The New Economic History and the Burdens of the Navigation Acts

Bibliographic Data

ID3148346
AuthorsGary M Walton (0000-0002-6194-0472, Indiana University, corresponding author)
Year1971
Volume24
Issue4
Pages533-542
Publication date1971-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Economic History Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0013-0117 • E-ISSN: 1468-0289
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1468-0289.1971.tb00192.x
OpenAlexW2016993032
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited1

AT a recent meeting of the American Economic Association, Peter McClelland presented a paper on the economic costs to America of British imperial policy.2 An important part of his paper is the sharply worded criticism of the studies by Harper3 and Thomas.4 McClelland attempts to show that the conceptual framework of both Thomas and Harper is so defective that their final results were virtually meaningless,5 and he offers an alternative upper-bound measure of the cost to America of the British Acts of Trade.6 Harper must have received somewhat uneasily the news that much of his life's work is virtually meaningless. Fortunately for him, Jonathan Hughes, one of the discussants at the economic history session, eloquently and persuasively defended Harper's conclusions.7 Unfortunately for Thomas, a similar voice on his behalf was not heard; likewise for McClelland, much doubt was expressed about the positive contribution of his alternative upper-bound measure. As Hughes expressed it, I'm glad we made the trip, but we could have stayed home comfortably with Lawrence Harper,8 and Herman Krooss, the other discussant, added: Since before Beer and after Harper, historians and economists of great talent

Business · Economics · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · Historical Economic and Social Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub