- Department of Social and Human Sciences
Ecole normale supérieure Paris-Saclay
4, avenue des sciences
91190 Gif-sur-Yvette
France
- History of Social Sciences, History of Human and Social Sciences, History of Science, History and Philosophy of Social Sciences, History and Philosophy of the Human Sciences, History of Interdisciplinarity, and 16 moreHistory of Economic Thought, Altruism, History of Historiography, American History, U.S. Intellectual History, Intellectual History, History of Sociology, History of Economics, History of Political Science, History of Political Thought, Cold War history, History Of Psychology, History of Psychiatry, History of Universities, History of Ideas, and Sociology of Scienceedit
- philippe.fontaine@ens-paris-saclay.fredit
The social sciences underwent rapid development in postwar America. Problems once framed in social terms gradually became redefined as individual with regards to scope and remedy, with economics and psychology winning influence over the... more
The social sciences underwent rapid development in postwar America. Problems once framed in social terms gradually became redefined as individual with regards to scope and remedy, with economics and psychology winning influence over the other social sciences. By the 1970s, both economics and psychology had spread their intellectual remits wide: psychology's concepts suffused everyday language, while economists entered a myriad of policy debates. Psychology and economics contributed to, and benefited from, a conception of society that was increasingly skeptical of social explanations and interventions. Sociology, in particular, lost intellectual and policy ground to its peers, even regarding 'social problems' that the discipline long considered its settled domain. The book's ten chapters explore this shift, each refracted through a single 'problem': the family, crime, urban concerns, education, discrimination, poverty, addiction, war, and mental health, examining the effects an increasingly individualized lens has had on the way we see these problems.
Research Interests:
A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences includes essays on the ways in which the histories of psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, history and political science have been written since the Second World War. Bringing... more
A Historiography of the Modern Social Sciences includes essays on the ways in which the histories of psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, history and political science have been written since the Second World War. Bringing together chapters written by the leading historians of each discipline, the book establishes significant parallels and contrasts and makes the case for a comparative interdisciplinary historiography. This comparative approach helps explain historiographical developments on the basis of factors specific to individual disciplines and the social, political, and intellectual developments that go beyond individual disciplines. All historians, including historians of the different social sciences, encounter literatures with which they are not familiar. This book will provide a broader understanding of the different ways in which the history of the social sciences, and by extension intellectual history, is written.
Our contention is that insufficient attention has been paid to the relationship between economics and its neighbors—the other social sciences—in the period since the Second World War. Though excellent historical work has been done, the... more
Our contention is that insufficient attention has been paid to the relationship between economics and its neighbors—the other social sciences—in the period since the Second World War. Though excellent historical work has been done, the history of economics (which we treat as synonymous with the history of economic thought), a field dominated by scholars with a background in economics, has paid insufficient attention to other social sciences. Where they have looked outside, they have mostly looked to the natural sciences. The aim of this volume is therefore to widen the conversation about the history of economics both substantively and historiographically: it aims to contribute to the neglected history of the interactions between economics and its neighbors and to draw in historians of other social sciences, whose approaches to the writing of history will bring fresh perspectives to bear on the subject.
Research Interests:
This compact volume covers the main developments in the social sciences since the Second World War. Chapters on economics, human geography, political science, psychology, social anthropology, and sociology will interest anyone wanting... more
This compact volume covers the main developments in the social sciences since the Second World War. Chapters on economics, human geography, political science, psychology, social anthropology, and sociology will interest anyone wanting short, accessible histories of those disciplines, all written by experts in the relevant field; they will also make it easy for readers to make comparisons between disciplines. The final chapter proposes a blueprint for a history of the social sciences as a whole. Whereas most of the existing literature considers each of the social sciences separately from one another, this volume shows that they have much in common; for example, they have responded to common problems using overlapping methods, and cross-disciplinary activities have been widespread. The focus throughout the book is on societal pressures on knowledge production rather than just theoretical lineages.
Research Interests:
Throughout the evolution of economic ideas, it has often been asserted that experimentation in economics is impossible. Yet, the historical record shows that the idea of “experimentation” has, in fact, been important in the field of... more
Throughout the evolution of economic ideas, it has often been asserted that experimentation in economics is impossible. Yet, the historical record shows that the idea of “experimentation” has, in fact, been important in the field of economics, and has been interpreted and put to use in many ways. These range from the “thought experiment”, where counterfactuals are explored in the mind of the theorist, to social experiments, where alternative economic arrangements have been tried out historically, and laboratory experimentation, which is currently a burgeoning field of empirical research. This book provides testament to the great variety of ways in which experimentation has mattered in the creation of economic knowledge. The accessible essays contained within this volume will interest all those seeking to broaden their historical understanding of the discipline and will be essential reading for students who wish to acquire a greater knowledge of how economics has grown and developed
Economist Nobelist Thomas C. Schelling (1921–2016) is known for his contribution to the analysis of international conflict and many see him as the Cold Warrior par excellence. At a time of great uncertainties and dangers, Schelling... more
Economist Nobelist Thomas C. Schelling (1921–2016) is known for his contribution to the analysis of international conflict and many see him as the Cold Warrior par excellence. At a time of great uncertainties and dangers, Schelling combined a deep understanding of strategic analysis, a detailed knowledge of U.S. commitments around the world and an inimitable talent for dissecting everyday behavior, which made him a think tank all on his own. When he turned to the analysis of bargaining in the mid-1950s, one question dominated policy discussions: “How to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to the ‘free world’”? Schelling answered unequivocally: By restricting one’s choices so as to shift others’ expectations and thereby influence their behavior in the desired direction. By the mid-1970s, after he had broken with the U.S. administration and joined the Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior, Schelling transposed the tactics deployed in international conflict to the analysis of individuals trying to achieve self-control. In the process, he reproduced the logic of military conflict at the level of the self. The view of a conflicted self itself comprised of two selves made restricted choice the daily routine of individuals who wish to avoid the negative consequences of their present behavior in the future while it promised those who enjoy unbounded freedom of choice an unsettling future.
Research Interests: Strategy (Military Science), History of Economic Thought, History of Social Sciences, Vietnam War, History of Economics, and 11 moreHistory Of Psychology, Cold War International Relations, Cold War history, Militarism and militarization, Rationality, Cold War Studies, Commitment, History of the Self, Thomas C. Schelling, Habitual Behavior, and Substance and drug abuse
Research Interests:
At a time when the individualism-collectivism dichotomy shaped national and personal commitments as well as their treatment in social science, it is understandable to find that dichotomy playing out at the disciplinary level, where the... more
At a time when the individualism-collectivism dichotomy shaped national and personal commitments as well as their treatment in social science, it is understandable to find that dichotomy playing out at the disciplinary level, where the social sciences endorsed varied combinations of individualistic and holistic conceptions of the social sphere. In the case of such a politically charged notion as commitment, disciplinary differences in approaches were inevitable, but the notion of behavioral consistency served nevertheless as a point of focalization. For Becker, Bernard, Goffman and Schelling, the maintenance of consistent behavior over time, which politicians kept presenting as a fundamental tool for the defense of the “free world” in the Cold War era, defied disciplinary boundaries. While describing US society, those social scientists did not see a world of freedom of choice or absence of choice, but a world of restricted choice on the promise of increased opportunities.
Research Interests: Strategy (Military Science), History of Economic Thought, Interdisciplinarity, Strategic Studies, History of Social Sciences, and 8 moreHistory of Sociology, History of Economics, History and Philosophy of the Human Sciences, Erving Goffman, Commitment, Social Interactionism, Howard Becker, and Thomas C. Schelling
Whether or not the imaginary change of persons and characters with another is practicable—and we know that it is perilous—it affects the person who attempts it as well as the person who is its object. When we consider people who are... more
Whether or not the imaginary change of persons and characters with another is practicable—and we know that it is perilous—it affects the person who attempts it as well as the person who is its object. When we consider people who are prompted to pass judgment on others yet seem unwilling to change circumstances, persons, and characters with them,
Smith teaches us that if these people are not prepared to change themselves, then they have little reason to expect others to be different. The intolerance of conflicting perspectives, not their unbridgeability, is the problem.
Smith teaches us that if these people are not prepared to change themselves, then they have little reason to expect others to be different. The intolerance of conflicting perspectives, not their unbridgeability, is the problem.
