Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-8l2sj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:30:00.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On Roger E. Backhouse's “How Should We Approach the History of Economic Thought, Fact, Fiction or Moral Tale?” Comment: Thicker is Better

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Backhouse, Roger E. 1992. “How Should We Approach the History of Economic Thought, Fact, Fiction, or Moral Tale?Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14, Spring, 1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1988. “Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought,” in Neil de, Marchi, ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1984. “The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres,” in Rorty, R., Schneewind, J. B. and Skinner, Q., eds., Philosophy in History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1992. “Historical Case Studies Are Made, Not Given,” in Neil de, Marchi, ed., Methodology of Economics, Kluwer, Boston.Google Scholar