Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:38:30.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Should We Approach the History of Economic Thought, Fact, Fiction or Moral Tale?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Roger E. Backhouse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper reviews the way in which constructivist or anti-representationalist arguments have been used as an argument in favor of changing the way we write the history of economic thought. It is argued that though such arguments provide some important new perspectives on the subject, their use as a comprehensive methodological critique of “traditional” approaches to the subject rests on the theses that a non-foundationalist methodology is impossible, and that we can assume that contemporary economics is in a healthy state. If these theses are not accepted, the case against “traditional” histories collapses.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Spring 1992 , pp. 18 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Backhouse, Roger E. 1985. A History of Modern Economic Analysis, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1988. Economists and the Economy, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1991. “The constructivist critique of economic methodology,” University of Birmingham, Discussion Papers in Economics, no. 91/12.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1993. “Rhetoric and methodology,” in Hébert, R. F., ed. Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, 9, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1990. “On the Historiography of Economics,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12 Spring, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1991. “Introduction” to The Historiography of Economics, Vol. 1 of Pioneers in Economics, Edward Elgar, Brookfield, VT., and Aldershot.Google Scholar
Colander, David. 1990. Why Aren't Economists as Important as Garbagemen?, Sharpe, M. E., London and Armonk, N.Y.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Corry, Bernard. 1975. “Should Economists Abandon HOPE?” History of Political Economy, 7, no. 2, 252–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dray, W. H. 1985. “Narrative versus Analysis in History,” Philosophy of Social Science, 15, 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Arjo, and Colander, David. 1990. The Making of an Economist, Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, and London.Google Scholar
Leontief., Wassily 1970. “Theoretical Assumptions and Non-observed Facts,” American Economic Review, 61, 03, 1–7.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1986. The Rhetoric of Economics, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Brighton.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1988. “Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought” in Neil de, Marchi, ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1990. If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise, Chicago University Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1987. Review of Backhouse 1985, Journal of Economic Literature, 25, no. 4, 59–1858.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1988. “Shall I Compare Thee to a Minkowski-Ricardo-Leontief-Metzler Matrix of the Mosak-Hicks Type?” in Arjo, Klamer, Donald N., McCloskey and Robert M., Solow, eds., The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1990. More Heat than Light, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Passmore, John 1965. “The Idea of a History of Philosophy,” History and Theory, 1964–65, Beiheft 5, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Rogin, Leo. 1956. The Meaning and Validity of Economic Theory, Harper, New York.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1984. “The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres,” in Rorty, R., Schneewind, J. B. and Skinner, Q., eds., Philosophy in History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, Philosophical Papers, 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard, Schneewind, J. B., and Quentin, Skinner, 1984. “Introduction” to Philosophy in History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Dorothy. 1991. The Origins of American Social Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1991. A World Ruled by Number: William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1992. “Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of Science,” History of Political Economy, 24, no. 1, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stark, Werner. 1944. History of Economics in Relation to its Social Development, Kegan Paul, Trench and Trubner, London.Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence. 1979. “The Revival of Narrative: Reflections on a New Old History,” Past and Present, 85, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Donald. 1988. “Ten Major Problems in the Study of the History of Economic Thought,” History of Economics Society Bulletin, 10, no. 2, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Donald. 1992. “Comment on Margaret Schabas's Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of Science,” History of Political Economy, 24, no. 1, 243–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1989. “Methodology Doesn't Matter, but the History of Thought Might,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics, reprinted in Seppo, Honkapohja, ed., The State of Macroeconomics, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 263–79.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. “After Mirowski, What?,” paper presented at the conference on “Rethinking the history of economics after Philip Mirowski's More Heat than Light,” Duke University, March, History of Political Economy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. “Allais, Stability and Liapunov Theory,” History of Political Economy, 23, no. 3, 383–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar