ABSTRACT
Margaret Schabas’s recent article on the history of economics and the history of science (Schabas 1992) questions the longstanding relation that exists between historians of economics and the economics profession, and calls on historians to switch over and join the historians of science, with whom the historians of economics have had comparatively little to do until recently. In the set of responses printed with her article, several historians of science echoed her call (with varying degrees of enthusiasm), while acknowledging that there may be good financial reasons for staying within economics (Keyssar 1992; Porter 1992; Proctor 1992; Sylla 1992; Wise 1992). On the other hand, those historians of economic thought (note the slight, but significant, difference in identification from that used by Schabas) who were invited to respond unanimously rejected Schabas’s call. They argued that although historians of economic thought can learn from the history of science, they should stay within the fold of economics (Caravale 1992; Coats 1992; Hollander 1992; Ménard 1992; Mirowski 1992; Moggridge 1992; Negishi 1992; Patinkin 1992; Walker 1992). The following reflections emerge from my reading of Schabas’s article, the responses of her critics, and a number of other recent essays on the historiography of economics (Backhouse 1992, 1994; Bellofiore 1994; Blaug 1990; Clark 1994; Ingrao 1994; Porta 1994; Samuelson, Patinkin, and Blaug 1991; Screpanti 1994; Vaughn 1993).
