The New Economic History and the Burdens of the Navigation Acts
AT a recent meeting of the American Economic Association, Peter McClelland presented a paper on the economic costs to America of British imperial policy.2 An important part of his paper is the sharply worded criticism of the studies by Harper3 and Thomas.4 McClelland attempts to "show that the conceptual framework of both Thomas and Harper is so defective that their final results were virtually meaningless",5 and he offers "an alternative upper-bound measure of the cost to America of the British Acts of Trade".6 Harper must have received somewhat uneasily the news that much of his life's work is virtually meaningless. Fortunately for him, Jonathan Hughes, one of the discussants at the economic history session, eloquently and persuasively defended Harper's conclusions.7 Unfortunately for Thomas, a similar voice on his behalf was not heard; likewise for McClelland, much doubt was expressed about the positive contribution of his alternative upper-bound measure. As Hughes expressed it, "I'm glad we made the trip, but we could have stayed home comfortably with Lawrence Harper,"8 and Herman Krooss, the other discussant, added: "Since before Beer and after Harper, historians and economists of great talent