Behind every economic model lies a heart still beating. Beneath the clean abstractions and elegant curves, there is always a deeper pulse — the question not only of how economies work, but for whom. This is the realm of political economy, the elder sibling of modern economics, once inseparable from philosophy, history, and moral inquiry. And it is in the study of the history of economic thought that this pulse becomes audible again.
Alessandro Roncaglia, in The Wealth of Ideas, invites us to remember that economic theory is not a sealed vault of truth. It is a mirror of society, a map of power, a vision of what human beings are — and what they might be. Political economy, he reminds us, was never just about supply and demand. It was about justice, survival, struggle, and change.
And it still is.
A Discipline with Two Faces
Economics today wears a divided face. One side gazes at formulas, optimization, equilibrium — a science. The other looks at institutions, ideologies, policies — a history, a politics, a conflict. This split is relatively new.
For centuries, political economy was a holistic inquiry. It was the study of how societies organize production and distribution, yes — but always with a view to values, ethics, and power. It was as concerned with ought as with is. Smith’s invisible hand moved within a moral universe. Ricardo’s dry numbers concealed class conflict. Marx’s volumes were not mere analysis — they were critique.
Then came the rise of marginalism, and later, the formalization of economics as a “value-free” science. Political economy was fragmented. Mathematics rose, philosophy receded. Neat models replaced messy realities.
But Roncaglia asks: at what cost?
History as Compass
The history of economic thought is not a stroll through quaint ideas. It is a journey into the foundations of our current thinking. It reminds us that every theory begins with a choice — not just technical, but conceptual and ethical.
When we study Smith or Keynes or Sraffa, we are not just learning about the past. We are learning how to see again — how to notice what our current models exclude. We learn that “rationality” has many meanings. That “efficiency” is not always virtuous. That markets are not eternal forms, but human constructions.
More importantly, we learn that every moment of economic thought was also a moment of political positioning. The idea of the “natural wage,” the belief in “free markets,” the defense of “utility maximization” — these were not neutral discoveries. They were ideas situated in specific social worlds, serving particular interests, reflecting deeper beliefs about society.
To ignore this history is not to be neutral. It is to be blind.
Reuniting the Fragments
The divide between economics and political economy — between the technical and the ethical, the model and the world — is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. And it can be undone.
Roncaglia does not call for the abandonment of models or rigor. He calls for their recontextualization. For remembering that a theory is not just a machine — it is a mirror of the social order it arises from.
The history of thought can be the bridge. It can show us how ideas evolve in response to crises, revolutions, and resistance. It can show us the recurring tension between structure and agency, between markets and states, between capital and labor. It can reveal that what looks like economic law is often political settlement.
By reconnecting theory with history, and history with society, we do not weaken economics. We enrich it. We restore its complexity — and its humanity.
The Role of the Economist
If political economy returns, what then is the role of the economist?
Not merely a technician or forecaster. Not a prophet of growth curves. But a participant in the life of society. A theorist with historical memory and moral imagination. A citizen of a contested world.
To practice political economy is to ask deeper questions:
– What kind of society does this model assume?
– Who benefits from this policy?
– What values are embedded in this metric of success?
– What are we not measuring — and why?
These are not distractions from the work of economics. They are its beating core.
An Act of Democracy
In the final turn, the return of political economy is not just about better theories. It is about democracy.
Because when economic theory becomes too abstract, too self-referential, it loses its accountability. It becomes the language of the few, not the many. Policies are passed with no public debate because “the model says so.”
But political economy refuses this closure. It insists that economics is a human science, and that humans must remain at the center of its concern.
The history of thought helps us remember this. It reminds us that economics was never meant to be silent. It was born in the agora, the marketplace, the assembly — among people. And it belongs there still.
In the End, a Beginning
The models may change. The data may grow. The mathematics may become more refined.
But the essential questions of political economy remain:
– Who owns what?
– Who does what?
– Who gets what?
– And what do they do with it?
These are not technicalities. They are the architecture of life.
To study the history of economic thought is to see that we are not the first to ask them — and that we will not be the last.
And in this continuity, in this long conversation across centuries, we find something more than theory.
We find ourselves.