Upon agreeing to serve on the panel, my first impulse was to gather data on trends in economic history research—information on topics and methods, geographic areas studied, co-authorship rates and networks, and so on. From such data, one might hope to project a plausible course for the field, perhaps suggesting deviations from trend due to certain innovations or policy imperatives. That seemed like a suitably sober approach on the occasion of the Economic History Association's 75^th anniversary. Yet I was also reminded that writers of science fiction are sometimes the best “imaginers” of the future precisely because they give themselves more freedom to leap ahead without connecting all the technological dots, let alone projecting directly from historical trends.Footnote ¹

I decided to seek a middle ground where there is a wide scope for imagining the future but ongoing technological trends and fundamental scholarly values anchor the discussion. I consider both positive and normative questions about the future: What will economic historians do, and what should economic historians do? Although I do not attempt to sketch an agenda for future research projects, I do highlight some exciting possibilities.

As a point of departure on the positive question, I note some aspects of the here-and-now that are likely to influence research in economic history for years to come. Some forces operate on the supply-side of scholarship, and others are on the demand-side. On the supply side, the scope of what is known and knowable about the past is widening rapidly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In part, this is because improving technology allows us to convert archival information into digital form faster and less expensively than ever before. Economic history is intensive in the use of such inputs and, therefore, is strongly affected by the shift in their supply. Improved technology also allows us to visualize information, knit together complementary datasets, and perform calculations in ways that were prohibitively costly or computationally difficult just ten years ago. These developments free us to answer old questions with new clarity (sometimes) and to marshal new kinds of evidence, as discussed below.

I recognize that my first observation about “the future” is not at all going out on a limb. The evidence of supply-side advances is all around us—it is apparent in many of the papers presented at the EHA meetings this year. Moreover, someone in my position might have made a similar observation 50 years ago as computing power rapidly advanced and census micro data first became available for analysis. But I start here because the importance of supply-side advances in data collection and analysis simply cannot be ignored. Even with Moore's Law in mind circa 1965 or 1995, one would have had a hard time imagining how low-cost digital imaging, the Internet, large-scale transcription efforts through outsourcing and crowdsourcing, and powerful desktop and cluster computers would change the nature and indeed the possibilities of work in economic history.

Such advances can and will support innovative research. One possibility derives from our ability to use names and other identifying information to link people (or firms) across multiple data sources: censuses, vital statistics records, city directories, military records, employment records, ship manifests, telephone books, legal records, tax records, and so on. Of course, economic historians have done record linkage across multiple sources for decades and to great effect (e.g., see Parker and Gallman Reference Parker and Gallman1991; Fogel and Wimmer Reference Fogel and Wimmer1992). Yet the rapid decline in cost, increase in speed, and expansion of computer-searchable information is strongly influencing research right now and will do so for many years to come. A second possibility derives from our ability to spatially locate people and things, sometimes with amazing precision. As Jeremy Atack (Reference Atack2013) pointed out in his presidential address, Geographic Information System (GIS) technology is enhancing our ability to visualize and analyze space, distance, and networks. This is valuable for students of trade, migration, transportation, and cities. My sense is that we have only just begun to exploit these possibilities. From here, even incremental improvements in technology, methodological standards, and data access, as they combine and recombine, will have a large cumulative effect on the stock of knowledge in economic history.

Advances in data collection and analysis should also help us see for the first time fundamental facts about times, places, and populations that have been underrepresented in Cliometric scholarship to date. For instance, it is exciting to see that two full sessions (out of 16) at the EHA meetings are dedicated to studies of African economic history. Primary sources do not come to light by themselves, and I do not want to over-stress the role of technology in extending the reach of economic history, as if it were somehow automatic. The initiative of individual scholars and teams of scholars is paramount. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of attending an inaugural celebration for the Laboratory for the Economics of Africa's Past (LEAP) at Stellenbosch University in South Africa.Footnote ² This is an example of how a dedicated research initiative, with some resources behind it, can foster economic history research in understudied areas. In a separate development, during my time editing Explorations in Economic History, I noticed a stronger flow of empirically novel economic history research on China, with contributions from many different scholars. This is likely to continue growing given the importance of the subject and the number of students with Chinese language skills in economics Ph.D. programs. My point is simply that new technologies facilitate the extension of quantitative economic history by lowering the cost of data collection.

A second important supply-side factor is related to the first, but distinct. “History” increasingly encompasses eras that are rich in official data collection and digitization. Imagine how massive twentieth-century administrative datasets will enhance economic history if and when we are allowed easier access to the information. Just one idea that comes to mind for the United States is to study micro-level Social Security Administration earnings records to better understand women's transitions into and out of the labor market from the 1940s onward, especially if the earnings records could be matched to vital statistics, spousal earnings records, and other household information.

A corollary of the forward extension of history is the widening of common ground for the research of economic historians, other economists, and historians, all of whom readily recognize the importance of postwar events and gain from the interchange of ideas, information, and techniques. Work on the American Civil Rights Movement and War on Poverty immediately comes to mind. Seventeen years ago, Gavin Wright argued in his presidential address to the Association that economic historians should take on board the post-WWII period as history (Wright Reference Wright1999). That task is most certainly underway. The latest report of the editors of the Journal of Economic History notes that the number of papers on twentieth-century topics has surpassed the number of papers on nineteenth-century topics. I expect this will continue, and it is entirely possible that within a few decades, papers on post-1940 topics will surpass papers on earlier periods in the JEH. Time flies.

Let me add three caveats. First, mastering new data-related technologies takes time, and yet economic historians must continue to invest in mastering economic theory, econometrics, and history. Without that grounding, we are blind when it comes to interpreting data, and it is difficult to articulate the data's value to economics and history. Second, some historical settings will never be “data rich,” and yet they are undeniably important to economic history. We must remain open to scholarship that cannot muster mountains of quantitative evidence but that can combine economic theory, history, and perhaps fragmentary quantitative or qualitative perspectives to shed light on important questions. My concern here is that tastes in research may be endogenous to trends in research methods. As data-rich research becomes the norm in economic history, other kinds of work could be underappreciated. Third, I suspect that data resources will expand unevenly and will, on average, favor scholars who work on developed economies. Think of the collaboration between the Minnesota Population Center and Ancestry in the rapid transcription and dissemination of the entire U.S. Census of Population for 1940, with support from federal funding agencies. Such a shift in the relative supply of inputs might tend to draw new economic historians into work on developed economies, even if we think the social returns to research on other places should be high. This leads me to some demand-side considerations that might have a countervailing influence.

Although trends in history departments have worked against economic history in recent decades, trends in economics have been more favorable. The resurgence of development economics, for instance, where major themes and questions often overlap those in economic history, is notable and positive. Economic history and development inform one another. Scholars can look across the subfield boundary and see some close intellectual cousins on the other side. We share a deep interest in the origins of prosperity, the persistence of poverty, and the roles of markets, policies, and conflict in improving or destroying welfare. Although economic historians cannot run the kind of randomized field experiments that are now common in development, history offers long-run perspective on development processes that may take generations to unfold. At the same time, development economics may yield general insights into the behavior of the poor that can help economic historians better understand the plight of populations that we must study from a distance. For example, see Anandi Mani et al. (Reference Mani, Mullainathan and Shafir2013) on how scarcity affects the cognitive function of the poor. So, the rise of development economics might pull more economic historians into working on developing countries or more development economists into working on historical topics. Increasing the number of economics students from developing countries at universities with strong economic history programs might also increase research on the economic history of developing countries.

