Jeremy Edwards and Sheilagh Oglivie write:
Economists draw important lessons for modern development from the medieval Maghribi traders who, according to Greif, enforced contracts multilaterally through a closed, private-order ‘coalition’. We show that this view is untenable. The Maghribis used formal legal mechanisms and entered business associations with non-Maghribis. Not a single empirical example adduced by Greif shows that any ‘coalition’ actually existed. The Maghribis cannot be used to argue that the social capital of exclusive networks will facilitate exchange in developing economies. Nor do they provide any support for the cultural theories of economic development and institutional change for which they have been mobilised.
Here is the paper, which if it is correct amounts to a stunning refutation of what was once a seminal contribution to economic history and the theory of social norms. Thanks to a loyal MR reader for the pointer.
This feels like the sky is falling.
If they are right and Greif was wrong, there is nothing left to believe in. What is left of hope and joy and goodness in the institutional economics world?
Hmm. Maybe it’s time to revert to Naturalwirtschaft.
Avner Greif is an economist. He was writing about an _historical_ problem. Of course he was shown to be wrong. Shelagh Ogilvie is an excellent historian, by the way.
Yes, yes I know that non-historians _know_ that history is _not_ a specialised discipline, it has _no_ technicalities, any fool can do history, it’s easy to read an historical work & grasp everything at once, etc etc. But no historian would be in the least surprised at what’s happened.
Sudha, has a point.
Historians should be in charge of cleaning and vetting historical data, because that’s where historians have their comparative advantage.
Then economists can bring their analytical framework to the good data provided by the historians, and provide the best interpretation of the facts.
1. Greif has a BA in the Economics & History of the Jewish People & an MA in the History of the Jewish People; he _did_ write his MA thesis on the Maghribi traders under Prof Moshe Gil. He went on to get a PhD in Economics in the US. The articles in question are written scientifically: a theory, to which is appended the ‘empirical data’ — ie,non-theoretical material — which the theory requires.
2. True, Sheilagh Ogilvie’s field is early modern Germany. Her approach to the question of the Maghribi traders is, however, _historical_: she asks about their activities overall, their _actual_ partnerships, their _actual_ recourse to _which_ legal systems, studies the entire texts of the key letters involved, etc. In short, the Maghribi traders are placed in context: as part of a particular historical fabric. The material links in with (eg) the early history of Islamic & Jewish commercial law; & with early Venetian & Genoese trade in the region: these traders too had partnerships with Muslim merchants & learnt many business techniques from Muslims.
3. In terms of history as a discipline, there are plenty of instances where subsequent research has shown that, initially, the sources were badly handled, etc. So this sort of reexamination & re-evaluation is normal for history.
4. As to the suggestion that historians should be employed as scientific research assistants, to ‘clean up’ “data” ; the point is precisely that historical materials are _not_ “data” which anyone can just read off without any further ado. This is akin to saying that anyone can just read an historical work & grasp it immediately — everything is on the surface. This cannot be said of even a _first-year_economics_ text: any fool can see at once that it is technical. But the relevant technicalities in historical research are hidden: they become visible only when properly _historical_ questions are asked. Vide the kinds of questions that Sheilagh Ogilvie raised.
1. The documents that Greif relied on were translated by Goitein & Gil; he gives the references. Sheilagh Ogilvie (as she says) relies on the same collections of documents, _&_ the same documents, albeit in translation, along with certain others. So both use the same sources. The question is _how_ they are used.
2. Mediterranean trade in the relevant period involved traders & merchants from many different groups: (a) Muslims from many areas ranging from Al-Andalus to Syria & Mesopotamia (b) Jewish traders from many different regions — including the Maghribis (c) the Venetians & the Genoese (d) Greeks settled in various regions.
All these merchants & traders — of necessity — dealt both _within_ their own groups _&_ with those from other groups. What linked them is what links all commercial groups: trade. As mentioned, the north Italians took over many business practices from the Muslims. Sheilagh Ogilvie’s account is paralleled by accounts of Genoese & Venetian merchants (Lopez, ‘Mediterranean Trade’) & accounts of Muslim, Jewish & other merchants in al-Andalus (Constable, ‘Trade & Traders in Muslim Spain’.) In other words, what she has done is integrate the Maghribis into their historical fabric.
3. This period saw considerable development in Italian, Islamic, & Jewish commercial law: through the relevant courts (eg, Lopez, ‘Mediterranean Trade’.) Ogilvie’s accounts of recourse to courts by Maghribis is therefore part of this overall historical development.
4. Greif’s work is scientific: it involves the exposition of a theory. The Maghribis are a peg for this purpose.
1. Goitein is in English. Gil is in Hebrew. Oglivie does not read Hebrew.
2-3. I must be missing something. Oglivie “integrates the Maghribis into their historical fabric” by claiming that they were like all others during that period. So all groups in any particular historical period are or must be the same? I see a lot of variety in our historical period. Are we the exception?
4. How do we know that?
It seems to me that Oglivie’s work is motivated by the theory that all groups/societies are the same. The Maghribis are the peg for this purpose.
Both Edwards and Ogilvie have degrees in economics and teach in a not undistinguished economics department. According to their paper, they have consulted with Hebrew scholars on the textual passages they discuss. But since when do we judge arguments by their provenance rather than their merits? Have a look at their actual paper, compare it with Greif’s, and it will be blindingly obvious that Greif doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Isn’t economics supposed to be an empirical discipline?
WE ARE SALLING A GOLD DUST END GOLD BARRE WE ARE TO SALLING A DIAMOND IF YOU ARE INTERRESTED REPLY ME URGENTE
begop6@yahoo.fr
jacksonmarcusse@yahoo.fr
When you analyze history, you will notice that older business models were much more fair than what we have today… Maybe we should switch back to older models…
janitorial cleaning supplies
Comments on this entry are closed.