists waste a tremendous amount of time 're-inventing the wheel' every generation. The point can perhaps best be illustrated by pointing out how efforts to understand and recast a set of problems implicates all at once the logic and explanatory strategy of an endeavor, its historical understanding, and contemporary answers and constructions. It is only a myth to believe that this only goes on in Darwinian biology, and not in other areas, such as physics, political theory, the problem of communication, etc. Now it is true that, e.g., Ghiselin and Mayr, put themselves at greater risk because they so clearly advance theses and findings that challenge the standard accounts of folks who wish to avoid being held to standards that engage more than what they hope can be the self-contained world of 'method' or 'history' or 'contemporary theory'. For example, someone who in the past has attempted something like Ghiselin and Mayr might have produced work that does not stand-up or contribute to the conversation by the lights of competent work on issues of logical status, contemporary theory, or history of ideas. In the light of criticism, Ghiselin and Mayr have continued to advance in the same inclusive direction, only doing this better. Others retreat and say they no longer wish to be held to the standards of some supposed independent domain of 'method', or 'theory', or 'history'. But what we find is that these folks continue to bend to the wholist results and contributions of folks like Ghiselin and Mayr -- who lead the way in important dimensions for all of those seeking protection in 'independent domains'. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From rneill at upei.ca Mon Dec 9 10:56:11 1996 From: rneill at upei.ca (Robin Foliet Neill) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: Bibliographic note Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== With respect to Brad De Long's comment on Ross's note: Consider the assumptions underlying the ideas of "geneology of thought" and "the search for scientific truth" [using this last phrase as it is used in De Long's comment, because the search for truth may end in the discovery that objective truth is not availble to us, and I do not think De Long has that possibility in mind - and that is the whole point.]. The "geneology of truth" assumes that the human agent is active in generating thought; that what is known is in some root aspect FICTIVE. If this is the case, then object truth, [Let us call it "meaning".] is unobtainable. Hence the Postmodern dicta "Meaning recedes". But note, we need not return to either Locke or Berkley. The results of scientific endeavour are valid. It is a matter of recognizing limitations, and more interestingly, of recognizing the architecture of changing limitations as the instruments of cognition reshape the preconceptions of the knower. Robin Neill ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From YCCLECO at SJUMUSIC.stjohns.edu Mon Dec 9 11:01:49 1996 From: YCCLECO at SJUMUSIC.stjohns.edu (Charles Clark) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- Editorials on Historiography Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== Given the recent discussion on the historiography of economics, I thought I would recommend the only, as far as I know, book that deals with the subject in a systematic way. The book is Werner Stark's "History and Historians of Political Economy" and it was published by Transactions in 1994. Stark wrote this book in 1939-41 and only published the last chapter, in 1943 or 1944 under the title "The history of economics in relation to social development". Although Stigler and others attacked the book, I think that the general consensus of the extreme usefulness of whig- history today indicates that Stark was way ahead of his time. Stark gives a history of the history of economics up until the 1930s, finding three essential types of historiography, one that looks at the history of economics as the progressive march to established and accepted Truths (whig type history), the historical approach, which attempts to accurately understand the theorists' ideas, and the explanatory approach, which goes beyond mere context, and tries to connect economic doctrines to economic, social and historical context. It is worth reading not only for its intro the historiography of economics, but also to show us what HOE was like before Schumpeter. Charles Clark ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From fontaine at husc.harvard.edu Mon Dec 9 11:04:50 1996 From: fontaine at husc.harvard.edu (Philippe Fontaine) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- Cultural Models and Economic Performance Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== [Request from the moderator: Please provide references in a private e-mail to fontaine@husc.harvard.edu. --E-MS] Dear all, Before returning to the West Indies, I would like to buy some books and photocopy articles concerning the relationship between cultural models and economic performance for the University library. Any suggestions? I would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. Philippe Fontaine University of Antilles Guyane UFR sciences economiques BP 270 97157 Pointe-a-Pitre Cedex GUADELOUPE ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 9 13:51:59 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ===================== Greg Ransom mentioned Ernst Mayr's _One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought_, and noted that it provides: > 'augmentations' of Darwin's > argument and reconstructions of it, pushing forward 'particular approaches' > in different directions, and engaging in a good deal of what might > correctly be labeled 'advocacy'. If you wanted to, you might even call > it 'Whig' history. > > Is there anyone who hasn't understood Darwin, and the history of Darwin's > biology better after reading these books, or its place in intellectual > history? Having read Mayr's book and learned a lot of biological theory from it, perhaps I can comment on the relation between it and the current discussion on Whig history. I read Mayr's book to be introduced to the central arguments of Darwinian biology in order to converse better with my friends in biology. I did not read it for its historical treatment of Darwinism, and in fact was disappointed at several points with its disregard of particular historical issues I was interested in (specifically, my questions about the relation between Malthus and Darwin in the context of Victorian culture, and the relation between Darwinian biology and social science in the context of the interwar culture, were left unanswered--but that's okay, because I didn't expect Mayr to be asking the same kinds of questions I do). In this regard, the book functioned for me in a manner similar to MacIntyre's _After Virtue_, although Mayr has less problems with the dominant mode of Darwinian thought than MacIntyre does with the dominant mode of ethical thought. The point I am trying to make is this: both books are contributions to our understanding of theory. As such, they draw upon both historical work and contemporary theoretical work in order to re-cast the fundamental questions of their discipline today. THIS IS A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE EXERCISE, in fact, it is a necessary exercise occasionally in every discipline. The exercise of recasting our fundamental questions is not Whiggish (i.e., it is not simply the ratification of current theory), but it also fits neither the categories of rational reconstruction or historical reconstruction. Richard Rorty calls it _geistesgeschichte_, which for lack of a better term is the term I use. Two points I want to make: 1. _Geistesgeschichten_ are a necessary part of the re-formulation of traditions (interpretative communities, if you will) in almost every generation. By re-casting the tradition's fundamental questions, they prevent "normal discourse" (similar to Kuhn's "normal science") from becoming stale and assist newcomers in placing themselves in the tradition's conversation. Many historians of economic thought aspire to writing _geistesgeschichten_, and as such are simply participating in the re-casting of the fundamental questions of the scientific community of economists. None of my comments about the history of economics have been aimed at denying the relevance of this work. I have simply tried to distinguish this work from historical work on economics. 2. Good _geistesgeschichten_ are extraordinarily hard to come by; bad _geistesgeschichten_ are a dime a dozen. What are the criteria for a good _geistesgeschichte_? I don't know. Ross B. Emmett Augustana University College ================= FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 9 13:49:31 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Technoscience newsletter Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ===================== CIRCULATE TO OTHER LISTS Those of you who are interested in what's going on in the world of science studies but are not members of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) may wish to have a look at the latest issue of Technoscience, the 4S newsletter: http://www.cis.vt.edu/technoscience/technohome.html Here you can read back issues of the newsletter and find out how to subscribe to the world's largest professional society in science studies. Also, you'll learn that my job as executive editor is up for grabs. Yours in discourse, Steve Fuller ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 9 14:46:27 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Info about grad study in econ and phil Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ====================== [NOTE: The following may be of interest to several on this list. If you have suggested additions to it, please post them to the original sender -- Julian Lamont (j.lamont@qut.edu.au). -- RBE] Below is what I have cobbled together as information for students who ask me about places to pursue graduate work in economics and philosophy. Thank you to those who sent me information about programs at their home institutions -- I have cut and pasted it into the email below. I know I have left out a lot -- if you intend sending me other contributions (or corrections and additions) on available programs, it helps me considerably if you write the contribution in a somewhat formal manner -- makes it easier for me to cut and paste it in. Best wishes, Julian ------------------------------------------------------------- I don't have any formal information on graduate programs in economics and philosophy. However, various members of IEPS have sent me information about their home institution's offerings which I have included below. In addition to those listed below other possibilities you might wish to explore in the U.S. are universities like the University of Chicago; University of Wisconsin, Madison; MIT and UC San Diego. All these have excellent separate philosophy and economics programs but unfortunately I don't think any of them have formal programs in economics and philosophy combined. The only place in the U.S. that I know of (though see the entry under U. of Notre Dame below) that has a formal graduate program in Economics and Philosophy is the University of Pittsburgh (they also have excellent separate economics and philosophy departments there). Even if you do not attend Pittsburgh they have one year pre-doctoral fellowships available for philosophy students at other institutions who want to get a background in economics as part of their dissertation -- friends I have known who have had these have found them very worthwhile so you might want to keep them in mind. Apart from the entries listed below other places you might want to explore in Europe are University College, London (Ken Binmore is there); Kings College, London (it has a Ph.D. Program in Philosophy Of Social Science); and, of course, the London School of Economics. It would also be worthwhile contacting Philippe Van Parijs of the Chaire Hoover in Economic and Social Ethics at the Universite catholique de Louvain to see what programs they have there. A good guide (called the Gourmet Guide) to graduate programs in philosophy is put out each year by Brian Leiter. Although it does not have a lot on economics and philosophy per se, it does have quite a bit about philosophy of law and economics. It is also very useful for finding out where top people you might be interested in working with are currently located. It is accessible under NYU's philosophy page: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/leiter/ One other web resource you might find useful is this one which lists 3000 international university web pages. http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/cdemello/univ.html There's also a list of American (US) universities at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/CLAS/american-universities.html If, in your travels, you find out more information about economics and philosophy programs around the world I would appreciate you emailing it to me so I can add it to this list for others who might be interested. Best, Julian Lamont --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In the U.S.: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: The economics department at the University of Notre Dame specializes in three fields: (1) Development economics, (2) Institutional economics, and (3) Theory and method. Many faculty members and students belonging to the third category specialize in economics and philosophy. Faculty members with an interest in economics and philosophy include Philip Mirowski, Charles Wilber, David Ruccio, and Esther-Mirjam Sent. They regularly teach courses such as Economics and Philosophy, History of Economic Thought, Political Economy, Feminist Economics, and Economics of Science. In addition, the economics department has close ties with the history and philosophy of science program at the University of Notre Dame. Students entering in this program may pursue a joint degree in HPS and economics. For more information, check out their Web pages: http://www.nd.edu/~economic for the economics department http://www.nd.edu:80/~reilly for the HPS program. ------------------------------ In Europe: ST. ANDREWS, SCOTLAND St. Andrews has recently appointed John Broome (editor of the journal *Economics and Philosophy*) to the philosophy department and it is actively recruiting students in economics and philosophy. The Gourmet Guide ranks the graduate philosophy program level with the 10th in the US (that is, with Cornell, Indiana, Stanford, Arizona and North Carolina). They teach a one-year MLitt course, followed by three years research to a PhD. The Economics Department is apparently also improving rapidly and may get the top grade in the next U.K national research assessment (as Philosophy will). To give you some idea of subjects currently on offer there, John Broome teaches a postgraduate unit in formal methods in ethics, which is about applications of decision theory and game theory in ethics. He also teaches an undergraduate unit in life and death, which deals (amongst other things) with the way economists value life, and he co-teaches (with V Bhaskar from Economics) an undergraduate course in economics and ethics. The office of *Economics and Philosophy* is also now at St. Andrews. For more information about the program contact John Broome < john.broome@st-andrews.ac.uk>. ERASMUS UNIVERSITY, ROTTERDAM A number of philosophers and economists at Erasmus University (Maarten Janssen, Arjo Klamer, Albert Jolink, Jack Vromen, and Uskali Maki) will soon be starting a PhD programme in philosophy and economics and are actively recruiting new students. They have raised a considerable amount of money for an Institute in the context of which the programme will be run. For further information contact: Uskali Maki . ----------------------------------- In Australia: THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY The ANU doesn't offer an M.A. course in Philosophy and Economics but welcomes applications for Ph.D. places. Faculty include Geoffrey Brennan, Bob Goodin, Frank Jackson (decision theory, game theory), Michael Smith (decision theory, rationality), Natalie Stoljar (law and economics), Tom Campbell (book on Adam Smith), Jeremy Shearmur (Hayek expert) and Philip Pettit. The ANU graduate program has been placed second outside the U.S. in the 1995-96 and the 1996-97 Gourmet Guides to graduate programs in Philosophy. There is a special focus on applicants with an interest in the broad area of social and political theory. For more information on the program contact Philip Pettit -------------------------------------------------- QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY It would be remiss of me not to mention our small but happy band of philosophers here at QUT. Jerry Gaus, myself and Christi Favor all have strong research interests in philosophy and economics. Some of the members of the economics department (and the political economists in the Arts Faculty) have interests in philosophy as well and we have recently instituted a joint economics and ethics undergraduate degree. In 1997 we will have a Center for the Study of Ethics in Markets, Government and the Professions which will be the focus for research and postgraduate supervision in economics and philosophy. For more information on the program contact Jerry Gaus ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu Mon Dec 9 16:27:56 1996 From: erw at pc301.econ.duke.edu (E. Roy Weintraub) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== Ross Emmett wrote: > 1. _Geistesgeschichten_ are a necessary part of the re-formulation of > traditions (interpretative communities, if you will) in almost every > generation. By re-casting the tradition's fundamental questions, they > prevent "normal discourse" (similar to Kuhn's "normal science") from > becoming stale and assist newcomers in placing themselves in the > tradition's conversation. Many historians of economic thought aspire to > writing _geistesgeschichten_, and as such are simply participating in the > re-casting of the fundamental questions of the scientific community of > economists. None of my comments about the history of economics have been > aimed at denying the relevance of this work. I have simply tried to > distinguish this work from historical work on economics. Finally, perhaps, with Ross's and Peter Boettke's posts, this thread is moving off the "Yes, it is", "No, it's not" play. With respect to contributions to history, our historian friends have a useful phrase: poor contributions are either under-researched or over-interpreted. Certainly these are "relative" values, but doctoral theses of the kind mostly done by young historians of economics are, in historians' language, under-researched. Providing a new interpretation of, say, Keynes's employment function, based on primary and secondary sources, is an exercise in interpretation. It would hardly ever pass muster as a history thesis. What new research, it would be asked, supported the new interpretation? What new archival find, what new evidence from contemporaneous work, what new "contextualization" which based the interpretation on alternative primary and secondary sources, supported the new interpretation? If none, the student would be asked to go back and "do" some research. Like Ross, I am not opposed to geistesgeschichten; a fine example is Axel Leijonhufvud's _On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes_. But this is not historical work, in the sense of new research and interpretation based on that new research. It is interpretation only. My call, and perhaps Ross's in some measure, and perhaps for Brad Bateman as well, is for the balance between research and interpretation to shift in our subdiscipline. Without committing those individuals to this view, I assert that we need more research, and thus relatively less interpretation per unit of research. I recall that Judy Klein suggested, in this thread, that it was difficult to find dissertations in HES for our prize which were both well-researched and well-interpreted. This is my experience too as an associate editor of HOPE. Most of my noise on this thread is in support of a revised HES understanding that writing in history of economics should (value judgment, call for action) instantiate the historians' values of research and interpretation, appropriately combined. E. Roy Weintraub Duke University ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk Tue Dec 10 13:29:07 1996 From: ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk (Anthony Brewer) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: =================== HES POSTING =================== Roy Weintraub wrote > I assert that we need more research, and thus relatively less > interpretation per unit of research. This seems to present us with a definition - historical research (in the intellectual history of economics) = archives = new information. The study and interpretation of known, published, texts clearly doesn't count as research on this definition. Geistesgeschichten are offered as an alternative, but these seem be to confined to broad overviews, 're-casting the tradition's fundamental questions' (Ross Emmett), and are 'not historical work, in the sense of new research' (Weintraub). But the history of economics has to be, primarily, a history of published texts from (say) Mun and Petty onwards, since published work is overwhelmingly the main form in which economic ideas have been formulated and communicated. Do we really know and understand these texts so well that there is nothing to be gained by further study of them? Roy's example is (characteristically) well chosen - 'providing a new interpretation of, say, Keynes's employment function'. I am inclined to agree that Keynes, like Marx and a few others, is over-researched and over-interpreted, but almost all the rest of the corpus of published work in economics (even, bar a few chapters, the Wealth of Nations) seems to me to be under-studied and under-interpreted. The relevant context for any given work is mainly provided by other published works (those of predecessors and contemporaries). The impact of any given individual on others was generally by the same route. Roy's generalized comparison with history is inappropriate, since the history of (say) warfare or politics is not a history of printed texts in the way that intellectual history is. ---------------------- Tony Brewer (A.Brewer@bris.ac.uk) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Tue Dec 10 13:31:53 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Bad Writing Contest Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ===================== [Sorry for any multiple postings people receive. This has been posted in quite a few places. -- RBE] ************************************************************** CALL FOR ENTRIES. Philosophy and Literature announces the third Bad Writing Contest. Please cross-post the following announcement on related lists for humanities, culture theory, philosophy, social sciences, criticism, editing, etc. ************************************************************** The Philosophy and Literature Bad Writing Contest The challenge of the Bad Writing Contest is to come up with the ugliest, most stylistically awful single sentence from a published scholarly book or article. Ordinary journalism, fiction, etc. not allowed, nor is translation from other languages into English. Entries must be non-ironic, from actual serious academic journals or books--parodies cannot be admitted in a field where unintentional self-parody is so rampant. Winning entries will be checked by our researchers before prizes are awarded. Judging will be by editorial staff of Philosophy and Literature. Finder of the winning sentence will have first choice from among the following titles, second prize will be a choice of the remaining books, and so on. The seven prize books are: Rewriting the Soul, by Ian Hacking (Princeton), The Magician's Doubts: Nabokov and the Risks of Fiction, by Michael Wood (Princeton), Dilemmas of Enlightenment, by Oscar Kenshur (California); Killing Time, by Paul Feyerabend (Chicago); Anti-Mimesis from Plato to Hitchcock, by Tom Cohen (Cambridge); Compulsive Beauty, by Hal Foster (MIT); Georges Bataille, by Michael Richardson (Routledge). If necessary, there will be a eight prize (a copy of the journal Social Text) and ninth prize (two copies of Social Text). We've fine prizes for this third contest, so join the fun! Please use the subject heading "Bad writing entry" and copy the posting directly to Denis Dutton, editor of Philosophy and Literature, so we can keep track of the entries: d.dutton@fina.canterbury.ac.nz The contest deadline: 31 January 1997 ********************** Anyone may join Philosophy and Literature's internet discussion group, PHIL-LIT, by sending the message SUBSCRIBE PHIL-LIT Your Name to: LISTSERV@TAMVM1.TAMU.EDU ********************** ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU Tue Dec 10 15:25:36 1996 From: BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU (Bradley W Bateman) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: =================== HES POSTING =================== In Roy Weintraub's most recent post, he says that perhaps I join him in a call for a change in emphasis in the histories written by members of HES. I do not "perhaps" agree with this statement, I wholeheartedly agree with it. The calls in other recent posts for "making room" for Whig histories and tolerating them as a legitimate form of history seem to miss the point. They are almost all we have, and the real need is to make room for the kind of history that Roy and Ross are calling for. I take Ross's statement of the inevitability of "geistesgeschichte" as a fair and reasonable acknowledgement of the possible value of this kind of work. If people write it, and it's good, that's great. But how many of the Whig histories that we see are really good examples of this genre? How many articles published in HOPE, JHET, or EJHET have moved the rest of the discipline to rethink their research agenda? How many of them deserve to be read by the rest of the profession? What we might best contribute to the rest of the profession, what we might do that deserves to be read, is work that is better researched and is informed by a fuller sense of what good historical work is. Brad Bateman Grinnell College ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu Tue Dec 10 18:20:10 1996 From: pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu (Paul Wendt (SAR)) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: FYI -- Subscriber report, Dec '96 Message-ID: =================== HES POSTING =================== HES SUBSCRIBER REPORT, Dec'96, Geographical Supplement 2 Dec 96 ------------------------------------------------------ Paul Wendt Geographical Distribution by e-mail code [HESsians, LISTPROC will send the recipients list to any subscriber. Send the message: recipients hes to the address: lists@cs.muohio.edu (no subject necessary) The list is alphabetized by backward e-mail addresses, thus by the e-mail codes used for this report: first, e-mail addresses ending in ".ca" (Canada), then ".za" (South africa) and so on. ----Paul Wendt, Subscriptions Manager ] CONTENTS: SUBSCRIBERS BY LARGE REGIONS or GROUPS (USA, Europe, ...) COUNTRIES (USA, France, ...) INSTITUTIONS (U Amsterdam, U Notre Dame, ...) SUBSCRIBERS BY LARGE REGION or GROUP --------------------------- GROSS NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS ~1Mar ~1Jun ~1Sep ~1Dec ---------------------------- ALL SUBSCRIBERS 200 252 268 362 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe 55 65 67 98 Asia 10 12 13 17 Latin America 3 3 4 9 Other (Comm) 16 25 26 34 NOT US AMERICA 84 105 110 158 US AMERICA 116 147 158 204 --------------------------------------------------------------------- not English 61 71 75 110 English 139 181 193 252 ---------------------------- PERCENT SHARE OF SUBSCRIBERS ~1Mar ~1Jun ~1Sep ~1Dec ---------------------------- ALL SUBSCRIBERS 100 100 100 100 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe 28 26 25 27 Asia 5 5 5 5 Latin America 2 1 1 2 Other (Comm) 8 10 10 9 NOT US AMERICA 42 42 41 44 US AMERICA 58 58 59 56 --------------------------------------------------------------------- not English 31 28 28 30 English 70 72 72 70 ---------------------------- --------- PERCENT QUARTERLY GROWTH % 9-MONTH Spring Summer Fall GROWTH ---------------------------- --------- ALL SUBSCRIBERS 26 6 35 81 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe 18 3 46 78 Asia 20 8 31 70 Latin America 0 33 125 200 Other (Comm) 56 4 31 113 NOT US AMERICA 25 5 44 88 US AMERICA 27 7 29 76 --------------------------------------------------------------------- not English 16 6 47 80 English 30 7 31 81 SUBSCRIBERS BY COUNTRY E-mail "countries" are defined by the final part of an address, the part after the final dot. We now have subscribers in 32 countries, perhaps one or two more concealed in "US America". After USA with 204 subscribers (56%), Canada and France have 19 each (5%). ------------------------------- global e-mail QUARTERLY NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS group code ~1Mar ~1Jun ~1Sep ~1Dec ------------------------------- Eur fr France 11 13 15 19 Eur nl Netherlands 10 10 10 13 Eur uk UKBritain 5 7 8 12 Eur be Belgium 5 7 7 10 Eur it Italy 7 8 8 9 Eur de Germany 4 6 6 7 Eur ch Switzerland 5 5 5 5 Eur pt Portugal 4 4 4 5 Eur es Spain 1 1 3 Eur se Sweden 1 3 Eur at Austria 3 Eur ie Ireland 2 2 1 2 Eur dk Denmark 2 Eur bg Bulgaria 2 Eur pl Poland 1 1 1 1 Eur fi Finland 1 Eur gr Greece 1 Eur hu Hungary 1 1 AsiaW tr Turkey 1 2 2 4 AsiaW il Israel 1 1 1 AsiaS id India 1 AsiaE jp Japan 8 8 9 10 AsiaE tw Taiwan 1 1 AsiaE kr Korea 1 1 Amer br Brazil 1 1 2 3 Amer mx Mexico 1 1 1 2 Amer ar Argentina 2 Amer co Colombia 1 Amer cl Chile 1 1 1 1 ca Canada 8 16 18 19 za South Africa 1 1 1 1 au Australia 6 7 6 11 nz New Zealand 1 1 1 3 US AMERICA 116 147 158 204 org * 1 2 2 4 com * 8 13 12 22 us 1 1 1 2 net * 1 2 3 4 edu 105 127 139 170 gov 2 1 2 * No doubt these suffixes include subscribers not based in the USA. They count as "US America" and "English" in this report. SUBSCRIBERS BY INSTITUTION E-mail "institutions" are defined by one or two parts of an e-mail address before the final part or "country", so some institutions may be missed because of their addressing conventions and some colleagues may be missed because they choose to subscribe from another address. University of Amsterdam (.uva.nl) is our longtime leader. Currently we have four or more subscribers at handful of e-mail institutions, and three subscribers at many more. 5 U Amsterdam U Notre Dame Duke U Harvard U (two visitors, one from Amsterdam) 4 U Paris 1 Bowling Green State U U Miami, Ohio (muohio.edu, where Eh.Net lives) TECHNICAL NOTES Each person is counted once, at current residence for those with subscriptions in two different countries. "US America" means subscription from one of the e-mail codes associated with the USA; .org .com .net .us .edu .gov are represented here. The first three, at least, may include users outside the USA. "English" means subscription from any English-speaking country including US America as defined here. ---- Paul Wendt, Watertown MA HES e-subscriptions manager and asst.editor ================ FOOTER TO HES POSTING================ From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Wed Dec 11 10:07:43 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (GREG RANSOM) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== After returning from 2 very long days in the archives of Fritz Machlup and Friedrich Hayek at the Hoover Institution, it is hard to argue with Roy that much more archival work is essential to the health of the history of economic thought -- but this is not the same argument given earlier. My claim also goes further -- i.e. that history in all its forms, including straight forward archival research, is essential to the health of economics as a science as we turn into a new century. Consider this picture: all sorts of doors are shut to a superior explanatory strategy in economics based on many simple falsehoods and myths, which can be quickly disposed of with just a little work in the archives -- or even only with some effort to fill in the historical picture using published sources. I give some examples in my HES paper, presented last summer in Vancouver. I continually find it astonishing how little work has been done on Hayek -- and here I can testify from first hand knowledge that there is a bounty of original unpublished archival material which, as it becomes better known, will shape all future work on Hayek. Even a somewhat casual historical competence regarding Hayek gained only from published sources would change many of the narratives of the history of 20th-century economics that I find in the literature. How does one read the later essays of Hicks, and the UCLA oral history program interviews with Hayek, and come away without a transformed sense of the Hicks story -- a sense that is incompatible with the stories of Hicks that somehow leave Hayek out of the story (how is this possible?). Yes, more original historical research, and more archival research. -- But this is everyone's responsibility. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucarc1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Wed Dec 11 10:08:09 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== After returning from 2 very long days in the archives of Fritz Machlup and Friedrich Hayek at the Hoover Institution, it is hard to argue with Roy that much more archival work is essential to the health of the history of economic thought -- but this is not the same argument given earlier. My claim also goes further -- i.e. that history in all its forms, including straight forward archival research, is essential to the health of economics as a science as we turn into a new century. Consider this picture: all sorts of doors are shut to a superior explanatory strategy in economics based on many simple falsehoods and myths, which can be quickly disposed of with just a little work in the archives -- or even only with some effort to fill in the historical picture using published sources. I give some examples in my HES paper, presented last summer in Vancouver. I continually find it astonishing how little work has been done on Hayek -- and here I can testify from first hand knowledge that there is a bounty of original unpublished archival material which, as it becomes better known, will shape all future work on Hayek. Even a somewhat casual historical competence regarding Hayek gained only from published sources would change many of the narratives of the history of 20th-century economics that I find in the literature. How does one read the later essays of Hicks, and the UCLA oral history program interviews with Hayek, and come away without a transformed sense of the Hicks story -- a sense that is incompatible with the stories of Hicks that somehow leave Hayek out of the story (how is this possible?). Yes, more original historical research, and more archival research. -- But this is everyone's responsibility. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucarc1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Wed Dec 11 10:12:01 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: DISC -- Machlup Survey on Capital Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== [Apologies from the moderator for the double posting of Greg Ransom's previous message. My computer outsmarted me. --E-MS] Among other research projects I pursued in the archives at Hoover was a lead found in Fritz Machlup's 1935 essay on Knight and capital theory. Machlup mentions a series of letters on capital theory and the problem of the period of production between himself and Marschak, Mises, Hayek, and Haberler. This turns out to be a survey questionaire sent out by Machlup on the problem, with letters of response from all of the aforementioned, and a summary final report to all correspondents by Machlup. All of this original correspondence is found in German in the Fritz Machlup collection at the Hoover Institution. As far as I am aware this material has not been published or translated. It would make I should think, a dandy research project for a graduate student. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU Wed Dec 11 11:57:51 1996 From: BATEMAN at AC.GRIN.EDU (Bradley W Bateman) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Thank you, Greg, for sharing your personal epiphany about the value of archival work and "more research". The believing is, perhaps, in the seeing? I would never have been so concerned about the questions of Whig history (etc. etc.) that we discuss here if I had not gotten into archives and started seeing just how distorted the arguments around Keynes's work can be. I was enticed into looking by Sue Howson, Don Winch, Peter Clarke and a host of other scholars who had been there first and raised questions for me in their writing. But the epiphany comes when one starts making new discoveries and seeing dimensions to theoretical arguments that were hidden from view. Thank you, again, for your affirmation that we can do better history. Brad Bateman Grinnell College ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From a.jolink at fwb.eur.nl Wed Dec 11 11:59:42 1996 From: a.jolink at fwb.eur.nl (Albert Jolink) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- New Ph.D. Programme in Philosophy and Economics Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ======================== Dear Editor, We would appreciate if you could spread the following news. Albert Jolink ======================================================== New Ph.D. Programme in Philosophy and Economics Erasmus University is launching a new Ph.D. Programme in Philosophy and Economics in 1997. Thanks to recent appointments, Erasmus University has created a unique centre devoted to the combined study of philosophy and economics. The Ph.D. programme exploits the expertise of specialists such as Uskali Maki, Arjo Klamer, Maarten Janssen, Jack Vromen, and Albert Jolink at the Erasmus Institute of Philosophy and Economics. The Ph.D. Programme consists of one year advanced course work and two years of research within the broad framework of the Erasmus Institute Research Programme 'Institutions'. The advanced courses will go into topical issues in the philosophy of economics, microeconomics and game theory, evolutionary and new institutional economics, history of economic thought, and the rhetoric and culture of economics. The Research Programme is organized under four headings: 'Economics of Institutions', 'Institutions of Economics', 'Economics in Philosophy' and 'Philosophy in Economics' (a detailed description of the research programme is available upon request). The Ph.D programme is open to all candidates who have a completed Master's degree in economics, in philosophy, or in the philosophy of economics, and who have a strong interest in subjects falling within any or all of the themes of the Research Programme. (Those who are within 3 months of completion of their Master's may also apply.) The tuition for the first year is Dfl. 10.000. After the first year, students can apply for a fellowship of approximately Dfl. 24.000 per year for the second and third year. The deadline for applications is 15 February 1997. Subject to the availability of positions, applications received before 31 July 1997 may be considered. The Programme will start in September 1997. For information and application forms please contact: Erasmus Institute of Philosophy and Economics att. dr Albert Jolink Faculty of Philosophy Erasmus University Rotterdam Postbus 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam The Netherlands fax.: +31-10-2120448 e-mail: a.jolink@fwb.eur.nl ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu Wed Dec 11 12:04:29 1996 From: Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu (Esther-Mirjam Sent) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- AAP Conference Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== ***Forwarded from IEPS-L by Esther-Mirjam Sent*** PHILFEST 97 4th - 13th July 1997 University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand First Call for Paper Abstracts and Symposia Suggestions Australasian Association for Logic (4th - 6th July) Women in Philosophy (5th - 7th July) Australasian Association for Philosophy (6th - 11th July) Australasian Association for the History Philosophy and Social Studies of Science (9th - 13th July) The due date for Symposium suggestions is 17th February 1997. The due date for ABSTRACTS of papers is 2nd April 1997. Send such ABSTRACTS or Symposia suggestions to either: Philfest 97 Secretary (at the address below), or to the e-mail address: philfest@auckland.ac.nz with clear indication of the Conference for which it is intended. The Organising Committee of Secretaries is: Rod Girle (AAL) Jan Crosthwaite (WIP) Denis Robinson (AAP) Robert