Archive for May 31st, 2013

What does economic history mean and the discipline of economic historian connote?

May 31, 2013

A brilliant interview of a brilliant econ historian – Barry Eichengreen .

He is asked this very important q on what econ history means and what do econ historians do?

This probably brings us back full circle. We started with the uses and misuses of economic history and we’ve been talking about economic history throughout the conversation. I think it might be helpful to hear your perspective on what economic history and economic historians are. Why not just an economist who works in history or a historian who works on topics of economics? What does the term “economic history” mean, and what does the professional discipline of economic historian connote to you?

Eichengreen: As the name suggests, one is neither fish nor fowl; neither economist nor historian. This makes the economic historian a trespasser in other people’s disciplines, to invoke the phrase coined by the late Albert Hirschman. Historians reason by induction while economists are deductive. Economists reason from theory while historians reason from a mass of facts. Economic historians do both. Economists are in the business of simplifying; their strategic instrument is the simplifying assumption. The role of the economic historian is to say “Not so fast, there’s context here. Your model leaves out important aspects of the problem, not only economic but social, political, and institutional aspects – creating the danger of providing a misleading guide to policy.”

Hmm…I actually don’t understand why econ historians are not given their due. They have such interesting things to share. Later on this..

Is the crisis another missed opportunity to reemphasize the importance of history?

Sniderman: Do you think that, in training PhD economists, there’s a missed opportunity to stress the value and usefulness of economic history? Over the years, economics has become increasingly quantitative and math-focused. From the nature of the discussion we’ve had, it is clear that you don’t approach economic history as sort of a side interest of “Let’s study the history of things,” but rather a disciplined way of integrating economic theory into the context of historical episodes. Is that way of thinking about economic history appreciated as much as it could be?

Eichengreen: I should emphasize that the opportunity is not entirely missed. Some top PhD programs require an economic history course of their PhD students, the University of California, Berkeley, being one. The best way of demonstrating the value of economic history to an economist, I would argue, is by doing economic history. So when we teach economic history to PhD students in economics in Berkeley, we don’t spend much time talking about the value of history. Instead, we teach articles and address problems, and leave it to the students, as it were, to figure how this style of work might be applied to this own research. For every self-identifying economic historian we produce, we have several PhD students who have a historical chapter, or a historical essay, or a historical aspect to their dissertations. That’s a measure of success.

Well Sir, it is mostly missed. How many depts have opened upto history. Look am not saying we don’t need to do quant side of things and let us replace it with econ history . My contention is there is equal need for history as well. We need researchers in both disciplines. And who said history does not do quant. If one does get reasonable data there is nothing better than using quant tools to figure histiry. It helps you know more and test the history and ascertain whether history known so far was a myth or a fact.

Further, the allegation that econ history only looks at past. The interview nicely begins with this remark by the interviewer Mark Sniderman of Cleveland Fed:

To some, the term “economic historian” conjures up images of an academic whose only interests lie deep in the past; an armchair scholar who holds forth on days long ago but has no insights about the present. Barry Eichengreen provides a useful corrective to that stereotype. For, as much as Eichengreen has studied episodes in economic history, he seems more attuned to connecting the past to the present. At the same time, he is mindful that “lessons” have a way of taking on lives of their own. What’s taken as given among economic historians today may be wholly rejected in the future.

Well I ahve never really understood this allegation. Do people who work in so called present/future have anything useful to say on economic events. For instance, how many could figure the current crisis? Most did not even know how to respond to the crisis. It was the work of econ hostorians which prevented a second depression. One can suely argue whether any better steps could be taken but knowhow of history clearly played an important part. Yes there is confusion over which side of history should one look at to resolve current events. But that means more research in history and not less.

As Prof says in the first q we need to draw the right lessons:

Sniderman: It’s an honor to talk with you. You’re here at this conference to discuss the uses and misuses of economic history. Can you give us an example of how people inaccurately apply lessons from the past to the recent financial crisis?

Eichengreen: The honor is mine.

Whenever I say “lessons,” please understand the word to be surrounded by quotation marks. My point is that “lessons” when drawn mechanically have considerable capacity to mislead. For example, one “lesson” from the literature on the Great Depression was how disruptive serious banking crises can be. That, in a nutshell, is why the Fed and its fellow regulators paid such close attention to the banking system in the run-up to the recent crisis. But that “lesson” of history was, in part, what allowed them to overlook what was happening in the shadow banking system, as our system of lightly regulated near-banks is known.

What did they miss it? One answer is that there was effectively no shadow banking system to speak of in the 1930s. We learned to pay close attention to what was going on in the banking system, narrowly defined. That bias may have been part of what led policymakers to miss what was going on in other parts of the financial system.

Another example, this one from Europe, is the “lesson” that there is necessarily such a thing as expansionary fiscal consolidation. Europeans, when arguing that such a thing exists, look to the experience of the Netherlands and Ireland in the 1980s, when those countries cut their budget deficits without experiencing extended recessions. Both countries were able to consolidate but continue to grow, leading contemporary observers to argue that the same should be true in Europe today. But reasoning from that historical case to today misleads because the circumstances at both the country and global level were very different. Ireland and the Netherlands were small. They were consolidating in a period when the world economy was growing. These facts allowed them to substitute external demand for domestic demand. In addition, unlike European countries today they had their own monetary policies, allowing them step down the exchange rate, enhancing the competitiveness of their exports at one fell swoop, and avoid extended recessions. But it does not follow from their experience that the same is necessarily possible today. Everyone in Europe is consolidating simultaneously. Most nations lack their own independent exchange rate and monetary policies. And the world economy is not growing robustly.

A third “lesson” of history capable equally of informing and misinforming policy would be the belief in Germany that hyperinflation is always and everywhere just around the corner. Whenever the European Central Bank does something unconventional, like its program of Outright Monetary Transactions, there are warnings in German press that this is about to unleash the hounds of inflation. This presumption reflects from the “lesson” of history, taught in German schools, that there is no such thing as a little inflation. It reflects the searing impact of the hyperinflation of the 1920s, in other words. From a distance, it’s interesting and more than a little peculiar that those textbooks fail to mention the high unemployment rate in the 1930s and how that also had highly damaging political and social consequences.

The larger question is whether it is productive to think in terms of “history lessons.” Economic theory has no lessons; instead, it simply offers a way of systematically structuring how we think about the world. The same is true of history.

Superb read. I so hope to see econ depts opening up to history and students applying as well..

How Bangalore uses speed-breakers instead of traffic lights..

May 31, 2013

Well, Mostly economics is trying to adjust to a new city – Bangalore – after living in Mumbai for a long time. The blogger had heard quite a bit about this garden/air-conditioned city and the weather is clearly a pleasant surprise.  The city does not stand to its garden city tag but is nice to see an Indian city which has some greenery left. For how long one does not know..

I was pretty curious observing Bangalore roads. A city which is expanding everyday as techies across the country come in, has really poor roads. As metro takes ages to build, people have to rely on roads. On roads, people use both private and public transport. Needless to say, private remains the preferred choice as buses are not reliable. That explains the traffic snarls on the roads and apart from its IT prowess B’lore has become infamous for its traffic issues.

I also noted that Bangalore does not have traffic signals at really important places. Interestingly, there are many speed breakers instead of traffic signals. (call them car breakers as they are really tall lumps which could break  the floor of the car). Come across a critical junction and most likely you see a lumpy car breaker and no traffic signal. Why should this be?

The roads are also cut across many places and that always halts traffic further as cars keep crissing and crossing. It is quite a challenge and one is never sure who will suddenly cross the lane from the other side. The right approach obviously is to minimise this and let people go further and take a U turn instead. But nit in Bangalore.

Mumbai is famous for its potholes but national media has been really kind to Bangalore. The holes here are actually blackholes as one is never sure whether his/her car would come back once it goes into any of the holes. The manholes on the roads are also open randomly and act as a car breaker as well.  Well, one understands the population pressure and how Bangalore was not ready to withstand the sudden surge. But why should roads be so poor

The focus of media and politicos remains on Mumbai and Delhi but not much attention is paid to Bangalore. It is a city which has been one of the main contributors in shifting India’s image from a sloppy elephant/country of snake charmers  to a IT/software powerhouse, clearly deserves a better deal.

Such poor roads is clearly such a spirit dampener. It gives a reality check to all those foreigners visiting Bangalore that India may have progressed on its software but hardware remains as bad as ever. Without proper hardware, software cannot continue the dream run forever as IT pros tell you. Talent does not wish to waste time navigating roads but work on improving products and services.

I mean it is not just roads but the complete lack of urban planning and one sees garbage all around. The city like many is crumbling not because of migrants but poor governance.

Urbanisation in India these days mean building tall elegant looking residential buildings (all costing Rs1 crore plus), fancy commercial complexes and shopping malls. One sees plenty of this in Bangalore too which is such a serious pity. No one realises that you need roads to reach these places..

The roads are also crowded with water tankers which rush to provide water all across Bangalore (though they drop half the water on their way). This is extremely worrisome as I am told city receive its fair share of rain. What is really going on?


%d bloggers like this: