Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

Economics 299
education which the specialists in each have received. This would explain why
economic historians usually stop at the lower levels of generalization.z6
It is hardly necessary to add that Kula’s view formally resembles that of the
historical school but is in reality quite the opposite. An amplified interpretation
is given to Sornbart’s ‘no theory, no history’. In Kula’s opinion, an economic
historian must not restrict himself to borrowing economic theses and theories
from the neighbouring discipline, but should be ambitious enough to formulate
them himself.
Kula takes as equally obvious the historicity of political economy and the
theoreticity of economic history. This is not just the credo of a representative of
the Marx and Weber school; it is a trend confirmed by the evolution of world
economic thought, non-Marxist included. He considers that the importance
taken on by the historical dimension derives from three fundamental causes.
The passage from the free competition economy of the industrialized capitalist
countries to the economy of great corporations, increasingly directed (at least in
Europe) by the State, led economists to construct new theoretical models which
better fit the new situation. By the very nature of State intervention, these had
to be macro-economic models. Then it became clear that, even within a given
socio-economic polity, the range of economic theories is limited to the conditions
of a particular epoch. New branches of economic theory were necessary to cover
new situations: the rapid development of the socialist countries, and the recent
discovery of the problems o€ the developing countries. This gave special interest
to the problems of comparability as between different socio-economic and political
systems in time and space. Hitherto abstract, the question of the sequence
of different social systems suddenly proved to be of very practical importance.
Backward countries wishing to industrialize rapidly must decide whether they
can and must follow the path of development of the advanced countries, decide
which elements are indispensable components of industrialization and
which may be omitted as a result of a purposeful social policy - a clear case
of the theoretical and practical intermingling of historical and contemporary
problems.
In the highly industrialized countries, economic analysis has also acquired a
historical dimension by bringing to the fore the problems of economic growth
and development.
n. The two examples chosen and set out above do not date from the same time.
The ‘praxiological’ dates from the thirties, the ‘historical’ refers to one of the
most recent methodological studies. They are separated by over twenty-five
years. A knowledgeable sociologist could, at least to some extent, regard them
as ideological reflections of two different historical times. The a-historical view,
which identified economics with praxiology was taken by those economists who
might then have regarded the capitalist mode of production as the only rational
economic system possible. In their view, it, only, could therefore become the
subject of scientific economic research. Needless to add, this view is at present
generally considered to be completely anachronistic.
But the discovery that certain views and theories are related to particular