Economic history

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Economic history is the discipline that insists you cannot understand money, markets, or growth without first asking what happened. Arnold Toynbee, one of its earliest champions, put the problem bluntly: Ricardo, who shaped the pattern of modern economic textbooks, had a mind that was "entirely unhistorical." That observation lit a fuse. What follows is the story of an academic field that has spent roughly two centuries arguing over its own identity, its methods, and its masters. Does it belong to the economists or the historians? Is it a laboratory for testing theory, or a form of storytelling with numbers? And why does it keep mattering, just when everyone assumes it has faded away?

• 2. Toynbee's Challenge

  ›

  Arnold Toynbee did not merely suggest that economics and history should talk to each other. He argued that each discipline was crippled without the other. Abstract propositions, he wrote, become "more vivid and truthful" when studied alongside historical facts. History, in turn, becomes easier to read when economics teaches you which facts to look for. Enclosures, new machinery, and new currencies all become intelligible once you approach them with economic tools.

  Toynbee also credited economics with something more durable than knowledge: habits of mind. Careful deductive reasoning, he argued, was something economics could teach students of history. Without those habits, "the mass of their materials can overwhelm students of historical facts."

  His challenge landed in a late-nineteenth-century Germany already experimenting with a response. At several German universities, Gustav von Schmoller led the development of the historical school of economic history. That school rejected universal truths in history and insisted on the primacy of historical context, without relying on quantitative analysis. Max Weber and Joseph Schumpeter both worked within this tradition, arguing that human actions, cultural norms, and mathematical support all belonged together in historical analysis.

  The historical school crossed the English Channel through William Ashley, who carried it to the University of Oxford. Britain's first professor in the subject was George Unwin, appointed at the University of Manchester. Across the channel in France, the Annales School shaped economic history from the early twentieth century onward, exerting a worldwide influence through its journal Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales.

• 3. The Institutional Battle

  ›

  By the interwar era, the question of where economic history lived had become a genuine quarrel. Academics at the London School of Economics and the University of Cambridge fought repeatedly over whether the field deserved independence from mainstream economics.

  Cambridge economists believed pure economics already contained economic history, and that separating them was artificial. The LSE took the opposite view: economic history warranted its own courses, its own research agenda, and its own academic chair. In those early years, the LSE position prevailed. Universities across the UK built independent programmes modelled on it, and the Economic History Society was founded at the LSE in 1926. Cambridge eventually relented and established its own programme.

  The first journal dedicated to the discipline, The Economic History Review, was founded in 1927 as the main publication of the Economic History Society. Its inaugural issue included a contribution from Professor Sir William Ashley, the first professor of economic history in the English-speaking world. Ashley described economic history as "the history of actual human practice with respect to the material basis of life" and positioned it alongside political history, religious history, and military history.

  In 1941, the Economic History Association launched The Journal of Economic History to expand the discipline in the United States. Edwin F. Gay, its first president, described the field's aim as bringing together two distinct skill sets: historian and economist. He acknowledged the difficulty but insisted experience had shown that "it is both necessary and possible."

• 4. The Cliometric Revolution

  ›

  In the United States during the 1960s, a movement arose that would reshape economic history entirely. Cliometrics, also known as the New Economic History, applied systematic economic theory and econometric techniques to historical questions. The term itself was coined by Jonathan R. T. Hughes and Stanley Reiter, and it refers to Clio, the muse of history and heroic poetry in ancient Greek mythology.

  Early cliometrics worked partly as counterfactual history, asking what would have happened if specific conditions had been different. But what really distinguished it was the combination of neoclassical economics with quantitative methods to explain human choices under constraints.

  Douglass North became one of the most prominent figures in this tradition. He argued that the task of economic history was to illuminate the historical dimensions of economies over time. Cliometricians insisted that economic theory was essential for writing solid economic history. Historians pushed back, warning that applying modern theory to past situations risked generating anachronisms.

  By the 1980s and 1990s, some argued that cliometrics had peaked. When Robert Fogel and Douglass North won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 1993, Claudia Goldin of Harvard University responded with a pointed clarification. Economic history, she wrote, "is not a handmaiden of economics but a distinct field of scholarship. Economic history was a scholarly discipline long before it became cliometrics." Goldin would herself win the Nobel in 2023 for advancing understanding of women's labor market outcomes; she had begun her career studying the history of the US southern economy and served as President of the Economic History Association in 1999-2000.

