This is a fascinating resource for those of us like to rummage around with the ideas of dead economists.
Malcolm Rutherford writes to the HES listserve: "I have just completed an update of my Famous Economists' Grave Sites web pages. I have included many more links and found that every
person on my list had a Wikipedia entry--some good some not so good. Take a look. Feedback and new sites always welcome." You can enter his collection here.
Even for a Canadian who can't vote, it's hard to think about much besides the upcoming election. But some good news has arrived for those of us who have been part of the Summer Institute for the Preservation of the History of Economics. One of the participants this summer was Huei Chun Su, who gave a fascinating talk on Hayek and Mill on liberty and social justice. You can see the paper at the Summer Institute's website (thanks to Lisa Hill-Corley for her work to put the papers up!). Su then submitted the paper to Don Lavoie Memorial contest run by the Society for Development of Austrian Economics (SDAE). Her paper won!
With Su's permission I paste in her message to me below so you can see the influence of the small but strong Summer Institute, which tries to support young scholars in the field. The SI is supported in the main by a grant from the Earhart Foundation. The History of Economics Society provides additional support for students, as does George Mason University's Department of Economics.
Dear Sandy,
How are you doing? I hope this email finds you well.
I got good news to share with you. Last month, I entried the Don Lavoie Memorial Essay Competition held by SDAE with the revised version of the paper I presented in the SI. Few days ago, I was informed that I won the prize. Now I am planning the trip to the annual meeting this Novermber to present my paper.
I would like to thank you for your support and encouragement. As I said in the SI, your paper on Mill and Hayek gave me the inspiration to put an issue I have been always interetsed in a way I had not thought. And your support for the trip was the main reason to push me write down this article. And of course, the feedback of the audience is also unforgettable. So, if this prize is a kind of achievement, I would like to share this honour with you.
Best regards,
Su
I've taken much of the week to catch up on routine work and family obligations (it's the play offs!) after the Summer Institute at George Mason University. Returned here on Sunday 16th. I'll have plenty more to say as I get a chance. The program is here. I am of course no impartial spectator, but nonetheless I'll claim that the papers and the collection of participants made the institute a tremendous success. In particular, I'd note the following.
This year, we tried 2 experiments and both paid off. First, we began the institute with a conversation between two leading scholars at GMU whose ideas are now fair game for historians of economics, Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan, on writing their Calculus of Consent. Second, consistent with the Summer Institute's mission to support student research, we broadened "student" this year to include undergraduate presentations. Keeley Reed and Andrew Hickner presented research conducted at Michigan State University, and Bobby Previti presented his work done at City College, London. Judging by the quality of the presentations as well as the comments from the audience, all three were a resounding success.
A few notes of interest about the SI: we had some 65 participants on Monday. Participants throughout the week came from 6 countries in all, and 23 institutions. The variety was immense. We had 28 presenters, comprised of
17 new presenters to SI (11 returning); 5 countries (France, Chile, Australia, England, US); 9 young scholars (3 undergraduates, 4 graduate students, 2 recent PhDs), (I count myself as American here though of course I'm originally Canadian!)
Young scholar (recent PhD, graduate and undergraduate) presenters were from:
City College London (undergraduate); Exeter University (graduate student); Michigan State University (2 undergraduates);Notre Dame University (graduate student); SUNY Plattsburg (recent PhD);Université de Paris I (recent PhD)
Additional students attended the Institute from:
Australia National University ;Baldwin-Wallace College;Colorado State University;Dickinson College; George Mason University; Indiana University of PA; Michigan State University; the New School; St. Gallen University (Switzerland); University of Maryland at BC.
I've been collecting up comments from student and faculty participants. Many of them have picked up on a key feature of the Summer Institute, one that I think has its roots (perhaps) in what is now known as the Virginia School of Political Economy. David Levy and I are working on a talk / paper that we'll give at the fall ECHE conference: on place in economics. (The "place" we're studying is Virginia.) All sorts of reports of the early years for the VA school suggest an egalitarian set up for the discussion of ideas: good ideas on what became known as public choice possibly emerging from anyone, full professor or student. The Summer Institute continues this thinking, creating a place where bright and engaged students -- undergraduates and graduate students alike -- can interact with full professors and senior persons such as James Buchanan. Gordon Tullock, Joe Persky, and David Levy. Here is one comment from a participant who surely picked up on this feature of the Institute (she's not the only one who made this case):
The Summer Institute was a great experience. You and David Levy have
succeeded in creating a space where people can speak in an informal
manner about thoughtful issues in economics, and where we can also get
to know one another. You've managed to include many senior economists,
while yet letting unknown people like myself feel free to speak--in
truth, I don't think that I have found any other forum like that in
economics, and I have missed it.
What David and I have concluded, based on the Virginia School research relating to the early years of the VA School, is that the egalitarianism may generate a more robust network than would otherwise prevail, given similar circumstances. Certainly the Summer Institute network -- ever growing and rather committed -- is a robust network and that robustness may be a result of the egalitarianism noted by the participant above (as well as many others).
The preliminary program for the Summer Institute is now online at GMU's Center for Study of Public Choice. A few highlights:
Once again this year, we will hold the Summer Institute directly following the Public Choice Outreach Conference. SI is July 10-15th. 2 speakers will speak at both conferences: Joe Persky and Ali Khan. A number of SI applicants are also applying to attend the Outreach conference.
Our first day -- on themes from classical liberalism -- will begin with a conversation between James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on writing the Calculus of Consent. This should be terrific. We hope also to have a display from the GMU Libraries on the archival material they hold relating to the book.
We'll have presentations by graduate students from Exeter, Notre Dame, GMU, and Paris I. In addition, we've added a day for selected undergraduates to present their research, on Saturday.
We have speakers from the USA, Chile, France, England, and Australia. Additional confirmed participants will attend from Italy, England, USA, Chile, Australia, Holland, and Switzerland. The History of Economics Society, GMU, and the Earhart Foundation support the participation in the institute by students from the New School, Berkeley, Exeter, Paris, MSU, Dickinson, GMU, and Notre Dame.
The Institute will also host 3 dinners, each with a working theme. The first (Monday) is on how the Public Choice History Project that David Levy and I have begun. On Wednesday we'll talk about the future. On Saturday, we'll wrap things up with a presentation of our recent work on the expert and economics. I hope to have the dinners on the lawn (outside) at the Buchanan House.
This promises to be a very good week. If you wish to attend, let me know.
For more information about the SI, click on the button to the right. Thanks.
In recent years, the HES-sponsored sessions at the ASSAs have been terrific, and this year was no exception. I missed the first because of some other obligations, but I heard good things about it: "Mathematics, Economietrics and the History of Contemporary Economics", with papers by Judy Klein, Mary Morgan, Philippe Le Gall and Marcel Boumans. The second, which I did attend, was on "Keynes' General Theory After Seventy Years", with papers by Robert Mundell, Bradley Bateman, Robert Dimand and Randall Wray. Two sessions touched on Hayek: "The Postwar Origins of the Chicago School (60 years on)", featured papers by Philip Mirowsk and Rob Van Horn, Dan Hammond, Rob Van Horn and Bruce Caldwell; and the last (organized by me!), on "Buchanan and Hayel on the Constitutional Order", with papers by Pete Boettke and Clark Durant and by Peart and David Levy. For each of the sessions I attended, the discussion was lively and the rooms were full, with some 35 participants in the smaller rooms and close to 80 in the larger (this, according to my rough counting). I also noticed that, for my session at least, the crowd seemed younger than usual for a History of Economics session. That's a good sign!
For my session, I think the thing I came away with -- aside from "I need to do a great deal more work"! -- is that we (Levy and Peart) need to think more about what it means to talk about natural and artificial selection, and how and when discussion alters evolutionary processes.
If you are interested in organizing a session for next year's ASSA, think coherence and accessibility/interest (to the broad community of economists). And think early. The deadline comes soon! Proposals should be sent to the VP of the HES, Jerry Evensky, at jevensky@syr.edu. The CFP has just been sent to the HES list.
Many of us who work in the history of economic ideas wonder about the future of the subdiscipline. In the last couple of weeks I've been more optimistic than ever. This is in part the result of my experience with the Young Scholar Sessions at the History of Economics Society, which have proved to be some of the best sessions I've attended there. In part, as well, I've been impressed by the quality of the research of young scholars who have taken part in the Summer Institute over the same time period. Then there's the conference I'm attending this week end ("Liberty, Revenge, and Civic Responsibility" -- I'm qualified to be here only because I went to Hamlet School). I'm the only economist here and the discussion suggests to me that perhaps non-economists are increasingly willing to discuss economic ideas. More, the median age is pretty young. Finally, there's the recent CFP for a session entitled "The Future of the History of Economics: Young scholars' perspective" to be held at the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET), Porto, Portugal, April 28-30, 2006.
Perhaps most important reason for optimism is the ease with which undergraduate and graduate students in economics and other disciplines can now access extraordinary electronic libraries at Econlib, Online Library of Liberty and elsewhere.
From time to time it's worth thinking about practical matters -- what books to buy, what editions, etc.? I'll begin with pointers for young scholars to help them obtain support of archival research.
The first source of money that comes to mind is the NEH summer grants. You must be nominated by your institution. US citizens and foreigners who have resided for at least 3 yrs before the application may apply. Lots of prestige (so you get approbation plus the $5,000!). Make sure the application explains how the project is a humanities one. Find out more here. In Canada, the counterpart is the SSHRC. For more information, see here. Oct. 3 deadlines for NEH.
Second, think about the wonderful Duke Economists' Papers Project (EPP), linked on the right. 30 economists' papers. Funding to conduct research is sometimes available.
Third, think about the Summer Institute. We support young scholars and since expenses at the institute are minimal, it's possible to do some cross subsidization. Scholars have used their participation to subsidize research at the EPP, the Library of Congress and the HES. (Think Young Scholars Sessions at the HES. These are financially supported. If your institution pays your way and you tie this to the SI you may have enough money left over to pay for research nearabouts).
Private foundations also fund archival research. David Levy and I have been greatly fortunate to have our work funded by the Earhart and the Pierre and Enid Goodrich Foundations. My sense is that this type of support depends on networks and may tend to be for more established scholars. We're old! Just kidding. Neither of us is young. ;-)
