No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Comments on Dye, Huck, and Sicsic
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2009
Abstract
![Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'](https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0022050700013061/resource/name/firstPage-S0022050700013061a.jpg)
- Type
- Summaries of Doctoral Dissertations
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Economic History Association 1993
References
1 As a footnote let me comment that this thesis sported a stylistic innovation that I detested. It dispensed with footnotes, instead providing all the subsidiary material in the text. In contrast, Andrew Rutten made masterful and praiseworthy use in his thesis of 406 footnotes in only 131 pages.