I. INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW OF FIFTY YEARS OF HES PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES
The History of Economics Society (HES) has traveled a long way throughout its fifty conferences, from the first one organized by Warren Samuels and Vincent Tarascio on May 30 and 31, 1973, in Chicago, to the fiftieth annual meetings that took place on June 23 to 25, 2023, in Vancouver, Canada. This journey can be analyzed in different ways, and here we focus on the presidential addresses delivered as a guide to our analysis. From the conference programs we identified a total of forty-four presidential addresses: the first to appear on the conference program was Vincent Tarascio’s speech on Vilfredo Pareto, on the second day of the Boston conference in 1975. Since 1975, presidential addresses have become a regular feature of the conference, with rare exceptions such as the 1977 Irvine, CA, conference or in the recent years when Marcel Boumans’s presidential address was postponed from 2020 to 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the forty-four presidential addresses in the history of HES, we analyzed the forty-one that were published in scholarly journals (see Table 1). However, we could not find whether two presidential addresses—specifically Joseph Spengler, HES conference Reference Tarascio1976, Chicago; and Carl Uhr, HES conference 1978, Toronto—have been published. Moreover, Robert Leonard has not published the address he delivered at the 2015 HES conference but two related papers.
Table 1. 50 YEARS OF HES PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES
In keeping with the tradition of the association, amiably described by Karen Vaughn (Reference Vaughn1993) as a “rare thing in modern academics, a community of scholars who listen to each other before they speak” (p. 182), the choice of theme and style of the presidential address has always been left unconstrained. Although, as mentioned by Donald Moggridge (Reference Moggridge1989), the fact that the presidential address traditionally takes place at the end of two dense days of the conference limits the heaviness of the contents as equally as the fact that it will be published prevents the most total absurdities. Indeed, since 1980 presidential addresses have been published in the History of Economics Society Bulletin and since 1990 in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought (JHET).
Precisely because of this absence of constraints, the presidential addresses appear to be very heterogeneous among themselves, but, in outlining the main characteristics, we can classify them into three general categories:
-
1. overviews of the state of the history of economic thought and advice on its evolution over time (Type I);
-
2. academic lectures on a topic close to the speaker’s research interests (Type II); and
-
3. mixed speeches, or, better, a combination of the first and second categories in which the speaker, starting from her/his own research interest, tends to isolate a lesson for HES members (Type III).
Most presidential addresses, so far, belong to Type II: as many as 51% (twenty-one) of the presidential addresses are in the form of academic lectures on different subjects, from the analysis of mainstream economics to the role of econometrics and empirical analysis in economics, from gender differences in capabilities and the role of norms in the economic narrative to more traditional biographical essays. Interestingly, only 29% of the presidential addresses focused on one or more figures from the past (however, only Friedrich von Hayek is reported as a named person in more than one presidential address). Twenty percent (eight) of the presidential addresses are in the form of a discussion of the state of the art of the profession, while 29% (twelve), with a marked increase in recent years, are in a mixed style in which the speaker starts with an analysis of a closely related research topic and draws insights for the community of economic historians and historians of economic thought.
Given the predominance of speeches in the form of academic lectures, it is not surprising that most of the texts analyzed, as many as 61% (twenty-five), have a formal and academic style as opposed to 39% that instead adopt a more informal and discursive style, many times based on the narration of the author’s personal experience and first encounter with the subdiscipline. Looking at the form of the addresses rather than their content, we finally verified that only three articles out of the forty analyzed carry graphs (Hoover Reference Hoover2004; Weintraub Reference Weintraub2005; Forget Reference Forget2020) and only three included illustrations and/or photos (Peart Reference Peart2009; Cohen Reference Cohen2010; Boumans Reference Boumans2023).
On average, presidential addresses published as articles have a length of fourteen pages (not counting the bibliography or any appendices to the text), but they show great variability. They range from six-page texts, particularly in the early 1980s (Goodwin Reference Goodwin Craufurd1980; Grampp Reference Grampp1982; Whitaker Reference Whitaker1985), to much longer texts, particularly in recent years. We also checked the number of quotations in the texts, and, on average, the presidential addresses have sixteen quotations, but again there are large differences as we go from texts with zero quotations (Barber Reference Barber1990; Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993; Rima Reference Rima1994) to texts with forty-nine quotations (Boianovsky Reference Boianovsky2018), with a growing trend in the number and length of quotations in the texts in recent years. Again more recently, there is an increase in the number of acknowledgments present in texts, although in general only in 44% of the articles (eighteen) did the authors express gratitude toward colleagues, friends, and even family members. The increase in the number of texts with acknowledgments also marks the shift from the “dinner speech” form of the 1980s to the current “academic paper” form of presidential addresses that is meant to emphasize a sense of academic community, of intellectual networks, further eroding the myth of the lone scholar.
Precisely to highlight the sense of an academic community gathered around similar interests, we are interested in defining, from the texts of the presidential addresses, what are the views of the history of economic thought (HET) and what motivations and arguments have been brought to support it over the years. To this end, we will discuss twenty-four addresses (see Table 1) that overtly present an analysis of the subdiscipline.
II. HET IN HES PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES
As we would expect, in most presidential addresses the history of economic thought is presented as a vital key to connecting ideas, preserving identity and individual intellectual histories. However, again as it would be expected, because of the many historiographical debates we witnessed over the years, the scope and method of HET are defined and described differently. In what follows, without any pretense of completeness, we present some of the points raised in almost fifty years of presidential addresses, which we believe are still topical and worth reconsidering (see the last column of Table 1 for details about the presidential addresses considered).
Scope
If we follow somewhat a chronological order, we find the early formulation by Samuels (Reference Samuels1983), according to whom the main task of the historian of economic thought is to trace the filiation of ideas. He clarifies that filiation “is not limited to the adoption by one writer of a particular view or set of views of an earlier writer. Filiation can involve that, but it also can signify reformulation, perhaps to the point of transformation” (Samuels Reference Samuels1983, p. 6). The point made is that HET involves an activity of translation of ideas to make them comparable within a chosen framework. For Mark Perlman, what the history of economics is all about is the analysis of the reshaping process that economics is continuously undergoing. According to this view historians register the changes and transformations within “that body of knowledge identified as economics” (Perlman Reference Perlman1986, p. 9). A similar, although non-identical, position is held by William Barber, who sees historians of economic thought as “custodians of the inventory of economic ideas” (Barber Reference Barber1990, p. 112).
In several addresses there is a clear insistence that the scope and purpose of HET are in connection with the current state of economics, mainly by providing a “healthy perspective to contemporary efforts and discussion” (Hebert Reference Hebert1992, p. 140). Or, as Margaret Schabas argued years later, since in economics we do not find “an adequate understanding of the economy or, more generally, the human condition … some wisdom might be gleaned by going back to previous contributors to economic discourse” (Schabas Reference Schabas2015, p. 2).
In the same line of thought is the suggestion that the HET “is a pedagogical device for sharpening theoretical techniques by identifying analytical errors of other economists” (Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993, p. 177). This idea has another implication, namely that of searching for “patterns of thought and concepts that have endured over centuries and have acquired relevance or influence in modern economic thinking” (Lowry Reference Lowry1991, p. 142). It is the chase of predecessors and antecedents that many historians of economic thought have pursued and are still pursuing in their trade, according to Laurence Moss, by returning “to the great manuscripts, books, and pamphlets, for the discerning reader is sure to find new wine even in those same old bottles” (Moss Reference Moss1995, p. 197). However, Avi Cohen warns that our biased ideas can hinder truly objective research; consequently, “The sine qua non of the historian is to gather, organize, and respect evidence in executing a research agenda” (Cohen Reference Cohen2010, p. 16). There is also the question of how and to whom we communicate our research. According to Evelyn Forget:
[A]s historians of economics, much of our work is motivated by a theory of knowledge creation that is much too simple. We focus far too much on those we identify as creators of economic knowledge, and far too little on the other characters in the story. Specifically, we need to make room in our histories for knowledge brokers of all kinds, because otherwise our histories leave out too many of the people who helped to create and transform economic knowledge. (Forget Reference Forget2020, p. 3)
Looking at motivations and responsibilities of historians of economic thought in the pursuit of their research, J. Daniel Hammond raised an interesting dilemma: “as historians, are we concerned with ideas or with persons?” His answer is that “we should be concerned with both. … But ideas exist only because people think them, grapple with them, argue them, accept or reject them—and people do this in spatio-temporal locations” (Hammond Reference Hammond2003, p. 134). This implied that biography is “important to understanding the meaning of an author’s work, its genesis and the process of its acceptance (Moggridge Reference Moggridge1989, p. 178). Of course, we would expect Moggridge to make a case for it, but it is interesting to see it reinforced more recently. However, Roy Weintraub recommended caution in the “use of autobiographical materials, especially when those materials can be construed as projecting an individual’s history onto a larger historical narrative. It is not simply a matter that the materials may be unreliable in accidental or systematic ways. It is that the structure and nature of these kinds of autobiographical memoirs are not unproblematic documents” (Weintraub Reference Weintraub2005, p. 10).
