Video summary
Emma Rothschild argues that economics and history are fundamentally inseparable disciplines, advocating for an environment where scholars from different fields can engage in dialogue about the world's most pressing issues using a shared language. She recounts her own journey as a graduate student who shifted focus to economic history after covering the 1968 US presidential campaign, which led her to study the American automobile industry and its environmental challenges during the energy crises of the early 1970s. Her work evolved into writing about climate change through micro-histories that examine specific sites of greenhouse gas emissions, such as coal mines in Wyoming, demonstrating how understanding local causes makes global problems more manageable and actionable for affected communities rather than viewing them as an overwhelming, insurmountable force.
Rothschild challenges common misconceptions by rejecting the equation of Adam Smith with unchecked capitalism or solely as a cause of climate change, noting that Smith was actually a sharp critic of early commercial society's political corruption and environmental neglect. She points out that severe methane emissions also occurred in former Soviet territories under planned economies, illustrating that disregard for nature has been a characteristic of both capitalist and state-controlled systems throughout history. Furthermore, she emphasizes the importance of breaking down complex global issues like climate change into understandable micro-stories to foster hope and action, a pedagogical approach reflected in her Harvard course where students explore diverse topics ranging from local histories to large scientific theories without feeling that these problems are unsolvable.
The Center for History and Economics was established with the primary goal of creating a space for mutual respect between historians and economists who often lacked a common technical language to discuss matters of public importance. Since its inception, the center has successfully facilitated collaborations that have led many fellows to join economics faculties at institutions like Harvard and MIT without compromising their economic rigor or gaining any negative reputation from interdisciplinary work. This cross-pollination is particularly vital in an era marked by nationalism and political instability, as it encourages economists across the ideological spectrum—from those associated with James Buchanan to others—to incorporate historical context into their analysis of current events and future challenges.
Ultimately, Rothschild believes that this renewed interest in history represents a positive development for economics rather than a distraction, especially given the empirical turn toward evidence-based data which is essentially recorded history. She highlights how students today are increasingly choosing dual concentrations in fields like history and economics or political science and history because they seek to understand the rapid changes driven by events such as pandemics and financial crises. By fostering exchanges between disciplines that utilize diverse forms of data, she concludes that we are currently living in an excellent time for economists who can leverage historical insights alongside modern analytical tools to address the complex uncertainties facing our world.
Read the full video transcript
I don't think we wanted to say to
economists you should do a different
kind of economics or you should become
economic historians. We said we would
like you to have an environment in which
you can talk to other people um from
different disciplines about um the great
issues of the world and finding a common
language and that's worked out. I mean
they it certainly hasn't hurt. I'm Emma
Rothschild. I'm a professor of history
here at Harvard and I'm the director of
the center for history and economics
which is also at SPO in Paris and at
Mlin College Cambridge. When I was a
student, a graduate student in economics
at MIT, I was offered a short-term job
by the London Sunday Times who were
covering the 1968 presidential campaign.
And um they had the idea of that the
right thing to do with a inexperienced
19-year-old English girl was to send her
to Michigan to cover the George Wallace
campaign. So I it was really interesting
and I I got very fascinated by the
history of the um American automobile
industry which was um suffering
real problems at the time. Initially to
do with safety and environmental
pollution concerns, then to do with um
concerns about energy shortages in the
early '7s. So I started to write a book.
Um it it was really the PhD dissertation
that I didn't write in economic history
about the 20th century development of
the US automobile industry and it
happened to appear the very day of the
oil embargo in the fall of 1973. So it
got more attention than a semiacademic
semi public book would have done. And
I've continued to be very interested in
energy, environment, and now in climate.
In the over the course of the 1970s and
1980s, I wrote a lot for the New York
Review of Books about energy and
environment. And at the moment, one of
the projects that we're very excited
about at the Joint Center for History
and Economics has to do with um in fact
micro histories of climate change
because we're looking at sites of very
large emissions of greenhouse gases, in
particular of methane, and trying to
explore them from the perspective of
particular places I've worked on a micro
history of um particular uh set of mines
in Wyoming which from space one can see
are producing a lot of methane. I was
asking the question why is there so much
um uh methane there and the history goes
back really hundred years and it's a
it's an interesting story and also in a
way a hopeful story because uh uh if you
know where the causes of climate change
are coming from in a particular place,
it makes it more feasible to do
something about it. and not least
because the lives of people living there
are affected in multiple ways by these
forms of environmental pollution. If you
think of it as something global and all
enveloping um you know that one of the
metaphors that's used is a duvet
covering the world. Well, what can I as
an individual do about something so
large? And um I I think if one divides
an understanding of the causes of
climate change and also of the
consequences of climate change into more
understandable
micro stories that there is some
possibility of changing what seems to be
such an inexurable tendency. These ideas
about the micro and the macro in
relation to climate change have for me
been very much influenced by my own
teaching because I teach a course um at
Harvard called writing histories of
climate change which was developed with
um my one of my closest colleagues who's
a professor of economics also a
professor of the history of science
specializing on the history of coal
mining in China another professor who's
also a China specialist and and it's
been a really interesting class to
teach. The students write every week
something sometimes about the places
they grew up in, sometimes about large
scientific theories. I hope that the
students at the end of the class don't
feel that this is a problem that can't
be solved. students are much more open
to exploring different disciplines. One
of the very interesting things that's
happened at Harvard is that
undergraduates are putting together what
they call double or dual concentrations.
