Call for Papers

The deadline for submission of abstracts has passed.

ESHET 2013 invited proposals for papers or special sessions about any topic in the history of economic thought and also proposals for papers related to the ESHET 2013 conference theme:  

Economic Theory and Business Practice: Their relations through the ages.

Traditionally there has been a separation between the knowledge of the economy that businessmen develop and that cultivated by economists. As early as 1759 Turgot distinguished between two kinds of economic knowledge. The merchant’s science of trade (la science du négoce en négociant) consisted of factual knowledge, experience and skills regarding commercial practices, customs, products, prices, consumer demands, etc. On the other hand, political economy, or the science of trade of the philosopher and the man of state (la science du négoce en philosophe et en homme d’État), focused on ‘simple principles whose combined action, sometimes veiled by local circumstances, direct all operations of commerce’ (Oeuvres 3, 322). 

Over time this distinction has had varying implications. It has been used as an argument against the involvement of businessmen in politics. Adam Smith, for example, insisted on political economy being a ‘branch of science of a statesman or legislator’ and deplored the influence of men of business on economic policies and legislation, accusing ‘our merchants and manufacturers’ of being the ‘contrivers’ and ‘principal architects’ of the whole pernicious ‘mercantile system’ (Wealth of Nations IV, viii).  How influential has the view been, in different nations and periods, that economists are able to give more balanced advice based on systemic insights? How influential has been the opposite view that men and women who have been successful in business have special expertise that can be applied at state level?  Who has had the greatest influence on the public and policymakers during great debates about, for instance, the repeal of the Corn Laws or the introduction of the Euro?
If businessmen would not have the requisite knowledge to advice on running an economy, then conversely economists would not necessarily know how business is conducted. Often they made (and continue to make) simplifying assumptions about the practicalities of decision making, the management and financing of enterprise, organisational forms, etc. Such simplifications were and are of course necessary for the general level of analysis that economists aim for. At the same time, it may be argued, simplifications have frequently led to distortions and omissions. Examples are the long neglect of the roles of the entrepreneur and of the nature of the firm. To what extent has, at various times and places, the neglect of the specifics of the practices of business and finance led to outdated views or plain misunderstanding amongst economists of the functioning of economies?


The distinction between the two kinds of knowledge also has institutional aspects. Even before the general acceptance of political economy as an academic discipline, its authors did often not have practical business experience (there were, of course, notable exceptions). Once economics was taught at universities it was often strictly separated from the training of young men for business careers. Although the institutional history varies significantly between countries, until the present day economics departments and schools of business or management have separate identities even within the same universities. However, in the second half of the 20th century, with the enormous growth of management related studies, there has been something of an intellectual reorientation in economics. New branches of economics (for example agency theory, or game theory) have increasingly been applied to analyse the conduct of business and used to train, for instance, MBA students. Does this mean the gap between the two ‘sciences of commerce’ has been bridged? Or is this not the case at all?

The deadline for submission of any proposal was the 7th of January 2013

Proposals were considered by the scientific committee of ESHET 2013 consisting of

Tony Aspromourgos (The University of Sydney)
Victoria Chick (University College London)
Annalisa Rosselli (Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata")
Richard van den Berg (Kingston University)
Amos Witztum (London School of Economics and London Metropolitan University)