Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this article I reply to critiques by Jerven and Hopkins of my review “The causal history of Africa: response to Hopkins” (2010). I agree, with caveats, that non-econometric approaches are valuable, that data quality matters, and that the compression of history can be a bad thing. Historians should not dismiss technique for being technique, should not discard imperfect data, and should be careful making inferences from small samples. The strategies of econometric identification should guide non-quantitative work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Fenske (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: