Legal history, economic history and law & economics have not interacted with one another since their emergence in their current form some four decades ago. Is this puzzling? Yes, because all three fields emerged concurrently in a revolutionary era around 1960 as duo-disciplinary fields (combining law and history, history and economics, and economics and law respectively). Yes, because they all had interdisciplinary aspirations, which they carried as a banner in their revolutionary battle against the old guard of single disciplinary scholars.

Using tools from intellectual history, sociology of knowledge and power, and methodological critique, I advance some insights into the reasons for the lack of interaction between the three fields. A by-product of this analysis is insight into past and present trends and biases in each field, as well as an approach that may be used to examine the prospects of other interdisciplinary legal projects.

Law & economics did not interact with either of the other fields because it did not develop theoretical tools for dealing with change over time, was not concerned with economic change, and exhibited limited interest in empirical, non-American and comparative studies. In fact, it was one of the most a-historic fields originating in the neo-classical economic paradigm. Legal history and economic history did not interact because they kept missing each other. In the 1960s, when the former was interested in institutions, the latter was still interested in markets. By the time the latter found institutions a worthy subject in the 1980s, the former had lost interest in them. In addition., the two fields were trapped in what I term an endogenity-exogenity paradox. Their models of change either viewed the other sphere as irrelevant for change or exogenously determining change in their field, but never concurrently viewed the other field as endogenously relevant for understanding change. In other words, they were justified by their models of change not to interact with each other.

The prospects for future interaction are somewhat brighter. Adjustment to the neoclassical paradigm and expanding research agenda away from Chicago may lead law & economics to a minor historical turn. Economic history is increasingly realizing that the law is relevant as an endogenous and partly autonomous factor whose study requires interaction with legal scholars. Though many legal historians still view interaction with any of the sub-fields of economics as corruptive, if they are willing to expose themselves to recent trends in economic theory, economic history and particularly to the emerging school of Historical New Institutional Economics, they may realize that there is more potential for interaction these days than there was a decade or two ago. Whether the prospect of future interaction materializes or not. the dynamics of the triangular relationship between the three fields, located so near the great divide between the cultural and economic worlds, is certainly worth following.