Is history of economic thought a "serious" subject?

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of research methods in the history of economic thought. In reviewing the "techniques" which are involved in the discipline, four broader categories are identified: a) textual exegesis; b) "rational reconstructions"; c) "contextual analysis"; and d) "historical narrative". After examining these different styles of doing history of economic thought, the paper addresses the question of its appraisal, namely what is good history of economic thought. Moreover, it is argued that there is a distinction to be made between doing economics and doing history of economic thought. The latter requires the greatest possible respect for contexts and texts, both published and unpublished; the former entails constructing a theoretical framework that is in some respects freer, not bound by derivation, from the authors. Finally, the paper draws upon Econlit records to assess what has been done in the subject in the last two decades in order to frame some considerations on how the past may impinge on the future.

The emergence and early development of forest resource economic thought: From land and forest valuation to marginal analysis and vintage capital models

“…Different research styles and methods in the history of economic thought are presented and discussed e.g. in Samuels (1983), Medema and Samuels (2001), Biddle (2003), Samuels et al (2003), Marcuzzo (2008) and Sandmo (2011). Marcuzzo (2008) identifies four broad methods in the history of economic thought: i) textual exegesis; ii) rational reconstructions; iii) contextual analysis; and iv) historical narrative.…”

“…It accords its practitioners the right to establish the demarcation criterion for deciding the scientific character of given texts and consists of reviewing them in the light of the interpreter's contemporary economic knowledge. A coherent application of the method requires that the practitioner is first able to reconstruct the "general position" of the theoretical core of an author's work in a manner compatible with contemporary economic theory (Stigler 1965;Emmett 2003, 525;Marcuzzo 2008). However, a major problem in this notion lies in the implicit assumption that the interpreter already knows the author's general position before he or she begins to interpret the text.…”

“…The method can be used to support existing economic theory (present-day theory is appointed the judge of the past), but can also be practiced as a search into the past for alternatives, whereby it can challenge current theory. Marcuzzo (2008) denotes the former as "quest for ascendancy" (Whig history) whereas the latter is "quest for an alternative". Broadly speaking, the Whig history refers to the tendency to view history as a steady and rational progression from past errors to present truths.…”

El institucionalismo económico. Identidad de un movimiento disidente (1899-1939)

“…Una investigación de este tipo reclama una "historia razonada" de los sistemas de pensamiento; lo cual significa encontrar esquemas heurísticos que faciliten el itinerario de reconstrucción historiográfica de las ideas económicas. Al respecto, Marcuzzo (2008) ha identificado cuatro métodos relevantes para una investigación orientada a la historia del pensamiento económico: a) exégesis textual; b) reconstrucción racional; c) análisis contextual; y d) narrativo histórico.…”

Richard Cantillon’s Ideologies and Its Implications for Economic Development in Nigeria

“…Relevant pages of literature and history of economic thought such as (Jhingan, 2007;Marcuzzo, 2008;Bhatia, 2004;Akpakpan, 1999;Tamuno, 2006;Okowa, 1996;Kalu, 2001;Blang, 2001;Todaro and Smith, 2004; and Samuelson and Salow 1960) have consistently revealed that the adoption and complete application of the doctrines, ideas, model, philosophy; in fact all the contributions of economists of old (chronology of the founding fathers) have led to the emergence of the discipline and without doubts equally accorded for the reason why some economies are said to be developed and others are said to be underdeveloped. Obviously, the Nigeria economy is categorized in the latter.…”