================= 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]