Marquette University
e-Publications@Marquette
Economics Faculty Research and Publications
Business Administration, College of
1-1-2014
Mark Blaug on the Historiography of Economics
John B. Davis
Marquette University, [email protected]
Published version. "Mark Blaug on the Historiography of Economics," in Mark Blaug: Rebel with
Many Causes. Eds. Marcel Boumans and Matthias Klaes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing,
2013: 159-176. Publisher Link. © Edward Elgar Publishing 2013. Used with permission.
158
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
Backhouse, R.E. (2012). ‘Mark Blaug, 1927—2011’. History of Political
Economy, 44 (4), 567—82.
Blaug, M. (1958), Ricardian Economics. A Historical Study, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Blaug, M. (1962), Economic Theory in Retrospect, 1st edition, Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Blaug, M. (1968), Economic Theory in Retrospect, 2nd edition, Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Blaug, M. (1974), Cambridge Revolution, Success or Failure? A Critical
Analysis of Cambridge Theories of Values and Distribution, London: Institute
of Economic Affairs.
Blaug, M. (1978), Economic Theory in Retrospect, 3rd edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blaug, M. (1980), The Methodology of Economics, or How Economists Explain,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blaug, M. (1985), Economic Theon’ in Retrospect, 4th edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blaug, M. (1990), Economic Theories, True or False? Essays in the History and
Methodology of Economics, Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, VT, USA: Edward
Elgar.
Blaug, M. (1994), ‘Not oniy an economist autobiographical reflections of a
historian of economic thought’, The American Economist, 38 (2), 12—27.
Blaug, M. (1997), Not Only an Economist: Recent Essays, Cheltenham, UK and
Lyme, NH, USA: Edward Elgar.
Blaug, M. (1999). ‘Misunderstanding Classical Economics: The Sraffian inter
pretation of the surplus approach’, History of Political Economy, 31 (2),
2 13—36.
Blaug, M. (2008), ‘British classical economics’, in S.N. Durlauf and L.E. Blume
(eds). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, Basingstoke:
Paigrave Macmillan, pp. 562—76.
Blaug, M. (2009), ‘The trade-off between rigor and relevance: Sraffian eco
nomics as a case in point’, History of Political Economy, 41 (2), 219—47.
Hollander, S. (1979), The Economics of David Ricardo, London: Heinemann
Educational.
Kurz, H. and N. Salvadori (1995), Theory of Production: A Long-Period
Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kurz, H. and N. Salvadori (1998), Understanding ‘Classical’ Economics: Studies
in Long-Period Theory, London: Routledge.
Kurz, H. and N. Salvadori (2002), ‘Mark Blaug on the “Sraffian Interpretation of
the Surplus Approach”, History of Political Economy, 34 (1), 225—36.
Kurz, H. and N. Salvadori (2011), ‘In favor of rigor and relevance: A reply to
Mark Blaug’, History of Political Economy, 43 (3), 607—16.
Mata, T. (2004), ‘Constructing identity: the Post Keynesians and the capital
controversies’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26 (2), 241—59.
Sraffa, P. (1960), Production of ‘ommnodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude
to a Critique of Economic Theon’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—
12. Mark Blaug on the historiography of
12.
.
economICS
economics
John B. Davis*
In the face of ideas, many economists are simply philistines, like troglodytes
seem to be
listening to a Beethoven quartet and asking why the four players seem
unable to bow in unison. (Blaug 1994,
1994, p.
p. 18)
18)
BLAUG’S
12.1 INTRODUCTION: THE CONTEXT AND BLAUG'S
RESPONSE
Mark Blaug was a highly accomplished and influential historian of
economic thought and economic methodologist who re-thought his views
about the historiography of economics late in his career in connection
with his increased concern over the declining place of the history of
economic thought in the economics profession in the 1990s (Blaug
2001). Indeed he was provoked to reflect again upon the historiography
of economics by the stated and implicit views on the subject held by
many non-historian economists, which had emerged as their grounds for
justifying the expulsion and near exclusion of the history of economics
from the doctoral curriculum in most American universities by the end of
the decade. Though many non-historians supported or acquiesced in this
development for reasons often unrelated to their views about the history
of economics, such as their desire to increase the time students devoted
to training in mathematics and econometrics, their willingness to sacrifice
thought effectively led them into arguing that the
the history of economic thought
field had no significant value for economics as a science. This entailed a
com
specifically, a comhistoriography of economics, specifically,
particular
the historiography
particular view of the
idea that science
(1) the
the Whig idea
propositions: (1)
bination
bination of two related propositions:
‘knowledge’ irrelevant to
always makes progress which renders past 'knowledge'
in economics
economics as a
(2) the view that progress in
current
and (2)
current knowledge, and
strongly
are by
achievements which are
by nature strongly
science
analytical achievements
in analytical
consists in
science consists
to combat
combat
Thus to
of development.
development. Thus
and manner
manner of
separable
their origins
origins and
from their
separable from
159
159
161
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
profession’s stance toward the history of economics, Blaug needed to
the profession's
be able to explain why this particular historiographic view of economics
was mistaken. But this proved an especially difficult task for him
personally, because he had held historiographic views earlier in his career
that were not far removed from the positions he had since found he
wanted to reject. This chapter seeks to explain how he pulled off the
move from his earlier to his later view, and thereby set out his final
understanding of the historiography of economics as the methodology of
the history of economics.
Blaug’s thinking and
The chapter argues that the key to the change in Blaug's
critique of the standard Whig (or, as we will see rational reconstructionreconstruction
ist) historiography was the two connected positions he adopted which
concerned the growth of knowledge. On the one hand, he turned
economists’ own market theory tools against them in using an economics
economists'
‘marketplace of ideas'
ideas’
of scientific knowledge approach to argue that the 'marketplace
was neither competitive nor efficient in regard to the production of
economic knowledge. From this he was able to argue that the way in
which economics developed as a science inevitably involved loss of
content, thus undermining the steady progress idea associated with the
Whig view, and allowing him to define a role for the history of economic
thought in advancing scientific knowledge. On the other hand, he adopted
a particular conception of competition, namely, that competition is a
process rather than an end state in order to make a case for saying that
economic knowledge is path-dependent, by which he meant that eco
ecoany one point in time depended crucially upon what
nomic knowledge at anyone
had previously occurred along the path economists had until then
pursued. This then went against the idea that economics amounted to a
essen
succession of separable analytic achievements, and justified an essentially evolutionary view of knowledge and science, which accordingly
gave historians of economics, with what he saw as their comparative
intellectual advantage - a capacity to grasp the depth and breadth of
complex interconnections in intellectual history - an important place in
advancing the science of economics.
This chapter seeks to explain the genesis and ultimate nature of
Blaug’s historiographic thinking, first, by reviewing his response to the
Blaug's
Whig view held implicitly or openly by most non-historian economists in
their attitude toward the history of economics - one which in a number of
respects he had at one time shared - and second, by showing how his
later evolutionary view of the science of economics led to an altogether
different historiographic view which sustained an important role for
development of the field. The second
historians of economics in the developmeIlt
Blaug’s response to standard
section of the chapter begins by discussing Blaug's
historiography in terms of the distinction between rational reconstruc
dons and historical reconstructions of the past. In his first major
recalling his own recent practice as an
discussion of the subject
historian (Blaug 1985) Blaug had expressed a fairly strong preference
for rational reconstructions, and had also been quite skeptical about
whether historical reconstructions were even viable (Blaug 1990). In his
second major discussion of historiography, however, he reversed himself,
and expressed serious doubts about what rational reconstructions achieve,
while also making an argument for historical reconstructions (Blaug
2001). To more fully explain this change in position, the third section
lays out Blaug’s economics of scientific knowledge argument that the
marketplace of ideas is inefficient, implying that the method of rational
reconstruction itself is inefficient, and then goes on to explain how he
used his process view of competition to take an evolutionary view of the
history of economics as path-dependent. The fourth section makes two
comments on Blaug’s mature view, addressing the role that his ‘lost
content’ assumption plays in evolutionary theory in general, and examin
ing the extent to which his view encounters the problem of reflexivity
associated with economics’ sociology of scientific knowledge explan
ations. The fifth section concludes with a discussion of the implications
of Blaug’s view for the status of the history of economic thought field in
the economics profession, particularly with respect to how historians
might make the issue of change in economics central to the defense of
their field.
160
—
—
12.2 RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS
HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS: A CHANGE
OF POSITION
—
—
—
—
Blaug drew on the philosopher Richard Rorty (1984) for the distinction
between rational reconstructions and historical reconstructions of past
ideas (Blaug 1990, 200l).1 Both, Blaug emphasized, were inevitably
types of reconstructions for the reason that (here he cited the thinking of
Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault), ‘all texts of the past need to be
reconstructed because they do not speak with one voice and are never
unambiguous’ (Blaug 2001, p. 151). The relevant question regarding the
method of reconstructing the past, he rather argued, was ‘how are we to
do so: in the light of all that we now know or as faithfully as possible to
the times in which they were written’ where the former counted as a
—
161
161
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of
of economics
On
the profession’s stance toward the history of economics, Blaug needed to
be able to explain why this particular historiographic view of economics
was mistaken. But this proved an especially difficult task for him
personally, because he had held historiographic views earlier in his career
that were not far removed from the positions he had since found he
wanted to reject. This chapter seeks to explain how he pulled off the
move from his earlier to his later view, and thereby set out his final
understanding of the historiography of economics as the methodology of
the history of economics.
The chapter argues that the key to the change in Blaug’s thinking and
critique of the standard Whig (or, as we will see rational reconstruction
ist) historiography was the two connected positions he adopted which
concerned the growth of knowledge. On the one hand, he turned
economists’ own market theory tools against them in using an economics
of scientific knowledge approach to argue that the ‘marketplace of ideas’
was neither competitive nor efficient in regard to the production of
economic knowledge. From this he was able to argue that the way in
which economics developed as a science inevitably involved loss of
content, thus undermining the steady progress idea associated with the
Whig view, and allowing him to define a role for the history of economic
thought in advancing scientific knowledge. On the other hand, he adopted
a particular conception of competition, namely, that competition is a
process rather than an end state in order to make a case for saying that
economic knowledge is path-dependent, by which he meant that eco
nomic knowledge at any one point in time depended crucially upon what
had previously occurred along the path economists had until then
pursued. This then went against the idea that economics amounted to a
succession of separable analytic achievements, and justified an essen
tially evolutionary view of knowledge and science, which accordingly
gave historians of economics, with what he saw as their comparative
intellectual advantage
a capacity to grasp the depth and breadth of
complex interconnections in intellectual history an important place in
advancing the science of economics.
This chapter seeks to explain the genesis and ultimate nature of
Blaug’s historiographic thinking, first, by reviewing his response to the
Whig view held implicitly or openly by most non-historian economists in
their attitude toward the history of economics one which in a number of
respects he had at one time shared and second, by showing how his
later evolutionary view of the science of economics led to an altogether
different historiographic view which sustained an important role for
historians of economics in the development of the field. The second
section of the chapter begins by discussing Blaug’s response to standard
of the distinction between
between rational reconstruc
reconstruchistoriography in terms of
tions and historical
historical reconstructions
reconstructions of
of the past.
past. In
In his first major
major
dons
of the subject - recalling his own recent practice
practice as
as an
an
discussion of
historian (Blaug 1985)
1985) - Blaug
Blaug had expressed
expressed aa fairly strong preference
preference
historian
for rational reconstructions, and had also been
been quite skeptical
skeptical about
about
whether historical reconstructions were even viable (Blaug 1990). In his
second major discussion of historiography, however, he reversed himself,
and expressed serious doubts about what rational reconstructions achieve,
while also making an argument for historical reconstructions (Blaug
2001). To more fully explain this change in position, the third section
Blaug's economics of scientific knowledge argument that the
lays out Blaug’s
marketplace of ideas is inefficient, implying that the method of rational
reconstruction itself is inefficient, and then goes on to explain how he
of the
used his process view of competition to take an evolutionary view of
section
makes
two
history of economics as path-dependent. The fourth
Blaug's mature view, addressing the role that his ‘lost
'lost
comments on Blaug’s
content' assumption plays in evolutionary theory in general, and examin
examincontent’
ing the extent to which his view encounters the problem of reflexivity
explaneconomics' sociology of scientific knowledge explan
associated with economics’
ations. The fifth section concludes with a discussion of the implications
Blaug's view for the status of the history of economic thought field in
of Blaug’s
the economics profession, particularly with respect to how historians
might make the issue of change in economics central to the defense of
their field.
