Before leaving Edinburgh for France, I sent to several colleagues the early draft of my Paper, 'Adam Smith's Religiosity: a review of the evidence', and some responses have come in for which I am most grateful.
While offline, I worked on two revisions, mainly cutting down from 27,000 words to 17,000 and adding some clarifications (about -8,000 words net).
So far the responses have been positive and most helpful. It is quite an impertinence to impose on colleagues in this manner, so I will arrange a dinner for those involved in Edinburgh as a modest thank you.
I am encouraged to believe that The Paper is a modest contribution to Smithian scholarship and I look forward to presenting the finished paper at the History of Economic Thought Annual Conference in Denver, Colorado in June.
Speaking of which, the revised paper I presented to the HES annual conference in Fairfax, Virginia in 2007, and to the History of Economic Thought Conference in Edinburgh in 2008, 'Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: from metaphor to myth', has just been published by Economic Journal Watch today (available online - apologies I do not yet have the URL here in France!).
There is a response from Daniel Kline of GMU also published in EJW (I have not read it yet - my long Internet address list is in Edinburgh - anybody who has got it who can pass it on will do me a favour, which I shall reciprocate, of course).
I am still setting up for a full service and hope to resume Blogging from tomoorrow.
Here's the URL for Econ Journal Watch's current issue:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aier.org/ejw
Both yours and the Klein papers look like they are well worth reading. I did a quick blog on it to get people to both of them.
ReplyDeleteThanks Simon and Paul
ReplyDeleteI am not getting my usual google alerts on this new laptop in France (my IT expert, my daughter, is not on hand to sort it out - usually its something simple, for which my 'Dad knows' image of yesteryear takes another dent!).
I have now gained access to the EJW articles; I agree Daniel Klein has raised the standard of debate. I shall respond in due course.