Search results

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

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.

Describes how the opinions about Wilhelm Roscher and his work developed during the century following his death in the USA. Possible reasons for the changes are explored. Special attention is given to the more favourable reception of Roscher in the USA as opposed to the UK. A central point is that his influence and importance in the USA changed as time passed and with the development of professional economics. Suggests new reading of Cunningham′s essay. Attention is drawn to some of Roscher′s works in English that have been neglected. Some problems of periodization in the history of economic thought are investigated. Several conventional judgements are challenged and possibilities for further research suggested.

By deconstructing centres and peripheries in Australian history curricula, the purpose of this paper is to establish in what ways these documents blended local, state‐specific concepts of major civilisations with trans‐local, and even global cultural assumptions about centre and periphery in world history.

The paper identifies a specific idea of centres in the 2009 Shape of the Australian Curriculum published by the National Curriculum Board. It demanded that “[s]tudents should have an appreciation of the major civilisations of Europe, Asia, Africa, America and Australia”. The idea of five groups of “major civilisations” is used to frame an analysis of history curricula from Western Australia and New South Wales. Syllabi from these States are used as examples because they demonstrate oppositional positions, geographically and in their approach to history teaching. Only senior secondary syllabi exhibit a continuous development of the subject history in most Australian states and territories. Hence, the paper deconstructs history syllabi for Years 11 and 12 and discusses in what ways a discourse between centre and periphery can be identified.

The author proposes a concept of a global centre in history curricula, which is found in multifaceted expressions at the peripheries.

Fully acknowledging that syllabi emerge from a web of local influences, which include state‐specific social, political, economic, and administrative factors, the paper adds a global perspective to the understanding of Australian history curricula which draws on the idea of cultural power.

Allen’s critique of current Frankfurt School theory presents the joint methods of “problematizing genealogy” and “metanormative contextualism” as alternative for the normative grounding of critical theory. Through a close reading of Allen’s critique, I investigate whether Allen’s identification of philosophy of history is an accurate diagnosis of the problems of the normative grounding of current Frankfurt School theory, whether Allen’s distinction between metanormative and normative levels is tenable for critical theory, and whether Allen’s methodology constitutes a viable alternative for the normative grounding of critical theory. As an alternative, I suggest scrutinizing the grounding strategies of current Frankfurt School theory to expand beyond their genealogy in Enlightenment thought, and address the question of what made the affirmative form of thought underlying current Frankfurt School theory a historical possibility. Expanding on Allen’s reiteration of the mediated nature of categories, I suggest that the stark contrast between forms of thought underlying first- and second-generation Frankfurt School critical theory needs to be understood not in relation to philosophy of history but against the backdrop of the specific context of the European historical present that informs its normative universe.

The history of economics has often been described as the “history of economic thought.” In this essay, I explore an alternative perspective that builds on the French tradition of historical epistemology and treats economics as a social practice. I argue that a practice-based view provides a more philosophically robust conception of historiography and a richer field of investigation for historians of economics.

This chapter intends to make an extended periodization of economic discussions that have taken place in Latin America throughout its history. The task is ambitious; we begin, however, with the periodization elaborated by Oreste Popescu, which we then expand and modify. As educators, we still have to work on the training of Latin American economists, due to the lack of knowledge they have not only about the region as a whole, but also of the economic debates that took place within it. This work is a first approximation and provocation aimed to jumpstart a discussion on these issues.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate historical thinking in dealing with problems of marketing thought, by explaining the advantages of studying the history of a discipline's ideas; examining what has been included in prior histories; and evaluating the completeness of coverage in Tadajewski and Jones' (2008) The History of Marketing Thought.

This paper presents a comparative analysis based upon prior histories of marketing thought.

For teaching, with modest supplementation, The History of Marketing Thought provides a full appreciation of the intellectual heritage of marketing. For research purposes, The History of Marketing Thought does reasonably well in organizing concepts and theories into schools of marketing thought but less well in showing how these ideas can be organized across the readings to produce new knowledge.

There were some important omissions in the collection. Marketing's leading thinker was largely neglected and many significant problems for marketing thought are overlooked. There was no discussion of methodological issues and minimal editorial commentary connected the parts and sections to provide a research thrust to the work. Consequently, it is recommended that another volume or two be added to this set.

The educational value of this work is in transmitting the knowledge base of the discipline from one generation of marketing scholars to the next. It is only after the ideas developed by earlier marketing thinkers are fully understood that innovative theories can be constructed and new knowledge created.