The Penguin History of Economics

by Roger E. Backhouse

A very clear, reliable and readable history of economic thought from the ancient world to the present day. From Homer to Marx to John Stuart Mill, Backhouse shows how to keep your Keynsians from your post-Keynsians and New Keynsians. A core book.

Genres: Economics, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 31, 2002

Reviews

[Marcos Sorá · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am a graduate student in Economics, and this may be the best history of economics I have read. While reading, I was under the impression of being in front of an iceberg of historical knowledge out of which only a carefully chosen tip was visible. This, of course, makes the content very reliable and the prose smooth, uncluttered. The decision of what to show seems to be focused on the genesis of contents which are now day to day, like externalities, the use of math, or Phillips curves (this may be my biased reading as a graduate student). The book is not teleological, but more archeological in this sense.

Perhaps the biggest praise should go to the way the author chose to structure the link between economics ideas and context. The context is analyzed along two dimensions, institutions to which economists have belonged, and problems faced by society. These categories shape the narrative and provide distinct ways in which the context has mattered. Second, I think the way he chose to structure chapters works really well. Instead of being purely chronological, each chapter engages deeply with a historical and geographical unit over a span that may last between 50 and 100 years, covering the essential features. The following chapter may focus on a contemporaneous phase in a different geographical area. Although it involves going backwards in time from time to time, it is much more coherent.

Absolutely recommended!

[Jayash · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. Backhouse displays an elegant exposition on the roots of economic thought, starting from the ancient world and the middle ages until the late twentieth century. He explains the evolution of economic theory as a distinct discipline, incorporating ideas from religion, philosophy, history, mechanics and law. Noticeably, he brilliantly articulates his thoughts on contributions of lesser-known figures to bringing the economic ideas forward, departing from majority of books that solely highlight Smith, Marx and Keynes. Given a great deal of difficulty in juxtaposing varieties of ideas spanning multiple centuries, he does a great job of discussing major themes and their broad implications on shaping up economics as a legitimate academic discipline.

Each chapter progresses in a sequential manner, yet every chapter can be read independently of one another ( bar few references in the preceding/following chapters). An economics student with a strong desire to understand the building blocks of economic history, I thoroughly enjoyed reading every page of the book. Admittedly, the amount of information in the book is humongous, and I will be delighted to peruse every chapter again for the second time.

The beauty of the book lies in the fact that no prior knowledge on economics is required for the overall understanding. Honestly, the lesser you know the better, in that the book grows on you, and makes you realize how fascinating the field of economics is. A delightful read, and strongly recommended!

[Marcel Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humans are not perfect just like any product of human activity. Science itself has no ambition of being so — constant evolution from self correction is what matters.

That said, the broader the theme covered by a book, the harder to please every reader. Even though we know humans are not perfect, we tend to judge the things they do as if perfection existed — we disqualify things we consider far from perfection and praise others we consider close to it.

History of Economic Thought is one of those fields with a very ambitious though necessarily ungrateful task: to put together thousands of years of human economic activity, select what is “important”, give them a “fair” description and explanation, and in the end be quickly considered old as History goes on. “Important” and “fair” are inaccurate and open terms. That is where the biases and partiality of the historians — themselves a product of their time — take hold. So it is almost impossible for economic facts or ideas to be described by completely neutral or impartial historians.

In fact, summarizing thousands of years of History of Economics is a colossal challenge not only methodologically, in terms of selection of the relevant facts and schools of thought, but also analytically, as the historian must explain them “satisfactorily” — also a subjective term designating satisfaction from most of the readers with the descriptions and explanations given.

Despite all these challenges, Roger Backhouse does a good job in this very synthetic almost 400-page book. As mentioned, it is obviously impossible to cover everything and explain them with an omnipresent profundity in a single book. Though he shows great ability in uniting concision and some profundity. Backhouse can also be acknowledged as reasonably impartial and fair. His strong power of synthesis counts in his favor most of the times, though at others the reader may feel lost since some theories covered are very dry and difficult (not for nothing Economics was called the dismal science).

