The Question
I found your web-site today and had a quick look at the FAQ's and wasn't able to find the answer I was looking for. I'm a law student and as part of my 3rd year options I chose to do a 'history of economic thought' option which focuses on Smith, Marx and Keynes (but also covers Ricardo, Hume, Marshall, Hicks and a few others). My previous experience of Economics as a subject only extends as far as A level economics. I was wondering if you may be able to recommend a book that succinctly sets out the main aspects of each theory studied which I would be able to build on with further reading. I am not trying to avoid doing the work, merely trying to make the work I do more efficient. The textbook we are recommended to read is Blaug's 'Economic thought in retrospect', but I find this quite heavy going without any prior knowledge.
I have approached my tutor about this and I think it may be useful to tell you what he said: I asked him what he thought of 'a History of economic thought' by William J. Barber as I felt this 'penguin publication' was exactly what I needed to get a grasp for the subject. However he said parts of it were inaccurate and that I should not rely on it. My second question is: Do you agree with my tutor that it is unreliable? He recommended 'Economists and the economy' by Roger Backhouse. However I have had a look at this and it is very superficial in its coverage of the economists that I am studying.
I also had a look at 'an outline of the History of Economic Thought' by Screpanti and Zamagni and it seems more what I am looking for, and yet I am reluctant to rely on it too heavily in case it is similarly inaccurate. My third question is: If you are familiar with the book, would you be able to advise me as to how reliable you think it is.
The Answer
There are a handful of standard histories of economic thought available. Most of these would be available in your university library, or a good academic bookstore. Each has its own unique perspective on economics, which colors its story. This is not surprising, because a textbook needs to synthesize a field, while the field itself is constantly evolving.
Histories of economic thought first appeared in the late 1800s, as general surveys of the field for students and scholars. They proliferated in the post-war years, when "economic theory" courses stopped their coverage of the history of economics, and became problem sets designed to bring the student up to the level of contemporary theoretical practice. Of course, the stylized history of macro-theory remained (classical vs Keynesian vs monetarism, etc.), although even that has largely disappeared today. The course you are taking also perpetuates the notion that the history of economic thought ended with the last generation of economists (or Keynes), as if current disciplinary practice is somehow unrelated to its history, or cannot be treated from a historical perspective.
Like the course you are taking, most current history of economic thought textbooks focus on the "great thoughts of great men." (That is gender specific language: how many woman are mentioned in the texts by Blaug, Barber, or Screpanti and Zamangi? Recent work has uncovered many contributions by women, but they have not filtered into the textbooks yet). Some historians of economics have begun to focus more on the practices of economists, but these themes do not generally find their way into textbooks.
For the purposes of your study, one final observation is important. Textbooks in the history of economic thought are often the site of a debate that students are usually not aware of. That debate is over the nature and direction of the discipline. Blaug, for example, wrote his textbook in the postwar period, when existing histories of the discipline tended to argue that the social conditions of any economist's time dictated what he or she wrote (for Smith the commercial revolution, for Marx the inhumanity of industrial capitalism, and for Keynes the Great Depression). Blaug wanted to distance economic theory from economic conditions; it helped that he was a very good mainstream theorist. Some of the other textbooks today use the history of economic thought to argue that neoclassical economics (what you were taught in economics class) is misguided, and that alternative traditions (be they Marxism, institutionalism, or something else) are the "correct" direction for the future (Srepanti and Zamangi have this agenda). The student unfamiliar with these traditions, or with the history of the discipline's mainstream, may have a hard time sorting out their own version of the history. Instructors of courses in the history of economic thought may be tempted to adopt the orientation of the text they use, and describe other histories as inaccurate, ideological, etc. Or they may deliberately choose a textbook they disagree with, and spend the course proving the author wrong! The best course of action for students is to read several texts, to get a flavour of the commonalities and the differences. While time may prevent you from doing this for your entire course, you should certainly read widely on the topic of any essay you are asked to write.
Remember that the story of the history of any tradition is simultaneously an act of the recreation of that tradition. What the author excludes is as important to their story as what they choose to include.
Ross B. Emmett
EH.Net Ask the Prof service