|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Cinderella or princess: Past and present of economic history
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-24-56
Abstract
The article considers: (a) the main features of the development of economic history (EH) as an academic discipline in the second half of the 20th century; key challenges faced by the EH in the early 2020s. Based on the results of the survey of 147 international economic historians author reveals the most popular methods used by scholars from different local research communities. Special attention is paid to the study of respondents’ perception of the place of EH among other sciences. The analysis has shown that nowadays EH is gradually becoming an interdisciplinary research platform connecting scholars from a wide variety of subject At the same time, these scholars are united not as much by the unity of conceptual views, as by the desire to study EH not for the sake of history per se, but for the sake of finding the origins of modern social and economic challenges. The article also contains the results of a survey of 42 Russian economic historians about the theoretical and methodological assumptions they use and their vision of the problems of studying economic history in today’s Russia. The analysis has revealed that one of the main challenges for the development of the Russian community of economic historians is its high fragmentation, manifested in the lack of methodological consensus, as well as a rather pessimistic vision of future prospects of EH.
About the Author
A. A. Maltsev
Lomonosov Moscow State University;
Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
University of Picardie Jules Verne
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander A. Maltsev
Moscow; Ekaterinburg; Amiens (France)
References
1. Avtonomov V. S. (2020). In search of a human: Essays on history and methodology of economic science. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).
2. Acemoglu D., Robinson D. (2015). Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).
3. Acemoglu D., Robinson D. (2021). The narrow corridor. Moscow: AST. (In Russian).
4. Bakanov S. A. (2008). Insitutionalization of the scientific field “economic history of Russia”: A brief review. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, No. 34, pp. 182—187. (In Russian).
5. Bakanov S. A., Medvedev I. A. (2021). Economic history in the topics of dissertations in Russia (1991—2019). Economic History, No. 1, pp. 85—94. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15507/2409-630X.052.017.202101.085-094
6. Bovykin V. I. (1996). Economic history congress in Milan and our historical and economic science. Economic History. Review, Iss. 1, pp. 7—27. (In Russian).
7. Borodkin L. I. (1997). I. D. Kovalchenko and the Russian school of quantitative history. In S. P. Karpov (ed.). Materials of academician I. D. Kovalchenko memory conference. Moscow: Mosgorarkhiv Publ., pp. 74—87. (In Russian).
8. Borodkin L. I., Vladimirov V. N. (2017). Innovations and traditions of historical information science. Historical Informatics, No. 2, pp. 1—4. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7256/2585-7797.2017.2.23513
9. Vinogradov V. A., Arsentiev N. M., Borodkin L. I. (2009). Economic history and modernity: On the 20th anniversary of the scientific council of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the problems of Russian and world economic history. Saransk: Center of the Historical and Sociological Institute of Ogarev Mordovia State University Publ. (In Russian).
10. Vinogradov V. A. (1999). Memories and reflections of the work of the International Association of Economic History. Economic History. Review, Iss. 3, pp. 114—125. (In Russian).
11. Garskova I. M. (2017). Network analysis of historiography: Dynamics of HCA network interregional elements formation. Historical Informatics, No. 4, pp. 112—129. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7256/2585-7797.2017.4.25078
12. Garskova I. M. (2018). Quantitative history in 1960s— 1980s in the USSR and its role in the development of historical information science. Historical Informatics, No. 3, pp. 7—24. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.7256/2585-7797.2018.3.27672
13. Delenyan A. A. (2015). The aptitude for methodological analysis. Moscow University Economics Bulletin, No. 2, pp. 66—88. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.38050/01300105201525
14. Zaostrovtsev A. P. (2012). Yegor Gaidar and the new institutional economic history (Preprint No. M-30/12). St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg. (In Russian).
15. Zaostrovtsev A. P. (2019). Institutional сompetition and сollision of сivilizations in the process of modernization. Ekonomicheskaya Politika, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 150—171. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2019-5-150-171
16. Zakharov V. N. (2017). Russian association for economic history research. Economic history: Yearbook, Vol. 2016-17. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 437—440. (In Russian).
17. Maidachevsky D. Y. (2011). V. F. Levitsky: Еconomic history in the structure of the sciences of the national economy. Journal of Economic History and History of Economics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 77—87. (In Russian).
18. Maidachevsky D. Y. (2013). Misadventures of “economic history” in the higher school of modern Russia. Higher Еducation in Russia, No. 10, pp. 39—44. (In Russian).
