Editing Economic history (section)

==Early history of the discipline==
[[File:Economic History Department, 1971 (3925741729).jpg|thumb|right|350px|Economic history department, London School of Economics (1971)]]
[[Arnold Toynbee (historian, born 1852)|Arnold Toynbee]] made the case for combining economics and history in his study of the [[Industrial Revolution]], saying, "I believe economics today is much too dissociated from history. Smith and Malthus had historical minds. However, Ricardo – who set the pattern of modern textbooks – had a mind that was entirely unhistorical." There were several advantages in combining economics and history according to Toynbee. To begin with, it improved economic understanding. "We see abstract propositions in a new light when studying them in relation to historical facts. Propositions become more vivid and truthful." Meanwhile, studying history with economics makes history easier to understand. Economics teaches us to look out for the right facts in reading history and makes matters such as introducing enclosures, machinery, or new currencies more intelligible. Economics also teaches careful deductive reasoning. "The habits of mind it instils are even more valuable than the knowledge of principles it gives. Without these habits, the mass of their materials can overwhelm students of historical facts."<ref>''Arnold Toynbee's The Industrial Revolution: A Translation into Modern English'', Kindle edition, 2020, pages1-2. {{ISBN|9780906321744}}. First published 1884.</ref>

In late-nineteenth-century Germany, scholars at a number of universities, led by [[Gustav von Schmoller]], developed the [[Historical school of economics|historical school of economic history]]. It argued that there were no universal truths in history, emphasizing the importance of historical context without quantitative analysis. This historical approach dominated German and French scholarship for most of the 20th century. The [[historical school of economics]] included other economists such as [[Max Weber]] and [[Joseph Schumpeter]] who reasoned that careful analysis of human actions, cultural norms, historical context, and mathematical support was key to historical analysis. The approach was spread to Great Britain by [[William Ashley (economic historian)|William Ashley]] ([[University of Oxford]]) and dominated [[Economic history of the United Kingdom|British economic history]] for much of the 20th century. Britain's first professor in the subject was [[George Unwin]] at the [[Victoria University of Manchester|University of Manchester]].<ref name=MaxBODNB>[[Maxine Berg|Berg, Maxine L.]] (2004) 'Knowles , Lilian Charlotte Anne (1870–1926)', ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', Oxford University Press, [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/45651, accessed 6 Feb 2015] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230115105830/https://www.oxforddnb.com/display/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-45651 |date=15 January 2023 }}</ref><ref name=MBerg>Berg, M. (1992). The first women economic historians. ''The Economic History Review'', 45(2), 308–329.</ref> Meanwhile, in France, economic history was heavily influenced by the [[Annales School]] from the early 20th century to the present. It exerts a worldwide influence through its journal {{Lang|fr|[[Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales]]}}.<ref>Robert Forster, "Achievements of the Annales school." ''Journal of Economic History'' 38.01 (1978): 58–76. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2119315 in JSTOR] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181031005311/https://www.jstor.org/stable/2119315 |date=2018-10-31 }}</ref>

Treating economic history as a discrete academic discipline has been a contentious issue for many years. Academics at the [[London School of Economics]] (LSE) and the [[University of Cambridge]] had numerous [[London School of Economics#LSE vs. Cambridge|disputes]] over the separation of economics and economic history in the [[interwar era]]. Cambridge economists believed that pure economics involved a component of economic history and that the two were inseparably entangled. Those at the LSE believed that economic history warranted its own courses, research agenda and academic chair separated from mainstream economics. In the initial period of the subject's development, the LSE position of separating economic history from economics won out. Many universities in the UK developed independent programmes in economic history rooted in the LSE model. Indeed, the [[Economic History Society]] had its inauguration at [[London School of Economics|LSE]] in 1926 and the [[University of Cambridge]] eventually established its own economic history programme.

In the United States, the field of economic history was largely subsumed into other fields of economics following the cliometric revolution of the 1960s.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2021-01-01|title=The economic history of economic history: the evolution of a field in economics|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128158746000095|journal=The Handbook of Historical Economics|language=en|pages=3–16|doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-815874-6.00009-5|last1=Margo|first1=Robert A.|isbn=9780128158746|s2cid=236731927|access-date=2021-05-06|archive-date=2021-05-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507121815/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128158746000095|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |date=2021-01-01 |title=The two revolutions in economic history |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128158746000083 |journal=The Handbook of Historical Economics |language=en |pages=17–40 |doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-815874-6.00008-3 |last1=Cioni |first1=Martina |last2=Federico |first2=Giovanni |last3=Vasta |first3=Michelangelo |hdl=10419/247122 |isbn=9780128158746 |s2cid=226605299 |access-date=2021-05-06 |archive-date=2021-05-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506143031/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128158746000083 |url-status=live }}</ref> To many it became seen as a form of [[applied economics]] rather than a stand-alone discipline. [[Cliometrics]], also known as the New Economic History, refers to the systematic use of economic theory and [[econometrics|econometric]] techniques to the study of economic history. The term was originally coined by Jonathan R. T. Hughes and [[Stanley Reiter]] and refers to [[Clio]], who was the [[muse]] of history and heroic poetry in [[Greek mythology]]. One of the most famous cliometric economic historians is [[Douglass North]], who argued that it is the task of economic history to elucidate the historical dimensions of economies through time.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Structure and Performance: The Task of Economic History|last1=North|first1=Douglass C.|journal = Journal of Economic Literature|year = 1978|volume = 16|issue = 3|pages = 963–978|jstor = 2723471}}</ref> Cliometricians argue their approach is necessary because the application of theory is crucial in writing solid economic history, while historians generally oppose this view warning against the risk of generating anachronisms.

Early cliometrics was a type of [[counterfactual history]]. However, counterfactualism was not its distinctive feature; it combined neoclassical economics with quantitative methods in order to explain human choices based on constraints.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=North|first1=Douglass C.|date=1978|title=Structure and Performance: The Task of Economic History|journal=Journal of Economic Literature|volume=16|issue=3}}</ref> Some have argued that cliometrics had its heyday in the 1960s and 1970s and that it is now neglected by economists and historians.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Whaples|first=Robert|year=2010|title=Is Economic History a Neglected Field of Study?|journal=Historically Speaking|volume=11|issue=2|pages=17–20 & 20–27 (responses)|doi=10.1353/hsp.0.0109|s2cid=162209922}}</ref> In response to North and [[Robert Fogel]]'s [[Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics]] in 1993, [[Harvard University]] economist (and future Nobel winner) [[Claudia Goldin]] argued:<blockquote>Economic history is not a handmaiden of economics but a distinct field of scholarship. Economic history was a scholarly discipline long before it became cliometrics. Its practitioners were economists and historians studying the histories of economies... The new economic history, or cliometrics, formalized economic history in a manner similar to the injection of mathematical models and statistics into the rest of economics.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Goldin|first1=Claudia|author-link=Claudia Goldin|date=1995|title=Cliometrics and the Nobel|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume=9|issue=2|pages=191–208|doi=10.1257/jep.9.2.191|s2cid=155075681|url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30703876|access-date=2020-04-24|archive-date=2020-05-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200522162603/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/30703876|url-status=live}}</ref></blockquote>The relationship between economic history, economics and history has long been the subject of intense discussion, and the debates of recent years echo those of early contributors. There has long been a school of thought among economic historians that splits economic history—the study of how economic phenomena evolved in the past—from historical economics—testing the generality of economic theory using historical episodes. US economic historian [[Charles P. Kindleberger]] explained this position in his 1990 book ''Historical Economics: Art or Science?''.<ref>Charles P. Kindleberger (1990), [http://www.escholarship.org/editions/view?docId=ft287004zv;brand=ucpress ''Historical Economics: Art or Science?''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200406113634/https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft287004zv;brand=ucpress |date=2020-04-06 }}, University of California Press, Berkeley</ref> Economic historian [[Robert Skidelsky]] ([[University of Cambridge]]) argued that [[economic theory]] often employs ahistorical models and methodologies that do not take into account historical context.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFgrJa5X56g |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/GFgrJa5X56g| archive-date=2021-12-11 |url-status=live|title=Economic History – How & How NOT to Do Economics with Robert Skidelsky|website=Youtube|date=10 September 2019 }}{{cbignore}}</ref> [[Yale University]] economist [[Irving Fisher]] already wrote in 1933 on the relationship between economics and economic history in his "[[Debt deflation|Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions]]":
<blockquote>
The study of dis-equilibrium may proceed in either of two ways. We may take as our unit for study an actual historical case of great dis-equilibrium, such as, say, the panic of 1873; or we may take as our unit for study any constituent tendency, such as, say, deflation, and discover its general laws, relations to, and combinations with, other tendencies. The former study revolves around events, or facts; the latter, around tendencies. The former is primarily economic history; the latter is primarily economic science. Both sorts of studies are proper and important. Each helps the other. The panic of 1873 can only be understood in light of the various tendencies involved—deflation and other; and deflation can only be understood in the light of various historical manifestations—1873 and other.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fisher|first=Irving|date=1933|title=Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions|journal=Econometrica|volume=1|issue=4|pages=337–38|doi=10.2307/1907327|jstor=1907327}}</ref>
</blockquote>