Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:38:12.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

STEVEN KATES REPLIES: WHY THE HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT NEEDS DEFENDING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

Steven Kates*
Affiliation:
RMIT University

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Forum: Defending the History of Economic Thought by Steven Kates
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2015 

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

Boumans, Marcel. 2015. “Review of Defending the History of Economic Thought.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought (present volume).Google Scholar
Kates, Steven. 2013. Defending the History of Economic Thought. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lodewijks, John. 2003. “Research in the History of Economic Thought as a Vehicle for the Defense and Criticism of Orthodox Economics.” In Samuels, W., Biddle, J., and Davis, J., eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, ch. 39, pp. 655668.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [1844] 2009. “Of the Influence of Consumption on Production.” In Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. Rockville, MD: Serenity Publishers, pp. 4668.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Denis P. 2007. History of Economic Thought as an Intellectual Discipline. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1992. “Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of Science.” History of Political Economy 24: 187203.Google Scholar
University of Melbourne. 2014. Advertising for its History of Science Course. (Accessed September 2014).Google Scholar
Weintraub, Roy. 2007. “Economic Science Wars.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 29 (3): 267282.Google Scholar