|
Boldizzoni's attempted resurrection of a realist, non-abstract, historical approach to economic history is learned, rhetorically rich, and largely persuasive but lacks some crucial dimensions. The continuing dominance of orthodoxy in 'official' economic history after the institutionalist turn (despite a context of methodological and socio-political pluralism among the wide range of practitioners under various labels) lies in its continued abstraction and reductive econometrics. But 'ad hoc' adjustments while maintaining rational choice, methodological individualism, and an uncritical ideological defence of free markets, do not address the basic, underlying weaknesses that Boldizzoni correctly identifies. In proposing his manifesto for revival of the synthetic-structural tradition, however, he should have paid more attention to recent arguments in defence of new philosophical and theoretical foundations for social science history. |
|