160
—
—
12.2 RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTIONS VERSUS
HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTIONS: A CHANGE
OF POSITION
—
—
—
—
Blaug drew on the philosopher Richard Rorty (1984) for the distinction
between rational reconstructions and historical reconstructions of past
200l).1 Both, Blaug emphasized, were inevitably
ideas (Blaug 1990, 2001).1
types of reconstructions for the reason that (here he cited the thinking of
‘all texts of the past need to be
Jacques Derrida and Michael Foucault), 'all
reconstructed because they do not speak with one voice and are never
unambiguous'
unambiguous’ (Blaug 2001, p.
p. 151). The relevant question regarding the
‘how are we to
method of reconstructing the past, he rather argued, was 'how
do so: in the light of all that we now know or as faithfully as possible to
written’ - where the former counted as a
the times in which they were written'
—
Mark B/aug.
Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
rational reconstruction and the latter counted as an historical reconstrucreconstruc
tion (ibid.). Ostensibly the difference was that in the former case the
present was one's
one’s point of entry, while in the latter case it was the past.
Given, then, that each had a certain prima facie plausibility, how was one
to decide between the two methods?
In his first discussion of rational and historical reconstruction (1990),
Blaug had relied on a distinction between absolutism and relativism - an
alternative but related distinction which he had employed in his Eco
Economic Theory in Retrospect history of economics (for example, Blaug
important asymmetries between
1—2) - to argue that there were impOltant
1985, pp.
pp. 1-2)
rational and historical reconstructions which tended to favor the former
over the latter. First, 'we
‘we can never forget what we know, so that some
version of "absolutism"
“absolutism” is implied in every attempt to examine some text
‘the tendency to judge past
of the past',
past’, where by absolutism he meant 'the
modem economic theory'.
theory’. Second,
economic theories by the standards of modern
if we take relativism to be the polar opposite of absolutism, then
“relativism”, particularly as strict
'''absolutism''
“absolutism” is more defensible than "relativism",
“relativism” is logically impossible'
impossible’ (Blaug 1990, p.
"relativism"
p. 28). He then went on
to present Paul Samuelson's
Samuelson’s (1974b) unhesitating defense of rational
reconstruction as the clearest possible statement of what that method
involved (Blaug 1990, p.
p. 30), and drew up the balance sheet for the two
methods in a way that gave mixed but generally favorable support to
rational reconstructions, and expressed serious doubts about what histor
historical reconstructions could achieve.
it, that ‘there is really no point to the history of economic thought; why
study what Pigou once contemptuously called “the wrong opinions of
dead men” (Blaug 1990, p. 28). Defending the method of rational
reconstruction, that is, would only confirm the negative verdict of
non-historians regarding the history of economic thought that it was
simply an idle enterprise outside the bounds of economic science. Was
there thus a stronger case, he then asked himself, for understanding the
historiography of economics as historical reconstruction, despite its
seemingly problematic nature? And was there something objectionable
3
about rational reconstructions that he had previously overlooked?
To uncover his earlier unacknowledged hesitations about rational
reconstruction, let us step aside from the abstract epistemological argu
ments Blaug originally advanced regarding the nature of the two meth
ods, and rather look at how he first saw them applied in practice in
connection with the exchange between Samuelson and William Baumol,
which had led to Samuelson’s characterization of the method of rational
reconstruction. There in fact we see a different appreciation of historical
reconstructions associated with the emphasis which Blaug sees Baumol
putting on the perspective of the historical economist. The starting point
in the exchange had been Samuelson’s (1971) interpretation and analysis
of Karl Marx’s famous transformation problem. Samuelson’s position
was that Marx had simply failed mathematically to simultaneously
transform surplus value into profits and labor values into prices. Baumol
(1 974a) responded to Samuelson that Marx was chiefly interested in the
transformation of surplus value into profits (in order to explain the
origins of profit in labor exploitation), and that the transformation of
labor values into prices had only been of secondary interest to him. So
Baumol had argued that mathematical adequacy was not the point in
understanding Marx’s transformation problem. Samuelson (1974a) none
theless replied that Marx had still failed at what a comprehensive
transformation required, leading Baumol (1974b) to say, yes, but that it
had rather been his objective to determine what Marx had intended to do,
implying that this was important for understanding Marx and the
transformation problem.
Thus as Blaug understood the exchange, the line drawn between the
two was over whether economists’ intentions and objectives were relevant
to understanding their thinking, with Baumol arguing, essentially as an
historical reconstructionist, that there were advantages to having this
further information apart from how we might view the past from the
perspective of contemporary theory. Samuelson thus found himself
arguing not only for mathematical adequacy but also that nothing goes
missing when we ignore economists’ intentions and objectives. One
162
—
—
I conclude that rational reconstructions are perfectly legitimate, although
whether they are illuminating depends on the case in question. As for
historical reconstructions, they are inherently problematic. Strictly speaking
they are impossible because they presume that the past can be recalled
without knowledge of the present; no adult can be expected to recall his
30)2
childhood as if adulthood had never happened. (Blaug 1990, p.
p. 30)2
Thus at best Blaug was ambivalent, aware from Rorty and others that a
case for historical reconstructions might be made, but unclear about how
they were to be reasonably done, and thus inclined to defend rational
‘illuminating’.
reconstructions as 'legitimate'
‘legitimate’ though perhaps not always 'illuminating'.
Accordingly, when he set out to rethink his views on historiography in
economics some ten years later, having experienced how a general
acceptance of the method of rational reconstruction in the intervening
time had worked against the history of economics, he found himself in a
quandary. 'The
‘The temptation to choose the first alternative is almost
irresistible'
irresistible’ (Blaug 2001, p.
p. 151), he still admitted, but one also needed to
see that this led to the unacceptable conclusion, as he had previously put
163
Mark B/aug. rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
rational reconstruction and the latter counted as an historical reconstruc
tion (ibid.). Ostensibly the difference was that in the former case the
present was one’s point of entry, while in the latter case it was the past.
Given, then, that each had a certain prima facie plausibility, how was one
to decide between the two methods?
In his first discussion of rational and historical reconstruction (1990),
Blaug had relied on a distinction between absolutism and relativism an
alternative but related distinction which he had employed in his Eco
nomic Theory in Retrospect history of economics (for example, Blaug
1985, pp. 1—2) to argue that there were important asymmetries between
rational and historical reconstructions which tended to favor the former
over the latter. First, ‘we can never forget what we know, so that some
version of “absolutism” is implied in every attempt to examine some text
of the past’, where by absolutism he meant ‘the tendency to judge past
economic theories by the standards of modem economic theory’. Second,
if we take relativism to be the polar opposite of absolutism, then
“absolutism” is more defensible than “relativism”, particularly as strict
“relativism” is logically impossible’ (Blaug 1990, p. 28). He then went on
to present Paul Samuelson’s (1974b) unhesitating defense of rational
reconstruction as the clearest possible statement of what that method
involved (Blaug 1990, p. 30), and drew up the balance sheet for the two
methods in a way that gave mixed but generally favorable support to
rational reconstructions, and expressed serious doubts about what histor
ical reconstructions could achieve.
‘there is really no point to the history of economic thought; why
it, that 'there
“the wrong opinions of
study what Pigou once contemptuously called "the
men” (Blaug 1990, p.
28). Defending the method of rational
dead men'"
p.28).
reconstruction, that is, would only confirm the negative verdict of
non-historians regarding the history of economic thought that it was
simply an idle enterprise outside the bounds of economic science. Was
there thus a stronger case, he then asked himself, for understanding the
historiography of economics as historical reconstruction, despite its
seemingly problematic nature? And was there something objectionable
3
overlooked?
about rational reconstructions that he had previously overlooked?3
To uncover his earlier unacknowledged hesitations about rational
reconstruction, let us step aside from the abstract epistemological arguargu
methments Blaug originally advanced regarding the nature of the two meth
ods, and rather look at how he first saw them applied in practice in
connection with the exchange between Samuelson and William Baumol,
Samuelson’s characterization of the method of rational
which had led to Samuelson's
reconstruction. There in fact we see a different appreciation of historical
reconstructions associated with the emphasis which Blaug sees Baumol
putting on the perspective of the historical economist. The starting point
Samuelson’s (1971) interpretation and analysis
in the exchange had been Samuelson's
Samuelson’s position
of Karl Marx’s
Marx's famous transformation problem. Samuelson's
was that Marx had simply failed mathematically to simultaneously
transform surplus value into profits and labor values into prices. Baumol
(1 974a) responded to Samuelson that Marx was chiefly interested in the
(l974a)
transformation of surplus value into profits (in order to explain the
origins of profit in labor exploitation), and that the transformation of
labor values into prices had only been of secondary interest to him. So
Baumol had argued that mathematical adequacy was not the point in
Marx's transformation problem. Samuelson (l974a)
noneunderstanding Marx’s
(1974a) none
theless replied that Marx had still failed at what a comprehensive
transformation required, leading Baumol (l974b)
(1974b) to say, yes, but that it
had rather been his objective to determine what Marx had intended to do,
implying that this was important for understanding Marx and the
transformation problem.
Thus as Blaug understood the exchange, the line drawn between the
two was over whether economists'
economists’ intentions and objectives were relevant
to understanding their thinking, with Baumol arguing, essentially as an
historical reconstructionist, that there were advantages to having this
further information apart from how we might view the past from the
perspective of contemporary theory. Samuelson thus found himself
arguing not only for mathematical adequacy but also that nothing goes
missing when we ignore economists'
economists’ intentions and objectives. One
162
—
—
I conclude that rational reconstructions are perfectly legitimate, although
whether they are illuminating depends on the case in question. As for
historical reconstructions, they are inherently problematic. Strictly speaking
they are impossible because they presume that the past can be recalled
without knowledge of the present; no adult can be expected to recall his
childhood as if adulthood had never happened. (Blaug 1990, p. 30)2
Thus at best Blaug was ambivalent, aware from Rorty and others that a
case for historical reconstructions might be made, but unclear about how
they were to be reasonably done, and thus inclined to defend rational
reconstructions as ‘legitimate’ though perhaps not always ‘illuminating’.
Accordingly, when he set out to rethink his views on historiography in
economics some ten years later, having experienced how a general
acceptance of the method of rational reconstruction in the intervening
time had worked against the history of economics, he found himself in a
quandary. ‘The temptation to choose the first alternative is almost
irresistible’ (Blaug 2001, p. 151), he still admitted, but one also needed to
see that this led to the unacceptable conclusion, as he had previously put
163
165
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
Samuelson’s side that one can never know
could additionally argue on Samuelson's
another’s intentions, and so they cannot be part of an explanation of
another's
economic thinking,4
4 but this argument was really a back-up defense for
thinking,
economists’ intentions and objectives were simply
the position that economists'
irrelevant, whether or not we could say what they were. We can see this
in the subsequent exchange of correspondence between Blaug, Samuel1991) where the
son, and Don Patinkin (Samuelson, Patinkin and Blaug 1991)5
issue became whether a rational reconstruction could deviate from an
Samuelson’s prior position (197
(1974b)
historical reconstruction. Samuelson's
4b) had been
that all there could be was rational reconstruction, but having read
Blaug’s account of the exchange with Baumol he found himself on the
Blaug's
defensive with regard to whether a rational reconstruction might not be
‘deviate’ from, an historical reconstruction. As he wrote to
faithful to, or 'deviate'
‘Let’s accept for the sake of argument that in some instances a
Blaug: 'Let's
“rational reconstruction"
reconstruction” can deviate from a "historical
“historical reconstruction'"
reconstruction”
"rational
(Samuelson, Patinkin and Blaug 1991, p.
