Porównaj metody

	Cliometric Counterfactual Analysis	Counterfactual Historical Reasoning
Dziedzina	Economic History	History
Rodzina	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Rok powstania	1964	1964
Twórca	Robert W. Fogel; Stanley L. Engerman	Robert Fogel (rigorous cliometric form); Max Weber and Geoffrey Hawthorn (philosophical foundations)
Typ	Counterfactual econometric reasoning over historical economic outcomes	conceptual-analytic
Źródło pierwotne	Fogel, R. W. (1964). Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN: 9780801805547	Fogel, R. W. (1964). Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN: 9780801805547
Inne nazwy	New Economic History, Counterfactual Cliometrics, Fogelian Counterfactual Analysis, Social Saving Method	What-if history, Counterfactual analysis, Minimal-rewrite counterfactuals, Plausible-world reasoning
Pokrewne	3	3
Podsumowanie	Cliometric counterfactual analysis is the signature technique of the 'new economic history' pioneered by Robert Fogel: it tests claims about the historical importance of an innovation, institution, or event by constructing an explicit, quantified hypothetical economy in which that factor is absent and measuring how much worse off the counterfactual world would have been. Fogel's 1964 study of American railroads asked not whether railroads mattered but how much, building a hypothetical 1890 economy served by canals and wagons and computing the 'social saving' railroads provided. The shockingly small figure overturned the consensus that railroads were indispensable to American growth, and Fogel and Engerman extended the same explicit, theory-driven, measurement-heavy reasoning to slavery in Time on the Cross. The method fuses neoclassical economic theory, formal counterfactuals, and aggressive quantification of the archival record.	Counterfactual historical reasoning is the disciplined practice of asking what would have happened had some past condition been different, in order to assess whether that condition truly mattered. Every causal claim in history, that a railway, a war, an institution, or an idea made a difference, implicitly compares the actual world to a counterfactual one in which the supposed cause is absent. Counterfactual reasoning makes that comparison explicit and subjects it to rules: alter the antecedent minimally, keep the rest of the world as it plausibly would have been, and reason carefully toward the likely consequent. In its rigorous cliometric form, exemplified by Fogel's railroads study, the consequent is quantified as a social saving. But the general method is broader and conceptual, governed by criteria of minimal rewrite, plausibility, and explicit antecedent-consequent structure, and it underwrites causal inference throughout history, not only in its quantitative, economic variant.