Research Interests:
In the past thirty years or so, the history of the social sciences since 1945 has become a more diverse research area. In addition to social scientists who write the histories of individual disciplines, a number of historians are now... more
In the past thirty years or so, the history of the social sciences since 1945 has become a more diverse research area. In addition to social scientists who write the histories of individual disciplines, a number of historians are now interested in the recent past of the social sciences, whose efforts
emphasize extradisciplinary concerns. The time is gone, however, when this distinction could be summarized by the different approaches of disciplinary histories on the one hand and intellectual history on the other. Disciplinary historians have gone beyond disciplinary concerns and intellectual historians have paid more attention to the latter. More generally, a variety of historians have pointed out the role of social scientific ideas in the transformations of Western societies after World War II and noted the impact of these transformations on social science disciplines themselves. Finally, in the past twenty years, histories of recent social science have experienced a transnational turn.
emphasize extradisciplinary concerns. The time is gone, however, when this distinction could be summarized by the different approaches of disciplinary histories on the one hand and intellectual history on the other. Disciplinary historians have gone beyond disciplinary concerns and intellectual historians have paid more attention to the latter. More generally, a variety of historians have pointed out the role of social scientific ideas in the transformations of Western societies after World War II and noted the impact of these transformations on social science disciplines themselves. Finally, in the past twenty years, histories of recent social science have experienced a transnational turn.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
The merits of visual images in conveying truths about the social world is widely recognized in social science, but some commentators have suggested the possible inadequacies of postwar economics on that score. Unimpressed by the... more
The merits of visual images in conveying truths about the social world is widely recognized in social science, but some commentators have suggested the possible inadequacies of postwar economics on that score. Unimpressed by the omnipresence of diagrams in economics, they note that these are not images in the sense that maps are. The story of Boulding, an admirer of maps and strong believer in visual reasoning, who moved away from economics to become a general social scientist in the late 1940s, seems to confirm the above assessment. Yet, the difference between economists and other social scientists does not so much reside in the absence of images in economics--some diagrams in economics are maps—as in their declining role in postwar economic modeling. In that respect, the story of Boulding, his lack of influence on economics and his increased recognition among other social sciences testify to the gradual backsliding of visual imagination in postwar economics. If many today recognize the usefulness of diagrams for the dissemination of economic knowledge, only a few are aware that preceding the attempts to make these diagrams intelligible to their users, a real effort of visual imagination was required for their creators to ensure their explanatory power.
Research Interests:
Throughout the 1950s, the use of the behavioral sciences label went together with the affirmation of social science’s collective ambitions to use quantitative methods and to practice interdisciplinary cooperation, but it also helped... more
Throughout the 1950s, the use of the behavioral sciences label went together with the affirmation of social science’s collective ambitions to use quantitative methods and to practice interdisciplinary cooperation, but it also helped differentiation between and among disciplines by expressing different forms of engagement with natural science methods. In the Division of the Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, there were different conceptions of the behavioral sciences and the term referred to a variety of social scientific orientations along a spectrum running from biological to social determinism. The biologically-centered definition favored at the Committee on the Behavioral Sciences clashed with the mainstream definition’s emphasis on the loose emulation of natural science methods within a resolutely sociological framework.
Research Interests: Sociology, Behavioral Sciences, Social Sciences, Social and Cultural Anthropology, History of Social Sciences, and 9 moreHistory of Anthropology, History of Psychiatry, History of Sociology, History of Political Science, History Of Psychology, Interdisciplinary research (Social Sciences), Social and Behavioral Sciences, Labelling Theory, and University of Chicago
Since the Second World War, economists have often claimed that their discipline developed largely independently of other social sciences until it got closer to them again from the 1980s onward. Taking the story back to the end of the... more
Since the Second World War, economists have often claimed that their discipline developed largely independently of other social sciences until it got closer to them again from the 1980s onward. Taking the story back to the end of the First World War, we show that there exists a rich history of interactions in which economists have learned from other social sciences. In the interwar period, attempts to promote interdisciplinarity were made to offset the shortcomings of too much disciplinary specialization but they concerned individual economists, notably institutionalists, more than economics as a whole. From the Second World War and in the two decades following it, the social sciences entered a cross-disciplinary age. Foundations, university administrators and scholars regarded multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research as the key to solving social problems. Economists worked alongside mathematicians and natural scientists but they also participated in crossdisciplinary research ventures with other social scientists, an experience that often led them to depart from homo economicus and more generally from methodologies commonly taken to characterise economics. From the late 1960s, with the shift towards greater specialization, the interactions with other social scientists enjoyed less support and opportunity; they became much rarer and more individually driven, but remained significant as illustrated by the emergence and consolidation of behavioural economics.
Research Interests:
The Chicago Committee on the Behavioral Sciences occupies a special place in the eponymous movement. Involving prominent figures such as psychologist James G. Miller and neurophysiologist Ralph W. Gerard, this committee embodied the... more
The Chicago Committee on the Behavioral Sciences occupies a special place in the eponymous movement. Involving prominent figures such as psychologist James G. Miller and neurophysiologist Ralph W. Gerard, this committee embodied the common belief among behavioral scientists that a cross-disciplinary approach using natural science methods was key to understanding major issues facing mid-century American society. This interdivisional committee fell under the jurisdiction of both the natural and social sciences. As such, its flagship project, an institute of mental sciences, had to face the reluctance both of natural scientists who thought it inadequately scientific and of social scientists who regard its efforts as too narrow in scope and too biological in orientation. Though it failed in its main objective to create an institute, the committee was a formidable instrument of intellectual stimulation and socialization for its members. It provided them with an opportunity to familiarize themselves with each other’s scientific backgrounds, practices and jargons, realize the significance of academic cultural differences and learn ways to accommodate them.
Research Interests:
As long as there did not exist an identified history of social science subfield, the uneasiness of economists about the definition of their discipline as a social science was of little consequence with regard to its place within the... more
As long as there did not exist an identified history of social science subfield, the uneasiness of economists about the definition of their discipline as a social science was of little consequence with regard to its place within the history of science. Things changed, however, in the 1990s, with the move away from disciplinary histories. If the history of the social sciences was more than the mere post hoc juxtaposition of disciplinary histories, the question could be asked as to the proper weight to be accorded to the history of economics within the new subfield of the history of the social sciences as whole. It is the purpose of this article to offer an answer to this question. It shows that though the history of recent economics has ben written primarily by its practitioners, what they write is not the whole history of recent economics. Other social scientists, notably sociologists, intellectual historians and historians of science have increasingly studied the past after the Second World War, offering new perspectives, asking new questions and providing different answers from that of economists qua historians of economics.
Research Interests:
As studies of the history of social science since 1945 have multiplied over the past decade and a half, it has not been unusual for commentators to present cross-disciplinary ventures as a byproduct of the disciplinary system and to... more
As studies of the history of social science since 1945 have multiplied over the past decade and a half, it has not been unusual for commentators to present cross-disciplinary ventures as a byproduct of the disciplinary system and to contrast the stability of disciplines with the highs and lows of interdisciplinary relationships. In contrast, this special issue takes the view that cross-disciplinary ventures should be considered not so much as efforts to loosen up the disciplinary yoke, but as an alternative formof production and dissemination of social scientific knowledge. Paradoxically, the relationship between cross-disciplinary ventures and the disciplinary system appears as one of complementarity and not of dependence. The essays in the special issue provide examples of ways to reconsider what can be called the interdisciplinary chaos.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Following the publication of The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson in 1965, the notion of free riding gained wide currency in economics. The idea of enjoying the benefi ts of collective action without incurring the corresponding... more
Following the publication of The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson in 1965, the notion of free riding gained wide currency in economics. The idea of enjoying the benefi ts of collective action without incurring the corresponding costs seemed to shed light on a number of major issues in American society at a time when social ills of various kinds prompted policy makers to reconsider the conditions of social cohesion. Gradually, free riding became to be regarded as the standard behavior of people placed in certain circumstances rather than the exception confi rming the rule that people pay for what they get.
In this article, after reviewing the various meanings associated with the term free riding (and free rider ), I follow the notion from the late 1930s to the early 1970s. I show that though it was used to tackle problems in fi elds as diverse as finance and labor—the study of which betrays the usual tensions between the free market and government intervention—from the mid-1960s, the notion increasingly conveyed a message about society as a whole. That an economic notion could serve such a purpose is another indication of the permeation of society by economic reasoning.
In this article, after reviewing the various meanings associated with the term free riding (and free rider ), I follow the notion from the late 1930s to the early 1970s. I show that though it was used to tackle problems in fi elds as diverse as finance and labor—the study of which betrays the usual tensions between the free market and government intervention—from the mid-1960s, the notion increasingly conveyed a message about society as a whole. That an economic notion could serve such a purpose is another indication of the permeation of society by economic reasoning.
Research Interests:
This article provides a historical account of the developments of research into seemingly unselfish behavior between 1976 and 1993. I shall first argue that the triumph of the self-interest model in the examination of seemingly unselfish... more
This article provides a historical account of the developments of research into seemingly unselfish behavior between 1976 and 1993. I shall first argue that the triumph of the self-interest model in the examination of seemingly unselfish behavior can better be understood if it is remembered that the attempts by a handful of economists to expand their jurisdiction over phenomena that had remained outside their reach occurred at a time when natural scientists showed similar ambitions. As those economists’ efforts found a more receptive audience within the profession, disputes shifted, within the discipline itself, to the public policy implications of seemingly unselfish behavior. Then I shall argue that the various efforts to go beyond the self-interest model in economics and political science failed to build a coherent alternative model and produced equally ambiguous policy implications. My conclusion stresses the difficulty of escaping the customary presupposition that seemingly unselfish behavior concerns close-knit groups whereas selfishness applies to impersonal gatherings.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
For more than thirty years after World War II, the unconventional economist Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993) was a fervent advocate of the integration of the social sciences. Building on common general principles from various fields,... more
For more than thirty years after World War II, the unconventional economist Kenneth E. Boulding (1910–1993) was a fervent advocate of the integration of the social sciences. Building on common general principles from various fields, notably economics, political science, and sociology, Boulding claimed that an integrated social science in which mental images were recognized as the main determinant of human behavior would allow for a better understanding
of society. Boulding’s approach culminated in the social triangle, a view of society as comprised of three main social organizers – exchange, threat, and love – combined in varying proportions. According to this view, the problems of American society were caused by an unbalanced combination of these three organizers. The goal of integrated social scientific knowledge was therefore to help policy makers achieve the “right” proportions of exchange, threat, and love that would lead to social stabilization. Though he was hopeful that cross-disciplinary exchanges would overcome the shortcomings of too narrow specialization, Boulding found that rather than being the locus of a peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange, disciplinary boundaries were often the occasion of conflict and miscommunication.
of society. Boulding’s approach culminated in the social triangle, a view of society as comprised of three main social organizers – exchange, threat, and love – combined in varying proportions. According to this view, the problems of American society were caused by an unbalanced combination of these three organizers. The goal of integrated social scientific knowledge was therefore to help policy makers achieve the “right” proportions of exchange, threat, and love that would lead to social stabilization. Though he was hopeful that cross-disciplinary exchanges would overcome the shortcomings of too narrow specialization, Boulding found that rather than being the locus of a peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange, disciplinary boundaries were often the occasion of conflict and miscommunication.
Research Interests:
This paper traces interpersonal utility comparisons and bargaining in the work of John Harsanyi from the 1950s to the mid-1960s. As his preoccupation with how theorists can obtain information about agents moved from an approach centered... more
This paper traces interpersonal utility comparisons and bargaining in the work of John Harsanyi from the 1950s to the mid-1960s. As his preoccupation with how theorists can obtain information about agents moved from an approach centered
on empathetic understanding to the more distanced perspective associated with game theory, Harsanyi shifted emphasis from the social scientist’s lack of information vis-à-vis agents to agents’ lack of information about each other. In the process, he provided economists with an analytical framework they could use to study problems related to the distribution of information among agents while
consolidating the perspective of a distant observer whose knowledge can replace that of real people.
on empathetic understanding to the more distanced perspective associated with game theory, Harsanyi shifted emphasis from the social scientist’s lack of information vis-à-vis agents to agents’ lack of information about each other. In the process, he provided economists with an analytical framework they could use to study problems related to the distribution of information among agents while
consolidating the perspective of a distant observer whose knowledge can replace that of real people.