Nola (AAHPSSS) Susanne Muir (Departmental Secretary for Enquiries) Philosophy Department University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland New Zealand Phone: Int + 64 9 3737 599 ext 7491 (tone dial) or Int + 64 9 3737 799 ext 7491 (pulse dial) FAX: Int + 64 9 3737 408 ======================================== Dr Roderic A. Girle Philosophy Department University of Auckland Auckland NEW ZEALAND ======================================== Phone: Int + 64 9 3737 599 ext 5072 FAX: Int + 64 9 3737 408 e-mail: r.girle@auckland.ac.nz ======================================== ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu Wed Dec 11 12:07:41 1996 From: Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu (Esther-Mirjam Sent) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- SABE Conference Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== ***Forwarded from IEPS-L by Esther-Mirjam Sent*** CALL FOR PAPERS SESSION ON GENDER ISSUES IN ECONOMICS to be held at the 1997 SABE Conference The 1997 meetings of the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE) will be held at the Washington and Lee University in Virginia, June 20 to 22, 1997. SABE is a young growing organization which aims at integrating economics with psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, etc., and offers fertile ground for the development of diversified gender-related discussions. Papers are invited which deal with any of the following gender-related aspects of economics: women in the economy, women in the economics profession, family economics. The deadline for submissions is March 15, 1997. Please send your proposals to Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman, Department of Economics, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-0379; email SHOSH@MAIL.SDSU.EDU. Queries about the conference can be addressed to Lyn Hammett, Conference Coordinator, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450; tel (540) 463-8604; email SABE@liberty.uc.wlu.edu. The conference fee is $275, including accomodations, meals, and membership. Lexington is located a three hour drive from Washington, D.C. and Ronoak is the closest airport. Shoshana Grossbard-Shechtman Dept of Economics San Diego State University San Diego CA 92182-4485 tel 619-594 5468 fax 594 5062 ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu Wed Dec 11 15:41:58 1996 From: GRANSOM at ucrac1.ucr.edu (Greg Ransom) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: FYI -- Archival Research Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== I should perhaps make it clear, pace the implication of Brad Bateman's remark, that I have experienced no sudden 'epiphany' recently concerning the value of research in the archive -- my recent effort is perhaps the 5th or 6th fruitful 'dig' I've conducted over the past four or five years, and the discoveries I've made have greatly informed my work on the logical status and explanatory strategy of economics over the same period. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gransom@ucrac1.ucr.edu http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From rneill at upei.ca Thu Dec 12 09:29:23 1996 From: rneill at upei.ca (Robin Foliet Neill) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== With respect to the discussion of Whig interpretations of the history of economics: the history of economics is history, not economics, and historians, primarily intellectual historians have had much to say about interpretations of history, especially in recent times. For a far broader and, I think, more penetrating discussion of the subject than we have undertaken here, I recommend P.H. Hutton, HISTORY AS AN ART OF MEMORY, University Press of New England, 1993. Robin Neill ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Epage at aol.com Thu Dec 12 12:21:50 1996 From: Epage at aol.com (John Lodewijks) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- HET societies, meetings, etc. Message-ID: ===================== HES POSTING ===================== I am in the process of preparing a short article on HET societies, journals, regular meetings, newsletters, etc. While I am aware of the relevant occurences in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia/New Zealand, I would be interested in finding out about any relevant groups, newsletters, email lists, or regular meetings in eastern Europe, Latin America, South Africa, Middle East, or Asia. I expect others on this list would be interested in this information also, so feel free to post responses here. I am currently in the U.S. Messages can be sent to me at Epage@aol.com. John Lodewijks ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw Thu Dec 12 12:25:52 1996 From: gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Patrick Gunning) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Robin Foliet Neill wrote: > With respect to the discussion of Whig interpretations of the > history of economics: the history of economics is history, > not economics... I find the idea that the history of economics is not economics misleading rhetoric. There are two separate reasons. First, how can one do the history of economics without understanding or defining economics? Surely, one could not do the history of science without understanding or defining science. Second, although history is not economics, even history cannot be done without THEORY. And economic theory, properly understood, is a part of the more general theory that one needs to do history. The clearest statement on this point is that of Ludwig von Mises in his THEORY AND HISTORY. In my view this is the first book an aspiring historian should read. -- Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From rneill at upei.ca Thu Dec 12 15:54:13 1996 From: rneill at upei.ca (Robin Foliet Neill) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== With respect to Gunning's two points in his posting of today: 1. Historians of the rise of the nation state understand and, perhaps, define the nation state as a concept. This does not make them political scientists, nationalists, or sociologists. They are historians. I concur in the point that one can hardly do the history of economics without a knowledge of, and even considerable training in, economics [I recommend the PhD.], just as one cannot do the history of science, or the philosophy of science, without a knowledge of science; but historians of economics or science remain intellectual historians, not economists or scientists. It is conceivable that one might be both, and function on different levels in the hierarchy of knowledge, at different times, or in different aspects of one's work; but history is not theory. 2. The first sentence of Gunning's second point contradicts his first point. Consider the distinction between an historical thesis and an economic theory. A theory has application to all items of a certain class or kind [q = f(p) [cet. par.], for any individual consumer.], without reference to a particular time in history. (Ah! You see the point.). A thesis has application to only one set of events in some particular time and place. Further, the term "rhetoric" is used in a pejorative sense by Gunning, so we have here a rhetorical use of the term "rhetoric" [as the term "rhetoric" is used by Gunning]. Yet further, I concur that Von Mises has an interesting view of history, perhaps even a Whig view, with respect to a certain aspect of Whig history. The Whig view, along with all the others, has its place. It is the assertion, if anyone is making it, that Whig history is the objective truth, that is intellectually arrogant, because truth is a product of the mind, and so cannot be objective. Robin Neill ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw Fri Dec 13 02:37:51 1996 From: gunning at stsvr.showtower.com.tw (Patrick Gunning) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== Regarding Robin Neill's first point in today's posting: The difference between the history of a nation state and the history of economics is this. The NATION STATE refers to a particular form of political organization -- a particular structure of rights, in the broadest sense. ECONOMICS refers to a social-intellectual interaction among distinctly human actors. The rise of the nation state and the progress of economics are two distinctly different ideas. To see this, we need to ask: nation state as opposed to what? economics as opposed to what? As an historian, one aims to explain "observable facts" in terms of the perceptions and understandings of the individuals who are deemed relevant to those facts. In this sense, the history of each is similar. But I think it is obvious that the "observable facts" should be placed in different classes. Regarding the second point: "A theory has application to all items of a certain class or kind [q = f(p) [cet. par.], for any individual consumer.], without reference to a particular time in history. (Ah! You see the point.). A thesis has application to only one set of events in some particular time and place." Notice that Neill uses the modifier "a" before the term "theory (or thesis)." One who was familiar with Mises's THEORY AND HISTORY would not use the term "theory" in this way. Theory means a way of organizing the "observable facts" by referring to the perceptions and understandings of the distinctly human beings whose choices played a causal role in their existence. Time is a necessary part of theory, defined in this sense. And, good grief, what is a "Whig view" of how history is (or ought to be) done? Pat Gunning http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From rneill at upei.ca Fri Dec 13 09:42:31 1996 From: rneill at upei.ca (Robin Foliet Neill) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: EDITORIAL -- Whig H of E is Dead -- Now What? Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ====================== I note the process of Professor Gunning's reply. The process involves taking items in succession and interpreting or redefining them so that they serve a particular issue in the discourse. This is one element in the historian's craft. [Should I say art?] What modern, or, in some instances, postmodern, historiographers do is note the variety of such elements and their effect on the issue of history [memory, recollection]. In the postmodern period, in consequence of the past and present multiplication of such elements, given the multitude of past and present cultures [mindsets, information environments, epistemes] of which we are now aware, history has become the history of historiography. Turning this to the question of Whig history [Both words are adequately defined in most dictionaries.], and specifically the Whigishness of some historians of economics: that history selected its methods of recollection with a view to creating the future, not to recreating the past. It was ethically active, in the first instance, and scientific, only in the second. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that. Indeed it is laudable. Its just that it should be recognized for what it is. There is much more to be said on this matter, and a great variety of things about which much more is to be said; but I refer the receivers of this message, again, to Hutton's HISTORY AS AN ART OF MEMORY. Its not that Hutton has anything to say specifically to historians of economics, or that I think his is the last word, [or that he has given us a well constructed and well written book], but he does open up alternative approaches to history, and thereby he casts light on what one might make of Whigishness in economic history, or any other style, point of view, procedure, or bias in the writing of history. Merry Christmas. Robin Neill ==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Fri Dec 13 17:16:34 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: WWW -- SHGAPE Resource Page Message-ID: ======================= HES POSTING ================== The Society for the History of the US Gilded Age and Progressive Era has a web site of resources for those periods. http://h-net2.msu.edu/~shgape/resources.html The Society also runs an email list, which one can find out about at: http://h-net.msu.edu/~shgape/ (yes, the URLs are correct; h-net has two servers). Ross Ross B. Emmett Editor, HES and CIRLA-L Augustana University College Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: emmer@corelli.augustana.ab.ca or emmett@augustana.ab.ca URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu Tue Dec 17 14:59:56 1996 From: pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu (Paul Wendt (SAR)) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- Charleston tourist info? Message-ID: <9E06191433@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> CHARLESTON HESsians, Some people greatly interested in economics and history will visit Charleston, South Carolina, 20-23 June 1997 for the HES conference. Do anyone have any recommendations as a tour guide? We hope to promote the HES conference in Charleston --and improve the visit of those who need no promotion-- by distributing suggestions here. I have in mind attractions with an economic or historic theme, although Tony Brewer includes a guide to local pubs on his web page for the Sep'97 British conference. Do include sites within driving distance of Charleston or en route to Charleston by car from a popular direction. If so, please somewhere indicate "Outside Charleston". Do include traditional or electronic addresses for more information. --or for inspiration: can we match Tony Brewer's link to Brunel's suspension bridge? ----Paul Paul Wendt, Watertown MA HES e-subscriptions manager and editor ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Lmos at aol.com Tue Dec 17 22:59:56 1996 From: Lmos at aol.com (Lmos@aol.com) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- Charleston tourist info? Message-ID: Paul, The organizers do have some tourist activities built into the conference itself. There is that awesome banquet (known to Prof Clower as the "beach banquet") which is a definite! There is a rumor about a surfing contest as well. The Austrian oriented scholars will be trying to discover when the wave crests and what the Central Bank has done to cause the wave in the first place, the Post Keynesians will be encouraging the Austrians to become bolder in their crest and exercise their "animal spirits" to the fullest, the libertarians will be privatizing parts of the beach for future generations, and the Whig historians will be spending most of their time digging for ancient gold. I intend to be there sifting the sands of time. Best wishes. ______________- Laurence S. Moss ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Tue Dec 17 23:07:34 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Intellectual History Newsletter Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ============================ * ANNOUNCING THE 1996 ISSUE OF THE * * *INTELLECTUAL HISTORY NEWSLETTER* * ************************************************************************ The 1996 issue (Volume 18) of the *Intellectual History Newsletter* features a symposium on "Intellectual History in the Age of Cultural Studies. Copies will be available at the end of December. See below for the table of contents and ordering information. VOL. 18 (1996) INTELLECTUAL HISTORY NEWSLETTER Editor: Casey Nelson Blake, Indiana University ARTICLES: "INTELLECTUAL HISTORY IN THE AGE OF CULTURAL STUDIES" A symposium, with contributions from Joyce Appleby, Charles Capper, Mary Kupiec Cayton, Deborah Coon, George Cotkin, Paul Jerome Croce, Carolyn Dean, Richard Wightman Fox, David A. Hollinger, Martin Jay, Donald R. Kelley, Mary Kelley, Bruce Kuklick, Dominick LaCapra, Alan Lawson, Jackson Lears, James Livingston, Henry F. May, Wilfred McClay, Michael Meranze, Robert Orsi, Theodore M. Porter, Ross Posnock, Daniel T. Rodgers, Andrew Ross, Dorothy Ross, Michael Roth, Joan Shelley Rubin, Nikhil Pal Singh, John Toews, and Richard Wolin. "A Tribute: Merle Curti, Pragmatist Historian." John Pettegrew CONFERENCE REPORT: "History and the Limits of Interpretation." Elizabeth Hedstrom REVIEWS: "Neo-classic Bricolage." Paul Jerome Croce "From the Aesthetics of Ugly to the Politics of Intersubjectivity." Philip Ethington COURSE SYLLABI: "Culture Wars and American Democracy." Charles Capper and Robert Ferguson "Reading and Writing the City." Harvey J. Graff To subscribe, please send $10.00 by check or money order (made out to "IU--Intellectual History Newsletter") to: *Intellectual History Newsletter* American Studies Program Indiana University Ballantine Hall 521 Bloomington, IN 47405-6601 USA Back issues of the *IHN* are also available at $10.00/issue, including: Vol. 17 (1995): Special issue on the history of pragmatism Vol. 16 (1994): Special issue on Christopher Lasch Vol. 15 (1993): Special issue on women's intellectual history The entire run of issues from 1978 to 1995 may be ordered for $90.00. For more information, visit the *Intellectual History Newsletter* web site at: "http://www.indiana.edu/~amrstudy/ihnind.htm". Or send e-mail to the following address: "ihn@ucs.indiana.edu". ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk Wed Dec 18 11:11:09 1996 From: ecab at ssa.bristol.ac.uk (Anthony Brewer) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- British HET Conference Message-ID: ANNUAL HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT CONFERENCE Bristol, 3-5 September 1997 CALL FOR PAPERS The Autumn 1997 (UK) History of Economic Thought Conference will be held at the University of Bristol. Paper proposals (by 1st May, with abstract) and enquiries to Tony Brewer at the address below. Papers can be on any subject in or relevant to the history of economics. Further information and updates at http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/1997/welcome.htm ---------------------- Tony Brewer (A.Brewer@bris.ac.uk) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From backhore at css.bham.ac.uk Thu Dec 19 09:51:05 1996 From: backhore at css.bham.ac.uk (R.E.BACKHOUSE [ECONOMICS]) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: CFP -- ASSA Chicago, January 3-5 1998 Message-ID: ====================== HES POSTING ======================= CALL FOR PAPERS ALLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES MEETING, CHICAGO, January 1998 The HES plans to organise four sessions at the Allied Social Sciences meeting at Chicago, IL, January 3-5, 1998. In addition to proposals for single papers, I am open to ideas for complete sessions. If you have an idea for a whole sessions and would like to discuss it before starting to put it together, please get in touch. Please send proposals to me by March 1st, 1997. It would be helpful if ideas for whole sessions could reach me, at least in outline, as early as possible. Papers and sessions can be on any area or aspect of the history of economic thought. E-mail: R.E.Backhouse@bham.ac.uk Roger Backhouse Department of Economics University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B30 2TT United Kingdom Fax: +44 121 414 7377 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger E. Backhouse R.E.Backhouse@bham.ac.uk Department of Economics University of Birmingham Edgbaston Phone: 0121 414 6655/+44 121 414 6655 Birmingham B15 2TT UK Fax: 0121 414 7377/+44 121 414 7377 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Fri Dec 20 10:47:57 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:25 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Association for Institutionalist Thought Message-ID: <1269663ED5@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ======================= HES POSTING ================== [NOTE: A number of papers in several of the following sessions may be of interest to some on this list. Does anyone know if this program is available on the web? -- RBE] ASSOCIATION FOR INSTITUTIONALIST THOUGHT WESTERN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION 39TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, ALBUQUERQUE NM APRIL 23-26 TENTATIVE PROGRAM 6-8pm WSSA Welcoming Reception THURSDAY APR 24 8-9 AM: WSSA section and association coordinators meeting 8-9:30 AM: ROUNDTABLE: TEACHING POLITICAL ECONOMY FOR THE NEW AGE --D. Underwood: Bringing the Economy-Ecology Interface into Economics --J. Knoedler: Consumer Sovereignty and Corporate Repression of an Assiduous People --D. Champlin: The Operational Elements of Trust Networks and their Place in Economics --T. Amott: Economics and Human Difference: Beyond Homo Economicus --P. King: The Economics of Sustainability: Does Community Make a Difference 9:45-11:15 AM: PLENARY SESSION I: WORK AS AN INSTITUTION --J.D. Wisman: Work and the Formation of Human Behavior --H. Wolozin: Work as an Economic and Noneconomic Institution in Today's Economy --J. Tomoser: Structural Poverty and the Veblenian Instinct of Workmanship --R. Chapman and J. Gray: Institutionalist Perspectives on the Current Job Market for College Grads Chair: G. DeMartino 11:30-12:30: WSSA Plenary Session 12:30-1:15: AFIT Board of Director's meeting 1:15-2:45 PM: Concurrent Sessions: A) RESOURCES, DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION: INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL DIMENSIONS --J. Paavola: Commons, Veblen and the Evolution of Water Pollution Control Institutions in the US, 1850-1980 --A. Steenstra: Race, Culture, and Economics: Opportunities and Limitations for American Indian Water Applications --D. Vinje: Rural Economic Development: An Assessment of Economic Linkages Between Native American Casinos and Neighboring Rural Counties --T. Gallaway: Light Pollution--Its Place in the Development of Economic Thought Chair: J. Swaney B) CRIME, PUNISHMENT, AND EDUCATION --J. Johnson and C. Johnson: Poverty, Equal Protection and the Death Penalty --R. Fowles and J. Watkins: Reducing Recidivism through Education: An Institutionalist Approach to Reducing Crime --M.R. Van Tassell and J.J. Hurst: Breaking Racial Lines: An Analysis of Affirmative Action and School Choice Chair: 3-4:30 PM: A REVIEW OF RON STANFIELD'S JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH --B. Dugger, J. Adams, B. McClintock, B. Brown, and D. Brown, Reviewers --J.R. Stanfield, Author --R.J. Phillips, Chair 4:45-5:45 PM: WSSA Business Meeting 6-7 PM: AFIT RECEPTION (OPEN) 7-? AFIT Business Meeting and DINNER --E. Miller, PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS FRIDAY APR 25 7-8 AM: WSSA Continental Breakfast 8-9:30 AM: Concurrent Sessions A) INTERNATIONAL TRADE, DEVELOPMENT, AND FOR-EX MARKETS: INSTITUTIONALIST AND POST KEYNESIAN PERSPECTIVES --J. Harvey: The Nature of Expectations and Decision Making in the Foreign Exchange Market --J. Deprez and H. Hieke: The Institutionalist Robustness of Thrilwall's Law: Some Post Keynesian Observations --Y. Elhan: Financial Liberalization and Development: The Case of Turkey --W.C. Schaniel and T. Perkins: Toward One Market? A Comparison and Evaluation of the Differences Between the COMEX and LME Copper Markets Chair: B. McClintock B) EFFICIENCY, SUSTAINABILITY, AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE --B. Hildred and D. Brown: Sufficiency vs. Efficiency in Theory of the Leisure Class: A Veblenian Contribution for a Sustainable Economy --O. Nankivell: Thoughts on the Anatomy of Technological, Economic, and Social Change --A. Krause: Reconciling Institutional and Keynesian Theories of Technological Change --J. Gilbert: Technological Change and Effects on the Labor Market Chair: P. Olsen 9:45-11:15 AM: PLENARY SESSION II: INSTITUTIONAL KEYNESIANISM? --D. Hamilton: Keynesian Institutionalism or Institutional Keynesianism? --G. Atkinson and T. Oleson: An Institutionalist Perspective on the General Theory --J.P. Raines and C. Leathers: Institutional Characteristics of Speculative Equity: the Views of Veblen and Keynes P. Klein: Normative Macroeconomics: Conjoining Keynes and Institutionalism Chair: L.R. Wray 11:30-1 PM: HISTORY OF THOUGHT: CLARK, VEBLEN, KEYNES, PRAGMATISM --L. Shute: J.M. Clark and Institutionalist Theory --L. Van Sickle: The Pathologizing of Thorstein Veblen: He Ain't No Lord Keynes But He Just Might be Redemptive --S. Edgell: Veblen on Technology and Technocracy: Faulty Theory and Flawed Socialism? --K. Quinn: What are the Implications of the Neo-pragmatist Revival for Institutional Economics? Chair: M. Tool 1:15-2:45 PM: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS --P. Olsen and D. Champlin: Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know It --D. Champlin and J. Knoedler: In Markets we Trust: Corporate Restructuring and Government Complicity after the Golden Age --J. Swaney: Closing the Cycle of Cost: Instrumental Uses of Risk Assessment --C. Lawson: Economics, Institutions, and the Medical Ethics Consultant Chair: J. Munkirs 3-4:30 PM: Concurrent Sessions A) HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, IMMIGRATION AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION --J. Sturgeon: Intra-Organizational Forces Affecting Human Resource Development --B. Young and D. Bowles: Immigration in the 1990s: The Impact on Heterogeneous Labor Markets --J. Jumara and R. Wood: Competition as a Deterrent in the Development of Human Resources --G. Carter: Intra-Organizational Income Distribution & Human Resource Policy Chair: J. Peach B) FREE MARKETS, SHOCKS, AND TRANSITIONAL ECONOMIES --S. Shuklian: Economic Development and the Myth of Laissez Faire: Germany and France in the Nineteenth Century --J. Hall and E. Kigyossy-Schmidt: Re-Emergent Capitalism in Central Europe: An Institutionalist Perspective --R. LaJeunesse: An Alternative Approach to Transitional Economies Chair: M. Sawyer 4:45-5:45 PM: WSSA Presidential Address 6:30-8:30 PM: WSSA President's Reception SATURDAY APR 26 8-9:30 AM: PROPERTY, MARKETS, AND ECONOMIC THEORY --K. Calandri: Cooperatives, Markets, and Economic Development --J. Henry: Neoclassical Theory, the Nature of a Monetary Economy, and Property Rights --A. Mayhew: A Truly Evolutionary Theory of Human Society: Animals, Nature, and Purpose --C. Brown: Re-engineering and the "New Rentier" Chair: B. Dugger 9:45-11:15 AM: RESEARCH PARADIGMS AND METHODOLOGY: Instrumentalism, Keynesian, Institutionalist --J. Webb: Why Instrumentalists Should Not Be Instrumentalists --C.R. Waits: Economists and the Practice of Social Science --W.C. Neale: Keynes's General Theory at Columbia University, 1947- 51: A Graduate Student's View [A Written Contribution to Oral History] --M. Toruno: Keynesians, Institutionalists, and Theories of the State Chair: P.D. Bush 11:30-1 PM: FINANCIAL MARKETS: GLOBALIZATION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS --P. Arestis and M. Sawyer: The Tobin Financial Transactions Tax: Its Potential and Feasibility --B. Wiens-Tuers: The Economics of Contingent or Non-Standard Labor --R. Pedace: Immigration, Migration, and US Labor Markets --G. Choksy: Monetary Networks, Keynesian Multiplier Effects, and Policy Implications Chair: G. Dymski 1:15-2:45: POWER AND MARKET FORM: FIRMS, STAKEHOLDERS, AND UNIONS --S. Dunn: A Post Keynesian Contribution to the Theory of the Firm --E. Schutz: Market Imperfection and Social Power --M. Haggerty and S. Welcomer: Institutional Economics as a Basis for Stakeholder Theory --G. DeMartino: "Demonstration" Drives, "Predatory" Drives: an Enterprise Model of Union Organizing Chair: D. Brown 3:00-4:30: Concurrent Sessions A) CIVIL SOCIETY AS AN ECONOMIC INSTITUTION --J. Molinas: The Impact of Inequality, Gender, External Assistance and Social Capital on Local Collective Action --T. Masterson: Culture of Reciprocity: Collective Action in the Great League of the Iroquois --J. Carpenter: Towards a Theory of Evolutionarily Stable Group Strategies --M. Torras: The Ecological Benefits of Collective Action: An Institutionalist Perspective Discussant: M. Ferreira Chair: J. Molinas B) PROBLEMS OF THE NEW ZEALAND ECONOMY (CROSS LISTED WITH NEW ZEALAND STUDIES SECTION) --B. McClintock: William Ball Sutch: A New Zealand Institutionalist --B. Schaniel: Technology and the New Zealand Maori Chair: 4:45-6:15: PLENARY SESSION III: FAMILY VALUES AND SOCIAL PATHOLOGIES --R.L. Brinkman and J.E. Brinkman: Family Values and American Economic Decline --G. Dymski: Economic Polarization and US Policy Activism --C. Hushbeck: Buck-Passing and the Elderly Poor: Reforming Welfare as a Lose-Lose Proposition for Individuals and State/Local Governments --W. Waller and L. Robertson: The Political Economy of Consumption and Desire Chair: P. Klein ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu Fri Dec 20 10:54:07 1996 From: pwendt at virtu.sar.usf.edu (Paul Wendt (SAR)) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006 Subject: HES: QUERY -- Charleston tourist info? Message-ID: <12841F4DE0@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ========================= HES POSTING ================== CHARLESTON ---------- National Park Service sites & NPS cultural resources info HESsians, The National Park Service has two historic sites in Charleston, Charles Pinckney (the Constitution) and Fort Sumter (Revolution and Civil War). Official information on these, and all other NPS sites, is available online in the "Infozone" at National Park Service --------------------- http://www.nps.gov Much more information on the history of the region, emphasizing the NPS sites but not limited to them, is available at NPS "cultural resources" site ----------------------------- http://www.cr.nps.gov There, links include: Southeast Archaeological Center (SEAC) Maritime History and Archaeology in the Southeast Civil War in the Southeast Historic American Buildings Survey/ Historic American Engineering Record National Register of Historic Places National Historic Landmarks ----Paul Paul Wendt, Watertown MA HES e-subscriptions manager and asst.editor ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Fri Dec 20 14:17:57 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Adolphe Landry Conference, New deadline Message-ID: <15EA0D7357@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ===================== HES POSTING ===================== In November, I posted the CFP for the "Adolphe Landry" International Conference. The original message, with details of the conference, can be obtained at: http://cs.muohio.edu/Archives/hes/nov-96/0042.html In the meantime, the conference organizers have set a new paper proposal deadline: 15 January 1997. By that date, those wishing to contribute should send a 500-700 word proposal to: "Colloque Adolphe Landry" c/o Paul-Marie Romani LATAPSES - C.N.R.S. 250, rue Albert Einstein 06560 - Valbonne - Sophia Antipolis (France) Phone: (33) 04.93 95 42 36 or 04.93 95 41 19 Fax: (33) 04.93 65 37 98 E-mail: romani@unice.fr ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA Mon Dec 23 18:32:48 1996 From: emmer at Corelli.Augustana.AB.CA (Ross B. Emmett) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- The Pursuit Of The Ideal: The Life and Art of Willia Message-ID: <1F5A4558AC@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ===================== HES POSTING ===================== Some may be interested in the virtual exhibition of William Morris' work now mounted at the University of Michigan Special Collections' site (in real space, the exhibition ended in November). Check it out at: http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/SpecColl.lib/intro.htm Ross B. Emmett Editor, HES and CIRLA-L Augustana University College Camrose, Alberta CANADA T4V 2R3 voice: (403) 679-1517 fax: (403) 679-1129 e-mail: emmer@corelli.augustana.ab.ca or emmett@augustana.ab.ca URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu Mon Dec 23 22:26:07 1996 From: Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu (Esther-Mirjam Sent) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- Notre Dame's Economics Graduate Program Message-ID: <233E9B5A7C@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ==================== HES POSTING ======================= Please encourage your senior undergraduate students to apply to Notre Dame's economics graduate program. For more information, please visit our Web site at http://www.nd.edu:80/~economic/ Here is a description: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Brief description The Department of Economics at the University of Notre Dame, which is housed in the College of Arts and Letters, currently has 22 regular faculty members. It offers an undergraduate major in economics and Master's and Ph.D. degrees at the graduate level, in addition to providing a number of service courses in economics principles for the university. The Department is distinctive in a number of ways, including: It has a strong commitment to analyzing issues relating to socio-economic justice and ethics in economics. It focuses on policy-related topics such as poverty, income distribution and social justice, which stress the human dimension of economics. Its faculty members are concerned with epistemological questions and the ethical dimensions of individual economic behavior, and go beyond the narrowly defined boundaries of economics to examine the interaction between economic, political and social phenomena. These concerns give rise to a strong interest in the development and use of alternative methodological approaches - such as post-Keynesian, radical and institutional economics) to the study of economics in addition to the orthodox neoclassical approach. Its faculty uses broader political economy approaches emphasizing the roles of history and institutions in addition to formal theoretical and quantitative analysis. This distinctiveness is related to the Catholic identity of the University of Notre Dame, and is reflected in the research activities of the Department's faculty, and in the courses offered in its undergraduate and graduate programs. Given its relatively small size the Department is specialized in a few areas of the discipline in which it seeks to excel. The traditional fields of specialization are development and international economics, labor economics, public policy, economic theory (in selected areas such as macroeconomic dynamics and game theory), and history of economic thought and economic methodology. Although the faculty members in the Department sometimes take a stance critical of mainstream economics in their research in these areas, they strive to participate fully in the intellectual life economics profession by publishing their work in leading general and field journals and with major book publishers. Although it prides itself in emphasizing the human and policy-oriented dimensions ofeconomics in its courses, the Department takes very seriously its role in providing a rigorous, professional training to its students,. The Department graduates between 60 and 80 majors every year, who go on to pursue higher studies in economics, business administration, law, public policy and medicine - some of them leading universities in the country - or obtain employment with major business corporations, consulting and financial firms, and the government sector. Each incoming graduate class - most of which enters the Ph D program - has between 8 and 10 students. After taking their core courses in economic theory, quantitative methods, and political economy, these students specialize in one of three field clusters: development and international economics, economic theory and methods, and institutions. Most of the Ph Ds take up positions in undergraduate colleges, business corporations, government agencies, and international organizations, and some have joined research universities. For more information, please visit our Web site at http://www.nd.edu:80/~economic/ Esther-Mirjam Sent Graduate Studies Committee Member _____________________________________________________ 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:sent.2@nd.edu ______________________________________________________ ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu. From Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu Fri Dec 27 12:28:58 1996 From: Esther-Mirjam.Sent.2 at nd.edu (Esther-Mirjam Sent) Date: Fri Mar 31 17:18:26 2006 Subject: HES: ANN -- PSA Newsletter and Mellon Fellowships Message-ID: <2DD7BD1599@corelli.augustana.ab.ca> ==================== HES POSTING ======================= [I extratected this information for the Philosophy of Science newsletter. I'm including the editor's note in case you want to subscribe. --E-MS] Subject: 1. EDITOR'S NOTE: ------------------------- The PSA Newsletter is published electronically on an "as needed" basis by the Philosophy of Science Association to disseminate information. The newsletter is moderated and is restricted to information pertinent to members of the Association (e.g., official business of the Association, information about upcoming meetings of the Association, and information about other meetings likely to be of interest to a broad range of the membership. It is NOT intended for ungoing discussions of intellectual topics within philosophy of science. If you have information that you would like to submit for possible inclusion in a future issue of the newsletter, please send it to the editor at psa@twinearth.wustl.edu. Directions for subscribing and unsubscribing: Send an email message with NO subject to psa-request@cctr.umkc.edu To subscribe, include the following as the ONLY line: SUBSCRIBE PSA To unsubscribe, include the following as the ONLY line: UNSUBSCRIBE PSA ========================================================================== 3. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in History of Science ------------------------------------------------------- The University of Oklahoma announces a junior- or senior-level Andrew W. Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in the History of Science for the 1997-1998 academic year. The fellowship will be awarded for research and teaching that explore the intersections of the biological and social at the borders of science and culture, with a strong preference given to historical projects situated at the crossroads of human science, life science, and culture. The Fellowship is open to candidates with doctorates in history, the history of science, science studies, or related fields. The Mellon Fellow will have residence with the University's History of Science Department and the University Libraries' History of Science Collections. The Fellow will teach one undergraduate or graduate course in the Fellow's area of interest during the academic year. The fellowship carries a stipend up to $30,000, with benefits including a budget for travel and research expenses. Applications should be postmarked by January 15, 1997. Contact: Dr. Gregg Mitman; Department of History of Science; The University of Oklahoma; 601 Elm, Rm. 622; Norman, OK 73019-0315; Tel. 405-325-6476; Fax 405-325-2363; E-mail gmitman@uoknor.edu, The University of Oklahoma is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action employer. ========================================================================== 4. Mellon Fellowships for Assistant Professors ---------------------------------------------- THE SCHOOL OF HISTORICAL STUDIES at the Institute for Advanced Study, with the support of the Andrew Mellon Foundation, has established a program of one year memberships for assistant professors at universities and colleges in the United States and Canada to support promising young scholars who have embarked on professional careers. While at the Institute they will be expected to engage exclusively in scholarly research and writing. Two appointments will be made for 1997-98. ASSISTANT PROFESSORS in areas represented in the School of Historical Studies (Greek and Roman civilization, the history of Europe, Islamic culture, the history of modern international relations, and the history of art) may apply, provided at the time of their arrival they will have served at least two and not more than four years as assistant professors in institutions of higher learning in the United States or Canada and provided they can return to their institution. APPOINTMENTS will be for one full year (July 1 through June 30 with the option of staying through the second summer until August 15) and will carry all the privileges of Membership at the Institute for Advanced Study. The stipend will match the combined salary and benefits at the Member's home institution. APPLICATION FORMS may be obtained from the Administrative Officer, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 and should be returned to the Administrative Officer by January 30, 1997. Applicants should submit a c.v., a bibliography of publications, a concise account (not more than three pages) of the work to be performed during the tenure of the membership, and three letters of recommendation. Copies of published writings should be submitted and additional documentation (such as a copy of the thesis) may be requested. As part of the selection process short-listed applicants will be requested to come to the Institute for an Interview in early March. Awards will be announced by April 1. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to lists@cs.muohio.edu.