In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

History of Political Economy Annual Supplement to Volume 34 (2002) 62-76



[Access article in PDF]

The History of Economics as a Subdiscipline:
The Role of the History of Economics Society Meetings

John B. Davis

[Tables]

My focus in this essay is on how the annual meetings of the History of Economics Society (HES) have contributed to making the history of economics a relatively independent subdiscipline within the field of economics over the last quarter century. I do not attempt to decide whether the history of economics becoming an independent subdiscipline has strengthened or weakened the subject as a domain of investigation within economics as a whole. Arguments can be made for both conclusions. Rather, my main emphasis is on how social factors—specifically academic social factors—have helped bring about a change in the character and practice of the history of economics in this period, particularly through the medium of the meetings.

Because it was academics who undertook these efforts, and because their efforts were rooted in their own professional concerns as individuals competing for positions and resources in college and university programs, the change in the nature and practice of the history of economics can be characterized as an academic professionalization of the field. In this regard, I follow the lead of A. W. Coats (e.g., 1993, 1998), who has argued that economists in general, historically lacking an identifiable professional status, have sought to create one through a variety of means. This is true of historians of economics as well. The regular meetings of [End Page 62] the HES have been an important means to this end in the history of economics in the last quarter century.

The list of academic social factors I judge to have been important to this process of academic professionalization of the history of economics are:

  1. The publication of history of economics specialty journals.
  2. The organization of history of economics associations and societies.
  3. The holding of regular scholarly association meetings apart from general economics meetings.
  4. The holding of regular scholarly association meetings in conjunction with general economics meetings.
  5. The inclusion of the history of economics in scholarly classification systems (e.g., the Journal of Economic Literature, the Social Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and Historical Abstracts).
  6. The existence of college and university instruction and doctoral supervision dedicated expressly to the field.
  7. The ability of individual academics to credential themselves for promotion and salary purposes by work done in the field.
  8. The availability of book publishing opportunities with major publishers for scholars in the field.
  9. The identification of special library collections.
  10. Dissemination and sharing of information about the field (such as in newsletters, bulletins, and, more recently, electronic lists).

Clearly these factors have operated in varying degrees and in interaction with one another in professionalizing the history of economics. My main focus is on the HES meetings, but I also make reference to connections between the meetings and specialty journal publication, as well as to connections between the meetings and academics credentialing themselves through work in the field, in order to give a fuller account of the role of the meetings.

One reason the HES meetings have been an important part of the professionalization of the history of economics is that they have expanded the space within which historians of economics have been able to present and discuss their research. Independent conferences restricted to a single area of research within a field also make a prima facie case for treating [End Page 63] that area of research as a distinct subdiscipline within that larger discipline. Of course, it can be argued that having independent conferences has contributed to the marginalization of the history of economics within economics by minimizing other economists' contact with the subject. This, however, has to be weighed against the limited and declining opportunities that were available to history of economics presentations in general economics meetings at the time the HES meetings began. At issue, then, is a trade-off between the increased professional activity made possible by independent conferences and a...

pdf

Share