Citation:
Álvarez-Nogal, C., & Chamley, C. P. (2016). Response to ‘Duplications’ by Drelichman and Voth. The Economic History Review, 69 (3), pp. 1007-1013.
In this response, we demonstrate that Mauricio Drelichman and Hans-Joachim Voth,
in their 2015 Economic History Review note ‘Duplication without constraints: A´ lvarez-
Nogal and Chamley’s analysis of debt policy under Philip II’, provide a misconceived
andIn this response, we demonstrate that Mauricio Drelichman and Hans-Joachim Voth,
in their 2015 Economic History Review note ‘Duplication without constraints: A´ lvarez-
Nogal and Chamley’s analysis of debt policy under Philip II’, provide a misconceived
and inaccurate account of our argument about the finances of Philip II in ‘Debt policy
under constraints: Philip II, the Cortes, and Genoese bankers’ (Economic History
Review, 2014). Here,we summarize our position in the context of the current literature
and provide a few comments on data gathering.[+][-]