19. McCloskey D. (2016). Interview with Deirdre McCloskey: Technologic and institutional ideas — is what make our world contemporary. Ekonomicheskaya Politika, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 224—244. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18288/1994-5124-2016-3-11
20. Maltsev A. A. (2020). Whither history of economic thought: A perspective from Russian and international scholars. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 94—119. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-9-94-119
21. Maltsev A. A., Rozinskaya N. A. (2021). Theory without measurement or Some finishing touches on the creative portrait of Douglass North. Journal of Institutional Studies, No. 4, pp. 71—90. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2021.13.4.071-090
22. Piketty T. (2016). Capital in the XXI century. Moscow: Ad Marginem. (In Russian).
23. Sokolov M., Titaev K. (2013). Provincial and indigenous science. Anthropological Forum, No. 19, pp. 239—275. (In Russian).
24. Khubiev K. A., Rassadina A. K. (2020). Interdisciplinary method in economic theory: Historical experience and prospects. Moscow University Economics Bulletin, No. 2, pp. 198—214. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.38050/013001052020211
25. Abramitzky R. (2015). Economics and the modern economic historian. Journal of Economic History, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1240—1251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050715001667
26. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 5, pp. 1369—1401. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1369
27. Angrist J., Azoulay P., Ellison G., Hill R., Lu S. F. (2017). Economic research evolves: Fields and styles. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, Vol. 107, No. 5, pp. 293—297. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171117
28. Antipa P., Bignon V. (2018). Whither economic history? Between narratives and quantification. Revue de l’OFCE, Vol. 157, No. 3, pp. 17—36. https://doi.org/10.3917/reof.157.0017
29. Arroyo Abad L., Maurer N. (2021). History never really says goodbye: A critical review of the persistence literature. Journal of Historical Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 31—68. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000002
30. Arthi V., Parman J. (2021). Disease, downturns, and wellbeing: Economic history and the long-run impacts of COVID-19. Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2020.101381
31. Backhouse R., Cherrier B. (2017) The age of the applied economist: The transformation of economics since the 1970s’. History of Political Economy, Vol. 49 (Supplement), pp. 1—33. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4166239
32. Barnett V. (2004). Historical political economy in Russia, 1870—1913. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 231—253. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0967256042000209260
33. Baten J., Muschallik J. (2012). On the status and the future of economic history in the world. Economic History of Developing Regions, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 93—113. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-6536
34. Bisin A., Federico G. (2021). Merger or acquisition? An introduction to the handbook of historical economics. In: A. Bisin, G. Federico (eds.). The handbook of historical economics. London: Elsevier, pp. XV—XXXVIII.
35. Boettke P. J., Leeson P. T., Smith D. J. (2008). The evolution of economics: Where we are and how we got here. The Long-Term View, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 14—22.
36. Boldizzoni F. (2011). The poverty of Clio: Resurrecting economic history. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838851
37. Boldyrev I., Düppe T. (2020). Programming the USSR: Leonid V. Kantorovich in context. British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 255—278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087420000059
38. Boldyrev I., Kirtchik O. (2017). The cultures of mathematical economics in the postwar Soviet Union: More than a method, less than a discipline. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, Vol. 63, pp. 1—10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.011
39. Borodkin L. (2015). Economic history from the Russian Empire to the Russian Federation. In: F. Boldizzoni, P. Hudson (eds.). Routledge handbook of global economic history. Abingdon, NY: Routledge, pp. 195—213. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734736
40. Burke P. (2015). The French historical revolution: The annales school, 1929—2014 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
41. Burnard T., Riello G. (2020). Slavery and the new history of capitalism. Journal of Global History, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 225—244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740022820000029
42. Canavan G. (2019). 1973: When it changed. In: C. Hager, C. Marrs (eds.). Timelines of American literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 97—109.
43. Cantoni D., Yuchtman N. (2020). Historical natural experiments: Bridging economics and economic history. NBER Working Paper, No. 26754. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26754
44. Cioni M., Federico G., Vasta M. (2020a). The long-term evolution of economic history: Evidence from the top five field journals (1927—2017). Cliometrica, Vol. 14, pp. 1—39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-019-00186-x
45. Cioni M., Federico G., Vasta M. (2020b). The two revolutions in economic history. EHES Working Paper, No. 192.
46. Cioni M., Federico G., Vasta M. (2021a). Persistence studies: A new kind of economic history? Quaderni del dipartimento di economia politica e statistica, No. 859.
47. Cioni M., Federico G., Vasta M. (2021b). The state of the art of economic history: The uneasy relation with economics. NYU Abu Dhabi Working Paper, No. 0067.
48. de la Escosura L.-P. (2019). Pace Baudelaire? Comment on “Spleen: The failures of the cliometric school” by Stefano Fenoaltea. Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Vol. LIII, pp. 25—30. https://doi.org/10.26331/1080
49. Deane P. (1977). The relevance of recent trends in economic history to the information needs of research workers in the field. In: M. Perlman (ed.). The organization and retrieval of economic knowledge. International economic association series. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 413—427. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-03325-6_22
50. DeLong J.B. (2011). Economics in crisis. The Economists’ Voice, Vol. 8, No. 2. https:// doi.org/10.2202/1553-3832.1854
51. Dennison T. (2021). Context is everything: The problem of history in quantitative social science. Journal of Historical Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 105—126. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000004
52. Diebolt C., Haupert M. (2016). Clio’s contributions to economics and history. Revue d’Économie Politique, Vol. 126, No. 5, pp. 971—989. https://doi.org/10.3917/redp.265.0971
53. Diebolt C., Haupert M. (2018). We are ninjas: How economic history has infiltrated economics. Bureau d’Économie Théorique et Appliquée Working Paper, No. 2018 — 25.
54. Diebolt C., Haupert M. (2021). Cliometrics: Past, present, and future. AFC Working Paper, No. 4.
55. Dippel C., Leonard B. (2021). Not-so-natural experiments in history. Journal of Historical Political Economy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1—30. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000001
56. Dumke R. H. (1992). The future of cliometric history — a European view. Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 3—28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.1992.10408263
57. Dupraz Y. (2019). French and British colonial legacies in education: Evidence from the partition of Cameroon. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 628—668. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050719000299
58. Easterlin R. A. (2008). Richard A. Easterlin, interviewed by Kenneth L. Sokoloff. In: J. S. Lyons, L. P. Cain, S. H. Williamson (eds.). Reflections on the cliometrics revolution: Conversations with economic historians. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 309—322.
59. Edelstein D. (2016). Intellectual history and digital humanities. Modern Intellectual History, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 237— 246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244314000833
60. Eichengreen B. (2012). Economic history and economic policy. Journal of Economic History, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 289—307. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050712000034
61. Fendler L. (2020). New cultural histories. In: T. Fitzgerald (ed.). Handbook of historical studies in education: Debates, tensions, and directions. Singapore: Springer International Handbooks of Education, pp. 85—103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2362-0
62. Fernández-de-Pinedo N., La Parra-Perez A., Muсoz F.-F. (2022). Recent trends in publications of economic historians in Europe and North America (1980—2019): An empirical analysis. Cliometrica. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-022-00245-w
63. Feygin M. (2017). Reforming the cold war state: Economic thought, internationalization, and the politics of Soviet reform, 1955—1985. Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, No. 2277.
64. Freeman C., Louçã F. (2002). As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Gehrke С. (2018). Joel Mokyr’s a culture of growth: A book roundtable. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 1493—1536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2018.1522861
66. Grantham G. (1997). The French cliometric revolution: A Survey of cliometric contributions to French economic history. European Review of Economic History, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 353—405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1361491697000166
67. Hamermesh D. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 162—172. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.162
68. Hoffman P. T. (2010). Response to Robert Whaples. Historically Speaking, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 20—22. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000002
69. Jarausch K. (1985). (Inter)national styles of quantitative history. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 13—19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.1985.10594144
70. Jones G., van Leeuwen M. H. D., Broadberry S. (2012). The future of economic, business and social history. Scandinavian Economic History Review, Vol. 60, No. 3, pp. 225—253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2012.727766
71. Jonson N. D. (2018). Geospatial information systems. In: M. Blum, C. Colvin (eds.). An economist’s guide to economic history. London: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 425—432.
72. JPRS (1966). Conferences in the Soviet Bloc, No. 17. Washington DC: U.S. Joint Publications Research Service.
73. Keynes J. M. (1924). Alfred Marshall, 1842—1924. Economic Journal, Vol. 34, No. 135, pp. 311—372. https://doi.org/10.2307/2222645
74. Kim K. (2014). Adam Smith’s and Douglass North’s multidisciplinary approach to economic development. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp. 3—31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12067
75. Koopmans T. (1947). Measurement without theory. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 161—172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1928627
76. Krul M. (2016). Some reflections on the death of Douglass C. North (1920—2015). Realeurasia Blog, January 18. https://www.eth.mpg.de/3978595/blog_2016_01_18_01
77. Lamoreaux N. (2015). The future of economic history must be interdisciplinary. Journal of Economic History, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp. 1251—1257. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022050715001679
78. Lamoreaux N. R., Raff D. M. G., Temin P. (2008). Economic theory and business history. In: G. G. Jones, J. Zeitlin (eds.). The Oxford handbook of business history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37—66. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199263684.003.0003
79. Li B. (2015). Economic history in China: Tradition, divergence and potential. In: F. Boldizzoni, P. Hudson (еds.). Routledge handbook of global economic history. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 293—309. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315734736-1
80. Lundberg S., Stearns J. (2019). Women in economics: Stalled progress. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 3—22. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.1.3
81. Lyons J., Cain C., Williamson S. (2008). Cliometrics over 50 years: Retrospect and prospect. In: J. S. Lyons, L. P. Cain, S. H. Williamson (eds.). Reflections on the cliometrics revolution. Conversations with economic historians. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, pp. 36–43.
82. Magness P. (2021). A comment on the new history of capitalism. Economic Historian, January, 22. https://economic-historian.com/2020/09/a-comment-on-the-new-history-of-capitalism/
83. Manning P. (2003). Navigating world history: Historians create a global past. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
84. Margo R. (2017). Тhe integration of economic history into economics. NBER Working Paper, No. 23538. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23538
85. McCloskey D. N. (1985). The problem of audience in historical economics: Rhetorical thoughts on a text by Robert Fogel. History and Theory, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1—22.
86. Mejía J. (2015). The evolution of economic history since 1950: From cliometrics to cliodynamics. Tiempo & Еconomía, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 79—103. https://doi.org/10.21789/24222704.1061
87. Mitch (2019). The contributions of Robert Fogel to cliometrics. In: C. Diebolt, M. Haupert (eds.). Handbook of cliometrics. Cham: Springer, pp. 33—59. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00181-0_49
88. Mokyr J. (2003). Preface. In: J. Mokyr (ed.). The Oxford encyclopedia of economic history, Vol. 1. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. XI—XXVII. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195105070.001.0001
89. Mokyr J. (2010). On the supposed decline and fall of economic history. Historically Speaking, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 23—25. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsp.0.0101
90. Nunn N. (2020). The historical roots of economic development. Science, Vol. 367, No. 6485. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9986
91. Nureev R., Latov Y. (2011). Institutionalism in a new economic history. Unpublished manuscript. http://rustem-nureev.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/255.pdf
92. Putnam G. F. (1971). Soviet historians, quantitative methods, and digital computers. Computers and the Humanities, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 23—29. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF02402320
93. Radović-Marković M., Avolio Alecchi B. (2017). Qualitative methods in economics. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315532257
94. Rockman S. (2014). What makes the history of capitalism newsworthy? Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 439—466. https://doi.org/10.1353/ jer.2014.0043
95. Romer C. D. (1994). The end of economic history? Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 49—66. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1994.10844814
96. Roy T. (2004). Economic history: An endangered discipline. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 29, pp. 3238—3243. https://doi.org/10.2307/4415283
97. Temin P. (2013). The rise and fall of economic history at MIT. MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No. 13-11. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2274908
98. Temin P. (2014). Economic history and economic development: New economic history in retrospect and prospect. NBER Working Paper, No. 20107. https:// doi.org/10.3386/w20107
99. Whaples R. (1995). Where is there consensus among American economic historians? The results of a survey on forty propositions. Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 139—154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700040602
100. Whaples R. (2010). Is economic history a neglected field of study? Historically Speaking, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 17—20. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsp.0.0109
101. Williamson S. H., Whaples R. (2003). Cliometrics. In: J. Mokyr (ed.). The Oxford encyclopedia of economic history, Vol. 1. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 446—447. https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780195105070.001.0001
102. Zhuravskaya E., Guriev S., Markevich A. (2021). New Russian economic history. Journal of Economic Literature, [forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3962960
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Maltsev A.A. Cinderella or princess: Past and present of economic history. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(11):24-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-24-56
Views:
931
Email this article 
