Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T01:30:23.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE HES AT FIFTY: IDENTITY CRISIS AND THE NEED FOR PLURALISTIC HISTORIOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Loïc Charles
Loïc Charles*
Affiliation:
Loïc Charles: Université de Paris 8 Vincennes Saint-Denis, Led EA 3391, Email: lcharles02@univ-paris8.fr Institut national d’études démographiques, UR11.
*
Email: charles@ined.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In what follows, I use stylized facts derived from my own professional career as a member of the History of Economics Society (HES) and the history of economics (HE) community to document and illustrate the changing context of the subdiscipline over the past three decades.1 In the 1990s, the subdiscipline was comprised of a number of national communities. Among the latter the North American community held a dominant position and was quite different from its continental European counterparts, the French and Italian in particular.2 Not only were its academic culture and environment much more competitive but they were also more open to non-disciplinary history of economics.3 Over the past two decades, however, the growing domination of the continental European community has created a new context in which the identity of the North American community in general and that of the HES in particular has become uncertain.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of History of Economics Society

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

REFERENCES

Angner, Erik, and Tubaro, Paola. 2008. “Introduction.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30(1): 81–84.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1996. “Notices and Communications.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 18 (1): 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E., Caldwell, Bruce, Goodwin, Craufurd, and Rutherford, Malcolm. 2008. “A. W. (Bob) Coats.” HOPE 40 (3): 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger, and Fontaine, Philippe, eds. 2010a. The History of the Social Sciences since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger, and Fontaine, Philippe. 2010b. The Unsocial Social Science: Economics and Neighboring Disciplines since 1945. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Charles, Loïc, and Cheney, Paul. 2013. “The Colonial Machine Dismantled: Knowledge and Empire in the French Atlantic.” Past and Present 219 (1): 127–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collini, Stefan. 1988. “‘Discipline History’ and ‘Intellectual History’: Reflections on the Historiography of the Social Sciences in Britain and France.” Revue de Synthèse 109 (3–4): 387–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deleplace, Ghislain. 2002. “The Present Situation in the History of Economic Thought in France.” In The Future of the History of Economics, annual supplement, HOPE 32, edited by Weintraub, E. Roy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 110–124.Google Scholar
Duarte, Pedro, and Giraud, Yann. 2016. “The Place of the History of Economic Thought in Mainstream Economics, 1991–2011, Viewed through a Bibliographic Survey.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 38 (4): 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Düppe, Till, and Weintraub, E. Roy. 2014. “Siting the New Economic Science: The Cowles Commission’s Activity Analysis Conference of June 1949.” Science in Context 27 (3): 453–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, Philippe. 2002. “Blood, Politics, and Social Science: Richard Titmuss and the Institute of Economics Affairs, 1957–1973.” Isis 93 (3): 401–434.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fontaine, Philippe. 2010. “Stabilizing American Society: Kenneth Boulding and the Integration of Social Science, 1943–1980.” Science in Context 23 (2): 221–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, Philippe. 2015. “Introduction: The Social Sciences in a Cross-disciplinary Age.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 51 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontaine, Philippe. 2016. “Other Histories of Recent Economics: A Survey.” HOPE 48 (3): 373–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forget, Evelyn, and Goodwin, Craufurd D.. 2011. “Intellectual Communities in the History of Economics.” HOPE 43 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion. 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain and France, 1890s–1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giraud, Yann. 2019. “Five Decades of HOPE.” HOPE 51 (4): 601–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Craufurd D. 2002. “The Future of Publication in the History of Economic Thought: The View from HOPE.” In The Future of the History of Economics, annual supplement, HOPE 32, edited by Weintraub, E. Roy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 179–189.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert J. 1998. “Ethics and the Excluded Middle: Karl Menger and Social Science in Interwar Vienna.” Isis 89 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcuzzo, Maria Cristina, and Rosselli, Annalisa. 2002. “Economics as History of Economics: The Italian Case in Retrospect.” In The Future of the History of Economics, annual supplement, HOPE 32, edited by Weintraub, E. Roy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 98–109.Google Scholar
Mata, Tiago, and Scheiding, Tom. 2012. “National Science Foundation Patronage of Social Science, 1970s and 1980s: Congressional Scrutiny, Advocacy Network, and the Prestige of Economics.” Minerva 50 (4): 423–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medema, Steven G., Cardoso, José Luis, and Lodewijks, John. 2002. “Heaven Can wait: Gatekeeping in an Age of Uncertainty, Innovation and Commercialization.” In The Future of the History of Economics, annual supplement, HOPE 32, edited by Weintraub, E. Roy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 190–207.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright. [1959] 2000. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip, ed. 1994. Natural Images in Economic Thought: “Markets Read in Tooth & Claw.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S. 2004. “Simulation: The Birth of a Technology to Create ‘Evidence’ in Economics.” Revue d’histoire des sciences 57 (2): 341–377.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary S., and Maas, Harro. 2002. “Timing History: The Introduction of Graphical Analysis in 19th-Century British Economics.” Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines 7: 97–127.Google Scholar
Perrot, Jean-Claude. 1992. Une histoire intellectuelle de l’économie politique (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècle). Paris: EHESS.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1992. “Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of Science.” HOPE 24 (1): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horn, Robert, and Klaes, Matthias. 2011. “Chicago Neoliberalism versus Cowles Planning: Perspectives on Patents and Public Goods in Cold War Economic Thought.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 47 (3): 302–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weintraub, E. Roy, ed. 2002a. The Future of the History of Economics. Annual supplement to HOPE 32. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 2002b. “Will Economics Ever Have a Past Again?” In The Future of the History of Economics, annual supplement, HOPE 32, edited by Weintraub, E. Roy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy, and Mirowski, Philip. 2008. “The Pure and the Applied: Bourbakism Comes to Mathematical Economics.” Science in Context 7 (2): 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar