Rational vs historical reconstructions. A note on Blaug

Rodolfo Signorino

The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2003, vol. 10, issue 2, 329-338

Abstract: The paper focuses on Blaug's distinction between rational and historical reconstruction within the historiography of economics. Blaug's distinction is shown to be sterile and misleading and his definitions of no avail to clear thinking. Historical reconstruction (as defined by Blaug) is en empty box for reasons which are basically theoretical and not simply practical (as Blaug seems to hold). Moreover, Blaug's primary polemical target is Whig historiography and not rational reconstruction: the two concepts coincide only by means of an ad hoc definition. Blaug's criticism does not apply to other uses of the concept of rational reconstruction such as that proposed by Lakatos.

Keywords: Rational And Historical Reconstructions; Whig Historiography; Multiple Interpretations Of Past Economics (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2003
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0967256032000066927 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
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:taf:eujhet:v:10:y:2003:i:2:p:329-338

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/REJH20

DOI: 10.1080/0967256032000066927

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought is currently edited by José Luís Cardoso

More articles in The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().