I was motivated to consider the topics of this paper by repeatedly encountering the same problems in pondering the history of economic thought, not only in my own work but when retereeing papers and reading the publications of others. The problems that I will consider are important because they involve fundamental issues in the selections and representations we make of the history of economic thought. I do not have solutions for all of the problems, nor do I believe that each of them has a single solution. My objective in this address is not precisely to solve the problems, although I will suggest some ways of dealing with some of them. My purpose rather is to identify the problems in a clear way and to review how they have been treated in order to provide a common basis for further discussion. They can be divided into technical problems and problems of approach.

The subject of economics is characterised by deep divisions over methodology, theory and practical implications. This paper addresses itself to these divisions with the aim of suggesting a way forward. The starting point is the proposition that one of the keys to the problem is for economists to be more aware of the simple, but often tacit, ideas which underlie economic theory, especially the ideas which economists tend to have on the nature and status of their theories. It is an approach which is developed more fully in A Theory of the Capitalist Economy: Towards a Post-Classical Synthesis (Gerrard, forthcoming). This present paper offers a short exposition of some of thearguments in favor of a post-classical approach.

This essay examines Frank Knight's view of monopolies in a market economy through an exegesis of his writings. A cogent development of Frank Knight's theory of monopolies is conspicuously absent in the economic literature. His prominence in the discipline and the influence his work has had on others establish his views as significant in the intellectural history of the theory of capitalist competition. The study focuses on Knight's characterization of monopolies and his views as to the appropriateness of coercive repressive regulatory policies. Also, capitalistic monopolies are discussed in the context of Knight's critical attitude toward economic and philosophic dogma and his disdain for centralized economic planning. The following section deals with the Knightian view of the nature of monopolies and categorization of types of monopolies. Then, the philosophical basis for Knight's position onmonopolies is presented. Specifically, the concentration of economic power in capitalism is explained in terms of Knight's perceptions of social reformers, static equilibrium analysis, and economic planning.

The following short, but densely packed paper by Professor Shohken Mawatari is the first in a series to be published at irregular intervals in the H.E.S. Bulletin. And if this inaugural contribution is anything to go by, the result will be a substantial and valuable addition to our knowledge of the contemporary state of economics in a variety of countries. Moreover, it may be especially enlightening for American and British readers, who all too often take it for granted that the economic ideas and practices prevailing in their own countries constitute the norm, if not the ideal to which professional economists elsewhere should aspire.

Over thirty years ago, Bronfenbrenner characterized Japanese economics in terms of “sectarianism, inbreeding and schizophrenia” (1956, p. 390). This paper explores the validity of these characterizations in relation to the contemporary Japanese scene. The main focus will be an institutional analysis of academic economics as conducted within the Japanese university system.

Last January I received my four volume set of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. As has been said, it really is not a dictionary but an encyclopedia. Many of the entries bring the reader up to date on the latest advances in economic theory. But “over 700 of the nearly 2000 entries” are on the lives and works of important economists who either have passed away or “have reached the age of seventy by 1 January 1986” (I. ix). Even the theoretical entries often contain a history of the subject, and many subjects would be classified as history of economic thought entries. (See the Subject Index. IV. 980-988.)