Talk:Historical school of economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there is a point of view problem with this article. Here is one example:

"Characteristic of the historical school is a concern with reality rather than with self-referential mathematical modelling;"

This sentence implies that mainstrean economics is not concerned with realty. And this:

"The Historical School is perhaps the most abused theory in the history of economic thought, because it fits so badly with the now completely-dominating Anglo-American view(s); it is perhaps also the school that is the least known in English-speaking countries. And yet, clearly it is the Historical School which forms the basis - both theoretically and factually - of the social market economy which is dominant in almost all countries of Europe, as well as of all dynamic, change-oriented and especially innovation-based economics (through the transmission of Joseph Schumpeter, who in spite of criticism of the School was, especially in his innovation-focused work, building on von Schmoller and Sombart)"

I don't see any "abuse" against the historical school. The assorted views of members of the historical school may have been rejected. Said rejection is not based on "abuse" however. Also, I submit that the historical approach in economics is not ruled out per se. For example, see the works of historical economics by Fogel and Douglass North. Also the "new institutional econimics" has a historical tenor.