New Economic History Revision

New Economic History Revision - New Economic History...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
What is the New Economic History? - It is the joining of historical questions with statistical analysis and economic theory. - Analysis undertaken using historical methods and statistical methods. - Emerged in the 1960’s. - Its methods, technique and results questioned by “traditional” historians. - Also referred to as Cliometrics. - The term was coined in 1960 by Jonathan R.T. Hughes and Stanley Reiter. - Technically means the measurement of history. - Refers to the use of economic theory and econometrics technique in studying economic history. - Primary example of econometric method and one of the most important examples was “Time on the Cross” E.H. Hunt Outlines the aspects of econometric history: - Larger emphasis on statistics and the precision of definition. - Importance of counterfactual propositions i.e. the disputation over facts and ideas which already exist. - The counterfactual conditional concept is important as we can only understand something’s significance if we contrast it with what might have happened. Reaction of Traditional Historians - This new economic history did not conform to the traditional rules of history writing. - Confusion and skepticism. - Fogel and Engerman identified arguments that historians made against the new economic history; 1. They claim the vocabulary is extremely difficult and complicated. - A just argument as most historians may never have seen the need to be accomplished in statistics or economics. - The economic historian would counter-argue that the majority of studies use relatively simple maths and it was the duty of the historians to move with the times. 2. Questions which are asked in the economic writing are not questions that would usually be asked. (see style and approach) - Anything wrong with this? Introduced new issues. 3. The answers which the economic historians come to are not definite. - Seems unfair as the majority of historical work is not absolute. - The historian has to express their opinion and argue their point, taking all views into account. 4.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

New Economic History Revision - New Economic History...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online