144).
Thus
he
allowed that
p.
there seemed to be something to historical reconstructions, even if one
preferred rational ones and did not know how to proceed with the other.
Rational reconstructions accordingly no longer unequivocally ruled the
roost. Blaug seized on this in his response to Samuelson, expanding on
Baumol’s point that knowing what economists meant to say was importBaumol's
import
‘Is [Hermann Heinrich] Gossen a
ant to understanding what they said: 'Is
true forerunner of the Marginal Revolution? No, because no one read
him. It is not enough to have great ideas, as Schumpeter always said; you
colleagues’ (Samuelson, Patinkin and
have to get them across to your colleagues'
148—9). That is, whatever the adequacy, mathematical or
Blaug, 1991, pp. 148-9).
otherwise, of Gossen's
Gossen’s thinking, we cannot say he was an early marginmargin
alist, because marginalism only emerged as a distinct theoretical
approach when it was seen explicitly to be such by economists. So
they were doing matters to
knowing what economists think about what they
our understanding of what their thinking is.
Thus whereas before Blaug had regarded the method of rational
reconstruction as a straightforward, justifiable practice, and had doubts
about historical reconstruction, now it was not only clear he thought
historical reconstructions had certain advantages over rational ones, and
thus must have some sort of coherence, but he had begun to develop
doubts about the adequacy of rational reconstructions. Essentially he had
reversed his earlier view as a result of his further reflection on Samuel~
Samuelson’s statement regarding what the method of rational reconstruction
son's
involved in light of the exchange with Baumol. The issue, moreover,
explan
concerned what rational reconstructions left out or omitted as explanations which might be recovered through historical reconstructions. This
focus on omission points us towards the economics of scientific know
ledge argument Blaug was to subsequently make regarding the growth of
6
knowledge in economics.
164
12.3 LOST CONTENT, THE ECONOMICS OF
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, AND
PATH-DEPENDENCY IN THE HISTORY OF
ECONOMICS: AN EVOLUTIONARY VIEW
Sifting through the various reasons that he found had been given by
various authors for studying the history of economic thought (in ‘a
painfully defensive tone’), Blaug noted that infrequently mentioned was
the benefit of discovering ‘new’ and largely forgotten ideas, a prime
example being the rediscovery and rehabilitation of the Pareto optimality
concept in the 1930s after more than a quarter century of neglect (Blaug
2001, p. 148). That the profession was blind to this kind of loss of ideas
was due, he then argued, to the widely-held view that
the community of economists represents an approximately perfect market in
which new ideas are so efficiently transmitted in a communication network of
journals, books, seminars and conferences that there is no loss of significant
content. This view of an efficient marketplace of ideas implies that history of
economic thought can be safely neglected by modern economists, because
what is valuable in the ideas is fully contained in the present curriculum.
(Ibid.)
But this view of an efficient marketplace of ideas was in Blaug’s view as
indefensible as it was accepted.
The objections against taking the market of ideas as anything other
than a stimulating metaphor are so obvious as hardly to require discus
sion. In particular, markets as arbiters of quality in scholarly (or any
other kind of) goods are excessively subject to bandwagon and snob
effects (ibid. pp. 148—9).
The implication of saying that the marketplace of ideas was not
perfectly competitive and efficient, then, was that there was there was
always a risk of ‘loss of content’ in current activity as economists
followed popular trends. Past ideas that were of continuing value were
then regularly discarded, meaning that current ideas were commonly less
original and well-founded than generally believed. This was directly
contrary to the Whig idea of progress in science and the notion that the
advance of economics involved a succession of distinct analytical
165
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
could additionally argue on Samuelson’s side that one can never know
another’s intentions, and so they cannot be part of an explanation of
economic thinking,
4 but this argument was really a back-up defense for
the position that economists’ intentions and objectives were simply
irrelevant, whether or not we could say what they were. We can see this
in the subsequent exchange of correspondence between Blaug, Samuelson, and Don Patinkin (Samuelson, Patinkin and Blaug 1991) where the
issue became whether a rational reconstruction could deviate from an
historical reconstruction. Samuelson’s prior position (1974b) had been
that all there could be was rational reconstruction, but having read
Blaug’s account of the exchange with Baumol he found himself on the
defensive with regard to whether a rational reconstruction might not be
faithful to, or ‘deviate’ from, an historical reconstruction. As he wrote to
Blaug: ‘Let’s accept for the sake of argument that in some instances a
“rational reconstruction” can deviate from a “historical reconstruction”
(Samuelson, Patinkin and Blaug 1991, p. 144). Thus he allowed that
there seemed to be something to historical reconstructions, even if one
preferred rational ones and did not know how to proceed with the other.
Rational reconstructions accordingly no longer unequivocally ruled the
roost. Blaug seized on this in his response to Samuelson, expanding on
Baumol’s point that knowing what economists meant to say was import
ant to understanding what they said: ‘Is [Hermann Heinrich] Gossen a
true forerunner of the Marginal Revolution? No, because no one read
him. It is not enough to have great ideas, as Schumpeter always said; you
have to get them across to your colleagues’ (Samuelson, Patinkin and
Blaug, 1991, pp. 148—9). That is, whatever the adequacy, mathematical or
otherwise, of Gossen’s thinking, we cannot say he was an early margin
alist, because marginalism only emerged as a distinct theoretical
approach when it was seen explicitly to be such by economists. So
knowing what economists think about what they were doing matters to
our understanding of what their thinking is.
Thus whereas before Blaug had regarded the method of rational
reconstruction as a straightforward, justifiable practice, and had doubts
about historical reconstruction, now it was not only clear he thought
historical reconstructions had certain advantages over rational ones, and
thus must have some sort of coherence, but he had begun to develop
doubts about the adequacy of rational reconstructions. Essentially he had
reversed his earlier view as a result of his further reflection on Samuelson’s statement regarding what the method of rational reconstruction
involved in light of the exchange with Baumol. The issue, moreover,
concerned what rational reconstructions left out or omitted as explan
ations which might be recovered through historical reconstructions. This
know
focus on omission points us towards the economics of scientific knowledge argument Blaug was to subsequently make regarding the growth of
66
economics.
knowledge in economics.
164
12.3 LOST CONTENT, THE ECONOMICS OF
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, AND
PATH-DEPENDENCY IN THE HISTORY OF
ECONOMICS: AN EVOLUTIONARY VIEW
Sifting through the various reasons that he found had been given by
'a
various authors for studying the history of economic thought (in ‘a
tone’), Blaug noted that infrequently mentioned was
painfully defensive tone'),
‘new’ and largely forgotten ideas, a prime
the benefit of discovering 'new'
example being the rediscovery and rehabilitation of the Pareto optimality
concept in the 1930s after more than a quarter century of neglect (Blaug
2001, p.
p. 148). That the profession was blind to this kind of loss of ideas
was due, he then argued, to the widely-held view that
the community of economists represents an approximately perfect market in
which new ideas are so efficiently transmitted in a communication network of
journals, books, seminars and conferences that there is no loss of significant
content. This view of an efficient marketplace of ideas implies that history of
economic thought can be safely neglected by modern economists, because
curriculum.
what is valuable in the ideas is fully contained in the present cuniculum.
(Ibid.)
Blaug’s view as
But this view of an efficient marketplace of ideas was in Blaug's
indefensible as it was accepted.
The objections against taking the market of ideas as anything other
discus
than a stimulating metaphor are so obvious as hardly to require discussion. In particular, markets as arbiters of quality in scholarly (or any
other kind of) goods are excessively subject to bandwagon and snob
effects (ibid. pp.
148—9).
pp. 148-9).
The implication of saying that the marketplace of ideas was not
perfectly competitive and efficient, then, was that there was there was
content’ in current activity as economists
always a risk of 'loss
‘loss of content'
followed popular trends. Past ideas that were of continuing value were
then regularly discarded, meaning that current ideas were commonly less
original and well-founded than generally believed. This was directly
contrary to the Whig idea of progress in science and the notion that the
advance of economics involved a succession of distinct analytical
Mark
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
On the historiography of economics
achievements. The
The method
method of
of rational
rational reconstruction,
reconstruction, itit followed,
followed, was
was
achievements.
itself an
an inefficient
inefficient practice,
practice, and
and this
this suggested
suggested that
that rather
rather some
some combin
combinitself
to generate
generate an
an
ation of
of historical
historical and
and rational
rational reconstruction
reconstruction was
was needed
needed to
ation
efficient scholarly
scholarly production
production process.
process.
efficient
Blaug thus
thus took
took itit as
as aa given
given that
that the
the growth
growth of
of knowledge
knowledge ought
ought to
to be
be
Blaug
as an
an economic
economic process,
process, one
one moreover
moreover which
which could
could be
be
understood as
understood
reasonably well
well explained
explained with
with conventional
conventional neoclassical concepts
concepts such
such
reasonably
as efficiency
efficiency and
and competition.
competition. The
The problem
problem with
with the
the profession’s
profession's aban
abanas
donment of
of the
the history of
of economics
economics was
was accordingly
accordingly that
that economists
economists
donment
had failed to use their
their analysis to understand
understand their
their own
own profession.
profession. That
That
had
is, they
they did aa poor
poor economics
economics of
of scientific
scientific knowledge,
knowledge, and therefore
therefore
is,
the wrong
wrong conclusions
conclusions about the
the economics
economics production
production process,
process,
reached the
in
the history of economic thought, and the growth of knowledge in
many
economics. This critique was different from ones advanced by many
historians of economics who commonly emphasized the intrinsic
other historians
value of historical reflection, and were mostly not inclined to use an
economics of scientific knowledge approach. However, this is not to say
that Blaug as an intellectual historian was unsympathetic to more
traditional sorts of arguments about the nature of knowledge and its
development:
behind the adoption of this conception was its tractability for math
ematical analysis. But earlier economists had reasoned in terms of a
process conception which emphasized the conditions and dynamics of
competition.
What Adam Smith meant by competition is what modern Austrians call
‘process competition’. What we nowadays call competition was for him
‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty’, meaning an absence
of artificial constraints and, in particular, restraints on free entry into
industries and occupations. Neither competition nor monopoly was a
matter of the number of sellers in the market (Blaug 2001, p. 153).
Of course contemporary economists might well argue that what Blaug
called a process conception of competition was simply a primitive
attempt to understand the formalizable end-state conception, but here
Blaug used the process idea to counter this potential response and
simultaneously defend the method of historical reconstruction.
Thus, returning to the problem of ‘How one can justify the study of the
history of economic thought as a specialization within economics’, he
offered what he regarded as his ‘own knock-down argument’.
166
166
Knowledge has multi-dimensional depth as well as breadth, and some of the
dimensions of economic knowledge include analysis, data, history, institutions
and policy questions. There is a raw kind of conceptual depth where concepts
are only understood when they are differentiated relative to other closely
one’s knowledge depends on the fineness
related ones so that the extent of one's
with which one can differentiate. In different contexts, these dimensions of
150)
importance. (Ibid. p. 150)
knowledge vary in importance.
