----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Published by EH.NET (March 2002) 
 
Pat Hudson, editor, _Living Economic and Social History_. Glasgow: Economic History
Society, 2001. xv + 480 pp. ú10 (EHS members) or ú15 (nonmembers)(paperback), ISBN:
0-9540216-0-6.
 
Reviewed for EH.NET by Simon Ville, School of Economics and Information Systems at the
University of Wollongong, Australia. <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
This book celebrates the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Economic History Society in
2001. It begins with a brief but informative history of the society, which was established
at a conference at the Institute of Historical Research, London, in 1926. However, most of
the book consists of short pieces, up to about 2500 words, written by over one hundred
practitioners addressing the question: what economic (and social) history means to me.
Their recollections, both personal and intellectual, make fascinating reading. A few
authors are angry or disillusioned at the fate of economic history but the overwhelming
impression is that most have found the teaching and writing of economic and social history
a labor of love. Common themes are not hard to extract. The strong intellectual influences
of Marx, Tawney, Braudel, Hobsbawm, Clapham, Hill, Rostow and Ashton are clear; the
personal influences of Power, Postan, and Fisher as supervisors and mentors also emerge.
The worth of economic history is seen in many forms: its interdisciplinarity; its
flexibility; its broad-minded receptiveness to many ideas, ideologies, and methodologies;
its readability and accessibility; its integrative qualities; and its attention to human
welfare. The multiple, changing, and sometimes contradictory, approaches to the subject
have led one contributor to refer to economic historians as Marxist price-loving
capitalists (Martin Chick, p. 38). The experience of ecnomic history is described in many
ways, perhaps most memorably that, "reading it is like soaking in a hot bath and doing it
is like rock climbing" (Meghnad Desai, p. 60).
 
The economic history boom of the 1950s to 1970s is clearly borne out in the careers of
many writers, emerging particularly from the LSE and taking up new positions in the
subject in universities in the British Isles and overseas. The shortage of trained
economic historians relative to the expanding number of new positions is reflected in the
bizarre appointment experiences of several writers, with interviews being little more than
an informal chat over a cup of coffee. The reasons for the boom are clearly enunciated:
the expansion in British universities, disillusionment with traditional
political/constitutional history and unrealistic neoclassical economics, and the rise of
the social science disciplines in which economic history was viewed as part of the core.
Understanding and coming to terms with the subsequent experience of economic history,
particularly the closure of most departments and the reduction in the number of posts, has
certainly been more difficult and generated much less agreement.
 
To a number of writers, the alleged decline of the subject is linked to the ascent of the
'new economic history' from the 1960s; the effect was to enhance the rigor of, but
diminish the market for, economic history. Others believe that a dominant oligarchy
controlling the Economic History Society were keen to develop the disciplinary integrity
of economic history but in the process edged out important fellow travelers such as labor,
social, and business history. Many of the cross-disciplinary virtues of economic history
in an era of optimism and expansion became liabilities in darker times as academic
boundaries became more sharply divisive, and disciplinary groups turned inwards for self-
protection: the flexible, even flighty, economic historian was caught between its behemoth
parents of economics and history. Members of small economic history departments,
vulnerable to calls for cost-saving economies of scale, were shuffled into either history
or economics departments, a choice made more on the basis of administrative convenience
than the personal wish of those affected.
 
Economic history has certainly changed in the last two decades but far from all
contributors believe this has been entirely for the worse. In the face of organizational
and numerical contraction, the intellectual rigor of the discipline has increased and the
number of refereed journals expanded. The discipline now draws upon a range of theories
and concepts, which are broader and more sensitive to historical analysis than neo-
classical economics and more inclusive than time series econometrics. As Peter Mathias
notes, after the narrowing effect of the new economic history, the new institutional
economics, "opened the doors wide enough for all of us to re-enter the temple" (p. 234).
 
Alongside the soul-searching are interesting and entertaining personal reflections:
economic and social historians always tell a good story. Negley Harte recalls being turned
down as a student by UCL, where he was later to become lecturer in economic history. Clive
Lee describes his career choice as 'manifest insanity' and then confesses to having
'borrowed' archival documents from the University of Manchester. F.M.L Thompson describes
the bizarre teaching methods of Asa Briggs, who simultaneously dictated paragraphs of his
latest book to his secretary. Gabriel Tortella first became acquainted with economic
history while in jail as a student activist in the 1960s. Less creditably, Francois
Crouzet confesses surprise at the criticism of the IEHA in light of the Seville 1998
debacle -- this reviewer is still awaiting the refund of his registration! Perhaps best of
all is Maurice Beresford's wartime recollection that the chairman of the Conscientious
Objectors Tribunal that cosigned him to labor as a social worker was Sir John Clapham;
forty years earlier Clapham had been appointed the first Professor of Economics at Leeds,
twenty years later Beresford was to become the first Professor of Economic History at the
same university!
 
The contributors to this volume are inevitably a self-selecting group, responding to a
general request from the Society for contributions. Perhaps not surprisingly in light of
the demographics of the discipline, three-quarters of writers were born in the 1920s, 30s
or 40s. Unfortunately, many of the senior members of the discipline currently below
retirement age have not contributed. Perhaps more worryingly, there are more contributors
born before 1920 than after 1960. Maybe this is inevitable in the nature of the sample
bias -- the book provides an opportunity for a lifetime's reflection. However, it also
confirms the numerical contraction of the discipline, while the absence of younger views
of the current state of economic history and thus its likely destiny over the next few
decades is regrettable.
 
This book really was a joy to read -- fascinating personal career experiences mixed with
deeper reflection on the nature and progress of economic history. There has been no
history written of economic history, as at least one contributor noted; when such a task
is attempted the current study will constitute a valuable source. My only personal regret
with this book is that I did not find the time to write a piece for it.
 
 
Simon Ville is Professor and Head of the School of Economics and Information Systems at
the University of Wollongong, Australia. His most recent work is _The Rural Entrepreneurs.
A History of the Stock and Station Agent Industry in Australia and New Zealand_ (Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
 
Copyright (c) 2002 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be copied for non-profit
educational uses if proper credit is given to the author and the list. For other
permission please contact the EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-
529-2850; Fax: 513-529-3308). Published by EH.Net (March 2002). All EH.Net reviews are
archived at http://www.eh.net/BookReview
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]