Search results

Diagrams are ubiquitous in economics and are uncontestably among the most used, if not the most important workhorses of economists, though they come in many forms. This essay examines the different uses of graphs and diagrams in the pioneering work of two Victorian economists, Stanley Jevons and Alfred Marshall. We stress the difference between their use as representations and as visual reasoning tools, a difference that became obscured in the twentieth century with the rise of econometrics.

In this chapter, I take a talk show in which Coen Teulings, then Director of the official Dutch Bureau for Economic Forecasting and Policy Analysis (CPB) was interviewed about its economic forecasts in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 as point of entry into an examination into how personal experience and judgment enter, and are essential for, the production and presentation of economic forecasts. During the interview it transpired that CPB did not rely on its macroeconomic models, but on personal experience encapsulated in “hand-made” monitors, to observe the unfolding crisis; monitors that were, in Teulings’ words, used to “feel the pulse” of the Dutch economy. I will take this metaphor as a cue to present several historical episodes in which models, numbers, and a certain feel for economic phenomena aimed to make CPB economists’ research more precise. These episodes are linked with a story about vain attempts by CPB director Teulings to drive out the personal from economic forecasting. The crisis forced him to recognize that personal experience was more important in increasing the precision of economic forecasts than theoretical deepening. The crisis thus both challenged the belief in the supremacy of theory driven, computer-based forecasting, and helped foster the view that precision is inevitably linked to judgment, experience and observation, and not seated in increased attention to high theory; scientifically sound knowledge proved less useful than the technically unqualified experiential knowledge of quacks.

Reflections on this special issue draw three themes out of the papers: the problem of fashioning the tools of science; the variability of life that poses challenges to scientific investigation; and the importance of space in myriad different ways to how we think about life. Although these themes may appear disconnected, they are in fact finely woven in various ways into the volume’s discussions, which range over science studies (broadly conceived) as well as economic history.

This introduction to the Symposium “Curiosity, Imagination, and Surprise” discusses some of the characteristics of Mary Morgan’s approach to study science, which she labels as “naturalized philosophy of science.” One of these characteristics is the usage of a carefully chosen vocabulary. These concepts are usually unconventional and open-ended with the aim of illuminating the practice under study. Another characteristic of her approach is that it is curiosity-driven, which becomes clear by the kind of typical questions she asks. A third characteristic is that her approach is case-study based, with its typical features, such as the investigation of a bounded “real-life” whole, its attitude of open-endedness, the usage of multiple research methods and its complex, often-narrated outcome.

The history of science prizes have been awarded to 12 individuals (8 individual authors and 2 sets of coauthors). The history of economics prizes have been awarded to 10 individual authors (no coauthored papers). Seven of the 10 economics prize winners are located in economics departments; the others are in history;⁴ business history (McCraw); and the history of political thought (Hont). Six of the 12 history of science prize winners are located in history of science programs;⁵ four more are in history departments;⁶ one is in a classics department;⁷ and one is in a geography department. Among the prize winners, then, the history of science is almost exclusively practiced by historians of science, whether they are in history of science departments or in history/classics departments, whereas the history of economics is primarily, but not exclusively, practiced by those in economics departments.⁸ Although departmental affiliations can be deceiving and ever-changing, clearly Schabas has not convinced historians of economics to abandon the discipline of economics.