Search results

Economic ideas are the product of contemplation, but also of our economic lives. In the history of ideas, Gérard Debreu’s shining book of 1959, Theory of Value, represents the pinnacle of purity in contemplating economic life. Rather than contextualizing this oeuvre through his intellectual life, as is usually done, this essay describes his axiomatic analysis by contextualizing it through his economic life. What do we learn about Debreu’s axioms on consumption when thinking of his own consumption? What do we learn about his theory of value when thinking of his own values? Historiographically, this approach permits the use of a widely neglected source in the history of economics: anecdotes. Epistemologically, blending axioms and anecdotes offers a description of how axioms regulate an economic discourse. Finally, this essay offers a language for the material dimensions of economic life that are so underexposed in Debreu’s own work.

When Stalin, in 1936, declared socialism achieved in the Soviet Union, he opened the door for the codification of the political economy of socialism beyond Marx’s political economy of capitalism. Indeed, at the same time as he executed the tyrannical policies he is known for, he led a series of private conversations with economists about a textbook on the political economy of socialism that spanned nearly 20 years. In these conversations, Stalin repeatedly argued for an open debate and against dogmatism. Most notably, he accepted the existence of the so-called law of value in socialism, which appears to subject the state to scientific authority. Reconstructing these conversations, we show that his claim to a pluralist scientific debate helped paper over his tyranny, first by diverting attention from the real issues, second by establishing his personal authority as an intellectual, and third by creating conflicts that would exclude his opponents.

This symposium analyses the mutually constitutive relationship between economic knowledge and political order. Through a wide range of case studies from Europe, Africa, and Latin America, the essays collected shed new light on the choices and constraints faced by economists under authoritarian rule in the twentieth century. The contribution of the symposium is twofold. Firstly, it expands the geographical and chronological scope of the conversation on the politics of economics. Secondly, it encourages a more nuanced understanding of economists’ agency in their different guises as educators, party propagandists, policy-makers, model-builders, and dissidents.

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.