Smallpox did reduce height: a reply to our critics

Tim Leunig and Hans-Joachim Voth

LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library

Abstract: Between them our critics span the entire range of this Journal’s readership. On the one hand Razzell accuses us of ‘the abandonment of traditional scholarly procedures’. He argues that our plight ‘will provide a salutary lesson for the new economic history. No amount of sophisticated statistical analysis will provide a substitute for careful study of original sources.’ In contrast, Heintel and Baten use far more sophisticated statistical techniques - including a continuous kernel density estimator and truncation point estimators - in an attempt to justify their claim that our ‘conclusions are without empirical or statistical foundation.’ Because these two comments are so totally different we will look at each in turn.

JEL-codes: N0 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1998-05
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Published in Economic History Review, May, 1998, 51(2), pp. 372-381. ISSN: 0013-0117

Downloads: (external link)
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/495/ Open access version. (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Smallpox Did Reduce Height: A Reply to Our Critics (1998)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ehl:lserod:495

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in LSE Research Online Documents on Economics from London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library LSE Library Portugal Street London, WC2A 2HD, U.K.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by LSERO Manager ().