Introduction

In the first three chapters we sketched the outline of a theory of arrangemental innovation and mutation that made it possible for us to understand better certain aspects of the economic development of the United States, and that we hoped might have some predictive value. We recognize that the model is far from complete. The results of our attempts to apply the model indicate that we are still a very long way from being able to understand all of the arrangemental aspects of American development. We do believe, however, that we have provided the historian cum economist with a small window (albeit a dirty one) through which he may better examine some of those problems. Moreover, we still think that some theory of arrangemental change is a necessary prerequisite for any adequate theory of economic growth.

Since we would like to both clean that window and discover a more adequate predictive theory, it appears useful to consider our success – or lack thereof – in explaining the arrangemental aspects of American development. In particular, an examination of those areas where the model has failed to provide an adequate explanation of arrangemental change ought to provide: some clues as to the directions in which the model should be extended; the portions of the model that ought to be revised; and/or some caveats to the unwary who might attempt to use the model in its present form.