Concluding Remarks

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate about methods lies in the question of knowing if it is either possible or desirable to choose between apparently opposite camps.

History of economic thought aims at understanding ideas and concepts put forward by past thinkers and how and why they have developed and changed through time. In order to understand this complex process it is fundamental to acknowledge the existence and the legitimacy of an immense variety of approaches, styles and methods of doing the history of economic thought.

When considered in the abstract, the different perspectives complement each other for the construction of a history of economic thought of which they are themselves dif­ferent forms of expression. While there is no disputing the claim that economic thought has undergone constant changes throughout history, and while there is similarly no argument about the presence of different families or schools of thought (whether or not from the same historical period), it must be accepted that the recognition of the validity of these statements presupposes the presentation of the history of economic thought as a complex intellectual endeavour that allows for different though complementary types of interpretation.

The ideal type of history of economic thought would therefore be the result of an eclectic compromise between variant approaches that contribute, albeit differently, to the construction of a common and global corpus of knowledge. This is a history that is also understood as a meeting place for disciplines and scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds, as a platform for interdisciplinary debates, and as a heuristic instrument for the study of history, economics and society.

The abstract option of choosing between one methodological perspective or another is therefore a false dilemma. The problem is not in discussing whether one is good and the other bad, but rather in recognising them as distinct and non-antagonistic ways of engag­ing in the study of the history of economic thought. The choice only makes sense when we move from the audience of historiography onto the stage where history is practised, or only by paying attention to the concrete object of study that we have chosen does it become pertinent to clarify the point of view adopted, in order to make both the aims and the methodology of the research to be undertaken quite explicit.

Thus, the coexistence of diversified methods does not represent either a factor of paralysis or a cause for lament. Instead, it should be seen as the reason that determines the dynamism and vitality of an eclectic community of researchers who both value and demonstrate the importance of the history of economic thought as an academic discipline.

Jose Luis Cardoso