Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:46:49.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Economic History: An Interim Evaluation Past Trends and Present Tendencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Albert Fishlow  and
Robert W. Fogel
Albert Fishlow
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Robert W. Fogel
Affiliation:
Universities of Chicago and Rochester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Few recent intellectual currents have been so self-consciously controversial as the New Economic History. It has been a rare meeting patronized by historians or economists that has not featured a discussion of the merits and defects of applying theoretical and quantitative constructs to historical problems. This occasion is obviously no exception. Yet milestones must be respected, and on this thirtieth anniversary, a review of the profitability, if not the viability, of the new techniques being applied to economic history seems very much in order.

Type
Economic History: Retrospect and Prospect. Papers Presented at the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 15 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the extensive bibliography through 1968 cited by Taylor, George Rogers in his compilation, American Economic History Before 1860 (New York: Appleton — Century—Crofts, 1969), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; also the papers and bibliography in Andreano, Ralph L., editor, The New Economic History (New York: Wiley, 1970)Google Scholar. To these should be added the relevant portions of the presidential address of Gerschenkron, Alexander, “The Discipline and I,” The Journal of Economic History, XXVII (Dec. 1967), pp. 443–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar, the initial section of the forthcoming proceedings of 1968 International Congress of Economic History, and the article by Gould, J. D., “Hypothetical History,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XXLL (Aug. 1969), pp. 195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Fishlow, Albert, American Railroads and the Transformation of the Ante-Bellum Economy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Fogel, Robert W., Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

3 Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, Vol. 24, Studies in Income and Wealth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Output, Employment and Productivity in the United States after 1800, Vol. 30, Studies in Income and Wealth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

4 Sturm, James, in book review, The Journal of Economic History, XXX (June 1970), p. 473CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Rostow, Walt W., The Stages of Economic Growth (Cambridge, England, 1960)Google Scholar, and earlier in “The Take-off into Self-Sustained Growth,” Economic Journal, LXVI (March 1956), pp. 25–48Google Scholar.

6 “The Growth of Real Product in the United States Before 1840: New Evidence, Controlled Conjectures,” The Journal of Economic History, XXVII (June 1967), pp. 151–197Google Scholar.

7 “Did the Civil War Retard Industrialization,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVIII (Sept. 1961), pp. 197–210Google Scholar.

8 Gilchrist, David T. and Lewis, W. David, editors, Economic Change in the Civil War Era (Greenville, Del.: Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation, 1965)Google Scholar; Engerman, Stanley, “The Economic Impact of the Civil War,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 2nd ser., III, 3 (1966), pp. 176–199Google Scholar.

9 See Gallman's data in Output, Employment and Productivity, p. 11.

10 See the various contributions of Lance Davis, among which may be cited “Sources of Industrial Finance: The American Textile Industry: A Case Study,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, IX (1957), pp. 189–203Google Scholar; “New England Textile Mills and the Capital Markets: A Study in Industrial Borrowing, 1840–1960,” The Journal of Economic History, XX (March 1960), pp. 1–30Google Scholar.

11 Fishlow, A., “The Common School Revival: Fact or Fancy?” in Rosovsky, H., editor, Industrialisation in Two Systems (New York: Wiley, 1966), p. 46Google Scholar.

12 See Fishlow, American Railroads, chs. iii, vi; Fogel, Railroads, ch. iv.

13 For a recent restatement see Goodrich, Carter, “Internal Improvements Reconsidered,” The Journal of Economic History XXX (June 1970), pp. 289–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 The Economic Growth of the United States (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961)Google Scholar.

15 See Parker, William N., editor, The Structure of the Cotton Economy of the Antebellum South (Washington: Agricultural History Society, 1970)Google Scholar, essays by Gallman, Battalio and Kagel, and Linstrom, for recent findings and references to the earlier literature.

16 Gavin Wright, “‘Economic Democracy’ and the Concentration of Agricultural Wealth in the Cotton South, 1850–1860,” in Parker, editor, Structure of the Cotton Economy.

17 Gallman, Robert E., “Trends in the Size Distribution of Wealth in the Nineteenth Century: Some Speculations” in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 33 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

18 These comparisons are derived by comparing the value of cotton production (Gallman, Trends in the American Economy, p. 46) with the Gross National Product (Gallman, Output, Employment and Productivity, p. 26); with the sum of imports plus exports, (North, Economic Growth, pp. 233–234) plus the consumption of western products in North and South, and southern products in North and West (Fishlow, , “Ante-bellum Interregional Trade Reconsidered,” American Economic Review, LIV (May 1964), p. 360)Google Scholar; and with the sum of gross value added (Gallman, Trends, p. 43). Since both intra-regional trade in one case, and commercial agriculture in the other, are excluded, these magnitudes are overestimates.

19 See the review of the literature in Engerman, Stanley, “The Effects of Slavery upon the Southern Economy: A Review of the Recent Debate,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 2nd ser., IV (1967), pp. 71–97Google Scholar, and also William Parker, “Slavery and Southern Development: An Hypothesis and Some Evidence,” in Parker, editor, Structure of the Cotton Economy and the comments of Engerman and Genovese.

20 See the excellent review and references to be found in Abramovitz, Moses, “The Passing of the Kuznets Cycle,” Economica, XXXV (Nov. 1968), pp. 349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Friedman, Milton and Schwartz, Anna, A Monetary History of the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

22 Ibid., p. 10.

23 See Macesich, George, “Sources of Monetary Disturbances in the United States, 1834–1845,” The Journal of Economic History, XX (Sept. 1960), pp. 407–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williamson, Jeffrey S. “International Trade and United States Economic Development: 1827–1843,” The Journal of Economic History, XXI (Sept. 1961), pp. 372–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and reply by Macesich, pp. 384–85; Timberlake, Richard H. Jr. “The Specie Circular and the Distribution of tne Surplus,” Journal of Political Economy, LXVIII (April 1960), pp. 109–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the most comprehensive synthesis in Temin, Peter, The Jacksonian Economy (New York: Norton, 1969)Google Scholar.

24 See, among others, A Fishlow, “Productivity and Technological Changes in the Railroad Sector, 1840–1910,” Output, Employment and Productivity; MacAvoy, Paul W., The Economic Effects of Regulation (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1965)Google Scholar; Paul David, “Learning by Doing and Tariff Protection,” Memorandum No. 91, Stanford Research Center in Economic Growth; Zevin, Robert B., “The Use of a ‘Long Run’ Learning Function,” Chicago Workshop in Economic History, Nov. 22, 1968;Google ScholarTemin, Peter, Iron and Steel in Nineteenth Century America (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1964)Google Scholar; William N. Parker and Judith L. V. Klein, “Productivity Growth in Grain Production in the United States, 1840–60 and 1900–10,” Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Output, Employment and Productivity; and David, P., “The Mechanization of Reaping in the Ante-bellum Midwest,” in Rosovsky, H., editor, Industrialization in Two Systems (New York, 1966)Google Scholar.

25 September 1–3, 1970.

26 The Congress was held in Leningrad from August 10–14, 1970.

27 The work in France is described in the paper presented by Francois Furet and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, “L'historien et l'ordinateur: Compte-rendu provisoire d'enquete.” Rapport collectif présenté par le Centre de Recherches Historiques de l'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Moscow: Editions “Naouka,” Direction de la litterature orientale, 1970).

28 See especially Kovalchenko, I. and Milov, L., “Methods of Studying the Process of the Formation of the Agricultural Commodities Market in the 18th-20th Centuries,” (Moscow: Aug. 1970)Google Scholar, and Kahk, Yu., “Some Examples of Using Computer Analysis for Solving Problems of the Socio-Economic Development of Estonia in the First Half of the 19th Century,” (Moscow: “Nauka” Publishing House, Central Department of Oriental Literature, 1970)Google Scholar.

29 Jones, Alice H., “Wealth Estimates for the American Middle Colonies, 1774,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 18, No. 4 Pt. 2 (July 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Henretta, James, “Economic Development arid Social Structure in Boston,” William and Mary Quarterly, 22 (Jan. 1965), pp. 75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Ashley, W. J., Surveys, Historic and Economic (London: Longman, Green and Co., 1900), p. 24Google Scholar.

31 Callender, Guy S., “The Position of American Economic History,” American Historical Review, XIX (Oct. 1913), p. 88Google Scholar.

32 Budd, Edward C., “Factor Shares, 1850–1910,” in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 24 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

33 Foust, James D., The Yeoman Farmer and Westward Expansion of U.S. Cotton Production (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina, 1967)Google Scholar; Wright, Gavin, “Economic Democracy and the Concentration of Agricultural Wealth in the Cotton South, 1850–1860,” Agricultural History, XLIV (Jan. 1970), pp. 63–93Google Scholar.

34 Gallman, Robert E., “Trends in the Size Distribution of Wealth in the Nineteenth Century: Some Speculations,” in Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 33 (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1969)Google Scholar; Soltow, Lee, “Age and Color in a Century of Personal Wealth Accumulation,”(unpublished paper presented to the Workshop in Economic History, University of Chicago, Feb. 7, 1969).Google Scholar

35 Jones, “Wealth Estimates …”

36 Henretta; “Economic Development…”.

37 Bogue, Allan G. and Bogue, Margaret B., “‘Profits’ and the Frontier Land Speculator,” The Journal of Economic History XVII (Mar. 1957)Google Scholar; Bogue, Allan G., From Prairie to Combelt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Swierenga, Robert P., Pioneers and Profits: Land Speculation:on the Iowa Frontier (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

38 “Primary Products and Economic Growth: An Empirical Measurement,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXIV (Aug. 1966), pp. 315–32.Google Scholar

39 Caves, Richard E., “Export Led Growth and the New Economic History,” in Bhagwati, Jagdish et al. , Balance of Payments, Trade and Growth: Papers in International Economics in Honor of Charles P. Kindleberger (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

40 Pope, Clayne, “The Effect of the Antebellum Tariff on Income Distribution,”(unpublished paper presented to the Workshop in Economic History, University of Chicago, May 15, 1970)Google Scholar.

41 Passell, Peter and Schmundt, Maria, “Pre-Civil War Land Policy and the Growth of Manufacturing,”(unpublished paper presented to the Workshop in Economic History, University of Chicago, Jan. 9, 1970)Google Scholar.

42 Sjaastad, Larry A., “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration,” Journal of Political Economy, LXX (Supplement, Oct. 1962), pp. 80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vickery, William E., The Economics of Negro Migration, 1900–1960 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1969)Google Scholar; Hill, Peter J., The Economic Impact of Immigration into the United States (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar; Kelly, Allen C., “International Migration and Economic Growth, Australia: 1865–1935,” The Journal of Economic History, XXV (Sept. 1965), pp. 333–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easterlin, Richard A., “Influences in European Overseas Emigration before World War I,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 9 (April 1961), pp. 331–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Lee, Ronald, “Population Theory and Cycles in English Demographic History, 1250–1750,” (unpublished paper presented to the Workshop in Economic History, University of Chicago, April 3, 1970)Google Scholar; Sanderson, Warren, “The Fertility of American Women Since 1920,” The Journal of Economic History, XXX (March 1970), pp. 271–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Cf. Farley, Reynolds, “The Demographic Rates and Social Institutions of the Nineteenth-Century Negro Population: A Stable Population: Stable Population Analysis,” Demography, 2 (1965), pp. 386–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Domar, Evsey D., “The Causes of Slavery: or Serfdom: A Hypothesis,” The Journal of Economic History, XXX (March 1970), pp. 18–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lance Davis and Douglass C. North, “Institutional Change and American Economic Growth: A First Step Towards a Theory of Institutional Change,” Ibid., pp. 131–49.

46 North, Douglass C. and Thomas, Robert Paul, “An Economic Theory of the Growth of the Western World,” Economic History Review, XXIII (April 1970), pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Kramer, Gerald H. and Lepper, Susan J., “Congressional Elections,” (unpublished paper, Cowles Foundation, 1970)Google Scholar.

48 The neglect of this issue by cliometricians is nearly absolute. Of course the approach of econometric historians to the problem will probably be somewhat different than that taken by business historians. While there may be particular instances in which statistical methods might be of use in case studies, these methods are most suitable when applied to the behavior of large groups. Nevertheless, the ultimate objective of the new work will be the same as in the past: identification of the attributes of good entrepreneurship and of the circumstances most likely to produce it. This is a very tall order, one that has been extremely difficult to satisfy. How far econometric methods will be able to advance the issue remains to be seen. A start can be made by collecting data on the social and economic characteristics of businessmen who have been associated with various types of firms in order to determine which, if any, of these characteristics are systematically related to such variables as the rate of firm expansion, the speed of innovation, the responsiveness to changing market conditions, etc.