Economic theory v. political theory

This is from Peter Boettke at The Austrian Economists blog. Boettke writes

... economic liberalism is a practice in search of a theory, while political liberalism was a theory in search of an application. In other words, if you took away all the economists in the world, there would still be mutually beneficial exchange, production through division of labor, and distribution through expected marginal product. Economic life, in short, exists whether we study it or not. Economic association through exchange and production is part of the mundane existence of the everyday life of man. As Adam Smith put it, dogs don't bargain over a bone, but people in all walks of life and in all societies do bargain and trade --- we humans have a natural propensity to truck, barter and exchange as a way of interacting. The experience of economic life exists prior to our effort to study it, understand it, and argue about it.

On the other hand, political liberalism, i.e., the idea of constitutional democracy, is largely a theory in search of an application. Individuals think abstract thoughts about autonomy, freedom, liberty, responsibility, obligation, legitimation, etc., and these are forged into a political doctrine through writing, dialogue, and debate. Political theories exists prior to political practice based on them.

Is this right? Is a fundamental difference between economic theory and political theory that fact that economic life exists prior to economics as a discipline of study while political theory comes before political life? Surely political practice or activity predates political theory and such activity would take place even without an theory of it, in much the same way as economic practice can take place without a theory of it.