We economists know preferences, market structures, supply, demand, equilibrium, and surplus. Half at least of economic history is using what we economists know to understand history in the very...
These will be some lucky students. I have no suggestions--yet. But I read Solow, and was struck by his (in 1985, still true today) observation: " apart from anything else, it is no fun reading the stuff anymore." I've enjoyed having econ history colleagues at all my stops: Lars Sandberg and Rick Steckel at OSU, Alan Olmstead and Peter Lindert at UC Davis, and Bob Margo and Bill Collins and Jeremy Atack at Vanderbilt (and at Yale some crazy Australian whose name escapes me but who convinced me Asian earthquakes and associated costs of rebuilding led to the rise of the West). They were always incredibly entertaining--and informative--colleagues and top-notch mainstream economists, but full of unexpected (to me) knowledge. How interesting to me--a sort-of trade economist--to learn laundry services are not necessarily a "non-traded" good? Bob Margo documented to me that laundry was shipped to Hawaii and back during the 1849 gold rush. But titles over time tell a bit of the tale: "Soldier, soldier, what made you grow so tall? A study of height, health, and nutrition in Sweden, 1720–1881" (Sandberg and Steckel, 1980), "“When the Tide Turned: Immigration and the Delay of the Great Black Migration.” (Collins, 1997). Or of course "Time on the Cross." Who isn't intrigued by the clever titles? Now--I mention no examples as I have only a few friends and thus need to keep them!--many titles make articles sound as boring as another RBC paper.
Great questions! However, #14, how is the textile industrial revolution different, has to me an obvious answer. Half the human race (women) spent (roughly) half their time working on clothing, one way or another. The textile revolution took most of that directly off their backs. One can argue that new burdens emerged, but that one's gone. Printing and sea transport, important as they were/are, don't do anything like that.
I'd say one thing to teach, it woud be a corollary of the actual content, woud be to distrust the economics found in most conventional histories. If I had a nickel for every time I read that the X kingdom/empire failed becasue of "currency debasement" ...
I sympathize with your dilemma. Personally I would be more interested in seeing what else you would have taught with more time -- ie who didn't make the cut.
Perhaps 3 and 4 could be rolled into one? Diamond's article is shortish, easy to read, and covers much the same ground as 3. You could maybe even compress 3 and 4 into 2.
I'm wondering if Polanyi was on your long list? I can understand why Marx is in there, but I would have hoped grad students in history would have the basics of Marx already. The thesis of the great transformation is relatively easy to grasp and an intriguing big economico-historical idea. It also taps into the economic anthropology of ancient societies (Finley) and is highly relevant to explaining our current hangover from the neoliberal period. Stiglitz's intro to a recent edition does a nice job of bringing the latter point out.
Oops, I thought they were grad students in history, but I see now they are grad students in economics. I suppose it is an interesting question how much first year grad students in econ could be expected to know about Marx.
This will be a great course. I wish I could take it. I love starting with that Solow paper: "Economics is not the physics of the social world" -- or something like that.
These will be some lucky students. I have no suggestions--yet. But I read Solow, and was struck by his (in 1985, still true today) observation: " apart from anything else, it is no fun reading the stuff anymore." I've enjoyed having econ history colleagues at all my stops: Lars Sandberg and Rick Steckel at OSU, Alan Olmstead and Peter Lindert at UC Davis, and Bob Margo and Bill Collins and Jeremy Atack at Vanderbilt (and at Yale some crazy Australian whose name escapes me but who convinced me Asian earthquakes and associated costs of rebuilding led to the rise of the West). They were always incredibly entertaining--and informative--colleagues and top-notch mainstream economists, but full of unexpected (to me) knowledge. How interesting to me--a sort-of trade economist--to learn laundry services are not necessarily a "non-traded" good? Bob Margo documented to me that laundry was shipped to Hawaii and back during the 1849 gold rush. But titles over time tell a bit of the tale: "Soldier, soldier, what made you grow so tall? A study of height, health, and nutrition in Sweden, 1720–1881" (Sandberg and Steckel, 1980), "“When the Tide Turned: Immigration and the Delay of the Great Black Migration.” (Collins, 1997). Or of course "Time on the Cross." Who isn't intrigued by the clever titles? Now--I mention no examples as I have only a few friends and thus need to keep them!--many titles make articles sound as boring as another RBC paper.
Great questions! However, #14, how is the textile industrial revolution different, has to me an obvious answer. Half the human race (women) spent (roughly) half their time working on clothing, one way or another. The textile revolution took most of that directly off their backs. One can argue that new burdens emerged, but that one's gone. Printing and sea transport, important as they were/are, don't do anything like that.
The guy on the right is in a green dress!!!
I'd say one thing to teach, it woud be a corollary of the actual content, woud be to distrust the economics found in most conventional histories. If I had a nickel for every time I read that the X kingdom/empire failed becasue of "currency debasement" ...
I sympathize with your dilemma. Personally I would be more interested in seeing what else you would have taught with more time -- ie who didn't make the cut.
Perhaps 3 and 4 could be rolled into one? Diamond's article is shortish, easy to read, and covers much the same ground as 3. You could maybe even compress 3 and 4 into 2.
I'm wondering if Polanyi was on your long list? I can understand why Marx is in there, but I would have hoped grad students in history would have the basics of Marx already. The thesis of the great transformation is relatively easy to grasp and an intriguing big economico-historical idea. It also taps into the economic anthropology of ancient societies (Finley) and is highly relevant to explaining our current hangover from the neoliberal period. Stiglitz's intro to a recent edition does a nice job of bringing the latter point out.
Oops, I thought they were grad students in history, but I see now they are grad students in economics. I suppose it is an interesting question how much first year grad students in econ could be expected to know about Marx.
This will be a great course. I wish I could take it. I love starting with that Solow paper: "Economics is not the physics of the social world" -- or something like that.