But to deliver a satisfactory critique of standard historiography and the
Blaug needed to employ an argument
method of rational reconstruction, Blaug
terrain which they would have to
economists’ own telTain
that operated upon economists'
It was one
could not reasonably rebut. It
answer but which he believed they could
thing, however, to successfully attack rational reconstruction. To go
based on
reconstruction based
historical reconstruction
for historical
case for
further
positive case
advance aa positive
further and
and advance
of ideas
marketplace of
beyond simple
simple marketplace
go beyond
needed to
its
to go
he needed
its own
own merits he
argument for
for aa process-conception of
formulations.
to his argument
This brings us to
formulations. This
competition.
competition.
of
history of
the history
in the
research in
later research
Blaug’s later
emphasis in
An
in Blaug's
important emphasis
An important
under
had been
been undercompetition had
of competition
concept of
the concept
economics
how the
concerned how
economics concerned
from
departed from
concept departed
the concept
view of
of the
modern view
stood
how the
the modern
and how
past, and
stood in
in the
the past,
referred
what he
he referred
was what
of competition
competition was
view of
earlier
modem view
The modern
7 The
thinking.
earlier thinking.?
motivation
the motivation
part of
of the
good part
1997). A
A good
(Blaug 1997).
conception (Blaug
to
end-state conception
to as
as an
an end-state
167
It is this: No ideas or theory in economics, physics, chemistry, biology,
philosophy and even mathematics is ever thoroughly understood except as the
end-product of a slice of history, the result of some previous intellectual
development. (Ibid., p. 156)
Here what he says is that any end-state or end-product judgment is by
itself incomplete as a representation of the economy, and thus inseparable
conceptually from the process or development which precedes and
produces it. One cannot, then, rationally reconstruct the concept of
competition solely in end-state terms, because, despite their desire to
formalize, economists know that competitive end states are always the
result of processes that generate them. It follows that if we see economics
as a marketplace if ideas, as he believed economists should, rational
reconstructions, as an end-state type of thinking, must always include
historical reconstructions as a process type of thinking, in order to be
complete.
From this conclusion, Blaug went on to characterize his view of the
growth of knowledge in economics using a key evolutionary concept:
path-dependency.
Economic knowledge is path-dependent. What we now know about the
economic system is not something we have just discovered, but it is the sum
of all discoveries, insights and false starts in the past
There is nothing
predetermined about our current theories and if years ago, economics had
...
.
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the
the historiography of
of economics
On
achievements. The method of rational reconstruction, it followed, was
itself an inefficient practice, and this suggested that rather some combin
ation of historical and rational reconstruction was needed to generate an
efficient scholarly production process.
Blaug thus took it as a given that the growth of knowledge ought to be
understood as an economic process, one moreover which could be
reasonably well explained with conventional neoclassical concepts such
as efficiency and competition. The problem with the profession’s aban
donment of the history of economics was accordingly that economists
had failed to use their analysis to understand their own profession. That
is, they did a poor economics of scientific knowledge, and therefore
reached the wrong conclusions about the economics production process,
the history of economic thought, and the growth of knowledge in
economics. This critique was different from ones advanced by many
other historians of economics who commonly emphasized the intrinsic
value of historical reflection, and were mostly not inclined to use an
economics of scientific knowledge approach. However, this is not to say
that Blaug as an intellectual historian was unsympathetic to more
traditional sorts of arguments about the nature of knowledge and its
development:
behind the adoption of this conception was its tractability for mathmath
But earlier economists had reasoned in
in terms of a
ematical analysis. But
process conception which emphasized the conditions and dynamics of
competition.
Smith meant by competition is what modern Austrians call
What Adam Smith
competition’. What we nowadays call competition was for him
‘process competition'.
'process
liberty’, meaning an absence
‘the obvious and simple system of natural liberty',
'the
of artificial constraints and, in particular, restraints on free entry into
industries and occupations. Neither competition nor monopoly was a
matter of the number of sellers in the market (Blaug 2001, p.
153).
p. 153).
Of course contemporary economists might well argue that what Blaug
called a process conception of competition was simply a primitive
attempt to understand the formalizable end-state conception, but here
Blaug used the process idea to counter this potential response and
simultaneously defend the method of historical reconstruction.
‘How one can justify the study of the
Thus, returning to the problem of 'How
economics’, he
history of economic thought as a specialization within economics',
‘own knock-down argument'.
argument’.
offered what he regarded as his 'own
166
Knowledge has multi-dimensional depth as well as breadth, and some of the
dimensions of economic knowledge include analysis, data, history, institutions
and policy questions. There is a raw kind of conceptual depth where concepts
are only understood when they are differentiated relative to other closely
related ones so that the extent of one’s knowledge depends on the fineness
with which one can differentiate. In different contexts, these dimensions of
knowledge vary in importance. (Ibid. p. 150)
But to deliver a satisfactory critique of standard historiography and the
method of rational reconstruction, Blaug needed to employ an argument
that operated upon economists’ own terrain which they would have to
answer but which he believed they could not reasonably rebut. It was one
thing, however, to successfully attack rational reconstruction. To go
further and advance a positive case for historical reconstruction based on
its own merits he needed to go beyond simple marketplace of ideas
formulations. This brings us to his argument for a process-conception of
competition.
An important emphasis in Blaug’s later research in the history of
economics concerned how the concept of competition had been under
stood in the past, and how the modern view of the concept departed from
7 The modem view of competition was what he referred
earlier thinking.
to as an end-state conception (Blaug 1997). A good part of the motivation
167
167
It is this: No ideas or theory in economics, physics, chemistry, biology,
philosophy and even mathematics is ever thoroughly understood except as the
end-product of a slice of history, the result of some previous intellectual
development. (Ibid., p. 156)
Here what he says is that any end-state or end-product judgment is by
itself incomplete as a representation of the economy, and thus inseparable
conceptually from the process or development which precedes and
produces it. One cannot, then, rationally reconstruct the concept of
competition solely in end-state terms, because, despite their desire to
formalize, economists know that competitive end states are always the
result of processes that generate them. It follows that if we see economics
as a marketplace if ideas, as he believed economists should, rational
reconstructions, as an end-state type of thinking, must always include
historical reconstructions as a process type of thinking, in order to be
complete.
From this conclusion, Blaug went on to characterize his view of the
growth of knowledge in economics using a key evolutionary concept:
path-dependency.
Economic knowledge is path-dependent. What we now know about the
economic system is not something we have just
just discovered, but it is the sum
of all discoveries, insights and false starts in the past ... . There is nothing
predetermined about our current theories and if years ago, economics had
...
.
168
168
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
Mark
On the historiography of economics
taken another
another turn
turn atat aa critical
critical nodal
nodal point,
point, we
we would
would today
today be
be advocating
advocating aa
taken
different
theory.
(Ibid.)
different theory. (Ibid.)
Here Blaug’s
Blaug's view
view of
of path-dependency
path-dependency isis subtle.
subtle. ItIt isis not
not just
just that
that there
there isis
Here
always aa chain
chain of
of connection
connection between
between the
the past
past and
and the
the present
present that
that we
we
always
must trace
trace out
out in
in order
order to
to have
have the
the whole
whole picture.
picture. That
That chain
chain also
also
must
comprehends many
many paths
paths not
not taken,
taken, blind
blind alleys,
alleys, and
and false
false starts,
starts, which
which
comprehends
thus
adding
re-explored,
revived
and
time
moreover are
are from
from time
time to
to time revived and re-explored, thus adding
moreover
cycles of
of explanation
explanation into
into the
the history
history of
of economics,
economics, and
and undermining
undermining the
the
cycles
8 In this way, then, Blaug paints in
of linear
linear progress.
progress. In this way, then, Blaug paints in
Whig idea
idea of
8
Whig
broad-brush terms the
the picture
picture of an evolutionary
evolutionary system
system in
in which
which many
many
broad-brush
competing ideas and
and theories interact
interact with
with one
one another, with some
some
competing
one point
point in
in time
time and others
others prevailing
prevailing at others.
others. Those
Those
prevailing at one
or
ideas that lose their temporary advantage may reappear in the future, or
economics. He
He
even cease to have any significant further role in economics.
ideas
consequently goes well beyond the traditional marketplace of ideas
metaphor, while still sustaining the idea that competition is a regulating
force in a complex evolving world of interdependent theories and ideas.
Blaug contrasted this vision of the history of economics with a more
familiar one held by many economists and perhaps some historians of
economics as well.
Conversations with other economists have brought home to me that a widely
held impression views the history of economic thought as a sort of intellectual
archaeology: it may turn up new manuscripts and documents from time to
time, but it itself remains unaffected by these discoveries and, unlike other
branches of economics, shows no development or progress over time. This is
157)
impression. (Ibid., p.
a totally misleading impression.
p. 157)
in the history
He
number of recent developments in
review a number
He proceeded to
to review
meaning of many
and meaning
of economic thought
thought demonstrating that the status and
showed
This showed
research. This
recent research.
past doctrines
up-ended by recent
typically up-ended
was typically
doctrines was
current
how current
since how
stand since
cotild not
not stand
that
view could
reconstructionist view
rational reconstructionist
that the
the rational
past was
was in aa
the past
when the
in jeopardy when
theory
always in
was always
past was
theory related
the past
related to
to the
was
in effect,
effect, was
view, in
archaeological view,
state
The archaeological
transformation. The
state of
continual transformation.
of continual
is aa
economics is
that economics
view that
reconstruction view
thus
rational reconstruction
the rational
of the
thus an
an expression
expression of
without
proceeded without
that proceeded
achievements that
succession
analytical achievements
succession of
separable analytical
of separable
of
idea of
that the
the idea
evident that
increasingly evident
effects
was increasingly
but itit was
economics, but
effects on
on past
past economics,
he
as he
reverse as
than the
the reverse
rather than
incoherent, rather
rational
was incoherent,
itself was
rational reconstruction
reconstruction itself
had
think.
tempted to
to think.
had originally
been tempted
originally been
economics
of economics
historiography of
about the
the historiography
Blaug
thinking about
his thinking
Blaug thus
moved his
thus moved
for
case for
made aa case
He also
also made
views. He
earlier views.
aa considerable
his earlier
from his
considerable distance
distance from
that
profession that
economics profession
the economics
in the
the
economics in
of economics
history of
the place
place of
of the
the history
j
169
was directly contrary to the conventional view. Whereas the history of
economics was an incidental, leisure activity in the eyes of most
economists, Blaug’s argument was that it was absolutely central to the
development of economics since one could not say what constituted a
scientific advance if one could not appraise new developments in terms
of how they related to past ideas and theories. Moreover, to complicate
matters, what the history of economics amounted to exhibited change no
less than the research frontier of current economics. Yet needless to say,
this argument about the history of economics or economics as a whole
has not carried the day for many economists. Perhaps this is because it
was framed as a defense of the history of economic thought rather than
as an explanation of the science of economics per se, but in any event it
can be argued that Blaug’s evolutionary view of economics may have
begun to acquire new relevance in light of the fact that an increasing
number of economists are now willing to say that economics research
appears to be evolving in a variety of new directions. Thus it is fair to
ask, what does Blaug’s evolutionary view tell us about the dynamic
nature of economics today? In the section that follows I address this
question by offering an interpretation of his ‘lost content’ assumption and
by commenting on the problem of reflexivity it raises.
12.4 THE EVOLUTIONARY VIEW OF ECONOMICS:
TWO ISSUES
Blaug’s immediate motivation for saying that economics regularly loses
what turns out to be valuable past content (as in the example of the
rehabilitation of the Pareto optimality concept) was to show that rational
reconstructions are inefficient. Pareto efficient states of affairs, of course,
are those in which gains are unequivocal improvements, and nothing
valued is sacrificed to produce them. Conversely Pareto inefficient states
of affairs are those in which gains come at the expense of losses, and are
consequently not unequivocal improvements, in this case where the
development of new ideas and theories in economics is at the cost of
abandoning earlier ideas and theories that remain valuable.
Thus to argue that economics loses valuable content demonstrates not
only that the Whig view of steady progress is mistaken, but that it is so
because it fails to satisfy the Pareto standard. Again, Blaug’s strategy was
to turn economists’ own tools against them on the subject of their rational
reconstructionist view of the history of economic thought.
