Old Problems and New Directions

Abstract

Old Problems and New Directions Practitioners of what has been called good, old-fashioned economic will no doubt be alarmed at the prospect of even more rapid, if not always radical, change in the I98os-if only because many of them are just becoming accustomed to the changes which have washed over the discipline in the last twenty years or so. Now, however, even devotees of the former mode argue that it must give way to something different, perhaps broader and more humane in scope and orientation. Although many traditionalists have firmly resisted the new methodology, others have tried to accommodate themselves to it; and, having made an effort to find their bearings aboard a relatively new ship, they will be chastened to learn either that it is sailing in the wrong direction or that it is probably going to sink anyway. Recent contributions to the field reflect serious dissatisfaction with the core topics of-or the most publicized trends in-economic history as it has recently evolved. A common concern, therefore, is to find ways in which the discipline might be revived and reincorporated into broader streams of historical scholarship. Two approaches to the methodological discussions are of particular interest. The first envisages a shift in the focus of analytical attention. Peter Temin's article in this volume is a good example, advocating a reform which concentrates on economic structures and approaching an institutional understanding through the use of conceptual tools fashioned around the diversity of human behavior. The second approach is less concerned with spelling out a new sub-field of research and argumentation than indicating ways in which economic history has become isolated, and advocating a more positive recognition of its basic community of interest with the newly fashionable-and rapidly proliferatingfields of social and cultural history.