As mentioned, of course one could criticize the book for weak selection of Historical facts from bygone eras — which did not bother me at all, since I’m currently not interested in those ancient times —, or the lack of explanation about David Ricardo’s theory on comparative advantages in the foreign trade (about which the author explicitly mentions he is not covering), for instance. In my experience, the final parts covering the most modern economic theories and authors are where the book gets more stimulating. The “guided” bibliography at the end is very useful as readers interested in deepening the study can get good references from it.

This book is a good starting point as it stimulates curiosity and gives elements for further study. Far from perfect, as any other human work is, but very informative.

[Alastair · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is safe to say that I had no idea how boring an economic history would be. Let me explain. I have been reading a lot of history recently. I’ve read a couple of histories of the Middle Ages, one on quantum mechanics and another on Einstein. All four books are markedly different. The books on history were dense and turgid at times but gave the reader a sense of what different times were like. The science history books, by contrast, have a clearly teleological approach: quantum mechanics or relativity is demonstrably an improvement so the story can proceed (in fits and starts) from a position of less to more knowledge.

I didn’t really give much thought to how a history of economics should be written; unfortunately for me, Roger Backhouse seems to have failed to answer this question as well. In his History of Economics, the author deliberately eschews a story of ‘progress’: the book is not “either conservative (celebrating the achievements of modern economics) or revolutionary (revealing its fatal errors to overthrow contemporary orthodoxy)”. In other words, Backhouse makes a very deliberate attempt not to meld a story of inexorable advance out of the work of Smith, Ricardo, Keynes and Arrow. This is a perfectly valid response to the much more murky notion of ‘success’ in the world of economics compared to the world of physics to which it is so often inappropriately contrasted.

Yet without some sort of framing of the past - such as by the notion of progress or else by the economic standards of the present - the book becomes effectively a prose encyclopaedia: a series of vignettes of different economists and their ideas. As Backhouse himself acknowledges, such a book “serves to provide economists with a vision of where their own work fits into a wider story”, which might be useful for them but is hardly enticing for non-economists.

In the works of history I’ve recently read this avoidance of a sense of progress is positively to be embraced as a counterweight to crude notions of ‘civilisation’s advance’. In science, progress is the aim of the game so must be a factor. That leaves me wondering whether there is any point in a history of economics if the discipline as a whole has come so little distance. Time and again I found myself struggling to differentiate a 200 year old idea from something I’d heard about recently - the notion of the rational individual (modern) and utility maximisation (old), for example. The author, to be clear, is at pains to point out these links between old ideas and new, but it’s hard to get away from the idea that current economics is simply going in circles.

Perhaps most frustratingly of all, the author acknowledges this, particularly with his comments against the mathematisation of the discipline: “economics became a much more technical subject, and mathematical techniques were systematically applied … comparisons with ‘basic’ or ‘blue-sky’ research … in science and medicine were used to justify such inquiries”. The author’s borderline contempt for such reality-detached economics points towards the book he could have written. Rather than a chronological recitation of ideas and economists, why not write a critique of where economics is and how it got there, framed around what the purpose of economics is. As it is, this book likely provides a useful historical primer for economists. For the rest of us, though this book is gratifyingly short and clearly written, I cannot see much to recommend.

[David Lundqvist · Rating 4 out of 5]

The introduction to The Penguin History of Economics raises two issues about the subject which are useful to remember in the subsequent read. The first is that there is no universally accepted definition of the subject and the second is that any contributor to the history of economics will pick and choose which works and writers are important.

Backhouse chooses a broad definition of economics encompassing the philosophic, sociological and psychological aspects of the discipline. His story traces the history of economic thought from ancient Greece to the modern world. As you would expect economic contributors such as Smith and Riccardo are covered but this book also explores the ideas of the less well known. Many of those discussed, while making substantial contributions to the subject are thought by the wider world to be practitioners of a different art. Unbeknownst to me philosophers such as Aristotle and books such as the bible forayed into the world of economics and their findings have influences even today. As such the emphasis is on how different subjects have influenced economics, most obviously the political situation such as the needs of a nation at war but also some economists love of physics and their desire to transform economics into a comparable subject. This framework is also used to explore the substantial contribution that economics has had on the world.

