Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:25:58.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Perhaps We Can Talk

Discussant Comments for “Taking Stock and Moving Ahead: The Past, Present, and Future of Economics for History”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Abstract

The title of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association in 2007 was “History and the Social Sciences: Taking Stock and Moving Ahead.” David I. Kertzer (2007), the president of the association at that time, explained that the focus of the conference was to determine “how far we have come in social science history” and to isolate “the most promising avenues for research.” The following essays were presented at the presidential session, titled “The Past, Present, and Future of Economics for History.” The presenters put forward a number of provocative arguments before a fully engaged audience, whose numbers spilled into the hallway of Chicago's Palmer House. While the authors were all economists by training and by department affiliation, there was an intense interdisciplinary exchange between audience members and the panelists. The session, in short, was a huge success in generating a range of ideas about the future of economics for history.

Type
Special Section: The Past, Present, and Future of Economics for History
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 2011 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Butterfield, Herbert (1931) The Whig Interpretation of History. London: Bell.Google Scholar
Kertzer, David I. (2007) “President’s welcome.” Program, 32nd Annual Meeting of the Social Science History Association, November 15–18.Google Scholar
Whaples, Robert (2010) “Is Economic History a Neglected Field of Study?Historically Speaking 11: 17–20.Google Scholar