30th Anniversary of the Patriation of the Canadian Constitution

17 04 2012

Today is the 30th anniversary of the “patriation” of the Canadian constitution from Britain, which meant that the British parliament would no longer have to rubber-stamp amendments to it. More significantly, a written bill of rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was inserted into Canada’s constitution at that time. Historian Matt Hayday has a blog post marking the anniversary.

Tonight, the Canadian TV channel TVO will broadcast an interview with former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about patriation.  This is how they are promoting the show:

“Could Canada have unilaterally declared independence in 1982 if Britain refused pass the new Canadian Constitution? Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says: yes.”

I’m not an expert in recent  Canadian political history. However, this strikes me as a really a stupid question, as there is no way that Britain would have refused to pass the required legislation had it been requested by Canada’s federal government, with or without the consent of some or all of the provincial governments. It was a pure formality.





Theory and Historians

17 04 2012

“Historians vs economists” is the title of a recent post on The Economist’s Buttonwood blog. The post was occasioned by a hostile review of Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty by Dominic Sandbrook in the Sunday Times. Acemoglu and Robinson are economists who apply the NIE to a wide range of historical societies. Dominic Sandbrook has a PhD in history. Judging by his review, Sandbrook objects to the efforts by Acemoglu and Robinson to apply a broad theory of social change to a wide range of societies. Sandbrook  broadens his attack to include Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel and Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. Diamond is a biologist and Pinker is a psychologist and both apply theories derived from their respective disciplines to the study of historical human societies. As the editor of the Buttonwood points out, Sandbrook appears to object to people who aren’t trained historians writing works of history.

Now I have a lot of respect for Sandbrook. Personally, I think that his decision to give up his academic post at the University of Sheffield and become a freelance historian took a lot of guts. It paid out in the end because he ended up publishing lots of high quality popular histories. However, I think that he is totally wrong about this particular point. Sandbrook is fundamentally hostile to the application of social theory to the craft of history. Sandbrook writes narrative histories of the recent past that are filled with great observational detail. It’s empirical history at its finest.

Sandbrook’s approach isn’t the only way to write good history. In fact, I believe that the best works of history are those that engage with theory and use the historical record to test the veracity of the various theories of society that other social scientists have developed. (I suppose my attitude stems from the fact I did my PhD in a history department that was located in a social science faculty). Where would the sub-disciplines of economic history, business history, and environmental history be without the application of theory?





Katherine Bygrave Howe on the Titanic Disaster and the Radio Industry

16 04 2012

Replica of Titanic's Radio Equipment

Katherine Bygrave Howe has published an interesting post on the Bloomberg business history blog (Echoes) on the impact of the Titanic disaster on the infant radio industry.

Katherine Bygrave Howe is a visiting lecturer in American studies at Cornell University.





What is the Value of a History Degree in the Labour Market?

14 04 2012

Let me rephrase this question to be more precise: What was the (Economic) Value of a History Degree to Someone in the UK Labour Market in between 2001 and 2011?

The short answer is that we don’t really know. However, statistics recently released by the UK’s ONS show that average hourly earnings for people who hold degrees in the “social studies” category are £16.33, whereas people with “humanities” degrees earn, on average, just  £14.63 per hour.  Given that history is described as a social science at some universities and a humanity at others, there are probably history graduates in both categories.

  Pounds
Degree subject studied Median hourly earnings
Medicine and dentistry 21.29
Mathematical sciences, engineering, technology and architecture 18.92
Physical or environmental sciences 17.74
Business 17.30
Education 16.97
Law 16.95
Social studies 16.33
Biological and agricultural sciences 15.83
Librarianship and languages 14.85
Medical related subjects 14.65
Humanities 14.63
Arts 12.06
All graduates 15.18
Non-graduates 8.92

It would be extremely interesting to see which types of history degrees produce the highest average incomes. To my knowledge, nobody has compared the value of history degrees from different universities. It wouldn’t be terribly risky to say that  people with history degrees from Oxford are going to do very well, on average. That goes pretty much without saying.  Moreover, people who graduate from universities in the most prosperous parts of the country (e.g., London) are going to have much higher nominal incomes than people with the same degree who live in an economically depressed area (e.g., Belfast).

To my mind, however, the really interesting data would involve comparing the earning power of history degrees from comparable institutions in similar regions of the country or even the same city. If you have two universities that are taking similar students and are sending their graduates to work in the same region with precisely the same degree, you would expect their graduates to be earning roughly the same. If one institution’s graduates are performing substantially better, however, it would be worthwhile to investigate what they are doing right and to see whether their techniques for adding value can be replicated elsewhere.


A report published in the United States in May 2011 concluded that: that history majors do the best in the humanities, and better than students in a majority of the other fields.

The odd thing about the US study is that it found that students with degrees in “United States history” earned more than students with degrees in just plain old “history.” That sounds completely counter-intuitive to me, as one of the benefits of  a historical education is exposure to different cultures, countries, etc and that people who a relatively cosmopolitan tend to do better in the labour market over the long term. (I didn’t know that you could do a degree in “US history”. Seems a bit overspecialized for an undergraduate degree).

You can read more about the US study here.

There are many reasons for doing a university degree. Not all of them are economic, but some are.  Personally, I think that history departments and departments in similar academic disciplines sometimes don’t think enough about how they can improve the economic prospects of their graduates. One strategy that occurs to me is that we might try encouraging our students to spend a term or a year at an overseas university. I don’t have any hard data to back me up, but I suspect that study abroad years for undergraduates probably do increase their lifetime earning power.

I wonder if my readers have other suggestions. Obviously there are limits as to how much we can change the historical curriculum to suit the changing whims of the job market, but there are probably ways we can modify historical education to increase the economic value of a degree.

Hat Tip to Tim Leunig for the data.





Visions of the Cashless Society in Science Fiction

13 04 2012

Bernardo Batiz-Lazo is Professor of Business History and Bank Management at Bangor University in Wales.  His research interests centre on the use technology in banking (e.g., the histories of the ATM, the debit card, and  direct payment technologies).

In a recent post on Bloomberg’s Echoes business history blog, Bernardo and his collaborators  Thomas Haigh and David Stearns noted that most of the classic works of science fiction (e.g., Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels of the 1950s) did not anticipate the displacement of cash by new payment technologies. The characters in these novels zipped around the galaxy in ships that exceeded the speed of light, but when they engaged in commercial transactions, they relied on coins and paper money.

As they point out,

Many technological innovations surfaced first in science fiction and then became a reality.Think of Jules Verne imagining a flight to the moon and long-range submarines decades before such things existed…but literature foresaw only limited advances in the way we exchange money. Capitalism was the default social organization of American science fiction, and few authors put much energy into imagining its future. By the 1940s, many had adopted the term “credit” as the universal name for future currencies, including Isaac Asimov in his two main strands of work (the far-future “Foundation” saga and the near-future “Robot” stories). Usually, however, “credit” functioned as a simple linguistic substitution for “dollar,” and one reads of credits being slapped onto counters, flung to parking attendants, drawn from pockets and the like.





Fifty years from now, there will be only ten institutions in the whole world that deliver higher education.

12 04 2012

“Fifty years from now, there will be only 10 institutions in the whole world that deliver higher education”.

That’s according to Sebastian Thrun, the Stanford Professor who founded Udacity, which puts high quality university classes online where they can be accessed for free.  His apparent reasoning is that if the best universities in the world put make content freely available, nobody will pay to attend local universities of variable quality.

An article in the current issue of Wired magazine explains Thrun’s initiative:

In late 2011, Stanford opened up three classes, including the artificial intelligence class taught by Thrun, to anyone with a web connection. Lectures can be watched online. Assignments identical to the ones done by regular fee-paying students who attend in person, are  autograded online each week. Stanford University won’t give credit to the 160,000 people who are currently taking the class, but at the end of the term, students who completed a course will get an official Statement of Accomplishment.

Thrun is a brilliant guy. He is an expert in the field of robotics and has been involved in Google’s effort to create a car that can drive itself. One can see why people flock to his classes.

Similarly, in the field of history, I can see why so many people choose to watch videos of Yale history professors giving lectures online via the Open Yale Initiative. I’ve watched some of these lectures and learned almost as much about pedagogy as about history.

If Google does manage to create a driverless car, this will mean unemployment for many truckers and taxi drivers. As a university lecturer, I hope that Thrun is wrong about there only being a handful of universities left in half a century.  We all know about the vaudeville actors whose livelihoods were destroyed by the invention of moving pictures.

Personally,  I’m not too worried about the threat of technological unemployment. I’m certain that Udacity, Open Yale, and other similar initiatives will push brick-and-mortar universities to raise their game. It may even cause some of the weaker universities to go under. But I don’t think that online learning is a substitute for face-to-face contact. Moreover, universities serve an important social function. They attract young people for two reasons: you can learn stuff there, and there are lots of other young people on campus.

Online learning can’t duplicate that.





A History of the Early American West

12 04 2012

I thought I would share this. I might use these videos for teaching next year.

In this mini-documentary, historian Darren R. Reid (University of Edinburgh) explores the development of the frontier in the years leading up to the American Revolution. From Daniel Boone’s exploration of Kentucky in 1769 to the outbreak of Dunmore’s War in 1774, this video is the perfect introduction to the early American west.

A History of the Early American West is an online series of video podcasts or mini-documentaries which explore the development of the frontier in the trans-Appalachian west, the area that includes Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Discover the world of frontier heroes like Daniel Boone and George R. Clark, Indian tribes such as the Shawnee, Mingo, and Delaware, tribal leaders such as Logan and Blackfish, and frontier rogues like Simon Girty and Alexander McKee.





CFP: Global Commodities: The Material Culture of Early Modern Connections, 1400-180

12 04 2012

I’m posting this CFP here. This conference covers a period before my own research era, but I’m certainly interested in the broad theme.

The Global History and Culture Centre at the University of Warwick has issued a call for papers for its upcoming conference on “Global Commodities: The Material Culture of Early Modern Connections, 1400-1800,” to be held on December 12-14, 2012.

Papers should be no more than twenty minutes long. Proposals for sessions of three or four papers are also welcome. To submit a proposal, please send a 200-word abstract of the proposed paper, together with a one-page CV, to ghcc.conferences@warwick.ac.ukor via mail to Global History and Culture Centre, Department of History, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.

The closing date for proposals is 1 June 2012. Successful candidates will be notified by the 1 July 2012.

More details here.

The conference has been organized by two Warwick professors, Anne Gerritsen and Giorgio Riollo.

Gerritsen’s current research project is: Global Jingdezhen: Local Manufactures and Early Modern Global Connections. Between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, the manufacture, design, export and consumption of Chinese ceramics changed profoundly, and those changes, in turn, transformed many different parts of the world. This project, carried out jointly by Anne Gerritsen and Stephen McDowall, investigates the nature of those changes and transformations. AHRC-funded research project, running from 01-01-2009 to 01-01-2011.

Dr Riollo has a very interesting book in the works: Global Cotton: How an Asian Fibre Changed the European Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming December 2012).  He teaches some pretty cool sounding modules:

HI163 – Caravans and Galleons: Global Connections, 1300-1800
HI169 – History and Fashion: A Global Look, 1300-2000
MA in Global History: Themes, Issues and Approaches




Celebratory Narratives and the Fortune 500 of 1812

12 04 2012

Since 1995, Fortune magazine has been  publishing annual rankings of U.S. corporations by size. Observers analyse changes in the Fortune 500 to track the evolution of the economy. Remember how the top of the list used to be dominated by industrial behemoths such as United States Steel?

Recently, two business historians, Dick Sylla and Robert E. Wright, have tried to create a retrospective Fortune 500-type list for the US in 1812. They posted it recently on Bloomberg’s business history blog, Echoes.

Sylla and Wright show that the list of large US corporations in 1812 was dominated by banks rather than manufacturing firms.

This is a very interesting intellectual exercise and I enjoyed their post. However, I think Sylla and Wright have fallen into the trap of writing a celebratory narrative of US business history that goes something like this: Americans have been world leaders in business from the earliest days of their republic and their precocious modernity of early American business owed much to the excellence of the political and legal institutions of the United States.

Consider this part of their blog post:

The larger significance of being able to come up with a Fortune 500 for 1812 demands some reflection. The country’s population then was about 7.5 million, less than that of New York City today, and far less than the populations of leading European nations. Yet international comparisons, to the extent we can make them, indicate that the U.S. already had more business corporations than any other country, and possibly more than all other countries put together.

France had chartered 13 corporations by 1812, and Prussia had chartered eight. An old source indicates that England had only 156 joint-stock companies before 1824, and so the entire U.K. probably had no more than 200 to 300. In contrast, our U.S. data show more than a thousand charters by 1812.

The U.S. was the world’s first “corporation nation,” and the ease of incorporating businesses released a lot of entrepreneurial energy that helped to build an ever-expanding economy. By the end of the 19th century, the U.S. would be the world’s largest national economy with tens of thousands of corporations.

Americans continue to have mixed feelings about corporations, just as they did in 1812 and throughout our history. But there’s no denying that the corporation played a large role in making Americans who they were — and are.

In other words, the US in 1812 was more sophisticated, capitalist, and quintessentially modern than other Western nations.

I suppose this fits with historian Alfred Chandler’s view that it was the United States that took the lead in making the transition from family firms and other allegedly archaic structures to managerial capitalism and the modern corporation. However, as Leslie Hannah, a distinguished business historian based at the LSE and the University of Tokyo, has argued, there is evidence to suggest that modern corporate governance and forms of industrial was pioneered in Britain and was adopted only later adopted by the United States, which was a relatively primitive economy as late as 1900.

Dick Sylla and Bob Wright are great historians, but I think that the international comparison they are making in these paragraphs is a bit problematic.





Papers on Canadian Historical Topics at ABH 2012

11 04 2012

The Association of Business Historians is the leading organization of business historians in the United Kingdom. Most of the presenters are based in Britain, although every year academics from the United States, continental Europe, and elsewhere attend.

It seems to me that people outside of Canada don’t pay that enough attention to Canadian business history. Non-Canadians may be quite right to ignore, say, the history of theatre in Canada or Canadian military history, since those aren’t really activities for which Canada is known. But Canada has long punched above its weight in business matters and there are all sorts of interesting lessons that can be drawn from studying the Canadian business experience. Environmental history is another area where the relevance of Canada to international historians is also disproportionate.

I was therefore quite pleased to see that two people will be presenting on Canadian topics at the 2012 meeting.

The Significance of Imported Technology for Economic Development: The Canadian Case- Bruce Smardon, York University

Medical Risk vs. Financial Reward: Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Asbestos Trade, 1930-1977- Jessica van Horssen, McGill University

For the entire provisional programme, see here.

P.S. Jessica, an environmental historian who is currently doing a postdoc at McGill, is quite skilled at disseminating her research to non-academic audiences using new technologies. She has created an online graphic novel based on her dissertation about the environmental and social history of the town of Asbestos, Quebec. (See here).

She has also created a number of YouTube videos about her research findings. I’ve put a link to episode one below: