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