• 5. The Field Today

  ›

  The past three decades have brought a quiet restructuring. Separate economic history departments and programmes have closed across the UK, with their content absorbed into either history or economics departments. Only the London School of Economics retains a standalone economic history department and both undergraduate and graduate programmes in the subject. Cambridge, Glasgow, LSE, Oxford, Queen's, and Warwick together train the large majority of British economic historians, but do so within economics or history degrees.

  In the United States, the picture has always been different. No specialist graduate programmes in economic history have ever existed at American universities. The field survives instead as a component of leading economics PhD programmes at institutions including Berkeley, Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton, Chicago, and Yale.

  Despite the closures and the structural squeeze, the discipline is not in retreat. A resurgence of interest since 2000 is driven partly by research at universities in continental Europe. The overall number of economic historians worldwide is estimated at 10,400. Japan, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States rank highest in that count. Some less developed countries, including Senegal, Brazil, and Vietnam, remain insufficiently integrated into the global economic history community.

  The 2008 financial crisis accelerated a new direction. Scholars began moving away from narrowly quantitative studies toward institutional, social, and cultural analysis of how economies change. Columbia University economist Charles Calomiris described this trend as showing how "historical, path-dependent processes governed changes in institutions and markets." Francesco Boldizzoni criticized it as a form of economic imperialism extending neoclassical models into social relations.

• 6. Piketty and Rising Inequality

  ›

  Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century, published in 2013, arrived as something different: an economist using historical data not to test a model but to describe a sweeping shift in the distribution of wealth since the eighteenth century. Piketty argued that large concentrations of wealth lead to social and economic instability, and he advocated a system of global progressive wealth taxes to address the trend.

  The book became a New York Times best seller and received prominent endorsements from Paul Krugman, Robert Solow, and Ben Bernanke. One economist described it as "Nobel-Prize worthy" and credited it with changing the global discussion on how economic historians study inequality. It also opened new conversations in public policy.

  The response literature grew quickly. Books engaging directly with Piketty's argument appeared within a few years, including After Piketty: The Agenda for Economics and Inequality, edited by Heather Boushey, J. Bradford DeLong, and Marshall Steinbaum in 2017; Pocket Piketty by Jesper Roine in 2017; and Anti-Piketty: Capital for the 21st Century, by Jean-Philippe Delsol, Nicolas Lecaussin, and Emmanuel Martin, also in 2017.

  Piketty's work sits alongside a longer tradition of books on economic growth and development that the field has generated. Kenneth Pomeranz's The Great Divergence, published in 2000, examined the divergence between China and Europe in the making of the modern world economy. David S. Landes's The Wealth and Poverty of Nations appeared in 1998. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson's Why Nations Fail, published in 2012, introduced a new field of persistence studies examining how path-dependent stages of growth shape prosperity.

• 7. Marx, Capitalism, and History

  ›

  Karl Marx stands apart in the intellectual genealogy of economic history. He used historical analysis to place class at the center of human history, debating directly with what he called the "classical" economists, a term he coined to describe Adam Smith and David Ricardo. His lasting contribution to economic history was a critique of neoclassical findings and a sustained engagement with the transition from feudalism to capitalism through the concept of the "capitalist mode of production."

  Maurice Dobb drew on that framework to argue that feudalism declined because peasants struggled for freedom and because the system became increasingly inefficient as a mode of production. Paul Sweezy, a Marxian economist, challenged Dobb's definition of feudalism and its focus on western Europe. That exchange became known as the Brenner debate.

  A newer outgrowth emerged in US history departments from around the year 2000. Researchers named it the "history of capitalism." It covers insurance, banking, regulation, the political dimensions of business, and the effects of capitalism on the middle classes, people experiencing poverty, women, and minorities. Its particular focus has been on the contribution of slavery to the rise of the US economy in the nineteenth century.

  Critics of this new field argued that it neglected systems of production, circulation, and distribution, and that it lacked social scientific methods. In response, the journal Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics was founded at the University of Pennsylvania under Marc Flandreau, Julia Ott of The New School in New York, and Francesca Trivellato of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. Its stated goal was to bring together historians and social scientists interested in the "material and intellectual aspects of modern economic life," a formulation that suggests the argument over method is far from settled.