But in making this fairly conventional argument he committed himself
it seems at least in part unintentionally to the view that economics as
—
—
168
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the historiography of economics
taken another turn at a critical nodal point, we would today be advocating a
different theory. (Ibid.)
Here Blaug’s view of path-dependency is subtle. It is not just that there is
always a chain of connection between the past and the present that we
must trace out in order to have the whole picture. That chain also
comprehends many paths not taken, blind alleys, and false starts, which
moreover are from time to time revived and re-explored, thus adding
cycles of explanation into the history of economics, and undermining the
8 In this way, then, Blaug paints in
Whig idea of linear progress.
broad-brush terms the picture of an evolutionary system in which many
competing ideas and theories interact with one another, with some
prevailing at one point in time and others prevailing at others. Those
ideas that lose their temporary advantage may reappear in the future, or
even cease to have any significant further role in economics. He
consequently goes well beyond the traditional marketplace of ideas
metaphor, while still sustaining the idea that competition is a regulating
force in a complex evolving world of interdependent theories and ideas.
Blaug contrasted this vision of the history of economics with a more
familiar one held by many economists and perhaps some historians of
economics as well.
Conversations with other economists have brought home to me that a widely
held impression views the history of economic thought as a sort of intellectual
archaeology: it may turn up new manuscripts and documents from time to
time, but it itself remains unaffected by these discoveries and, unlike other
branches of economics, shows no development or progress over time. This is
a totally misleading impression. (Ibid., p. 157)
He proceeded to review a number of recent developments in the history
of economic thought demonstrating that the status and meaning of many
past doctrines was typically up-ended by recent research. This showed
that the rational reconstructionist view cotild not stand since how current
theory related to the past was always in jeopardy when the past was in a
state of continual transformation. The archaeological view, in effect, was
thus an expression of the rational reconstruction view that economics is a
succession of separable analytical achievements that proceeded without
effects on past economics, but it was increasingly evident that the idea of
rational reconstruction itself was incoherent, rather than the reverse as he
had originally been tempted to think.
Blaug thus moved his thinking about the historiography of economics
a considerable distance from his earlier views. He also made a case for
the place of the history of economics in the economics profession that
j
169
169
the conventional view. Whereas the history of
was directly contrary to the
economics was an incidental, leisure activity in the eyes of most
Blaug’s argument was that it was absolutely central to the
economists, Blaug's
development of economics since one could not say what constituted a
scientific advance if one could not appraise new developments in terms
of how they related to past ideas and theories. Moreover, to complicate
matters, what the history of economics amounted to exhibited change no
less than the research frontier of current economics. Yet needless to say,
this argument about the history of economics or economics as a whole
has not carried the day for many economists. Perhaps this is because it
was framed as a defense of the history of economic thought rather than
as an explanation of the science of economics per se, but in any event it
Blaug’s evolutionary view of economics may have
can be argued that Blaug's
begun to acquire new relevance in light of the fact that an increasing
number of economists are now willing to say that economics research
appears to be evolving in a variety of new directions. Thus it is fair to
Blaug’s evolutionary view tell us about the dynamic
ask, what does Blaug's
nature of economics today? In the section that follows I address this
‘lost content'
content’ assumption and
question by offering an interpretation of his 'lost
by commenting on the problem of reflexivity it raises.
12.4 THE EVOLUTIONARY VIEW OF ECONOMICS:
TWO ISSUES
Blaug’s immediate motivation for saying that economics regularly loses
Blaug's
what turns out to be valuable past content (as in the example of the
rehabilitation of the Pareto optimality concept) was to show that rational
reconstructions are inefficient. Pareto efficient states of affairs, of course,
are those in which gains are unequivocal improvements, and nothing
valued is sacrificed to produce them. Conversely Pareto inefficient states
of affairs are those in which gains come at the expense of losses, and are
consequently not unequivocal improvements, in this case where the
development of new ideas and theories in economics is at the cost of
abandoning earlier ideas and theories that remain valuable.
Thus to argue that economics loses valuable content demonstrates not
only that the Whig view of steady progress is mistaken, but that it is so
because it fails to satisfy the Pareto standard. Again, Blaug’s
Blaug's strategy was
to turn economists’
economists' own tools against them on the subject of their rational
reconstructionist view of the history of economic thought.
But in making this fairly conventional argument he committed himself
- it seems at least in part unintentionally - to the view that economics as
—
—
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
Mark
On the historiography of economics
domain of
of thinking
thinking has
has aa holistic
holistic character
character with
with evolutionary
evolutionary sorts
sorts of
of
aa domain
are
which
arguably
propositions
two
dynamics.
Consider
the
following
two
propositions
which
are
arguably
following
the
dynamics. Consider
implied by
by Blaug’s
Blaug's position
position regarding
regarding ‘lost
'lost content’.
content'. First,
First, since
since lost
lost
implied
is
it
way
when
some
in
first
as being
being ‘correct’
'correct' in some way when it is first
content isis usually
usually regarded
regarded as
content
later abandoned,
abandoned, and
and then
then once
once
advanced, then
then ‘incorrect’
'incorrect' when
when itit isis later
advanced,
as
again ‘correct’
'correct' when
when itit gets
gets rehabilitated,
rehabilitated, the
the standard
standard for
for what
what counts
counts as
again
'correct' idea
idea or
or theory
theory in
in economics
economics isis clearly
clearly changeable.
changeable. Second,
Second,
aa ‘correct’
one
anyone
since correctness
correctness is
is relative
relative to
to the
the views
views that
that are
are dominant
dominant at
at any
since
time - that
that any
anyone
set of
of theories
theories and
and ideas
ideas can
can move
move back
back and
and forth
forth
one set
time
across correctness
correctness - implies
implies that
that there
there must
must also
also be
be change
change in
in what
what kinds
kinds
across
propositions
These
time.
over
economics
of
views
are
dominant
in
economics
over
time.
propositions
in
of
closed
suggest that economics operates
operates as aa relatively closed
together, then, suggest
which continually recycles relatively durable content, albeit
albeit in
in
discourse which
changing ways.
ways.9 That is,
is, were
were it not aa relatively closed system
system in
in this
this
9
changing
seems unlikely that past ideas and theories would undergo
sense it seems
substantial
regular recovery and rehabilitation, on the grounds that substantial
changes in the nature and character of economic thinking would disrupt
the system of connections that keeps ‘incorrect’
'incorrect' ideas in play. Perhaps
‘weak’ holism since change in those
such a view should be termed a 'weak'
ideas and theories that are dominant allows more space for bottom-up
change in ideas and theories.
That it was not Blaug's
Blaug’s explicit intention to reason in these terms
might be inferred from his longstanding commitment to the methodology
of Imre Lakatos's
Lakatos’s scientific research program (SRP) approach (for
example Blaug 1992). But in his last statement on the subject he
Lakatos’s thinking, emphasizing that
advanced a generally holist view of Lakatos's
Lakatos 'denied
‘denied that it was ever possible to judge an isolated theory;
or less
more or
of more
clusters of
appraised were clusters
what could
and appraised
could be judged and
“scien
labeled
he
clusters
that
interconnected
labeled "scienand itit was these clusters that
theories, and
interconnected theories,
regard
in
Moreover,
113).
in regard to
tific
2010, p.
(Blaug 2010,
programs” (Blaug
research programs'"
tific research
p. 113).
in
changes in
‘degenerating’
and
‘progressive’ and 'degenerating' changes
Lakatos's
of 'progressive'
treatment of
Lakatos’s treatment
theory
or
idea
given
a
whether a given idea or theory
that whether
out that
pointed out
research
Blaug pointed
programs, Blaug
research programs,
For
time. For
over time.
performance over
relative performance
on its
its relative
was
depended on
other depended
or the
the other
was one
one or
competitive
the
behind
assumptions behind the competitive
various assumptions
example,
the various
regarding the
example, regarding
market
argued:
he argued:
theorem he
hand’ theorem
‘invisible hand'
market 'invisible
Thus it seems fair to say that there were evolutionary holist ideas in
Blaug’s thinking about the ways in which economics developed and
changed over time, despite the fact that he did not emphasize them
explicitly or apparently see himself as an evolutionary thinker per Se.
This then raises the question of how he saw his own role in regard to
the arguments he made about the historiography of economics. Were
those arguments, particularly as economics of scientific knowledge
arguments regarding the inefficiency of rational reconstructions of the
past, to be judged as merely relative to ‘clusters of more or less
interconnected theories’ about the historiography of economics, and so
perhaps to be seen as ‘correct’ at one time but then abandoned and
‘incorrect’ at another, perhaps to be rehabilitated and recovered again
later? This is the issue of reflexivity, or how one’s arguments regarding
methodological practice apply no less to one’s own arguments than to
those to whom they are directed. It is an issue particularly appropriate to
Blaug’s thinking because he casts his critique of rational reconstruction
in economic terms via the marketplace of ideas metaphor, and then uses
the ‘lost content’ idea to show that ideas and theories are ultimately
relative to changes in dominant thinking in economics. This then invites
those who would like to resist his critique of rational reconstruction to
argue that he has not advanced any definitive argument for historical
reconstruction. Indeed, if there is a general recycling of ideas and
theories in economics as might follow on his view, then one might say
that Whig type views of economics historiography should have their day
as frequently as Blaug’s preferred view of the history of economics.
One way to address this problem and escape the often paradoxical
aspects of the concept of reflexivity is by distinguishing different levels
in the application of the concept (Davis and Klaes, 2003). A first level of
reflexivity involves what may be called an ‘immanent’ reflexivity, where
ideas and theories not only refer to objects in the world but are also
self-referring. This is the case with the economics of scientific knowledge
as a particular approach in economic methodology, since economics is
being evaluated in terms of the concepts of economics. A second level of
reflexivity involves what may be called an ‘epistemic’ reflexivity, where
there is a relationship between a methodologist or epistemologist,
Blaug in this case, and the economics of scientific knowledge (itself
‘immanently’ reflexive) such that his own arguments refer not only to the
thinking of other economists but are also self-referring, as argued in the
previous paragraph. A third level of reflexivity involves what may be
called a ‘transcendent’ reflexivity, where we ourselves, economists gen
erally, and all those interested in the arguments concerning the role and
nature of the history of economic thought look upon Blaug’s
170
170
—
—
hand’
‘invisible hand'
of the
the 'invisible
revision of
requires aa revision
If
this requires
false, this
be false,
to be
found to
are found
If they
they are
revision.
suitable revision,
by suitable
accommodated by
of being
being accommodated
theorem.
capable of
be capable
may be
They may
theorem. They
possible
of possible
face of
the face
program inin the
research program
the research
but
record of
of the
track record
the track
only the
but only
or 'degenerating'
‘degenerating’
‘progressive’ or
refutations
whether itit isis aa 'progressive'
establish whether
will establish
refutations will
or
‘progressive’ or
SRP isis 'progressive'
an SRP
whether an
question of
SRP
of whether
the question
that the
point isis that
The point
SRP .... The
114)
(Ibid., p.p. 114)
answer. (Ibid.,
'degenerating'
‘once-and-for-all’ answer.
no 'once-and-for-all'
has no
‘degenerating’ has
...
.
171
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
On the
the historiography
historiography of
On
ofeconomics
economics
a domain of thinking has a holistic character with evolutionary sorts of
dynamics. Consider the following two propositions which are arguably
implied by Blaug’s position regarding ‘lost content’. First, since lost
content is usually regarded as being ‘correct’ in some way when it is first
advanced, then ‘incorrect’ when it is later abandoned, and then once
again ‘correct’ when it gets rehabilitated, the standard for what counts as
a ‘correct’ idea or theory in economics is clearly changeable. Second,
since correctness is relative to the views that are dominant at any one
time that any one set of theories and ideas can move back and forth
across correctness implies that there must also be change in what kinds
of views are dominant in economics over time. These propositions
together, then, suggest that economics operates as a relatively closed
discourse which continually recycles relatively durable content, albeit in
9 That is, were it not a relatively closed system in this
changing ways.
sense it seems unlikely that past ideas and theories would undergo
regular recovery and rehabilitation, on the grounds that substantial
changes in the nature and character of economic thinking would disrupt
the system of connections that keeps ‘incorrect’ ideas in play. Perhaps
such a view should be termed a ‘weak’ holism since change in those
ideas and theories that are dominant allows more space for bottom-up
change in ideas and theories.
That it was not Blaug’s explicit intention to reason in these terms
might be inferred from his longstanding commitment to the methodology
of Imre Lakatos’s scientific research program (SRP) approach (for
example Blaug 1992). But in his last statement on the subject he
advanced a generally holist view of Lakatos’s thinking, emphasizing that
Lakatos ‘denied that it was ever possible to judge an isolated theory;
what could be judged and appraised were clusters of more or less
interconnected theories, and it was these clusters that he labeled “scien
tific research programs” (Blaug 2010, p. 113). Moreover, in regard to
Lakatos’s treatment of ‘progressive’ and ‘degenerating’ changes in
research programs, Blaug pointed out that whether a given idea or theory
was one or the other depended on its relative performance over time. For
example, regarding the various assumptions behind the competitive
market ‘invisible hand’ theorem he argued:
seems fair
fair to
to say
say that
Thus itit seems
that there
there were
were evolutionary
Thus
evolutionary holist
holist ideas
ideas in
in
thinking about
about the
Blaug’s thinking
the ways
ways in
in which
which economics
Blaug's
developed
economics developed and
and
over time,
time, despite
despite the
changed over
fact that
the fact
that he
changed
did not
he did
not emphasize
emphasize them
them
or apparently
apparently see
see himself
explicitly or
himself as
as an
an evolutionary
explicitly
evolutionary thinker
thinker per
per se.
Se.
then raises
raises the
the question
This then
question of
of how
how he
he saw
saw his
This
his own
own role
in regard
role in
regard to
to
arguments he
he made
made about
about the
the historiography
historiography of
the arguments
of economics.
economics. Were
Were
arguments, particularly
those arguments,
particularly as
as economics
economics of
those
of scientific
scientific knowledge
knowledge
regarding the
the inefficiency
arguments regarding
inefficiency of
of rational
rational reconstructions
arguments
of the
reconstructions of
to be
be judged as
past, to
as merely
merely relative
relative to
or
past,
to 'clusters
‘clusters of
of more
more or less
less
interconnected theories'
theories’ about
about the
the historiography of
interconnected
of economics,
economics, and
and so
be seen
to be
seen as 'correct'
‘correct’ at one
one time
perhaps to
time but then
then abandoned and
‘incorrect’ at another, perhaps to be rehabilitated
'incorrect'
rehabilitated and
and recovered again
again
later? This is the issue of reflexivity, or how one's
one’s arguments regarding
methodological practice apply no less to one's
one’s own arguments than to
those to whom they are directed. It is an issue particularly appropriate to
Blaug’s thinking because he casts his critique of rational reconstruction
Blaug's
in economic terms via the marketplace of ideas metaphor, and then uses
content’ idea to show that ideas and theories are ultimately
‘lost content'
the 'lost
relative to changes in dominant thinking in economics. This then invites
those who would like to resist his critique of rational reconstruction to
argue that he has not advanced any definitive argument for historical
reconstruction. Indeed, if there is a general recycling of ideas and
theories in economics as might follow on his view, then one might say
that Whig type views of economics historiography should have their day
Blaug’s preferred view of the history of economics.
as frequently as Blaug's
One way to address this problem and escape the often paradoxical
aspects of the concept of reflexivity is by distinguishing different levels
in the application of the concept (Davis and Klaes, 2003). A first level of
reflexivity involves what may be called an ‘immanent’
'immanent' reflexivity, where
ideas and theories not only refer to objects in the world but
but are also
self-referring.
self-referring. This is the case with the economics
economics of
of scientific knowledge
knowledge
as a particular
particular approach in economic methodology, since economics is
is
being evaluated in terms of the concepts of economics. A second level
level of
of
reflexivity involves
involves what may be
be called
called an
an ‘epistemic’
'epistemic' reflexivity, where
where
there
there is
is aa relationship between
between aa methodologist
methodologist or
or epistemologist,
Blaug
Blaug in
in this
this case,
case, and
and the
the economics
economics of
of scientific
scientific knowledge
knowledge (itself
(itself
‘immanently’
'immanently' reflexive)
reflexive) such
such that
that his
his own
own arguments
arguments refer
refer not
not only
only to
to the
the
thinking
thinking of
of other
other economists
economists but
but are
are also
also self-referring,
self-referring, as
as argued
argued in
in the
the
previous
previous paragraph.
paragraph. A
A third
third level
level of
of reflexivity
reflexivity involves
involves what
what may
may be
be
called
called aa ‘transcendent’
'transcendent' reflexivity,
reflexivity, where
where we
we ourselves,
ourselves, economists
economists gen
generally,
erally, and
and all
all those
those interested
interested in
in the
the arguments
arguments concerning
concerning the
the role
role and
and
nature
nature of
of the
the history
history of
of economic
economic thought
thought look
look upon
upon Blaug’s
Blaug's
170
—
—
If they are found to be false, this requires a revision of the ‘invisible hand’
theorem. They may be capable of being accommodated by suitable revision.
but only the track record of the research program in the face of possible
refutations will establish whether it is a ‘progressive’ or ‘degenerating’
The point is that the question of whether an SRP is ‘progressive’ or
SRP
‘degenerating’ has no ‘once-and-for-all’ answer. (Ibid., p. 114)
...
.
171
171
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
Mark
On the historiography of economics
historiographic
view (the
(the ‘epistemic’
'epistemic' level
level of
of reflexivity)
reflexivity) and
and do
do so
so in
in aa
ic view
historiograph
since
we
upon
us,
back
refers
that
self-referring
way,
or
in
a
way
that
refers
back
upon
us,
since
we
are
in
are
way
a
self-referring way, or
ic
issues.
concerned
with
the
same
historiographic
issues.
historiograph
same
the
concerned with
Reflexivity exists
exists at
at all
all three
three levels,
levels, then,
then, but
but its
its paradoxical
paradoxical quality
quality
Reflexivity
may
it
levels.
Thus
lower
higher
seem
to
dissipates
as
one
moves
from
lower
to
higher
levels.
Thus
it
may
seem
from
moves
dissipates as one
say.
to
circularity
at
evident
the
of
the
highly
paradoxical
in
light
of
the
evident
circularity
to
say,
at
the
light
in
highly paradoxical
in
theories
and
ideas
economics
of
of
ideas
and
theories
in
economics
'immanent'
level,
that
the
meaning
meaning
the
that
‘immanent’ level,
derives from
from the
the meaning
meaning of
of those
those same
same ideas
ideas and
and theories.
theories. But
But this
this
derives
st
st,
or
methodologi
the
epistemologi
when
difficulty
is
at
least
moderated
when
the
methodologist
or
epistemologist,
moderated
least
difficulty is at
the
‘episternic’
discusses
at
theories,
and
who
stands
outside
those
ideas
and
theories,
discusses
at
the
'epistemic'
ideas
those
outside
stands
who
level whether,
whether, when,
when, and
and how successfully
successfully economic ideas
ideas and
and theories
theories
level
of
field
the
of
economics
development
can
be
used
to
evaluate
the
development
of
the
of
economics
the
evaluate
to
be
can
used
objectified as a type of scientific practice. Nonetheless there still
still remains
remains
we saw
saw
problematic about ‘epistemic’
'epistemic' reflexivity where,
where, as we
something problematic
Blaug, itit is
is fair game to say
say that aa particular methodology
methodology that
that is
is
with Blaug,
certain ideas and theories ought
ought to be judged
judged by
by itself,
grounded in certain
another evident circularity.
Consider, then, how we might look upon Blaug’s
Blaug's position in ‘trans
'transConsidei
cendent' reflexivity terms. Here we focus not on the (‘epistemic’)
('epistemic')
cendent’
methodologist Blaug and the views he
relationship between the particular methodologist
developed but rather on collections of individuals like Blaug, Samuelson,
Baumol, others, and ourselves, who are involved in seeking to explain a
type of disciplinary practice, namely the history of economic thought, as
it operates in the science of economics understood as one among many
kinds of social sciences. Here we place Blaug in this wider social context
in which at issue is not just his arguments regarding the status of the
history of economics but generally how the social science disciplines
methodolo
function and ought to function. Blaug is still an historian and methodologist of economics, and he still thinks in terms of a relatively closed
discourse in which he is expert. But our vantage point is now broader,
and the representative
representative case he makes against the view most economists
defend regarding the historiography
historiography of economics is framed by how
content’ and change.
‘lost content'
sciences generally operate on such subjects as 'lost
of scientific
scientific
Blaug uses economics of
Thus,
fact that Blaug
Thus, in light of the fact
reflex
historiography, the reflexknowledge reasoning to evaluate
evaluate economics on historiography,
to be recognized and addressed. But
ive aspects of his thinking need to
is more
reconstruction is
historical reconstruction
ultimately
method of
of historical
the method
for the
case for
his case
ultimately his
the
critique. In the
circularity critique.
the circularity
to the
vulnerable to
widely
really vulnerable
and not
not really
based and
widely based
the history
for the
arguments for
and arguments
case and
his case
from his
closing
lessons from
then, lessons
section, then,
closing section,
change in
of change
issue of
the issue
relation to
to the
in relation
out in
set out
of
are set
thought are
economic thought
of economic
recent
economics.
recent economics.
12.5 HISTORY OF ECONOMICS AND THE CHANGE IN
ECONOMICS
172
172
173
As already noted, it is now widely recognized in the economics profes
sion that there has been considerable change in ideas, theories, methods.
and approaches in economics in the last decade or more. Perhaps not
surprisingly, this has given new impetus to appraisals of past ideas as
proponents of new research strategies interpret them in terms of past
ideas and theories (for example Bruni and Sugden 2007). In one sense,
this is consistent with Blaug’s view that the past can be recovered and
rehabilitated. It also fits his critique of the archaeological view of the
history of economic thought, where he argues that the past is not set in
stone and there simply to be uncovered, but is continually being
explained anew as continued research leads us to revise our past
historical thinking. But to the extent that these recent ‘recoveries’ are
rational reconstructions of the past, perhaps with Whig-type motivations,
they would be as objectionable to Blaug as views such as Samuelson’s
ultimately became for him. Nonetheless, might it be argued, with Blaug’s
implicit evolutionary vision of economics in mind, that there are grounds
for thinking that economists, especially those who are involved in new
research approaches and who often find themselves at odds with domin
ant views, are potentially more open to thinking that ‘correctness’ in
economics is relative, and consequently that the history of economics
could be valuable to understanding the development of economics as a
science? Certainly there are reasons not to be too optimistic on this score,
but it seems fitting in a discussion of Blaug’s contributions to the
historiography of economics to at least make the case for a more
optimistic scenario.
The argument, then, would be that the Samuelsonian idea that past
ideas and theories can and ought to be rationally reconstructed is no
longer nearly as credible as it was many years ago, that it has become
increasingly accepted that historical reconstruction is the proper form of
historiography, and, most importantly, that this all shows that economics
can lose content seen to be of continuing value. Why should we think
these three claims are true? First, rational reconstruction is now arguably
seen as a naïve method, one not seriously defended any longer by
economists, most of whom seem to have originally only followed the
lead of Samuelson, while being less competent than he was in arguing it,
and so are today not so much averse to the history of economics per se as
just interested in increasing training in mathematics and econometrics. At
the same time, whereas a leading historian of economics, Blaug, could
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
historiography of economics
On the historiography
historiographic view (the ‘epistemic’ level of reflexivity) and do so in a
self-referring way, or in a way that refers back upon us, since we are
concerned with the same historiographic issues.
Reflexivity exists at all three levels, then, but its paradoxical quality
dissipates as one moves from lower to higher levels. Thus it may seem
highly paradoxical in light of the evident circularity to say. at the
‘immanent’ level, that the meaning of ideas and theories in economics
derives from the meaning of those same ideas and theories. But this
difficulty is at least moderated when the methodologist or epistemologist,
who stands outside those ideas and theories, discusses at the ‘episternic’
level whether, when, and how successfully economic ideas and theories
can be used to evaluate the development of the field of economics
objectified as a type of scientific practice. Nonetheless there still remains
something problematic about ‘epistemic’ reflexivity where, as we saw
with Blaug, it is fair game to say that a particular methodology that is
grounded in certain ideas and theories ought to be judged by itself,
another evident circularity.
Considei then, how we might look upon Blaug’s position in ‘trans
cendent’ reflexivity terms. Here we focus not on the (‘epistemic’)
relationship between the particular methodologist Blaug and the views he
developed but rather on collections of individuals like Blaug, Samuelson,
Baumol, others, and ourselves, who are involved in seeking to explain a
type of disciplinary practice, namely the history of economic thought, as
it operates in the science of economics understood as one among many
kinds of social sciences. Here we place Blaug in this wider social context
in which at issue is not just his arguments regarding the status of the
history of economics but generally how the social science disciplines
function and ought to function. Blaug is still an historian and methodolo
gist of economics, and he still thinks in terms of a relatively closed
discourse in which he is expert. But our vantage point is now broader,
and the representative case he makes against the view most economists
defend regarding the historiography of economics is framed by how
sciences generally operate on such subjects as ‘lost content’ and change.
Thus, in light of the fact that Blaug uses economics of scientific
knowledge reasoning to evaluate economics on historiography, the reflex
ive aspects of his thinking need to be recognized and addressed. But
ultimately his case for the method of historical reconstruction is more
widely based and not really vulnerable to the circularity critique. In the
closing section, then, lessons from his case and arguments for the history
of economic thought are set out in relation to the issue of change in
recent economics.
ECONOMICS AND THE CHANGE IN
12.5 HISTORY OF ECONOMICS
ECONOMICS
ECONOMICS
172
173
As already noted, it is now widely recognized in the economics profesprofes
sion that there has been considerable change in ideas, theories, methods,
methods.
and approaches in economics in the last decade or more. Perhaps not
surprisingly, this has given new impetus to appraisals of past ideas as
proponents of new research strategies interpret them in terms of past
ideas and theories (for example Bruni and Sugden 2007). In one sense,
Blaug’s view that the past can be recovered and
this is consistent with Blaug's
rehabilitated. It also fits his critique of the archaeological
archaeological view of the
history of economic thought, where he argues that the past is not set in
stone and there simply to be uncovered, but is continually being
explained anew as continued research leads us to revise our past
historical thinking. But to the extent that these recent 'recoveries'
‘recoveries’ are
reconstructions of the past, perhaps with Whig-type motivations,
rational reconstructions
they would be as objectionable to Blaug as views such as Samuelson's
Samuelson’s
ultimately became for him. Nonetheless, might it be argued, with Blaug's
Blaug’s
implicit evolutionary vision of economics in mind, that there are grounds
for thinking that economists, especially those who are involved in new
research approaches and who often find themselves at odds with domindomin
ant views, are potentially more open to thinking that 'correctness'
‘correctness’ in
economics is relative, and consequently that the history of economics
understanding the development of economics as a
could be valuable to understanding
science? Certainly there are reasons not to be too optimistic on this score,
Blaug’s contributions to the
but it seems fitting in a discussion of Blaug's
historiography of economics to at least make the case for a more
historiography
optimistic scenario.
The argument, then, would be that the Samuelsonian
Samuelsonian idea that past
ideas and theories can and ought to be rationally reconstructed is no
longer nearly as credible as it was many years ago, that it has become
n is the proper form of
increasingly accepted that historical reconstructio
reconstruction
y, and, most importantly, that this all shows that economics
historiograph
historiography,
can lose content seen to be of continuing value. Why should we think
these three claims are true? First, rational reconstructio
n is now arguably
reconstruction
seen as a naive
naïve method, one not seriously defended any longer by
economists, most of whom seem to have originally only followed the
lead of Samuelson, while being less competent than he was in arguing it,
it,
and so are today not so much averse to the history of economics per se as
just
just interested in increasing training in
in mathematics and econometrics
econometrics.. At
the same time, whereas a leading historian of economics,
economics, Blaug, could
could
On the historiography of economics
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
Mark
174
174
n at
entertain rational
rational reconstructio
reconstruction
at one
one point
point in
in his
his career,
career, there
there are
are far
far
entertain
view
that
fewer historians
historians of
of economics
economics now
now who
who would
would take
take that view seriously.
seriously.
fewer
Second, economists,
economists, even
even when
when they
they have
have no
no interest
interest in
in the
the history
history of
of
Second,
economics
economics, generally
generally accept
accept that
that historians
historians of
of economics are
are expert
expert in
in
economics,
their field,
field, and
and recognize
recognize that
that the
the field
field has
has expanded
expanded in
in aa research
research sense
sense
their
with more
more publications
publications and
and journals
journals than
than previously.
previously. Thus
Thus if
if historians
historians
with
n,
likely
with expert
expert status
status defend
defend historical
historical reconstructio
reconstruction, likely economists
economists
with
generally will
will take
take that
that to
to be
be the
the proper
proper method.
method. Third,
Third, the
the main
main feature
feature
generally
n
multiplicatio
a
of the
the change
change in
in recent
recent economics
economics isis a multiplication in
in research
research
of
rability with
exhibiting considerable
considerable incommensu
incommensurability
with one
one another.
another.
approaches exhibiting
they
this,
recognize
Supposing that
that economists
economists increasingly
increasingly recognize this, they should
should then
then
Supposing
as is
is often
often manifest
manifest in
in
be aware that there are
are significant gaps
gaps in
in research, as
be
researchers' successes
successes in seizing
seizing upon
upon unexploited subjects of
of investiga
investigaresearchers’
open to the idea that valuable
valuable economic ideas
ideas and
and
tion, and thus be more open
sometimes
also
and
neglected,
theories may sometimes be missed,
In effect, then, Blaug’s
Blaug's inefficiency of the
the economics market
marketrecovered. In
idea among econo
controversial
very
econoplace idea is no longer really a
mists.
This optimistic scenario, whereby the view of history of economic
thought in the economics profession has changed from what it was
previously, unfortunately does not imply that resources will flow to the
field or that it will make significant progress in the future in being
re-established
re-established in doctoral study. As worldwide there are fewer resources
directed to university training in general, fields such as the history of
economics which are not at the center of their subjects will continue to
face difficult times. But it may be taken nevertheless as a legacy of Mark
methodologist of economics
Blaug's
Blaug’s work as an economist, historian, and methodologist
to have made a strong case for the field. And who would have been a
who admitted he had been wrong
than one who
better person to have done so than
economists’ own
failed by economists'
n
about rational reconstruction
because
itit failed
reconstructio
measure of policy, Pareto
efficiency?
Pareto
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
go to
to
chapter go
this chapter
of this
version of
previous version
on aa previous
implication on
Thanks
without implication
Thanks for
comments without
for comments
Hands,
Wade Hands,
Emami, Wade
Zohreh Emami,
Caldwell, Zohreh
Bruce Caldwell,
Marcel
Brewer, Bruce
Tony Brewer,
Boumans, Tony
Marcel Boumans,
Yalcintas.
Altug Yalcintas.
and Altug
Vromen and
Matthias
Jack Vromen
Maas, Jack
Harro Maas,
Klaes, Harro
Matthias Klaes,
of
genres of
four genres
distinguished four
philosophy, distinguished
of philosophy,
I.1. Rorty,
history of
the history
was the
concern was
whose concern
Rorty, whose
reconstructions,
rational reconstructions,
reconstructions, rational
historical reconstructions,
historiography:
Geistesgeschichten, historical
historiography: Geistesgeschichten,
“geistes
or "geisteshistory” or
“intellectual history"
that '''intellectual
and
thought that
Blaug thought
1984). Blaug
(Rorty 1984).
doxographies (Rorty
and doxographies
reconstruction”
“historical reconstruction'"
call "historical
what II call
thing as
as what
geschichte"
same thing
the same
virtually the
geschichte” ... virtually
construc
rational construcand rational
doxography and
between doxography
(Blaug
difference between
the difference
and the
151). and
2001. p.p. 151),
(Blaug 2001,
two
his two
across his
distinction across
main distinction
His main
tions
(Blaug 1990,
1990. p.28).
one’ (Blaug
subtle one'
best aa subtle
‘at best
tions 'at
p. 28). His
papers, consequently, was the difference between rational reconstructions and histori
cal reconstructions.
A somewhat more blunt assessment of his view at this time was recorded later in his
1994 autobiographical remarks with respect to his historiographical stance in Eco
nomic Theory in Retrospect: ‘I announced myself an unapologetic absolutist and
poked fun at relativists throughout the hook. This is not a point of view I now hold,
having been upstaged over the years by even more strident upholders of the “Whig
interpretation of history” (Blaug 1994. p. 17).
It is worth noting that Blaug was also motivated to reconsider the merits of rational
reconstmction by his perception of the unhealthy emergence of formalism in eco
nomics (cf. Blaug 2003).
This was important to George Stigler’s position (cited by Blaug) in contrasting
‘personal exegesis’ and ‘scientific exegesis’ (Stigler 1965).
This subsequent exchange was stimulated by Samuelson’s reaction to Blaug’s (1990)
reflections on historiography and discussion of the exchange with Baumol. Samuelson
widened the exchange to include Patinkin, and their correspondence largely concerned
other issues in the history of economics.
Note that Imre Lakatos, who much influenced Blaug on the subject of the methodol
ogy of scientific research programs, had much earlier made related statements, arguing
that ‘any rational reconstruction needs to be supplemented by an empirical (socio
psychological) “external history” (Lakatos 1971, p. 91). Thus he wrote:
In this paper I have proposed a ‘historical’ method for the evaluation of rival
methodologies. The arguments were primarily addressed to the philosophers of
science and aimed at showing how he can and should learn from the history of
science. But the same arguments also imply that the historian of science must, in
turn, pay serious attention to the philosophy of science and decide upon which
methodology he will base his internal history. I hope to have offered some strong
arguments for the following theses. First, each methodology of science determines
a characteristic (and sharp) demarcation between (primary) internal history and
(secondary) external history and, secondly, both historians and philosophers of
science must make the best of the critical interplay between internal and external
factors. (Ibid., p. 122)
—
—
Blaug, however, does not seem to have cited this text. See Klaes (2003) for a
discussion of Lakatos’s view.
7.
8.
9.
NOTES
NOTES
175
This was central to his critique of formalist general equilibrium theory (for example
Blaug 2003).
Thus on the one hand: ‘At long last, it can be said that the history of general
equilibrium theory from Walras to Arrow—Debreu has been a journey down a blind
alley’, whereas on the other hand: ‘General equilibrium theory, which had been dying
a slow death ever since Walras’s own death, was revived in the l930s’ (Blaug 2001,
p. 160).
This argument was also advanced in a somewhat different manner by Daniel Hausman
(1992).
**
...
REFERENCES
Baumol, W. (1974a), ‘The transformation of values: What Marx “really” meant
(an interpretation)’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12 (1), 51—62.
Baumol, W. (1974b), ‘Comment’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12 (1), 74—75.
entertain rational reconstruction at one point in his career, there are far
fewer historians of economics now who would take that view seriously.
Second, economists, even when they have no interest in the history of
economics, generally accept that historians of economics are expert in
their field, and recognize that the field has expanded in a research sense
with more publications and journals than previously. Thus if historians
with expert status defend historical reconstruction, likely economists
generally will take that to be the proper method. Third, the main feature
of the change in recent economics is a multiplication in research
approaches exhibiting considerable incommensurability with one another.
Supposing that economists increasingly recognize this, they should then
be aware that there are significant gaps in research, as is often manifest in
researchers’ successes in seizing upon unexploited subjects of investiga
tion, and thus be more open to the idea that valuable economic ideas and
theories may sometimes be missed, neglected, and sometimes also
recovered. In effect, then, Blaug’s inefficiency of the economics market
place idea is no longer really a very controversial idea among econo
mists.
This optimistic scenario, whereby the view of history of economic
thought in the economics profession has changed from what it was
previously, unfortunately does not imply that resources will flow to the
field or that it will make significant progress in the future in being
re-established in doctoral study. As worldwide there are fewer resources
directed to university training in general, fields such as the history of
economics which are not at the center of their subjects will continue to
face difficult times. But it may be taken nevertheless as a legacy of Mark
Blaug’s work as an economist, historian, and methodologist of economics
to have made a strong case for the field. And who would have been a
better person to have done so than one who admitted he had been wrong
about rational reconstruction because it failed by economists’ own
measure of policy, Pareto efficiency?
NOTES
*
1.
On the historiography
historiography of economics
Mark Blaug: rebel with many causes
174
Thanks for comments without implication on a previous version of this chapter go to
Marcel Boumans, Tony Brewer, Bruce Caldwell, Zohreh Emami, Wade Hands,
Matthias Klaes, Harro Maas, Jack Vromen and Altug Yalcintas.
Rorty, whose concern was the history of philosophy, distinguished four genres of
historiography: Geistesgeschichten, historical reconstructions, rational reconstructions,
and doxographies (Rorty 1984). Blaug thought that “intellectual history” or “geistes
virtually the same thing as what I call “historical reconstruction”
geschichte”
(Blaug 2001. p. 151). and the difference between doxography and rational construc
tions ‘at best a subtle one’ (Blaug 1990. p. 28). His main distinction across his two
...
2.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
6.
175
consequently, was the difference between rational reconstructions
histori
papers, consequently,
reconstructions and historireconstructions.
cal reconstructions.
A somewhat more blunt assessment of his view at this time was recorded later in his
1994 autobiographical
Ecoautobiographical remarks with respect to his historiographical
historiographical stance in Eco
Theory in Retrospect: 'I
‘I announced myself an unapologetic absolutist and
nomic Themy
hook. This is not a point of view I now hold,
poked fun at relativists throughout the book.
“Whig
having been upstaged over the years by even more strident upholders of the "Whig
history” (Blaug 1994,
1994. p.
interpretation of history'"
p. 17).
It is worth noting that Blaug was also motivated to reconsider the merits of rational
reconstruction
ecoreconstmction by his perception of the unhealthy emergence of formalism in eco
nomics (cf. Blaug 2003).
This was important to George Stigler's
Stigler’s position (cited by Blaug) in contrasting
exegesis’ and 'scientific
'personal
exegesis’ (Stigler 1965).
‘scientific exegesis'
‘personal exegesis'
This subsequent exchange was stimulated by Samuelson's
Samuelson’s reaction to Blaug's
Blaug’s (1990)
historiography and discussion of the exchange with Baumol. Samuelson
reflections on historiography
widened the exchange to include Patinkin, and their correspondence
correspondence largely concerned
other issues in the history of economics.
Note that Imre Lakatos, who much influenced Blaug on the subject of the methodolmethodol
ogy of scientific research programs, had much earlier made related statements, arguing
reconstruction needs to be supplemented
that 'any
‘any rational reconstruction
supplemented by an empirical (socio(socio
“external history'"
history” (Lakatos 1971, p.
psychological) "external
psychological)
p. 91). Thus he wrote:
‘historical’ method for the evaluation of rival
In this paper I have proposed a 'historical'
methodologies.
methodologies. The arguments were primarily addressed to the philosophers of
science and aimed at showing how he can - and should - learn from the history of
science. But the same arguments also imply that the historian of science must, in
turn, pay serious attention to the philosophy of science and decide upon which
methodology he will base his internal history. I hope to have offered some strong
arguments for the following theses. First, each methodology of science determines
a characteristic (and sharp) demarcation between (primary) internal history and
(secondary) external history and, secondly, both historians and philosophers of
science must make the best of the critical interplay between internal and external
factors. (Ibid., p.
p. 122)
—
—
Blaug, however, does not seem to have cited this text. See Klaes (2003) for a
discussion of Lakatos's
Lakatos’s view.
7.
This was central to his critique of formalist general equilibrium theory (for example
Blaug 2003).
‘At long last, it can be said that the history of general
8. Thus on the one hand: 'At
equilibrium theory from Walras to Arrow-Debreu
Arrow—Debreu has been a journey down a blind
alley’, whereas on the other hand: 'General
‘General equilibrium theory, which had been dying
alley',
a slow death ever since Walras's
Walras’s own death, was revived in the 1930s'
l930s’ (Blaug 2001,
p.160).
p. 160).
9. This argument was also advanced in a somewhat different manner by Daniel Hausman
(1992).
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Baumol, W. (1974a), 'The
‘The transformation
transformation of values: What Marx "really"
“really” meant
interpretation)’, lournal
Journal of Economic Literature, 12 (1), 51-62.
(an interpretation)',
51—62.
Baumol, W. (1974b), 'Comment',
Journal of Economic Literature, 12 (1), 74-75.
74—75.
‘Comment’, lournal
176
176
Mark Blaug:
Blaug: rebel
rebel with
with many
many causes
causes
Mark
Blaug, M.
M. (1985),
(1985), Economic Theory in
in Retrospect,
Retrospect, 4th
4th edition,
edition, Cambridge:
Camblidge:
Blaug,
Cambridge University Press.
Press.
Cambridge
Blaug, M.
M. (1990),
(1990), ‘on
'On the
the historiography
histOliography of
of economics’,
economics', Journal
Journal of
of the
the History
History
Blaug,
of Economic
Economic Thought,
Thought, 12
12 (1),
(1), 27—37.
27-37.
of
Blaug, M.
M. (1992),
(1992), The Methodology of
of Economics, or
or How Economists
Economists Explain,
Explain,
Blaug,
2nd edition,
edition, Cambridge: Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Press.
2nd
Blaug, M. (1994),
(1994), ‘Not
'Not only
only an economist - autobiographical reflections
reflections of
of aa
Blaug,
thought', The American
American Economist, 38 (2), 12—27.
12-27.
historian of economic thought’,
process', in
in
'Competition as an end-state and competition as aa process’,
Blaug, M. (1997), ‘Competition
B.C. Eaton and R.G. Harris (eds), Trade, Technology and Economics: Essays
B.C.
in Honour of Richard G. Lipsey, Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, NH, USA:
pp. 241—263.
241-263.
Edward Elgar, pp.
'No history of ideas, please, we’re
we're economists’,
economists', Journal of
Blaug, M. (2001), ‘No
145—164.
Economic Perspectives, 15 (1), 145-164.
1950s’, Journal of the History
Blaug, M. (2003), ‘The
'The formalist revolution of the 1950s',
HistOlY
145—156.
of Economic Thought, 25 (2), 145-156.
'Research programs in economics’,
economics', in M. Boumans and J.B.
Blaug, M. (2010), ‘Research
Davis, Economic Methodology: Understanding Economics as a Science,
113—114.
Palgrave Macmillan, pp.
Basingstoke: Paigrave
pp. 113-114.
‘The road not taken: How psychology was
Bruni,
Bruni. L. and R. Sugden (2007), 'The
back’, Economic
removed from economics, and how it might be brought back',
146—173.
Journal, 117 (January), 146-173.
cure?’, Journal of
‘Reflexivity: curse or cureT,
Davis, J. and M. Klaes (2003), 'Reflexivity:
329—352.
Economic Methodology, 10 (3), 329-352.
Cam
Hausman, D. (1992), The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J.E. Biddle and J.B. Davis
W.J. Samuels, lE.
Klaes, M. (2003), 'Historiography',
‘Historiography’, in w.J.
(eds), A Companion to the History of Economic Thought, Oxford: Blackwell,
pp.491-506.
pp. 491—506.
reconstructions’, in R.C.
Lakatos,1.
‘History of science and its rational reconstructions',
Lakatos, I. (1971), 'History
Buck and R.S. Cohen (eds), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8,
Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.
91—136.
pp. 91-136.
J.B.
philosophy’, in R. Rorty, lB.
Rorty, R. (1984), 'The
‘The historiography of philosophy',
Schnewind and Q.
Skinner
(eds),
Philosophy
in
History,
Cambridge:
Q.
Cambridge University Press.
Samuelson, P. (1971), 'Understanding
‘Understanding the Marxian notion of exploitation: A
summary of the so-called transformation problem between Marxian values and
399—431.
competitive prices',
Journal of Economic Literature, 9 (2), 399-431.
prices’, Journal
exploitation’, Journal
Samuelson,
‘Insight and detour in the theory of exploitation',
(l974a), 'Insight
Samuelson, P. (1974a),
of Economic Literature, 12
62—70.
12 (1), 62-70.
word’, Journal of
Merlin unclothed, a final word',
Samuelson, P. (1974b), 'Rejoinder:
‘Rejoinder: Merlin
(1), 75-77.
75—77.
Economic Literature, 12
12 (1),
(1991), 'On
‘On the historiography of
Samuelson,
Blaug (1991),
and M.
M. Blaug
Patinkin and
Samuelson, P.,
P., D. Patinkin
13 (2),
of Economics,
Economics, 13
of the
the History
economics:
Journal of
Histort of
correspondence’, Journal
economics: A
A correspondence',
144-158.
144—i 58.
Economica, 32
problem’, Economica,
scientific problem',
exegesis as
as aa scientific
Stigler,
‘Textual exegesis
(1965), 'Textual
Stigler, G.
G. (1965),
(November),
447—450.
(November). 447-450.
13. An unrepentant Lakatosian
—
Marcel Boumans*
13.1 INTRODUCTION
It would be much too strong calling Mark Blaug’s overall approach a
‘research program’, nevertheless there is quite some coherence and
continuity with respect to a few themes with which one could character
ize his work throughout his professional life. One of these themes, ‘rigor
versus relevance’, was most dominant in the last ten years of his life. So,
though this theme was most prominent in the last period of his profes
sional life, you can see by hindsight that it has always been one of his
major concerns. Already his very first publication (1956), dealing with
the empirical content of Ricardian economics, contains the key elements
of the later ‘rigor versus relevance’ debate:
—
—
My purpose here is to show, first of all, that the body of doctrine which
Ricardo bequeathed to his followers rested on a series of definite predictions
about the course of economic events which were subject to empirical
verification, in the strictest sense of the term. Second, I shall try to show that
the statistical data and methods of the time, crude as they may have been,
were adequate to test the validity of Ricardian theory, in terms of its
predictive accuracy for the class of phenomena which it was intended to
explain, and, moreover, that such evidence was within the purview of all the
economists of the day. Lastly, I shall argue that few of the classical thinkers
were willing to surrender economic propositions on the grounds that they
were contradicted by the available evidence; but, I stress, this had nothing to
do with lack of empirical information. (Blaug 1956, p. 41)
Ricardian theory is not a deductive, ‘empirically empty’, theory but has
empirical content because it can be tested in terms of its predictive
accuracy.
According to Blaug (1998, 2003a, 2003b, 2009, 2010a; Sharp 1998),
relevance means having empirical content and being capable of answer
ing any practical question, whereas rigor is taken as a synonym of
irrelevance, associated with empty formalism. Rigor and relevance are
‘77