History of economics, economics and economic history in Britain, 1824 – 2000

Abstract

This paper tells the story of the field of the history of economic thought in relation to the changing boundaries between the disciplines of economics and economic history. The most important period was the late nineteenth century when, after a couple of decades during which both economists and historians took an interest in the history of economic ideas, both disciplines stabilized in ways that left no room for it. Despite the emergence of the history of economic thought as a recognizable field within economics, it was progressively marginalized within the broader profession.

Keywords:

• Economics
• economic history
• history
• history of economics
• Britain

Notes

* I am indebted to Bob Black, Terence Hutchison, Denis O'Brien, Avner Offer, Andrew Skinner and Donald Winch, to participants in the Economic History seminar at Oxford and the History of Thought Conference at Stirling, and to the referees of this journal for invaluable criticism of earlier drafts.

There are of course others, based in History of Science, in History, Sociology, and in other places. They may have different, parallel, stories to tell.

I do not wish to comment here on how far such a perception is correct.

See the country studies in the forthcoming History of Political Economy annual supplement on the future of the history of economic thought.

This circulated widely and the material was used in several of McCulloch's later writings. See O'Brien's Introduction to the edition cited here.

For further references documenting McCulloch's views on the past, see Hutchison (1978: 218 – 19).

See Hutchison (1978: 217 – 22).

O'Brien (1974: 7); Hutchison (1978: 219, n. 12).

I present this argument in more detail in the Introduction to volume I of Backhouse (2000).

See the Introduction to volume III of Backhouse (2000) for more detail.

These are reprinted in Cliffe Leslie (1879) and Backhouse (1997b) volume 5.

The 3rd (1915) edition contains an additional chapter by William Smart bringing the history up to date. The book started as an entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1885.

Ingram (1967: 5).

Thorold Rogers was Drummond Professor before Toynbee's arrival in Oxford and again after his death.

Black (1977: 41), letter 595. See also letters 602, 603, 611, 621, 641, 643 and 651.

Marshall (1890: 60 – 2).

Kadish (1989: 88).

See Coleman (1987).

Cunningham (1892: 493 – 8). After that he criticized Thorold Rogers for misinterpreting facts.

See Hutchison (1953: 69 – 70).

The same can be said of some earlier histories of economic thought which cover material that would nowadays be considered economic history, or history of policy, not history of ideas. See note 39.

The single volume of the first edition became two much larger volumes in the second. By the third edition, this had become three volumes.

I count the three ‘Parts’ of Book VIII, each of which comprises at least seven chapters, as separate ‘Books’ for this calculation.

Ashley (1932: 22).

See Robbins's (1935) recollection of his lectures.

His 1904 edition of Smith's Wealth of Nations was also very widely used.

Cannan (1912: 10 – 15). Cf. Ebenstein (1997: 9 – 16).

See O'Brien (1999) especially pp. 6 – 8 on ‘the paradox of Cannanism’.

Maloney (1991: 72).

O'Brien (1999: 8).

Dow et al. (2000: 184).

I owe this information to Andrew Skinner, an undergraduate in Glasgow in the 1950s, who took over from Meek in Glasgow in 1964.

For an appraisal of Robbins's contribution to the HET, see O'Brien (1988b) chapter 4.

He also ventured into economic history, though did so from the perspective of an economic theorist.

Barkai and Corry had PhD theses supervised by Robbins. Hollander (1995: 294) describes Robbins as having had ‘the greatest single influence on my career’.

Backhouse and Middleton (2000), volume II, pp. 104 – 9.

See Backhouse and Middleton (2000), volume II, chapter 7.

See Coats 1992, chapter 1.

See Coleman (1987).

See Backhouse (2002).

This is discussed in detail in Backhouse (1997a).

There was also a strong correlation between RAE score and response rate but I have no reason to believe this will have biased the results. I ignore ‘Other’ because this includes economic units within business schools, which are not strictly comparable with standard economics departments.

See Backhouse (2002).

I am grateful to Terence Hutchison for drawing my attention to this quotation.

He referred to this in a talk at the first History of Economic Thought Conference.

Even Robbins believed that it gave practical insight.

Cf. Hodgson (2001).

The inability or unwillingness to demarcate clearly between economic history and history of doctrine is not confined to those economic historians discussed here. Many early texts on the history of doctrines (including continental ones) include material that, to modern readers, seems hardly about economic doctrines at all and more like economic history. For a selection of such texts, see Backhouse 2000.

The best British examples are perhaps Hicks among economists, and Deane among historians.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roger E Backhouse

* I am indebted to Bob Black, Terence Hutchison, Denis O'Brien, Avner Offer, Andrew Skinner and Donald Winch, to participants in the Economic History seminar at Oxford and the History of Thought Conference at Stirling, and to the referees of this journal for invaluable criticism of earlier drafts.