Steve, let me try to interpret this statement by Robbins in terms of error. My reading of the passage is that Robbins is claiming that if "the economist" studies some HOT, he will be in a better position to avoid error in the "purely analytical field." Second, he is claiming that past policies led to problems, which presumably means that the past policies were erroneous. I wonder how Robbins would judge whether an error has been made in the analytical field and how he would determine whether a problem exists that was caused by past policies. What kinds of problems does he mention? And what kinds of policies does he think led to these problems? It is all well and good to write that errors have occurred. But such writing is purely rhetorical until one specifies these errors in a way that a reader can judge whether the writer herself is making an error. Pat Gunning