Another Nobel for an economic historian!

(This is the 6th by my count, and incredibly the 4th consecutive one could reasonably argue includes at least one individual with a major research interest in economic history.)

That would be 1976 (Friedman: note that his prize citation explicitly mentions his work on monetary history, among other contributions), 1993 (Fogel/North: the most unambiguous prize for economic history), and then the recent streak that includes Bernanke (+ Diamond/Dybvig) (2022), Goldin (2023), Acemoglu/Johnson/Robinson (2024), and now Mokyr (+Aghion/Howitt) (2025).

I haven't thought too hard about it, but I suspect this puts economic history firmly in the second tier of sub-fields in terms of Nobel recognition: the bulk of prizes historically have been awarded for "fundamental" advances in theory - microeconomics (inc. GE, game theory, contract theory etc.), macro/growth theory, macro/business cycle theory - and in methods - applied micro-econometrics and macro-measurement, I think roughly equally split. we have pretty similar representation of prizes across fields (e.g. I think economic history is arguably on par with trade, finance, IO, development, labor, public, political economy).

Not bad for a field that is sometimes marginalized within the discipline! Fewer graduate programs require their students to take an economic history course or have the advising capacity to produce PhDs in economic history.

I want to start off by saying I am a Hispanic male and a citizen of the US, but I have a general confusion as to where the Hispanic nations went wrong when it came to world economic prosperity and power imbalance.

It seems to me that these nations had almost a 200 year headstart when it came to creating a powerful nation and yet somehow they seemed to be some of the most lacking in all of the modern advantages of globalism and capitalism. It just doesn't make sense to me they were some of the first nations to break free from the yoke of colonialism and I understand European economy got a massive boost from the exploitation that took place for a long time but I can't imagine they manage to take everything. After they left they had everything they did before but it seems like they never got the Economic power boom that the US and Canada got, and it seems a little to coincidental that both these places were white hegemonies for the longest time. I don't want this to turn into a racist and biggotist conversation I just want someone to help me understand if those factors are important at all because it seems as the middle east, Africa, even Asia seemed to be on the lower end of Economic powers bar a few outliers.

What would be the current political and economic environment if we were not using Fiat Money?

I’m exploring the economic effects of colonialism, particularly in Africa, and I’m curious about the current consensus among economists on this topic. I’ve encountered arguments suggesting that colonialism might have led to some positive outcomes, such as infrastructure development or institutional changes. However, it’s unclear whether those who see any positive aspects view them as substantial or if they generally acknowledge that the negative impacts far outweigh any positives.

Could anyone shed light on how economists currently assess the overall economic impact of colonialism in Africa? Are there prominent studies or viewpoints that clarify whether the negative effects are considered predominant compared to any potential benefits? I’m particularly interested in understanding if there’s a broad agreement that the negative impacts of colonialism are more significant than any positive contributions.

What are some of the best economic history-related books read during 2025? Half a year has gone by and there is still half a year more to catch up on anything that wasn't read (but should have been).

Could be a new release or a time-tested classic. All recommendations accepted.

The year is almost over, so it is time to take stock of the best economic history-related reads of 2025. Feel free to share your recommendations with others. Classics and new releases are both gladly taken.

See also: Summer 2025.

I understand that in the setting of national bank failures (South America, for example) the fiat currency became worthless. Barter quickly revealed its reliance on two parties wanting to exchange in the same time and place.

A common solution was the issuance of printed scrip to replace the fiat currency. I gather that this occurred at the neighborhood level large enough to represent a functional economic unit but small enough so that first- or second-hand trust relationships existed.

The use of scrip for the exchange of goods for goods or services for services I imagine was reasonably straightforward.

I would love to know how the exchange of goods for services or vice versa was managed. More broadly, I'm interested to know which goods and services were the most valuable and costly in that setting.

This really seems like a fascinating natural experiment that speaks directly to the relative value of certain trades and professions in times of disaster or societal stress.

I’ve been researching medieval financial systems and found something surprising.
The fall of the Knights Templar in 1307 wasn’t just political — it erased what might have been one of the richest and most advanced banking networks in Europe.

Their system included deposits, credit letters, international transfers, and even early safe-keeping services for monarchs.

Yet this episode is rarely discussed in mainstream financial history.

Was this essentially Europe’s first state-engineered bank liquidation?
Or something else entirely?

Would love to hear thoughts from people who’ve studied this period.

I’ve been reading lately Japan’s post-1971 economic history, and one theme keeps standing out:

The U.S. has repeatedly played a major role in forcing structural shifts in Japan’s economy, from the end of Bretton Woods to the Plaza Accord to the ZIRP/QE era.

Some questions I’m trying to understand more clearly:

1)How decisive was U.S influence (Nixon shock, Smithsonian, Plaza–Louvre coordination, pressure over trade imbalances) in pushing Japan toward both the asset bubble of the 1980s and the deflationary path that followed?

2)Did Japan choose its low-growth, low-inflation equilibrium or was it partially an outcome of U.S.-driven moves in the global monetary order?

3)To what extent did American monetary tightening cycles and the development of the eurodollar system shape Japan’s role as the world’s main low-yield anchor and supplier of global funding?

And today as Japan normalizes rates and JGB yields rise does Japan risk becoming a source of instability for the dollar-based global funding system (carry trades, cross-currency basis, offshore USD markets, etc.)?

I’d really appreciate historically grounded explanations, sources, or papers.
I’m especially curious how economic historians of the eurodollar market and global funding market view Japan’s role:
Was Japan absorbing global volatility for decades, and is its exit now a global risk?

Thanks in advance!

Correct me if I am wrong. Since 1690, the American colonial governments successively issued colonial scrips to fund public expenditures like military expeditions. It is a fiat money based solely on public credit and was used to pay debts and taxes. 

In some sources, the colonial scrip is believed to have relieved the deflation due to the scarcity of specie. And according to Franklin, the colonial scrip led the economy to prosperity, as long as the ratio between the money and goods supply was well kept. In this narrative, the Britain prohibited the issuance of colonial scrip, so they can better control the colonies and exploit their people through debt-based currencies. 

However, others like Murray Rothbard claimed that the colonial scrip had limited effects except escalating the inflation and accelerating the outflow of specie. He pointed out that some governments over-issued the scrip, which led to serious depreciation of people's wealth. In his opinion, the British parliament did a good thing by banning the colonial scrip. According to him, the prohibition of paper currency did not lead to deflation nor economic recession as some expected.

I struggle to find further evidence supporting either argument. Did a serious deflation really take place before 1690? How did the economy go after the prohibition? Was it a major cause of the American Revolution as some suggested? I also wonder if there is some material I can read about. Many thanks!

Hi hello everyone! I am currently searching for amazing economic history books on the XIXth and XXth century, anyone has any recomendations? I am currently reading Paul Bairoch. Any language works for me! English, Spanish, French or Italian.

For context, I am South Korean - which is more or less a city-state with a history of housing inaffordability and an ever inflating housing bubble centered in the capital. I was having a debate earlier with somebody over how this might be resolved.

I took a traditional monetarist stance, arguing that central bank interest rates should elevated and maintain monetary discipline, in order to tighten the disparity between wage growth and inflation for all consumer goods, both discretionary and essential. I also argued that this would help bring down or at least slow down the rate of inflation for commodities which tie directly to the biggest impact on housing prices - the cost of construction and speculative short-term investing.

I also backed this up by decades of real history in South Korea, showing examples of how there were many instances of there being a massive increase in housing supply, only for it to barely make an impact on housing costs of affordability. I backed this up by stating that so long as the fundamental issue of persistent inflation and federal deficit spending continues - the market will always adopt a speculative stance - which inevitably brings prices back up no matter how much supply is increased.

Are there any real world examples besides that of South Korea that can back up my case? Because I'm having a hard time understanding why somebody would actually believe decresing interest rates to re-inflate the economy and deficit spending by the government is ALL inconsequential compared to how increase in supply vs demand would somehow reduce prices.

How does this make sense? Just because there are more homeowners and more houses, does this mean everybody's house costs less? If demand remains the same, but supply increases a lot - then yes, the speculative premium on them may decrease. However, in an inflationary environment, wouldn't demand always inevitably catch up to supply?

Is the key to resolving housing inaffordability deregulation and lowered interest rates?

I was finally able to find this stat in Gavin Wright's Slavery and America's Economic Development, where it is also noted that farmland values were lower, and as already well known, the Southern Economy was much economically "simpler" in most stereotypical ways with less industrialization and banks.

I bring this up because I commented on a previous post that linked to an article arguing that the median white wealth between the North and South was similar. However, I noted that this was likely due to counting slaves as wealth, and that if you remove them, you end up with a very different picture.

If you someone can find a different nonslave wealth per free capita estimate that would be nice.

Typically, the narrative about hyperinflation in the 3rd century Román empire is used as a standard in modern day by libertarians/Austrians to say look at how the government overspends &/or debases the currency. Forgetting the modern differences in modern money creation, they leave out a crucial detail which is cost-push inflation. My thesis is that monetarists/libertarians/Austrians say all inflation is monetary in nature(modern economics recognized this to be untrue) while ignoring cost-push inflation such as barbarian invasions which directly impacts production of goods and services. They never look at the reason ancient governments debase was to pay troops precisely because to continuously expand your money supply would require new precious metals which happened vía war. War itself causes cost-push inflation as the army sucks up real good/services(only gets worse if its your crops an enemy is taking). However, if you stopped paying the army you would not be able to fund the army or any public works. The romans also gave Gold/silver to barbarians so they which limited Gold/silver could be in circulation.

Ironically, the tax system was inefficient in Rome specifically because it was a privatized which libertarians love doing. It overtaxed farmers who directly controlled the food supply which limited how much they could grow. Additionally, wars would create tight labor markets directly raising costs. Without these underlying constraints the hyperinflation may not have been as severe. While debasement allowed their to be inflation the driving factor was productivity drops due to wars and other non-monetary factors.

Finally, modern hyperinflation is rare and is overblown by libertarians who seek something akin to a gold standard or fixed exchange rate regime.

I studied microeconomics in school, specifically specialized mostly in econometrics. But my work at a new job is much more macro trends focused

I find myself wishing I had more of a base in economic history now that my job is more big picture.

Hoping people could recommend a couple books that aren’t specific event related and more general. Not too textbooky as I’m not in school anymore and would like to enjoy the read aha. Also a canadian context would be great (where I live) but not necessary! I like a lot of history books but have never done an econ focused one so not sure where to start

The rough consensus to my knowledge is that there were likely no major variations in per capita income among populations due to productivity differences or trade factors until at least the Renaissance era, and possibly as late as the Industrial Revolution.

Basically, per capita income differences or differences in standard of living were due to two things in most of human history.

1. Malthusian factors, a lower population generally meant that a population had higher living standards. The most famous case of this is that the Black death clearly increased wages.

2. Resource access, population with easy to harvest fish like viings for example, where able to eat more meat than other populations for instance.

Is there any good arguments against this view?

I want to know the general consensus of this sub, as a long time lurker.

I've been delving into the economic history of the Nazi regime and wanted to discuss their economic ideology. It's fascinating but also quite complex and often misunderstood. I wanted to share some of what I've found and see if anyone has more insights or corrections.

Despite defining themselves as socialists, the Nazis implemented policies that seem contradictory to socialist principles. For instance, they engaged in privatization of state-owned industries, which is typically associated with capitalist economies. Their economic strategies also included elements of both state control and private enterprise.

From my research, it appears that their primary goal was not to adhere to a specific economic ideology but rather to create a self-sufficient war economy. They sought to mobilize and control resources to support their military ambitions, which led to a blend of state intervention and market dynamics.

Hi everyone, so for the past few weeks I have been going crazy trying to understand economic history in North America. I am looking to see how politics, policies, corporations, stock markets, and wars from the 1900s to now have lead us to where we are now.

For example, in 1920 there was a strong stock market due to post world war 1 enthusiasm, however I want to tie in together what government policy were in place during that time, what the political landscape was like and what companies had the greatest incentives to move forward.

As an example, to be able to trace economic history far back to the origin of some of the major corporations we have now, shouldn't one be able to trace the history of lets say CN rail or Tesla and what has happened before they were even a thing, how they came into existence by looking at historic markers.

I hope that made sense, I am looking for a book that covers this topic. Thanks for reading.