Rusiński, Władysław2017-07-112017-07-111968Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 30, 1968, z. 2, s. 145-1570035-9629http://hdl.handle.net/10593/18416In this article the author gives a brief summary of the latest opinions in the long prevailing discussion on the relation of economic history and political economy, and presents his own views. The author agrees with the view that economic history cornparises the same range of scientific interest as political economy (economic policy, branch economy). It is simply the science of economy in the past, whereas political economy concerns the economic activity of man today and establishes a prognosis for the future. This view brings the point of discussion to the chronologic differences between two fields of knowledge. The controversy most frequent between historians and economists concerns the methods and aims of research. The majority of economists contradistinguish politicai economy as a theoretical science, and economic history as a descriptive discipline. Economic history is not a purely factographic discipline, nor is political economy "pure" theory. Economic history is of importance in supplying the economist with definite rudimentary material, but the eventual aim of the economic historian is also generalized creation. The controversy between "theory" and "factography" is to a great extent of academic significance, it was solved long ago in the research laboratories. It all depends on the ability, experience and temperament of the research worker. One does not go beyond descriptive work, another ventures further to wider synthesis. This applies equally to economists and historians. The author emphasizes the disparity in research methods of historians and economists. As far as the chronologic contact is concerned, it can not be clearly defined. From the nature of things certain periods cf the latest events remain the common field of interest of economists and economic historians.polinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessArtykuł