Historiadores econômicos vs Economistas historiadores: luta de classes? (1) - The Economist

Apenas postando, para acompanhar o debate (nos dois posts seguintes): 

Duelling academics

Historians versus economists

The Economist, Apr 13th 2012, 13:46 by Buttonwood

THIS week's column focuses on an idea from "Why Nations Fail", a book by two economists, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, about the importance of political institutions to economic growth. The Economist review is here. Dominic Sandbrook, a popular historian of modern Britain, of the Sunday Times was very hostile to the book (the article is behind a paywall). He wrote that

the truth is that books such as these, which purport to explain the whole of human history by a tidy formula, are simply highbrow equivalents of cultish conspiracy theories.

concluding that

Expect to see it soon in a business-class cabin near you. But don't mistake it for a serious history book.

Mr Sandbrook also attacks Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel", Ian Morris's "Why the West Rules - For Now" and Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" for similar faults. The most revealing jibe is that

Such books purport to be works of history, yet they are rarely written by historians

It's not hard to sense a bit of territorial defensiveness here. Historians have always been a bit sniffy when their colleagues become too popular - the great AJP Taylor was looked down upon for being on TV too much, although his books on 20th century history are wonderfully readable (if not always reliable).

Of course, economists feel much the same way about historians invading their patch, as the occasional spats between Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson have shown. Krugman has remarked that Ferguson "hasn't bothered to understand the basics" of economics. Of course, many economists don't agree with Professor Krugman, particularly on the issue of stimulus that he was debating with Professor Ferguson. Social sciences are riven with internecine disputes. Historians themselves often disagree violently; in the days of my degree, the debate concerned whether the English bourgeoisie were rising or falling in the 17th century. Meanwhile economists themselves are regularly upbraided for "physics envy", filling their articles with complex equations that deter the non-expert reader. When it comes to issues such as quantitative easing, they stick to their theories and formulae and are pretty dismissive of historical tales of John Law or the currency debasements of Roman emperors.

Having read (and greatly enjoyed) all the books slagged off by Mr Sandbrook, this blogger feels his criticism is over the top. Yes, the Acemoglu/Robinson book is overly reductive, seeing everything through the prism of economics and missing out huge issues like religion and intellectual thought. But that's not really the point of such books, which are really designed to make the reader think in a different way. Diamond highlights the importance of geography (plants, livestock and pests), Pinker on the remarkable decline in general levels of violence and Morris on the fluctuating fortunes of west and east. Each naturally highlights those parts of history that fit into their story. A completely well-balanced history of the world would take dozens of volumes (Robert Caro has spent three tomes just getting LBJ to be vice-president) and would be too much for readers to tackle.

There is no reason why outsiders cannot write about history; indeed, they seem likely to add fresh perspectives, just as it is also valid for Niall Ferguson (whose best works have been on financial history, and who gives a plug for the Acemoglu/Robinson book) to comment on economics. Relax, guys; there is always more to learn.

=============

(ver os dois post seguintes a este)