What should write about next?
Time is precious so I thought it made sense to ask you (the readers) what you’d be interested in seeing me write about:
As social scientists develop a better understanding of causal inference and new standards for replicability emerge, I anticipate empirical economic history coming under increasing fire. Morgan Kelly’s Tawney Lecture is just one example of one important avenue of criticism. While not focusing on the persistence debate, this post will offer a cautious (partial) defense of empirical economic history as currently practiced.
A tweet on business cycles (anticipating my review of Goodspeed’s book attracted a lot of attention and criticism. If readers want a deeper dive into Austrian business cycle theory (and why I think it became an analytical deadend) I’d be happy to provide one.
The Glorious Revolution is a well known among economic historians and economists largely because of North and Weingast’s seminal 1989 article and Acemoglu and Robinson’s restatement of their thesis in Why Nations Fail. What do these accounts get right and wrong about the event? And what crucial factor is entirely missing?
Finally, if none of these topics seem important but you have another issue that you think I should be address please leaving a comment!




I would be interested in more on North and Weingast. (Note spelling of Weingast.)
Only at 28% right now but would be very interested in reading more from you on ABCT!