Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/104291
Authors: 
Komlos, John
Year of Publication: 
2009
Series/Report no.: 
Munich Discussion Paper 2009-6
Abstract: 
In his recent presidential address to the American Economic History Association, Paul Hohenberg argued that anthropometric history does not meet his criteria for useful research in the field of economic history. He considers research useful if (a) it "helps shape one of our underlying disciplines"; b) it contributes "to clear—even fresh—thinking about current, policy-related issues or on-going scholarly debates about the historical past"; and c) it "penetrates the fuzzy realm of identity-shaping popular discourse". I argue briefly that only a superficial reading of the literature would lead to the conclusion that anthropometric history has not been useful.
Subjects: 
Economic History - General
Economic History - Development of the Discipline: Historiographical
Sources and Methods
JEL: 
N00
N01
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.