On February 21, 2024, the community of historians of economics experienced a profound loss with the passing of Mauro Boianovsky (1959–2024). Although the field of the history of economics has faced the loss of prominent figures before, Mauro’s death resonated with particular intensity. This was not only because he was among the most distinguished historians of economics of his generation but also because he passed away at a relatively young age, remaining an active and deeply engaged member of our community at the time of his death. While other tributes—such as that of Rogério Arthmar (Reference Arthmar2025), Alexandre Cunha (Reference Cunha2024), Hans-Michael Trautwein (Reference Trautwein2024), and the contributions gathered in this symposium—highlight the significance of Mauro’s scholarly achievements, our objective here is to shed light on another dimension of his legacy. We aim to offer insight into how Mauro navigated intellectual and academic spaces, and how he interacted with colleagues, co-authors, and students. To this end, we conducted interviews and exchanged correspondence with Mauro’s colleagues, co-authors, former students, and his sister.Footnote ¹

The Boianovsky family’s arrival in Brazil followed a common trajectory among European immigrants during the first half of the twentieth century. Seeking a better life, many European families settled in southern Brazil, attracted by opportunities for both labor and land (Seyferth Reference Seyferth1986; Lehr and Cipko Reference Lehr and Cipko2015). The Boianovskys established themselves in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil’s southernmost state (Arthmar Reference Arthmar2025). Mauro was born in Porto Alegre, the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, on April 12, 1959. Nevertheless, it was Brasília that had the greatest influence on his life and intellectual development (a point to which we will return later). Mauro first moved to Brasília in 1971, when his father accepted a position as a professor at the University of Brasília (UnB). His father, David Boianovsky, was a specialist in medical sciences and a prolific scholar. He served as secretary of the Ministry of Labor, where he was responsible for developing improved nutritional standards for industrial workers, and also acted as an international consultant to the Brazilian government on health policy. Mauro’s mother, Rosa Boianovsky, worked as a librarian at the Brazilian Congress Library (Arthmar Reference Arthmar2025).

Mauro’s family appears to have been an important source of inspiration for him. Like his father, he became a prolific scholar and a professor at the University of Brasília. He was also a devoted library user, frequenting the very environment where his mother had worked. During his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge, he was known among fellow students for his constant presence in the library. While Mauro was a professor at UnB, the university library created a recognition award for its most frequent user. Mauro received this distinction several times. Although the award was designed merely to encourage greater use of the library—and although Mauro had received far more prestigious accolades—he was always deeply proud to be acknowledged in this way. According to some of his colleagues, friends, and sister, Mauro’s unwavering commitment to his profession may be traced back to his deep connection with the Jewish identity, which instilled in him a strong sense of discipline and a profound appreciation for intellectual and artistic pursuits.

Returning to Mauro’s relationship with Brasília: The city was founded in 1960 as part of a broader state-led initiative to unify the country, to establish a central link between Brazil’s regions, and to promote, through this newly created space, social, political, and esthetic values that could express the richness and diversity of Brazilian culture (Holston Reference Holston1993, ch. 3; Bomeny Reference Bomeny2016). As a pragmatic outcome of this vision, the capital of Brazil was relocated from Rio de Janeiro to the newly constructed city in the sparsely populated central-western region: Brasília. The UnB was established in 1962, and its foundation was deeply embedded in the modernist ethos of building a new society from the ground up, rooted in the faith in reason’s ability to mold a renewed Brazil (Bomeny Reference Bomeny2016). When the Boianovsky family moved to Brasília, both the city and the university were still in the process of being built.

In its early years, the UnB built several faculty residences to provide housing for its academic staff—an uncommon practice in Brazil. Owing to his father’s new position, Mauro spent his teenage years and part of his early adulthood living on the UnB campus. At that time, Brasília, still a newly constructed city, offered few entertainment options for young people. As a result, the university campus became an important social hub for them to gather and interact. It was in this same setting that Mauro lived again after returning from his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge—a place he cherished deeply. He lived just a five-minute walk from the Department of Economics and remained the library’s most frequent user. Being a professor was a defining aspect of Mauro’s life, and being a professor at UnB carried particular significance. The campus was more than a professional space for him: It was integral to the construction of his identity.Footnote ² Mauro was consistently described by colleagues and members of the history of economics community as a rigorous scholar—an attribute he displayed from an early age. According to his former professors, Flavio Versiani and Joaquim Andrade, Mauro’s academic rigor was evident even during his undergraduate years. Versiani recalled an instance in which Mauro received an A- on a test and, concerned that the grade reflected a shortcoming, approached him to clarify whether he had failed to meet expectations. In a subsequent assessment, Mauro earned an A+. He eventually received A+ grades in nearly all his courses, with the notable exception of physical education.

Mauro completed his BA in Economics at the UnB in 1979. In 1984, he was appointed as an assistant professor at the Fluminense Federal University (UFF), located in Niterói, a city just eight miles from Rio de Janeiro. During this period, Mauro resided in Rio de Janeiro and commuted to UFF. The most direct and commonly used route between the two cities is the Rio–Niterói Bridge. Mauro typically crossed the bridge to get to work—except on rainy and windy days. Designed to sway slightly in response to external conditions, the bridge’s movement made Mauro quite uneasy. On such days, it was not uncommon for Professor Boianovsky to cancel his classes. While living in Rio de Janeiro, Mauro took advantage of his location to pursue a master’s degree at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, which he completed in 1989. Around this time, an uncle introduced Mauro to what would become one of his greatest passions: jazz. He remained on the faculty at UFF from 1984 to 1996, though he lived in Rio de Janeiro until 1990, when he relocated to the United Kingdom to begin his doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge.Footnote ³ While on leave from UFF to pursue his PhD abroad, Mauro was contacted by one of his former professors, Joaquim Andrade, regarding the possibility of transferring to the UnB. Such a transfer was possible because both UFF and UnB belong to the Brazilian Federal System of Universities. Aware that a position would soon become available at UnB, Joaquim suggested that the university could formally allocate it to UFF as part of the arrangement to facilitate Mauro’s transfer. With the agreement of both departments of economics and Mauro himself, the transfer was completed, and Mauro joined the faculty at UnB in 1996.Footnote ⁴

At the University of Cambridge, Mauro quickly earned a reputation as an exceptional student—among the top in his cohort, achieving the highest marks—and as a mature and self-directed researcher. Even before arriving in Cambridge, he was already recognized as an expert on the writings of Knut Wicksell. He found in Geoff Harcourt a highly compatible supervisor, someone who combined a strong technical foundation in capital theory with the intellectual openness to support Mauro’s independence. A noteworthy episode during his time at Cambridge—one that would later become emblematic of his dedication to scholarship—was Mauro’s decision to teach himself Swedish in order to access Wicksell’s untranslated works. Despite not having formal fluency in the language, he was able to identify and engage with key passages in Wicksell’s original texts. Mauro’s discipline was not limited to his academic pursuits. He also adhered to a strict diet, avoiding alcohol and fatty foods for health reasons—an uncommon trait among Brazilian graduate students at the time, who were often seen as a lively and festive group. Mauro, by contrast, was a reserved individual, which may have contributed to the perception that he stood apart from the typical Brazilian profile.

Mauro’s relationship with Alexandre Andrada provides a clear example of his reserved personality. Andrada, a colleague at UnB and co-author, noted that it took considerable time before Mauro shared personal details—such as the fact that he had a daughter and a son. Similarly, many of Mauro’s colleagues—and much of the history of economics community—only gradually came to learn that he was Jewish. According to Daniela Freddo—a colleague of Mauro’s who also took one of his classes during her PhD studies—one had to “break the ice” on personal matters before Mauro felt comfortable speaking about them. Once that initial barrier was crossed, however, he would discuss family and other personal topics as openly as any other subject. Mauro was similarly discreet regarding romantic relationships. He might mention visiting a particular place with a girlfriend, but he seldom, if ever, elaborated on the nature of the relationship.

In terms of Mauro’s interactions with members of the history of economics community, he cultivated relationships in a distinctive and deliberate manner. As noted by Trautwein (Reference Trautwein2024), there was a widely shared perception—particularly among Brazilian historians of economics—that Mauro would initially “test” individuals he did not yet know to determine whether they were, in his view, serious scholars. Once he was satisfied with their intellectual commitment, Mauro would readily open up and engage with them. In these interactions, he was often highly supportive and sincerely encouraged others to pursue their research agendas. Conferences were especially meaningful to Mauro—not only as venues to present his work but also as important opportunities for social connection. As soon as a conference program was published, Mauro would typically reach out to colleagues in the history of economics community to plan social activities such as dinners, museum visits, or evenings at jazz clubs.

Mauro’s connection with part of the history of economics community was often forged through co-authorship. His collaborators consistently described him as a rigorous scholar. Arthmar characterized Mauro as stoic, persistent, erudite, and meticulous. Trautwein (Reference Trautwein2024) notes that Mauro was a prolific writer who frequently adopted what he termed an “archivological” approach to research—choosing topics that often emerged serendipitously while he was engaged with archival materials from other projects. In his later years, Mauro increasingly co-authored with younger scholars. As with his interactions more broadly within the community, he often began these collaborations by “testing” the scholar through the co-writing of a working paper. If he perceived a strong sense of commitment and intellectual seriousness, Mauro would fully support the project, which eventually culminated in a published article.

As an active member of the history of economics community, Mauro played a leading role in prominent scholarly associations in the field, including the History of Economics Society (HES), the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET), and the Latin American Society for the History of Economic Thought (ALAHPE). He served as president of the HES in 2016–17 and as a council member of the ESHET from 2006 to 2010. Throughout his career, Mauro was a regular participant in HES conferences, attending annually from 1993 to 2005, as well as in 2007 and 2009, and again from 2015 to 2023. During this latter period, he did not attend the 2020 conference, reflecting a brief delay in his transition to virtual participation during the period of social isolation brought about by the COVID-19 crisis. Elected president of the HES in 2015, Mauro organized the HES 2016 conference and, in the following year, delivered his presidential address while serving as president.

With respect to ESHET conferences, available records indicate that Mauro attended at least sixteen meetings, although this number is likely an underestimate.Footnote ⁵ Within ESHET, he played a central role in fostering connections among Latin American historians of economics and was instrumental in promoting the ESHET Latin American Conferences. Held between 2011 and 2015, these meetings served as the foundation for the creation of the Latin American Society for the History of Economic Thought.Footnote ⁶ Mauro thus played a pivotal role in the organization of the history of economics in Latin America. Notwithstanding his strong international presence, Mauro remained deeply committed to the Brazilian academic community, as reflected in his sustained participation in national conferences. The Brazilian National Economics Conference is organized into thematic areas, with Area 01 dedicated to the history of economic thought and methodology. Mauro attended at least twenty-five editions of this conference.Footnote ⁷

Mauro also played a significant role in organizing conference sessions. A revealing example dates to 2022, when he contacted the president of the National Association of Graduate Programs in Economics, the association responsible for the Brazilian National Economics Conference, to inquire about plans for a special session commemorating its fiftieth anniversary in 2023. Disappointed to learn that no such initiative was being considered, Mauro found it inconceivable that the association would overlook its own history on such a milestone. He therefore took the initiative to organize the session himself, inviting several senior scholars who had served as presidents in the association’s early years. At the same 2023 conference, he also organized a session celebrating the 300th anniversary of Adam Smith. Regrettably, due to illness, he was unable to attend either session.

Mauro maintained a positive relationship with his colleagues, which can be attributed in part to (1) his tendency to avoid conflict, and in part to (2) his modest and low-profile demeanor—despite being among the most accomplished scholars in his field. One hypothesis regarding (1) is that Mauro was so deeply focused on his research that he regarded departmental disputes as distractions from the academic path he was committed to pursuing. As for (2), an anecdote shared by Versiani offers a compelling illustration: At a time when email was not yet widely used, the Department of Economics at UnB received a fax. To identify its intended recipient, the message was read by some of Mauro’s colleagues. It turned out to be a letter from Paul Samuelson, congratulating Mauro on a recent publication. It was only at that moment that many of Mauro’s colleagues became aware of the true significance of his scholarly contributions. Mauro himself never highlighted his achievements or sought special recognition. He never experienced any difficulties with colleagues. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his interactions with students.

Mauro did not enjoy an easy relationship with his students. This was largely due to the fact that the same scholarly rigor that defined his research also shaped his approach in the classroom. Tensions arose from a mismatch of expectations: Mauro demanded more from his students—more reading, deeper engagement—than they expected, and many felt that his standards were excessive. Nonetheless, students readily recognized the depth of Mauro’s knowledge of economics. As a supervisor of master’s and doctoral dissertations, he maintained the same level of rigor found in his teaching and research. Even so, supervision rarely led to serious conflict, generating only minor and routine disagreements. His advisees often commented on the direct and outspoken style that characterized his mentorship.

Given Mauro’s long-standing reputation as an outstanding scholar, it is unsurprising that he developed his own methodology for study and research. What may be more surprising, however, is that this method was entirely analog. This aligns with his broader personal disposition—Mauro was, in many respects, an “analog person,” often struggling with the technological demands of daily life. We are not referring to complex tasks such as computer programming or artificial intelligence development; rather, Mauro faced difficulties with seemingly simple tasks like replacing printer toner or requesting a ride via Uber. These limitations occasionally led to misunderstandings, as he relied more heavily than others on administrative staff at UnB and on colleagues within the history of economics community. At times, this gave rise to the mistaken impression that he was overly dependent or even a freeloader. In truth, Mauro was quite the opposite—he disliked being a burden and valued self-reliance. His analog approach was especially evident in his research routine. Mauro read exclusively from printed materials, marked them with Post-it notes (never using highlighters), annotated them in pencil, and kept extensive handwritten notes in dedicated notebooks. As a prolific researcher, he amassed a considerable collection of these notebooks, which served as a personal archive of his intellectual journey. Mauro was truly one of a kind, and he is profoundly missed!

Beyond the introduction, the symposium brings together four papers that explore Mauro Boianovsky’s contributions to the history of economics. Roger Backhouse expands upon Mauro’s account in “Paul Samuelson’s Ways to Macroeconomic Dynamics” by situating Samuelson’s work not only within the tradition of formal mathematical modeling of dynamics (as developed by Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen) but also within the broader intellectual lineage of theories of market adjustment and imperfect competition rooted in Alfred Marshall. Hans-Michael Trautwein examines Mauro’s early and enduring engagement with Knut Wicksell’s economic theory, emphasizing how this engagement shaped his scholarly formation and later contributions to the history of economic thought. Maurício Chalfin Coutinho discusses Mauro’s role in shaping the history of economics in Brazil, focusing on his extensive studies of Celso Furtado and Latin American structuralism. Coutinho argues that, unlike most Brazilian commentators, Mauro situated Furtado’s thought within a broader international context, connecting his ideas to global traditions of postwar development economics and offering comparative insights that enrich our understanding of structuralism and Furtado’s legacy. Victor Cruz-e-Silva provides a bibliometric overview of Mauro’s writings, empirically identifying two central domains of his scholarship: the history of macroeconomics, with Knut Wicksell as a key reference; and the history of development economics, shaped largely by Evsey Domar, Celso Furtado, and the Latin American structuralist tradition.