History of Economic Thought: A Critical Prespectve

Hunt provides a much needed addition to the field of economic history and history of economic thought. Too much of economics has an ideological bent to the right, to find one to the left is, in itself, remarkable. In addition, Hunt does a very good job of covering all of the major thinkers and many of those left out of a traditional Ph.D. programs in economics. Some of the reviewers of this text chastise Hunt for having a bias perspective. ALL of theory has a bias perspective. Hunt, unlike many in the "mainstream," at least admits to his bias in the beginning sections of his work. Those in economics that believe themselves to be doing pure science without bias will not find the Hunt work of interest. Those in the field that recognize that economics is inseparable from politics will find it an interesting read. Anyone that wants breadth and depth to their understanding will find it necessary.

Histories of economics are generally crippled by one or another ideological vice, or else misunderstandings of the development of theory, almost an arcane pursuit. This comprehensive history of economic thought gives a critical look at the mainline, the development from Smith to the the marginalists, with everything else draped around that, and the result is refreshingly clear, though charges of bias are inevitable. One problem is that economic theory is beset with cleverly complicated fictions, and those who believe them become confused experts. The slightly distanced perspective here is usefully insightful, taken as a broad canvas.

E.K. Hunt's book provided an excellent as well as indepth portrayal of the development of economic thought. The book explains in throrough detail the various points of origin for economic theory and the two roads that have been taken most prevalently since the time of Adam Smith. The strength of the book lies in its analysis of modern mainstream theory and the documentation of its shortcomings. E.K. Hunt exposes the weaknesses of mainstream economics while at the same time offering an explanation for its continued study in the face of its theoretical inaccuracies. Mainstream economics carries on because it is on ideological friendly terms with the existing economic system. Regardless of the flaws in mainstream theory, and in capitalism in general, the continued reproduction of the economic system relies on the ability of those "scientists," whose responsibility it is to study the system, to provide a theoretical framework consistent with the reigning system. Without a scientific basis for its defense, the economic system and the economic elites benefitting from the system would have a hard time defending the results of a much less than perfect market economy. In the future I suggest reviewers of this book take the time to closely analyze the functioning of the capitalist economy before writing a review based solely on a seminar class. However, for many I suppose ignorance is bliss. Thank goodness E.K. Hunt doesn't view the world from the perspective of one's head in sand.