Comments on Eriksson, Hausman, and Rosenthal

摘要

All of the theses submitted for consideration for the Allan Nevins Dissertation Prize are drawn from a self-selected group. Research that is not of a quality that has already far surpassed the expectations of the authors' supervisors, external examiners, colleagues and classmates, and in many cases, journal editors and referees, is never sent to the dissertation session conveners. This makes the job of selecting a short list of just three dissertations tremendously difficult. If one consults the conveners' comments published in the The Journal of Economic History from the recent past, one can identify a set of fairly consistent criteria that have been used to assess the work submitted for consideration. Authors selected for inclusion on the short list are expected to have provided proof that they are exemplary historians, carefully accumulating new evidence, recognizing that it matters where data comes from, and worrying about context across both time and space. But that is not enough. We also wantthose included on the short list to show us that they are also exemplary economists, deploying the tools of theoretical and empirical economics in sensible ways, acknowledging the limitations that economists' assumptions impose, all while working to meticulously distinguish causes from effects. Given the job of selecting just three theses for the short list for the Allan Nevins Prize, one quickly discovers that dissertations that do not meet these criteria are simply never submitted for consideration.In short, to be invited to participate in the dissertation session authors must do more than demonstrate their potential as exciting, energetic, and thoughtful historians and economists.