Commentary: THP and the Pedagogical Challenge of Economics

Author: Roberto Lampa (Università di Macerata)

The volume edited by Daniela Tavasci and Luigi Ventimiglia, Teaching the History of Economic Thought (2018), should be read not simply as a collective contribution to a specialised field, but as an intervention in a broader and increasingly urgent debate concerning the future of economics teaching. Its relevance lies in the fact that it addresses a question that many departments continue to avoid directly: what role can the history of economic thought still play within contemporary economics curricula, and under what pedagogical conditions can that role become meaningful rather than merely residual?

One of the merits of the volume is that it does not defend the history of economic thought through nostalgia or disciplinary self-preservation. On the contrary, the editors present it as part of a wider teaching strategy, which they define as teaching with historical perspective. This formula is particularly significant because it suggests that the historical dimension should not be treated as an external addition to economics, but rather as a method capable of reorganising the way economics itself is introduced, discussed, and understood in the classroom. The historical perspective is therefore not confined to presenting older authors in chronological order; it becomes a way of reconstructing the conditions under which economic theories emerged, the problems they were intended to address, and the intellectual disputes through which they acquired meaning.

The pedagogical approach proposed by the editors rests on four clearly recognisable elements: attention to the student as the centre of the learning process, historical contextualisation of theories, openness to plural perspectives, and a strong use of problem-based learning. Considered together, these elements represent a concrete response to one of the major weaknesses of current economics teaching, namely the tendency to present theories as abstract structures detached from their social and historical origins. When economic concepts are introduced without reference to the circumstances that generated them, students often perceive them as fixed technical constructions rather than as intellectual responses to concrete historical challenges.

It is precisely here that the historical dimension acquires pedagogical force. Presenting theories historically does not mean simply adding narrative detail; it means allowing students to understand why certain concepts became central at particular moments, why different authors reached different conclusions, and why disagreement is constitutive of economic reasoning rather than a sign of disciplinary weakness. In this sense, the historical perspective contributes directly to conceptual clarity.

The volume also reveals, perhaps inevitably, a tension between two possible ways of understanding the role of the history of economic thought today. On one side, there is a pragmatic orientation: historical material is introduced because it improves teaching effectiveness, stimulates student engagement, and broadens understanding within the institutional constraints of existing programmes. On the other side, several chapters implicitly raise a more demanding question concerning the intellectual narrowing that has accompanied the progressive marginalisation of historical reflection within economics. This second line suggests that the absence of history is not simply a curricular omission, but part of a deeper transformation in the way economics conceives scientific legitimacy.

This tension should not be regarded as a weakness. On the contrary, it reflects the current condition of the field itself. Any attempt to reintegrate historical reflection into economics teaching necessarily moves between these two levels: practical adaptation and intellectual critique. The editors appear aware of this and avoid forcing a false resolution. Their contribution is therefore valuable precisely because it leaves both dimensions visible.

For this reason, the usefulness of the volume extends beyond courses explicitly devoted to the history of economic thought. Its pedagogical logic can be applied across economics teaching more generally. Topics such as inflation, crisis, growth, inequality, or financial instability become more intelligible when theories are presented not as isolated analytical models, but as historically situated responses to changing economic realities. A historical reconstruction of debates often clarifies theoretical distinctions more effectively than purely formal exposition.

The book therefore deserves to be considered not only as a resource for those already committed to teaching history of economic thought, but also as a starting point for a broader reflection on economics pedagogy itself. If economics teaching today faces growing demands for pluralism, relevance, and critical engagement, the historical perspective proposed here offers one coherent way forward. It does not reject analytical rigour; rather, it places rigour within a broader intellectual horizon in which theories recover their historical movement and their relation to real problems.

The importance of this contribution lies precisely in this: it reminds us that teaching economics historically is not simply about preserving the past, but about improving the quality of economic understanding in the present.