ABSTRACT
It is always complicated to talk about continuity and discontinuity with reference to different economic schools and the relationship between them. There is not only a problem of the viewpoints chosen to assess continuity and discontinuity or to denote the meaning to be attached to the concept of scientific progress (especially in the social sciences) but also a more general issue concerning the proper recognition of the cognitive goals pursued in the different scientific communities and in the way they perceived “the practice of explaining”. A sympathetic attitude is necessary to interpret past theories, especially when referring to experiences such as the German Historical School of Economics (GHS) too hastily characterised as scientifically unsatisfactory. The current “rediscovery” of Schmoller and many of the questions posed by the exponents of the “younger historical school” offer a valuable opportunity not only for a more careful reading of their research programmes, freeing them from the many misunderstandings that have negatively conditioned their reception, but also for a more appropriate reconsideration of the scientific advances they made possible.
