Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:22:55.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Old” Economic History in the United States: 1939–1954

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Cristel de Rouvray
Cristel de Rouvray
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), Economic History Department.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper investigates the actions of a small, yet influential group of American economists who sought to claim economic history for themselves and use it as a springboard to launch a wider transformation of economics. Their actions constitute an episode of dissent in the history of twentieth century economics, albeit an unusual one. These dissenters were not a socially or intellectually marginalized group, but rather a set of privileged scholars who were able to leverage their contacts within the profession and amongst its patrons to further their vision. Their actions could almost be described in Kuhnian terms: they consciously sought to trigger a “paradigm shift” to bring about a social science better suited, in their views, to a world in political and economic turmoil (Kuhn 1962). In spite of the Kuhnian allusion to “scientific revolution,” this paper is not about the 1960s “cliometric revolution,” but about the 1940s and '50s and the little known events that led to the creation of the Economic History Association, the Journal of Economic History, and Explorations in Entrepreneurial History (subsequently Explorations in Economic History).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 221 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amatori, F. & Jones, G. eds. 2003. Business History Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Business Week. April 12, 1952. “Throwing New Light on the Businessman.” Pp. 86–92.Google Scholar
Cole, A. H. 1942. “Entrepreneurship As an Area of Research.” Journal of Economic History 2 (Supplement): 1182–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, A. H. 1954. “An Appraisal of Economic Change: Twentieth Century Entrepreneurship in the United States and Economic Growth.” American Economic Review 44 (2): 35–50.Google Scholar
Craver, E. 1986. “Patronage and the Direction of Research in Economics: The Rockefeller Foundation in Europe, 1924–1938.” Minerva 24 (2–3): 205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, D. 1993. Fundamental Development of the Social Sciences: Rockefeller Philanthropy and the United States Social Science Research Council. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furner, M. 1975. Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865–1905. Lexington, KY: Published for the Organization of American Historians by the University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Gay, E. F. 1941. “The Tasks of Economic History.” Journal of Economic History 1 (Supplement): 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, H. 1941. “The Early History of the Economic History Association.” Journal of Economic History 1 (Supplement): 197–09.Google Scholar
Kadish, A. 1989. Historians, Economists and Economic History. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1988. English Historical Economics, 1870–1926: The Rise of Economic History and Neomercantilism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. & Rutherford, M. eds. 1998. From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Novick, P. 1988. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlich, F. 1952. “The Role of Theory in the Study of Business History.” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History 3 (02): 135–45.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1996. Institutions in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. Forthcoming. “Who's Afraid of Arthur Burns: The NBER and the Foundations.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1954. History of Economic Analysis/edited from manuscript by Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar