Search

In this article the author responds to commentaries on his research into the history of economic anthropology. Issues raised which he addresses include the use of psychology as a leitmotiv for ethnological inquiry and the history of ethnological economics, his decision to end his paper in 1945 and not include economic anthropoligical research since then, and the charges that he chastises latter-day anthropology and economics for their estrangement.

This article provides a response to criticism of the author's paper questioning the existence of an historical German school of economics. Issues addressed include historical studies of political economics and scholary research in this feild, and reasons for his amalgamation of schools of traditional economic theories.

The theory that the German Historical School of Economics (GHSE) does not deserve that name because it was neither German, nor historical, nor a school is advocated. Historical is not well chosen because it displaces other terms, such as evolutionary, which might describe the GHSE better. There is certainly pedagogical value in classifying the GHSE as part of a larger movement of evolutionary economics.