And one of the most popular of those is
history and economics. There's also um
uh government or political science and
history. And I think this is partly
because this current generation have
been so buffeted by changes in the
world. I mean COVID of course the period
of of isolation but also the the earlier
financial crisis which in affected so
many people's families and uh
uncertainty about the the future of the
world and uncertainty about climate
change which nobody who's growing up in
America or Western Europe is unaware of
really because of the the the the news
all around us. So I think it's actually
very positive that that students in a
way are are voting with their feet for
for a a more diverse curriculum that
goes across different subjects. I was so
exasperated by the equation of Adam
Smith equals capitalism and capitalism
equals the causes of climate change. I
think both of those are not huge
oversimplifications. They're just huge
falsifications.
When Adam Smith's 300th birth
anniversary came along, I really wanted
to do what I could as someone who
studied Adam Smith for so long to to
question both both of those pseudo
equations. I mean Smith himself was very
very interested in material life, in
mineral resources, in many of his
friends were very aware of environmental
consequ what we would call environmental
consequences of of early industry. But
but Smith was a biting critic of many
forms of of um early commercial society
and in particular of the influence of of
they weren't then called capitalists but
but um merchants and and masters and
manufacturers to use his terms on
politics. He was an extremely perceptive
um observer of the extent to which um
rich people used their money to buy
political influence and political
influence consisted in getting economic
regulations which favored their own
their own businesses. And I think he he
analyzed that process very very vividly
in relation to restrictions on
international trade. So Smith is a very
contemporary figure um to me in relation
to the the sort of equation of
capitalism and the causes of climate
change. Well, that that's also
a something between a sort of
simplification and a falsification
because the causes of climate change
correspond with the rise of capitalism.
But if you on the our map of 1800
histories of methane emissions, there's
an enormous arc of ultra emission sites
that go right across the territory of
the former Soviet Union. Um, and this is
uh um the the lack of of um concern for
living things and the natural world was
a characteristic of of both capitalist
and planned societies over a very long
period of time. and and both of those
societies made tremendous
um improvements in the material
conditions of life but at what we now
know to be a very grave cost. The center
of history and economics started on a
tiny scale at the University of
Cambridge more than 30 years ago. Our
hope has always been that um it would be
a space where historians and economists
and other people in related fields could
actually have conversations on the basis
of mutual respect for each other's
scholarship. I don't think we had an
agenda other than that just making it
possible to have real exchanges about
important issues. I think we also were
very aware going back to the start of
the center that both historians and
economists wanted to talk about large
issues of great public importance but
didn't really have a language in which
to do it. a non-technical language. So I
think we've tried to um partly through
encouraging historians to talk to
economists and economists to talk to
historians, we've tried to help both
sets of of of um intellectual
communities to talk to a larger larger
audience. We've existed at Harvard um
since 2007. We've had very close um
collaboration with MIT since 2007.
And uh one of the things I'm most
delighted about is how many of the
people who've come to Harvard through
the center um through our fellowship
programs and other grants are actually
now on the faculty in economics both
here at um at Harvard and at MIT. I
don't think we wanted to say to
economists you should do a different
kind of economics or you should become
economic historians. We said we would
like you to have an environment in which
you can talk to other people um from
different disciplines about um the great
issues of the world and finding a common
language and that's worked out. I mean
they it certainly hasn't hurt four
people or five people who are now on the
Harvard and MIT economics faculties
who've passed through our center. Um
they they weren't called bad economists
because they'd been in a program with
historians. It was rather the opposite.
And and I think that's been great. And
that was in a different way. That was
one of the things that was really
terrific about the history project in
which we were able to sort of reach out
to I think almost 200 quite young
scholars um graduate students mostly
from almost 20 countries 21 countries
through that small grant program and
through the through the workshops for
for students where they presented work
in a atmosphere that was open to
different kinds of perspectives and I
think it's something that's that people
are are really appreciating now when
there is concern about nationalism and
the and large changes in political
systems in almost every country of the
world. So I I think this is a time when
economists and political scientists want
to think about history and it's good to
have a a language in which to do so.
Economists
are like everybody looking for
experience on the basis um of which to
try to understand the changes that are
happening and the changes that are
likely to happen in the in in the
future. I don't think the interest in
history is going to go away. In many
ways actually there are um there are
economists who've more traditionally
been thought of as on the right who have
been particularly open to thinking about
history. I mean because I'm an Adam
Smith um scholar. I've had quite a lot
to do with economists who I greatly
respect um um associated with with the
late James Buchanan and the centers in
Virginia and and scholars there are
really interested in history not just
the history of economic thought but um
but legal history and political history.
Um actually there was in the uh first
Trump administration there was a very
senior economist who who I taught who
has two PhDs one in economics and one in
history and I think that double
background helped him a lot in thinking
about the very serious challenges that
the United States faced at the time of
the COVID crisis. I don't think the
interest in history is um is left or
right just as I don't think Adam Smith
should be should belong to the left or
the right. Um this is a way of making
sense of the extremely challenging world
in which we live. It's a great time to
be doing economics. I mean students
interested in economics come to me all
the time. I have a lot of econ students
in my class. I have quite a few climate
science students in my classes. But this
is a great time to be an economist. The
impirical turn, the turn towards
evidence and thinking about what can be
done with data, the plurality of data
that's available has has made it a
fantastic time to be a young economist.
And data is history. The exchanges
between historians and economists are
also um uh at a very good moment.