Research Interests:
This article describes the incorporation from the early 1960s of seemingly unselfish behaviour into economics. Faced with the problem of accounting for such behaviour in a discipline that often relies on the selfishness assumption, some... more
This article describes the incorporation from the early 1960s of seemingly unselfish behaviour into economics. Faced with the problem of accounting for such behaviour in a discipline that often relies on the selfishness assumption, some economists used the notion of sympathetic preferences within the self-interest model, whereas others tried instead to supplement that model with an ethically inspired model. It is unclear that in investigating seemingly unselfish behaviour, economists have gained a better understanding of its actual motivations, but in the process they have been led to take more seriously other conceptions of human being than economic man.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Long before his last book, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, was published in early 1971, Richard M. Titmuss (1907–1973), a professor of social administration at the London School of Economics, had been a major... more
Long before his last book, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy, was published in early 1971, Richard M. Titmuss (1907–1973), a professor of social administration at the London School of Economics, had been a major figure in the debates over the welfare state. The Gift Relationship was the culmination of an eventful relationship with the Institute of Economic Affairs, a think tank that advocated the extension of rational pricing to social services. By arguing that the British system of blood procurement and distribution, based on free giving within the National Health Service, was more efficient than the partly commercialized American system, Titmuss intended to signal the dangers of the increasing commercialization of society. What made for the impact of his book, however, was not merely its argument that transfusion-transmitted infections were much more common with paid than with voluntary donors, but also its reflections on what it is that holds a society together. And here Titmuss argued that a “socialist” social policy, by encouraging the sense of community, played a central role. The eclecticism of Titmuss’s work, together with its strong ethical and political flavor, makes it a rich and original account of the “social” at a time when heated debates over social policy, both in Britain and in the United States, raised the question of the division of labor among the social sciences.
Research Interests: History of Economic Thought, History of Social Sciences, Public Health Policy, History of Sociology, History of Economics, and 9 moreAltruism, Public Policy - Social Welfare Policy, History of Social Policy and the Welfare State, Gift Giving, Health Services, Blood Banking, about London School of Economic and Political Science, Blood Donors, and Personal autonomy
This paper shows how the much-debated question of the possibility of interpersonal utility comparisons led to the permeation of welfare economics by the concept of empathy. An overview of the literature enables one to single out two main... more
This paper shows how the much-debated question of the possibility of interpersonal utility comparisons led to the permeation of welfare economics by the concept of empathy. An overview of the literature enables one to single out two main views: on the one hand, empathy is associated with an imagined change of objective circumstances with others (partial empathetic identification); on the other, it describes an change of objective circumstances and subjective features as well (complete empathetic identification). Each of the two views are shown to have problems of their own.
Research Interests:
Historians of economics often observe that economic theorists have a restricted conception of the past, paying little attention to contributions prior to 1970. The fact remains, however, that they have been guilty of similar kinds of... more
Historians of economics often observe that economic theorists have a restricted conception of the past, paying little attention to contributions prior to 1970. The fact remains, however, that they have been guilty of similar kinds of neglect, with a quick perusal of the main journals in the field revealing that historians of economics tend to balk at investigating
post-1970 works. The revival of interest in altruism, which occurred around 1970, provides an interesting illustration of the way economic theorists and historians of economics see the past and its relationship with the present. Economic theorists, wishing to advance current economic analysis, logically refer to recent work. In so doing, they usually intend to buttress their own arguments by pointing to the limits of previous research on the subject. Thus, a standard article on altruism begins with a brief review of the post- 1970 literature relevant to the argument, which helps situate the contribution
of the article as an attempt to either refine or generalize or qualify or refute known results. Although economic theorists
occasionally extend their references to earlier contributions, they use the latter according to the needs of modern theor y, putting earlier and recent works on the same footing. Historians of economics, on the other hand, feel that the economics of altruism does not quite come within their
province, since it really took shape after 1970. Accordingly, they have examined the place of altruism and themes of related interest in earlier works without reflecting much on whether the distant past can teach us something about recent theories of altruism. Whatever the limits to the past in the
history of economics, it seems that lessons can be drawn from comparing the recent economics of altruism with earlier views, if only because not all ideas withstand the test of time.
post-1970 works. The revival of interest in altruism, which occurred around 1970, provides an interesting illustration of the way economic theorists and historians of economics see the past and its relationship with the present. Economic theorists, wishing to advance current economic analysis, logically refer to recent work. In so doing, they usually intend to buttress their own arguments by pointing to the limits of previous research on the subject. Thus, a standard article on altruism begins with a brief review of the post- 1970 literature relevant to the argument, which helps situate the contribution
of the article as an attempt to either refine or generalize or qualify or refute known results. Although economic theorists
occasionally extend their references to earlier contributions, they use the latter according to the needs of modern theor y, putting earlier and recent works on the same footing. Historians of economics, on the other hand, feel that the economics of altruism does not quite come within their
province, since it really took shape after 1970. Accordingly, they have examined the place of altruism and themes of related interest in earlier works without reflecting much on whether the distant past can teach us something about recent theories of altruism. Whatever the limits to the past in the
history of economics, it seems that lessons can be drawn from comparing the recent economics of altruism with earlier views, if only because not all ideas withstand the test of time.
Research Interests:
It is sometimes assumed that contemporaneity nurtures closeness in ideas, as if authors were unwittingly imbued with the spirit of the times. Historians of economics are well aware of the limitations of the zeitgeist approach to... more
It is sometimes assumed that contemporaneity nurtures closeness in ideas, as if authors were unwittingly imbued with the spirit of the times. Historians of economics are well aware of the limitations of the zeitgeist approach to historiography, although it often provides an implicit justification for their attempts to compare the works of contemporaneous
authors. Frank H. Knight has thus been the subject of parallels with Friedrich A. Hayek on the concept of the market as a game (Kern 1985), John R. Commons on the role of values in economic theory and policy (Schweikhardt 1988), and John Maynard Keynes on the formation of preferences (Kern 1990)—all were his contemporaries.
In this article, no such justification is available: Jean-Baptiste Say was a disciple of the Enlightenment (Lutfalla 1978) while Knight was an heir to “American exceptionalism” (Ross 1991). Thus, if our attempt to draw parallels between Knight’s and Say’s conceptions of the enterprise economy relies on a “context,” it cannot be the general intellectual climate of an
era. Instead, this article argues that the convergence of Say’s and Knight’s theories of production and distribution stems from their similar conceptions of economic organization, and that the latter account for their common critique of classical political economy.
authors. Frank H. Knight has thus been the subject of parallels with Friedrich A. Hayek on the concept of the market as a game (Kern 1985), John R. Commons on the role of values in economic theory and policy (Schweikhardt 1988), and John Maynard Keynes on the formation of preferences (Kern 1990)—all were his contemporaries.
In this article, no such justification is available: Jean-Baptiste Say was a disciple of the Enlightenment (Lutfalla 1978) while Knight was an heir to “American exceptionalism” (Ross 1991). Thus, if our attempt to draw parallels between Knight’s and Say’s conceptions of the enterprise economy relies on a “context,” it cannot be the general intellectual climate of an
era. Instead, this article argues that the convergence of Say’s and Knight’s theories of production and distribution stems from their similar conceptions of economic organization, and that the latter account for their common critique of classical political economy.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Abstract. Response to Sandra J, Peart, “Jevons and Menger Re-homogenized?: Jaffé After 20 Years,” 1998. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57(July): 307-325.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
As studies of the history of social science since 1945 have multiplied over the past decade and a half, it has not been unusual for commentators to present cross-disciplinary ventures as a byproduct of the disciplinary system and to... more
As studies of the history of social science since 1945 have multiplied over the past decade and a half, it has not been unusual for commentators to present cross-disciplinary ventures as a byproduct of the disciplinary system and to contrast the stability of disciplines with the highs and lows of interdisciplinary relationships. In contrast, this special issue takes the view that cross-disciplinary ventures should be considered not so much as efforts to loosen up the disciplinary yoke, but as an alternative form of production and dissemination of social scientific knowledge. Paradoxically, the relationship between cross-disciplinary ventures and the disciplinary system appears as one of complementarity and not of dependence. The essays in the special issue provide examples of ways to reconsider what can be called the interdisciplinary chaos.