Economics as a Comparative Science from the Historical School to Otto Neurath

The comparability of economies in time and space was taken for granted by many cataloguers and encyclopaedists in the centuries leading to enlightenment. The dawning thought of a development path of humanity put an end to such ingenuous comparisons. Along with the consciousness of the evolutionary nature of history, Europe developed the hubris of civilisation, condemning the rest of the world to an uncivilised backwardness. Comparisons became impossible, except for societies at the same stage of development. The study of economies suffered the same fate at the hand of all historicists who conceived complex models of growth in stages. Comparisons were allowed only by presuming the permanence of some characteristic of men or the existence of natural laws. While modern economics was funded on such assumptions, historicists became more and more sceptical about the possibility of comparisons over time: every event was unique. This profound difference in philosophical assumptions led to the famous debate between primitivists and modernists in respect to the study of ancient economies. Causality or contextualisation? That was the question. The chapter will relate the nineteenth-century discussion on the comparability of ancient and modern economies, extending the analysis to some heterodox economists of the twentieth century. Some conclusions will be drawn on the possibility to construe in-kind indexes of wealth, allowing fruitful comparisons of different institutional settings.