抄録

　本論文は、歴史学と経済学との境界領域である経済史学の方法を、近年の歴史学および経済学の研究動向との関係にも留意しつつ概観する。まず、日本の経済史研究が、記述的経済史と計量経済史という、論証技術の如何を問わず、厳密な史料批判と反証可能性の担保という、近代実証史学の基本に忠実な姿勢を、戦後を通して堅持してきたことが確認される。一方、帰納的な論証手続きそのものは固有の理論がなくても自立できるため、参照される経済理論は、ドイツ歴史学派経済学からマルクス経済学、新古典派経済学、そして制度と組織の経済学へと時間とともに変化してきた。さらに、1980年代のポストモダンな議論は、経済理論を参照しない経済史研究をもたらした上、帰納的な論証によって「史実」に漸近できるとする近代実証史学に対してさえも疑念を提起した。これに対して私たちは、経済理論を参照しつつ堅固な実証によって歴史的事実に接近するという経済史学の立脚点を、再度、構築し直すことを目指す。

abstract

This essay reviews methodological changes in the study on economic history in Japan. Economic history is motivated by economic theory or viewpoint and attempts to establish a hypothesis mainly by inductive documentation. These characteristics of economic history research intrinsically accompany two important issues. One is the relationship between deductive economic inference and inductive historical inference. Different from hard sciences such as physics, the one-on-one rigorous relationship between deductive theory and the empirical test has not yet established in social sciences including empirical economics and economic theory. This gap between economic motivation and documentation by historical evidence has led to the second issue. Since historical research stands on its own without a specific theory, economic theory preferred as a reference has changed over time, from Marxian economics to neoclassical economics, and to institutional and organizational economics. Furthermore, post-modern skepticism in the 1980s even brought about economic history research that does not refer to specific economic theory. To keep been motivated by economic theory as more than rhetoric, and rigorously documenting hypotheses, we should be back to the point to refer economic theory by which we are motivated and re-establish a standpoint to closes to verifiable historical fact.