RHIT / HSS / K. Christ / RH351

Donald McCloskey, in a classic article on economic methodology[1] argued that economists should be more open about the rhetoric they are employing, and recognize what rhetoric really is – his own definition being “the art of probing what men believe they ought to believe.”

In a 5 to 7 page paper, select one piece of economic writing of moderate length (journal article, book chapter, etc.) and provide a historical / rhetorical / methodological analysis of the piece. What rhetorical devices does the author employ? How, if at all, does an understanding of the history of economic thought enhance the reader’s ability to fully understand the analysis and importance of the ideas in the piece? How does knowing something about the background of the author enhance a reader's ability to fully appreciate the ideas in the article?

The following two-step checklist to historical / rhetorical / methodological analysis of economic writing may be helpful:

2. With regard to rhetorical devices, we may begin a short list with the four that McCloskey cites:

c. Casual approach to assumptions and appeals to hypothetical “toy” economies

Although you are free to choose any piece of economic writing for your analysis, it should come from the classical era or later.

An 8 to 12 page (2,000 to 3,000 words) research paper on any subject relevant to either the history of economic thought or the use of rhetoric in economic analysis. The paper should include a bibliography with at least eight outside sources. In addition to the paper itself, this assignment includes the following requirements:

• Students should submit an abstract (150 words) with thee preliminary bibliographic references by Monday, April 26. This preliminary bibliography should not include any references from the course syllabus.

• Students will present a 5-minute synopsis of their research paper to the entire class, using one overhead cell transparency as a visual aid on May 18 or May 20. What to cover in your presentation:

(4) Summarize your paper ... What did you learn as your wrote it? What's the most interesting part? Why should anyone else want to read it?

Examination #1: Due Friday, April 2 (May be submitted as attachment to email anytime up to Tuesday, April 6)

For each of the two examinations, choose one question from each of the following sections and compose a three-page, typewritten, double-spaced, response for each. Deadlines for answers to your chosen questions are as follows:

What I am looking for in your short essays / responses to questions: Extensions of thought beyond our classroom discussions, and evidence that you have researched your answers beyond the published reading list for the class.

What I am not looking for: Repackaged content based solely upon assigned readings and classroom discussions.

1. The reading list for this course begins and ends with readings on methodology. In our first reading, Daniel Hausman says that "Ever since its eighteenth-century inception, the science of economics has been methodologically controversial." In one of our last readings, Donald McCloskey says “Economics … is not a Science in the way we came to understand that word in high school.” Compose a brief essay that summarizes the methodological issues important to the study of economics.

2. Theories of value play an important role in the history of economic thought, with the marginalist revolution of the 1870s representing something of a crescendo. Write an essay that traces the development of value theory from its earliest forms up to and including the views of Jevons and Walras. Support your review of the key issues with specific citations from relevant authors.

1. In the writings of later classical economists we often observe a complicated mix of laissez faire prescriptions and advocacy of government intervention in the economy (Mill is particularly interesting in this respect). How do you explain this seeming contradiction? How and why do you think views of the classical economists changed from the time of Smith to the time of Mill? How do neoclassical economists like Marshall and Walras view the role of government? Can we even make generalizations concerning these later writers and their views on the role of government?

2. Ricardo's influence was immense during and immediately after his own lifetime, but in the middle of the 19th century the "Ricardian system" was subjected to increasing criticism. After outlining the important parts of the Ricardian system, briefly discuss the non-Marxian criticisms of it. What makes this period in the development of economic analysis so interesting for those who would seek to understand the development of the discipline or, more broadly, for those who would seek to understand the progression of a science in general?

1. Briefly discuss some ways in which John Stuart Mill revised or modified Ricardo's views on distribution and the stationary state. Do either Mill's or Ricardo's views on these subjects have any remaining relevance to late 20th / early 21st century society?

2. In their introduction to the history of economic thought, Landreth and Colander[2] discuss the development of economic theory, essentially asking "How does economic theory arise?" They argue that there generally are two approaches to answering this question. The relativist approach focuses on the ways in which external (historical) forces shape the content of emerging theory, while the absolutist approach stresses internal forces internal to the discipline -- essentially explaining the development of economic theory as a process of discovering and explaining unsolved theoretical problems apart from historical circumstance. Choosing either Ricardo or Mill as your subject of study, briefly illustrate both of these approaches to an explanation of the economic theories found in their writings.

1. Since the marginalist revolution of the 1870s, mathematics has been an increasingly important part of the language of economics. Nevertheless and in spite of the fact that John Maynard Keynes had been extensively trained in mathematics at Cambridge, his most famous book (and one of the most influential economics books of the 20th century), The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, hardly employs mathematics at all. Compose a brief essay that discusses Keynes' argumentative style in this book. Your essay should include some speculation on why he made limited use of mathematical language.

2. One consistent theme in the history of economic thought (at least since the time of Smith) is the harmony of private and public interests. Compare the views of Veblen and Keynes on this matter, citing specific selections from the course readings to support your comparison.

1. Paul Samuelson once said that Alfred Marshall had "paralyzed the best brains in the Anglo-Saxon branch of our profession for three decades." Provide some historical context for this statement. Explain its broader meaning as if you were describing the growth and development of microeconomics during the middle part of the 20th century to someone who knew very little about the subject.

2. Compose a brief essay that speculates on the future of economics as a social science.

1. Briefly compare and contrast the views of Friedman, Coase, and McCloskey, on economic methodology. As part of your essay, you may wish to mention other authors who have written on the topic.

2. Suppose you have a friend who has a keen interest in learning something about the development of economics during the 20th century, and wants to do it by reading a diverse sample of original sources. Since your friend is a Rose-Hulman student, however, she has limited time, and has asked you to provide a short list of recommended readings. Recommend three readings, either from the course reading list or from other sources, and justify your recommendations. Remember, your reading suggestions should cover a cross-section of the field, not one particular viewpoint.

[1] McCloskey, Donald, “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 21 (June 1983), 481-517. We will read and discuss this article later in the term, but feel free to take a look at it now.

[2] Landreth, Harry, and David C. Colander, History of Economic Thought, 4th ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin (2002), 4 – 5.