Also on the demand side, I expect that complementarities between economic history and demography, health, and environmental economics will strengthen in years ahead, facilitated in part by the expansion of digitized historical population and climate records. A new era of globalization has already raised interest in the rise and fall of previous eras of international integration and immigration (O'Rourke and Williamson Reference O'Rourke and Williamson1999; Hatton and Williamson Reference Hatton and Williamson1998). Long-run trends in inequality are now the subject of intense academic inquiry and political discussion (Piketty Reference Piketty2013). Finally, silver linings to the recent financial crisis were a rekindling of macro, financial, and public economists' interest in history and recognition at the highest levels of government that an historical perspective is valuable (Romer Reference Romer2009; Bernanke Reference Bernanke2010). Space does not allow much elaboration on this theme, but it is notable that along many frontiers of research and policy debate in economics, the historical record and its interpretation are of central importance.

The combination of supply and demand shifts described above should ensure that the quantity and quality of economic history increase in the future. Along with this, as alluded to earlier, I believe that the boundaries of economic history, which have always been permeable, will grow less distinct. More scholars will move back and forth from historical topics to contemporary ones. This does not mean that deep historical knowledge will be less important or easy to come by, only that the continuity and accessibility of data will invite entry, as will a rising tide of general interest in the historical record.

Whether or not such scholars will consider themselves card-carrying economic historians is immaterial. I suggest that we should be open and encourage them to attend economic history conferences, visit our seminars, submit papers to economic history journals, and read more deeply in economic history. At the very least, our engagement with scholars who nominally specialize in other fields will improve the economic history that they write and disseminate. It may also improve the economic history that we write by ensuring our exposure to state-of-the-art methods and theory. In the best-case scenario, our engagement will generally increase the influence of historical perspective in economics. This is important because economics that is detached from historical knowledge is still powerful and influential in intellectual and policy circles, but it can be misleading and counterproductive. It may be short sighted, mischaracterize the past, and fall prey to historical fictions and false comparisons.Footnote ³ The key point is that the past does have useful economics (McCloskey Reference McCloskey1976), and we should encourage other economists to explore it.

This leads me to the normative question: What should economic historians be doing? I do not presume to know. I have always followed my research interests and hoped that others would find the product interesting enough to read. But in the spirit of the charge given to the panel, I will venture forth.

My earlier remarks implicitly reveal several things I think we should welcome and, if necessary, actively encourage: extending the frontiers of research to under-represented areas and populations; deepening research in areas where fantastic datasets can be built and brought to bear on significant questions; remembering that even settings without deep quantitative records are essential to economic history and deserve our attention; and engaging scholars who are writing economic history even if they do not call themselves economic historians. We should also nurture connections to historians and other social scientists. Even for those of us who write primarily for audiences of economists, our conversations with historians, anthropologists, political scientists, and other scholars are valuable and informative. In particular, historians often have a deep knowledge of context, institutions, and primary sources. Thus, they may see pitfalls of misinterpretation and oversimplification, as well as opportunities to enrich our research with additional sources and perspectives.

To go deeper into the normative question, a useful starting point is to think about our responsibilities as scholars, specifically as economic historians and members of the EHA. The purpose of the EHA, according to its bylaws, is to “encourage and promote teaching, research, and publication on every phase of economic history…and the preservation and administration of the materials for research in such areas.” We seek to illuminate and understand the development of the world's economy. We attempt to transmit that understanding to our students, to each other, and to scholars outside economic history. There is always more to be done, as I previously emphasized. But I believe we are on a good path, and I am encouraged by the work of younger scholars in the field. Of course, we should continue to advance the Association's fundamental goals. I emphasize that this includes teaching, mentoring, and supporting the next generation of scholars, which takes time and resources.

Looking beyond the academy's walls, teaching and writing economic history is an important responsibility because beliefs about history are a powerful force in society even when they are latent. By extension, engagement in public discourse about economic history and its implications for policy is also an important responsibility. We should attempt to inform those discussions when opportunities arise. Perhaps—and I leave this for the reader's consideration—we should be even more proactive in our public engagement and service. It is true that even within the community of economic historians we do not have consensus on many important points. But at the very least, in such discussions we might serve as informed arbiters of the evidence and state of knowledge in the field.