Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:17 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
================= HES POSTING =================
Several participants in this discussion have agreed that (as Peter Boettke
put it) "the history of economic thought must be the type of work which is
historically persuasive to _historians_"
I'd like to raise the distinction between what is persuasive to _historians_
and what is persuasive to the current body of scholars housed in history
departments.
A couple years ago I surveyed American economic historians and found that
those housed in history departments and those housed in economics
departments had reached substantially different conclusions on some
important issues, even though they've read many of the same articles and
books. For example, only 34 percent of economic historians in econ
departments "generally disagreed" with the statement that "in the
postbellum South economic competition among whites played an important
part in protecting blacks from racial coercion." Yet, 78 percent of those
in history departments "generally disagreed" with the proposition. On
several questions a pattern emerged that economic historians in history
departments were fairly skeptical about the power and efficiency of the
market. Having taught in a history department, before moving to an econ
department, I have a sense that this skepticism about the efficiency of
the market sets historians in history departments apart from historians in
economics departments (as well as from economists in general). This
difference should be recognized when one says that the history of economic
thought should be persuasive to "historians."
Robert Whaples
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
910-759-4916 (office)
910-759-6028 (fax)
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|