I have a new working paper available. Its co-authored with Judge Glock. It deals with the rising field of “New History of Capitalism” and its methodology. We argue that it is not a new field. It is a continuation of a long tradition. More importantly, its rise speaks to a symptom of a larger problem that plagues the field of economic history. The abstract is below and the paper is available here on SSRN:
The rise of the “New History of Capitalism” as a subfield of historical studies has magnified differences between economists and historians which started to grow during the 1970s. We describe what is and what is not new about the “New History of Capitalism,” and explain how the different methodologies of economists and historians often causes confusion about their fields’ respective advantages and disadvantages. Yet we also emphasize that these different methodologies allow ample room for collaboration between the disciplines.