We find also a warning against the potential misuse of research:
We, historians of economics, contribute to the self-image of economics. This implies a responsibility to communicate the limitations of our histories and the potential misuse of our research.… We have to communicate that our portraits are not painted at a great distance but close to the subjects that we think need our attention. Our work, therefore, can never be an overview of the whole field, telling the whole story. And we should ask ourselves whether we have paid enough attention to what is really valuable. (Boumans Reference Boumans2023, p. 16)
Method
When we come to the question of what the appropriate methodology is, we have also in this case a variety of views, which, however, do not seem to us as diverse as one might have expected. The most relevant issue, to our mind, is the relationship with economics, both in the sense of how important it is to be an economist and of how to address problems that are relevant to economists. The early statement is by Royall Brandis, who claimed that “a useful aspect of studying the history of economics is to relate that history (when it is reasonable to do so) to modern concerns” (Brandis Reference Brandis1981, p. 5). This of course implies the author is versed in both historical and economic analysis. Samuels is quite clear that “[t]he illumination of the past by the present means that the history of economics can be done better by practicing economists than by specialised historians of science” (Samuels Reference Samuels1983, p. 13). There are two issues here. One is the kind of expertise that is required to be a historian of economic thought, the emphasis shifting, over the years, to being skilled in history more than in economics. The other is the relationship with the economics profession, in particular with departments of economics. Here also the position shifted from when departments of economics gave space to the subdiscipline (visibility, recognition, and promotions) to a later period that witnessed the sharp drop of courses and positions in history of economic thought in all US (and unfortunately elsewhere as well) universities, leading to Schabas’s (Reference Schabas1992) call on historians to switch over and join the historians of science, with whom the historians of economics have had recently increasingly little to do.
Also, which kind of narrative is more appropriate in doing history of thought is a question open to several answers. Vaughn argues, “Our job here is to place a past thinker within his intellectual and historical context, and to discern the questions that were important to him; to aim for historical reconstruction as well as rational reconstruction” (Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993, p. 178). However, contextual history has become increasingly the most accepted “method” of doing HET, as in Moss: “to explore the original intention [of an author] in the context of its time so that we can appreciate the similarity between a previous generation’s explorations and our own” (Moss Reference Moss1995, p. 199). Although, for some there are some merits also in doing internalist or Whig histories. See Kevin Hoover:
I want to defend internalist history. To defend it is by no means to attack the “thick” approaches to history advocated by Weintraub and many others. Indeed, good thick history is highly valuable. But it is not the only way. For me, the key element in history is the “story.” As all the world knows, there are many interesting ways to tell a story. We do not have to choose one. What distinguishes history from typical storytelling is that it trades in true stories. (Hoover Reference Hoover2004, p. 150)
Be it in the form of historical or rational reconstruction, in the end whether we come up with a “true story” revolves on the evidence. As well said by Avi Cohen: “Evidence is crucial—textual and contextual—from correspondence, events, and personalities. We are required to be sensitive to historical context, differences between periods, and especially to surprises to our expectations” (Cohen Reference Cohen2010, p. 8).
The related point is how we should and can assess controversies in economics. According to Steven Medema, to understand the nature and details of any controversial debate requires “the history of theory and the attendant efforts at careful textual exegesis—and, with all this, the need for a reasonably sophisticated training in economic theory to effectively write certain aspects of the history of economics. At the core of this issue is whether it is the place of historians to evaluate the correctness of an idea” (Medema Reference Medema2011, p. 7).
Future Development
What are the strategies suggested to promote and defend the role of HET in the next decades? Unfortunately, there seem to be few recipes offered in the presidential addresses. The positions, however vague and ill-defined in terms of actions to be taken, are somewhat heterogeneous. They range from the plea for a more convinced defense of the subject by John Whitaker (Reference Whitaker1985) to the more communal and collaborative one of Bob Coats (Reference Coats1987), who urges collective action so that “we must move actively, even aggressively, and proselytize on behalf of our subject in the academic corridors of power, over coffee and at lunch, in departmental meetings, at general conferences of economists, in the journals, or wherever we might get a sympathetic hearing” (p. 3).
However, there is the idea that the solution lies in part in the economists’ camp and in part in our own. John Whitaker suggests that there is not much that can be done unless economics undergoes a change. He writes: “The [past forty or fifty] years have marked the increasing domination of the vision of economics as a science patterned on physics. If economics really is genuinely like physics, then I think that we must accept the corollary that the history of economics has no substantive function within economics” (Whitaker Reference Whitaker1985, p. 13). However, he thinks also that HET will “be served best, not by continued exhortation of our fellow economists or lamentations about the state of the subject, but by demonstrating the continuing vitality and relevance of the sub-discipline” (Whitaker Reference Whitaker1985, p. 14).
Regarding the future of HET, we identified two different perspectives of the speakers that are their main concern: 1. knowledge creation—identification of new lines of research that can raise the interest of the entire scientific community; and 2. dissemination of knowledge—teaching the history of thought.
As far as the research agenda is concerned, there is consensus on the need to develop a broader understanding of how and by whom economic knowledge is constructed (Forget Reference Forget2020, p. 17), with a special focus on the more peripheral countries. In this direction Barber (Reference Barber1990) suggests further investigations on the international transmission of economic ideas, deeply analyzing “the way in which countries that are potential importers of economic ideas respond to that exposure such as established modes of thinking influenced by a secular religion or, perhaps, by a non-secular one, and the implications of imported doctrine for the role of a bureaucracy” (p. 122). Jeff Biddle (Reference Biddle2017) instead suggests that the analysis of empirical research from the twentieth century be developed from a historical perspective to understand “the changes over time in the sort of evidence and arguments that economists find convincing” (p. 171). To continue to consider themselves a branch of economics, historians of economic thought will have to veer against the prevailing wind (Whitaker Reference Whitaker1985), and a natural alliance is suggested by John Davis (Reference Davis2002), with heterodox “economics’ alternative tradition of thinking about individuals as socially embedded” (p. 152).
Regarding the dissemination of knowledge, many former presidents stressed how much work still needs to be done to tell and teach the history of economics, to pave the way for “a more eclectic economics that is interdisciplinary but retains its appreciation for argumentation and abstract analysis” (Moss Reference Moss1995, p. 199). It is suggested to “open up a window of constructive skepticism” (Evensky Reference Evensky2012, p. 18) in the minds of students to make them more aware of the scope and limitations of the subject (Coats Reference Coats1987, p. 13) by identifying mainly analytical errors in contemporary texts (Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993, p. 177) or by trying to understand the recent crises (Dimand Reference Dimand2014). However, an open challenge is to get rid of the current teaching material and provide an alternative, “something better—and equally teachable” (Clower Reference Clower1998, p. 408).
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The fiftieth anniversary of HES provided us with an opportunity to reflect on the different conceptions and definitions of HET, rereading HES presidential addresses published to date. The style of the texts appears heterogeneous, as described in the introduction, as does the description of the scope and method of analysis of HET with different interpretations and visions provided by the former presidents. Although the underlying narrative sees HET as a vital key to connecting ideas, as well as preserving identity and individual intellectual histories to establish a multicultural rather than univocal discipline, different contours of the discipline emerge.
HET is conceived as the activity of guarding the inventory of economic ideas (Barber Reference Barber1990) as well as the activity of translating ideas to make them comparable within a chosen context (Samuels Reference Samuels1983) but also as a means of tracking changes and transformations within the economic discipline (Perlman Reference Perlman1986). Consequently, HET is also described as a tool for understanding the current state of economics (Hebert Reference Hebert1992; Schabas Reference Schabas2015) or for identifying the analytical errors of other economists (Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993). This can be done by climbing on the shoulders of giants and thus focusing on the patterns of thought and concepts that have endured for centuries and gained relevance or influence in modern economic thought (Lowry Reference Lowry1991; Moss Reference Moss1995), or, conversely, by focusing less on those we identify as creators of economic knowledge and more on the other knowledge brokers of all kinds in history who have helped create and transform economic knowledge (Forget Reference Forget2020).
Even with regard to identifying the most appropriate methodology to adopt in HET, the positions of former presidents are multi-faceted, though not as diverse as we might have expected. There is consensus in HET’s connection to economics, both in the sense of how important it is to be an economist and in the sense of addressing problems relevant to economists. Instead, what kind of narrative is most appropriate for historians is a question open to several answers, such as historical reconstruction (Vaughn Reference Vaughn1993; Moss Reference Moss1995), rational reconstruction, or just telling true stories (Hoover Reference Hoover2004; Cohen Reference Cohen2010).
However, the prescriptions proposed in the presidential speeches to promote and defend the role of HET in the coming decades do not seem to be many, and they focus mainly on two areas: knowledge creation, going to propose lines of research that can arouse the interest of the entire scientific community; and knowledge dissemination, emphasizing the importance of historical and critical courses complementing (rather than substituting) economics education for tackling the monolithic and ahistorical issues of economics and ensuring a relevant role of HET within economics.
Many challenges remain for the coming decades for the evolution of HET, from the role of artificial intelligence to research assessment, from moving HET courses from the periphery of optional courses to core economics curricula, to increasing its research dignity (more PhDs and academic staff) by rejecting the idea that HET is different from other economic fields. In fact, HET’s role is increasingly under attack and downgraded in national research assessments, so much work lies ahead for the next presidents and all HES members to develop actions in defense of HET’s role within economics in research and teaching, calling for pluralism and more diversity in economics in the next fifty years.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The author declares no competing interests exist.
Open access
