Talk:Economic history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economic history article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the importance scale
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Just wanted to query this first statement:

Economic history is the application of economic theories to historical study.

That would be described as historical economics. The Economic History I'm familiar with is simply the historical study of economic activity - production, trade, growth and decline of industries, government policy etc. The history of economic theories may be dealt with, but this isn't the same at all. Mattley (Chattley) 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

History of economic theories is generally labelled "History of Economic Thought". If you're an economist then "Economic history" is basically what the article says it is. If you're a historian then "Economic history" is something, well, here I don't know as much but more like "Labor history" or "Business history". Perhaps there should be some explanation of the different usages of the terms. radek 07:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mattley is correct, and I have changed the definition in line with the more accepted formulation. I hear the other formulation from time to time, but never from fellow economic historians. Curiously, no one ever describes military history as the application of military theories to historical study. John G Walker 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The definition is contested and the article ought to reflect this. I'll attempt to deal with this.JQ 22:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately none of the various economic history societies that I'm aware of offer a definition of economic history. Working from such definitions would otherwise be a good way forward. My impression is that there may be a difference between the usage of the term in different parts of the English-speaking world. As someone familiar with economic history as practised in the UK I find it hard to see what "the application of economic theories to historical study" can really mean, in terms of the work I'm familiar with. Nor can I see what kind of economic history cannot be described as "the historical study of economic activity". Major economic histoy societies across the world publish and publicise work that can appropriately and usefully described as "the historical study of economic activity". A very large proportion of it makes little or no reference to anything that could be described as "economic theory". This may be the bias of a historian, but it strikes me that economic history is primarily a sub-field of History rather than of Economics, in that most practioners are drawn from and work within the conventions and assumptions of History. This is certainly the case with economic history in the UK, which is invariably interconnected with social history, both in teaching and research - something which the Economic History Association reflects. Or perhaps social history is "the application or social theories to historical research" and this has passed me by as well? On a non-facetious note, I would welcome some clarification of what "the application of economic theories etc" means in practice. Mattley (Chattley) 00:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


It's my impression that economic history is regarded as either a separate discipline or a subfield of history in the UK, while in the US it is regarded as a subfield of economics. Australia has gone from the UK model to the US in the past thirty years. Most separate departments of economic history have been merged into economics departments. This partly reflects a general administrative push for bigger organisational units, but it also reflects an increasingly dominant view that the same body of theory and methods should be applied to the past as to the present. To put some names into the discussion, I don't think you can reasonably advocate, as the one "correct" definition of economic history, a definition that would exclude Nobel prizewinners like Fogel and North.
To answer your final question, consider the Great Depression. As an economist, I would find it strange to see an analysis of the Great Depression that was not based on macroeconomic theory or, conversely, a macroeconomic theory that could not account for the Great Depression. In fact I'd say that the absence of such an account is one of the reasons New Classical economics never gained much traction. JQ 03:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know a great deal about Fogel and North, but I don't see where a problem arises of excluding them from a definition. It seems to me that both cases reinforce the need to offer a broad definition in the first instance which can then be elaborated with reference to differing approaches and techniques. In Fogel's profile [1] he presents himself as helping to pioneer the application of models and techniques drawn from economics to economic history. Evidently US economic historians have been deeply touched by this approach, but it surely an approach, not the thing itself. Douglas C. North begins his Nobel prize presentation as follows:
Economic history is about the performance of economies through time. The objective of research in the field is not only to shed new light on the economic past but also to contribute to economic theory by providing an analytical framework that will enable us to understand economic change.
This suggests that he sees history informing theory as much as, if not more than theory makes sense of history. It would be very interesting and useful to write about the impact such practitioners have had on the field, variations in approach/methodology including differences in the way the discipline is understood in different countries. However, no matter how it is approached, the subject matter can still be accurately and usefully (i.e. to people who do not already know) be described as economic activity in past societies, good examples of such activity being such things as production, trade, the growth and decline of individual industries or businesses, governmental intervention and policy etc. This does not exclude anyone, so what is wrong with it? Mattley (Chattley) 12:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Just a quick note, Africa isn't a country, so maybe it should be "A list of economic histories" or something like this?

Also, Former industrialized economies is misleading. What is think is meant is Second World, as these countries are still industrialized. Sometimes industrialized is used interchangeably with developped or a member of the Global North, but most wealthy soceities are serviced based, and some developing countries are highly industrial (Brazil for example), so I think the continued use of "industrialized" is uninformative.
Finally, I would hope that most economies with histories would be historical economies. This is redundant. What I believe is meant is "States no longer in existence" or "Former States".

OneWorld22 22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Cliometrics into this page

I propose to merge Cliometrics, which is the quantitative study of (economic) history, into the economic history article. The cliometrics article is much more developed, but economic history is the broader concept. Also, an observation: the current economic history article contains much more about the history of economic history than about the topical content or discoveries of economic history. The Cliometrics article's content would provide needed meat to the economic history article. Comments and ideas for alternatives welcome, of course. Jeremy Tobacman 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, logically, shouldn't econometrics be merged with economics and biostatistics with biology? I think cliometrics deserves its own article. Are we lacking space on Wikipedia? - Duribald 23:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, of course not. Jeremy Tobacman 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, expand this article rather then get rid of Cliometrics which deserves its own. Note also that "Cliometricians" tend to have their conferences, discussion lists, etc. radek 00:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that cliometrics is not a favourite of many economic historians. It's not a universal method. - Duribald 10:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, ultimately the best structure would be a much-expanded version of the economic history article, with a section on Cliometrics, which links to a full, separate article on Cliometrics. Lacking expertise to write the balanced article on economic history, I thought-- and still think-- the merger would be an improvement for now. Jeremy Tobacman 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Putting economic history into the page

I've made a rudimentary start on this by shoving in a few categories. I would appreciate it if people could fill it out with material they can add (even if by cutting and pasting!) Wikidea 10:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)