Paul W. Rhode of University of Michigan and NBER reviews “Plagues upon the Earth: Disease and the Course of Human History” by Kyle Harper. The EconLit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the ways that human history has shaped disease ecology and pathogen evolution and how disease ecology and pathogen evolution have shaped human history in turn, detailing how the emergence, incidence, and consequences of disease in both individuals and populations are inseparable from a wider array of social and environmental factors.”

This essay reviews Networks and Markets, edited by James E. Rauch and Alessandra Casella. This book provides a useful vehicle for clarifying the main conceptual and operational issues facing the growing study of economic networks. Three types of networks are discussed: networks as concentrated or patterned exchange; as primordial relations; and, the most general, networks as structures of mutual orientation. An overview is provided of the challenges faced by research on the economic implications of three types of networks. The strengths and weaknesses of current research on economic networks are examined via a review of the contributions in the book.

Suddenly, and somewhat unexpectedly, there seems to be a real chance for change in the way economics is taught in American colleges and universities. During the last two years, three different groups have taken a critical look at economics education and declared that change is in order. The Association of American Colleges (AAC), in conjunction with the American Economic Association (AEA), commissioned a study of the undergraduate economics major which has led to a report with several recommendations for reform (John Siegfried et al. 1991); in response to a National Science Foundation (NSF) symposium that revealed concern over the state of graduate education, the AEA formed the Commission

M Y PERCEPTION of Chicago economics is that of participant-observer. As a working economist at Chicago, I have observed other members of the tribe at close hand, and have obtained their critical reactions to this description of their intellectual outlook and styles of work.' The perceptions of any participant-observer are conditioned, however, by his position in time and in the institutional configuration. My vantage points have been those of a graduate student in the Economics Department, of an assistant and personal friend of Oscar Lange from 1939-41, and of a Professor in the Graduate School of Business since 1974. Yet another source of perspective bias is field of specialization. As a graduate student, my primary interests were Pure Theory, Welfare Economics and Macroeconomics; my present focus is upon Labor Economics, with Industrial Organization a secondary interest. This pattern of specialization determines the workshops that I regularly attend, the manuscripts that I read and the individuals with whom I am in close contact. The influence of specialty upon one's perspective of Chicago economics is not trivial. In preparing this essay, I have found that our Chicago corner of the economics profession can look quite different to someone in Monetary Theory or International Trade than to a specialist in Labor, Industrial Organization or Law and Economics. This essay does not pretend to be an exhaustive account of Chicago economics during the past half century. It is primarily an attempt to describe the evolution of a few basic ideas associated with a particular institution. The focus is upon ideas rather than their protagonists or the institution whose name is their generic label. Describing these ideas is not easy because their central tendency has changed 1 Manifestly, this paper is a personal statement for which no one but the author is responsible. However, I have had far more than normal critical input from friends and colleagues at Chicago and elsewhere. My Chicago associates have served in the dual capacity of information sources and critics: George Stigler's contributions are acknowledged in footnotes, though inadequately, and I have also benefitted from the comments of Jacob Frenkel, David Galenson, Robert Lucas, Merton Miller, George Neumann, Peter Pashigian, Sam Peltzman, and T. W. Schultz. Among the non-Chicago friends who have made especially helpful suggestions are: Kenneth Arrow, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Albert Rees, and the editor. My readers have been unanimous in urging reduction in over-all length, but virtually all of them also suggested small additions. Of course, most of their suggestions would have improved the final product, if only I had had the skill to implement them. Lacking this, I have been compelled to omit discussion of many important ideas and persons. Also, I have not had space to relate the discussion of this paper to previous discussions of Chicago economics such as Warren J. Samuels (1976), Bronfenbrenner (1962), A. W. Coats (1963), Miller (1962), and Stigler (1962a). My only defense for these sins of omission is lack of space and inability to organize better.