The book is well written and exciting, its methodology allows a broader view of the subject than many people care to admit exists. This however comes with a price, at just under 350 pages there is not enough space to cover every development substantially and the work sometimes suffers because of it. While this book is defined as accessible it would be a benefit to have some prior knowledge of very basic economic theory. Most concepts are explained well in text, some of them in a better manner than I have seen elsewhere there is the notable exception of the idea of demand increases affect the price of a good. This is elementary economics and I suspect this is the reason why no explanation was given but if you don't know then you don't know.

Overall I feel that the Penguin History of Economics largely succeeded in its aims and I was able to obtain from it the majority of what I needed. The book provides a substantial further reading section that I will with out a doubt be taking advantage of, this is an interesting subject with more complexity that I fist imagined possible.

[Reuben Holt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exceptional history of economic thought. Impressive detail given the breadth of time and ideas discussed.

[Jakub Dovcik · Rating 4 out of 5]

After studying economics at various places for some time, I realized I never had a good rundown of the whole history of economic thought, that would provide a comprehensive idea of where the now generally accepted theories or respected individuals, that I have a lot of times studied in isolation, intellectually originated. This book does just that, in a really good balance between complexity and depth.
While most histories begin with Adam Smith and end up sometimes after the 1970s, this is a very holistic overview of the discipline across the history of the western world. It follows, and to a large extent greatly explains, the general themes of the various periods - from the discussions of the morality of exchanges in Scholastic works, through the pre-Smith French and English authors, through various relatively unknown scholars in the classical period that have been overshadowed by giants. It gives a lot of attention to Schumpeter and Marshall (not as much as Walras and Jevons though), for which I am generally really happy - on the other hand, omits Douglass North and new institutionalism in the late 20th century (plus development economics part is very limited). However, many times it gets quite dull in explanations of very archaistic theories and models or in a tendency to reference earlier authors that clearly cannot be perfectly followed by the reader (as it rarely focuses more than a couple of pages on an individual). Also, while generally very important for the development of the discipline, the theoretical discussion of the math necessary to progress the discipline in the early 20th century is not the most exciting read.
I also counted two women mentioned in the whole book (Joan Robinson twice and once Anna Schwartz once), which tells something more about the discipline I would say.
Nevertheless, it serves its purpose and after reading, one should have a much better general understanding of the developmental trajectories of some of the key ideological streams as well as their place within their periods.

[Santi · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good overview of the history of economic thought, although with important lacunae. There is too much emphasis on authors than on their ideas. I missed a more thorough discussion on the debates about the different theories of value. On 20th-century microeconomics and game theory, the book just regurgitates too often heard criticisms from non-economists or heterodox economists. Because it was published in the early 2000s it does not cover the behavioral revolution, making it quite outdated.

[Max M. · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Plato suggested that Homer educated Greece”; with this first sentence, Roger Backhouse makes it clear that his history of economics starts from the very beginning. From reading it, it is interesting to note that many themes that preoccupy contemporary economics are found as early as Hesiod (c.750-650 BC), who deals with the idea of a trade-off between consumption and leisure; Xenophon (c.430-355 BC), meanwhile, alludes to the productivity-enhancing division of labour that becomes possible in a large city.

Compared to, for example, Agnar Sandmo’s Economics Evolving (2010), Backhouse provides more focus on the broader historical context that surrounds economic thinkers. This exposition is necessary and insightful. For example, it is difficult to understand why mercantilism was a predominant economic doctrine in 17th century England without understanding the rise of the new merchant classes. Likewise, the stress the French physiocrats placed on agriculture is illuminated by knowing that this was partly in reaction to attempts by the French minister Colbert to encourage manufacturing.

Backhouse also situates economic thought within broader intellectual history. For example, it’s clear that contemporary empirical economics can trace its roots to Bacon’s development of the inductive scientific method. Modern economic theory, by contrast, owes a lot to Descartes’ method of deductive reasoning. Backhouse provides a brief sketch of the rise of both of these methods of thought.

The emphasis on thinkers that pre-date Smith helps us to see that, rather than a lone genius who ‘invented’ economics, Smith was heavily indebted to the ideas of his contemporaries and predecessors. For example, Mandeville in his 1714 ‘Fable of the Bees’ suggests that self-interest can paradoxically have unintentional benefits. In retrospect, the classical economics of the roughly one hundred years that followed the Wealth of Nations can seem like something of a detour for economics given the emphasis on concepts like the labour theory of value and the Ricardian ‘Corn Model’. However, focusing on the predominance of the Smithian/Ricardian paradigm can obscure from the fact that there were alternatives, including on the Continent. For example, the supply and demand diagram originates with the French economist Augustin Cournot (1801 – 1877), while Johann Heinrich von Thünen ( 1783 – 1850) modelled agricultural factor allocation as an optimisation problem using mathematical methods and derived the optimal solution for the wage rate as equalling the marginal product of the last worker employed. These alternatives can thus seem closer to contemporary economics than the classical paradigm that predominated in England.

The origins of modern microeconomics lies in the neoclassical economics that rose to prominence from the 1870s onwards. The school reached its apotheosis in the work of Alfred Marshall (1842 - 1924). Marshall is to be noted as much for his role as a synthesiser of neoclassical ideas as for his original contributions. In terms of the latter, Léon Walras (1834 – 1910) could arguably claim to be the most influential of this grouping of economist, given his development of the concept of general equilibrium, which has continued importance in contemporary micro and macro.

Modern macroeconomics has its origin in Keynes’ ideas as well as pre-Second-World-War monetary economics and business cycle theorists. But it is the mathematical formalisation of Keynesian ideas by John Hicks (1904 – 1989), as well as the work by Paul Samuelson (1915 –2009) on integrating Keynesian macro with neoclassical general equilibrium that developed a post-war macroeconomics that is recognisably modern.

Backhouse covers these developments towards the end of this book as well as the emergence of econometrics as the statistical arm of economics. The book covers up to the 1970s, seeing the Lucas critique of Keynesian models that lack micro foundations as well as the development of real business cycle (RBC) models as an alternative. Backhouse does not cover, therefore, the development of the new neoclassical synthesis (not to be confused with the old, post-war neoclassical synthesis) that represents the New Keynesian mainstream within macro. The toolkit of this contemporary paradigm is RBC-style DSGE models but with Keynesian assumptions, such as wage rigidity and price stickiness. To be clear, Backhouse is not to blame for this, since this synthesis was still being formed at the time of the book’s publication.

Backhouse’s great achievement is to construct a primer to the history of economics that locates it within the broader context of history, both intellectual, economic and political. The book will serve as useful introduction for economists and non-economists alike, even though it is somewhat out of date with regard to the most recent developments, given that it was published twenty years ago.

[Daniel Clemence · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stretching from the Ancient Greeks to the 21st century, The Penguin History of Economics by Roger Blackhouse is an attempt to encapsulate economic thought from the Classical era until the Modern Day. With such a vast history of economics, Blackhouse attempts to analyse the ideas behind economics at different junctures of history. “The Penguin History of Economics" is a remarkable exploration of the evolution of economic thought, offering a comprehensive overview that spans centuries of ideas and theories. As someone interested in understanding the foundations of modern economics, I found this book invaluable.

Economics starts in the Ancient Era, specifically the Greeks, with their ideas of oikonomikos being the basis behind what we define as economics. Surprisingly, there was no mention of Herodotus’ Histories, which had complex descriptions of economics in them. The civilisations before the Greeks had strong economic development; it however is not the focus of the book, as the book is on the history of economic thought. Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle are named as being those who begun economic theory. Middle Age thinking was driven by development in the major Abrahamic faiths and how they led to economic theory development. Given the thousands of years of history, it is fair to say that economics as a discipline developed in modernity after the Renaissance.

With the emergence of the Renaissance, we have more advanced economic thinking. This is where political and religious change also leads to changes in economic thinking. One book mentioned was the Common Weal of This Realm of England, which was one of the first economic books which mentions overgrazing of sheep, as wool was one of the major export earnings of England. The scientific development in England corresponded to changes in the development of economics. William Perry was mentioned in the writing of Political Arithmetick, one of the first books that attempted to calculate the economic output of an entire nation. The physiocrats of France were also mentioned as being important for the development of economics. The physiocrats were economists of France who put special emphasis on agricultural development as being essential for the economy.

The Scottish Enlightenment is seen as where economics was developed as a discipline in its entirety. David Hume and James Steuart were mentioned as forgotten economic thinkers in their own right. Adam Smith takes up a significant amount of time focused on, which makes sense as he is the father of modern economics. This leads to the development of political economy, which was shaped in part by economics but also by philosophy, including Utilitarianism and political theory. Ricardo is mentioned as being an important contributor to political economy. Karl Marx is also mentioned as being a contributor to economics, though he is not part of the development of classical economics. France and Germany are rather overlooked for a focus on mostly British political economy in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

It is in the latter half of the 19th century that economic theories developed outside of Britain. Jevons from Britain contributed significantly to economic theory using Utilitarian theory to further economic theory. Germany is looked at in greater detail. There is a focus on how economic history and theory are separated into two different disciplines. Alfred Marshall is mentioned as being a major developer of economic theory and is one of the main contributors to supply and demand theory. American economics is looked at for the first time, with how American ideas have shaped economics.

The development of the money and business cycle is looked at.
Economics is a social science that uses mathematics and statistics to develop theories on economic interaction. Socialism and welfare are topics for one chapter, which I think is perhaps one of the most interesting chapters in the book, as it looks at the development of socialist thinking within economics. The Second World War is also the subject of a chapter, in which the Second World War led to the development of Keynesian economic theories, but also in how economic theories played a role in the war. The last parts of the book look at the modern-day economic theories and the dominance of market economics. A small amount of the book is dedicated to the development of climate change thinking within economics.

The book’s breadth is an impressive feat. Spanning almost 2500 years of economic thought is an impressive feat that is no small accomplishment. There is a high level of research that has gone into the book, and whilst there are no endnotes or citations, the bibliography is well-developed. If there is a criticism of the book, it is that this appears to be a book that doesn’t look at how historic economic events shaped economic theories. For example, there was no mention of tariff policy in Germany, leading to differences in theories around economic development. Neither is the difference in economic thoughts in the US around the time of its founding between Federalists and Democrats over which economic development. In this regard, the book is highly theoretical and outside the practicalities of applied economics. Neither does it mention how wool trade policies in England in the Medieval as were the first economic policies driven in a particular industry.

Given that the focus of this book is economic theory, it probably should be called The Penguin History of Economic Theory. This is, of course, a rather precise meaning, and the book does make it clear that it is theory-heavy. However, it is highly selective in which theories are most important. Alfred Marshall and Adam Smith indeed had significant impacts on economic theory. There are small mentions of people like Henry George, who are not well known today but were highly influential in their time. A page was given to Henry George’s economic thinking, which I would say is disappointing.

This book gives an outstanding overview of economic thinking. It gives a solid understanding of economic thinking throughout 2500 years. As a book on economics, 4/5.

[Doug Newdick · Rating 3 out of 5]

With a history like this, I'm never sure whether the author has become boring halfway through, the subject matter has become boring halfway through, or I have become bored with the subject matter. With this history of economics, I suspect mostly the latter two factors are at play. Economics is such an important influence on our modern civilisation and way of life that an understanding of it is essential to understand what is happening today. Equally the idea of how economics came to be that way and where it came from is just intriguing. This book is as good an overview of this subject as could be wished, though it is an "insider's view" and is never overly critical of the assumptions or power relations that have shaped economics or economists' influence on society. Back house's book is only worth persevering with if you are genuinely interested in economics itself, not for general interest.

[Isaac Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

There came a time, during my greatest challenges and despairs in my econ studies, that I fell into an existential crisis over economics. How is it possible that such a practical human concern - money, interest rates, inflation, prices, markets etc - came to be dominated by such esoteric mathematical techniques? Why is it that a subject where any regular smart individual reasonably informed about current affairs can have an intelligent input to, is dominated by internally valid but not necessarily externally valid theorems? Given all this training, do economists really know something more about the economy than the average smart person? Why do economists perform so terribly at empirical tests of professional forecasts? Why is our knowledge cyclical and not cumulative? Why do we still not know why recessions, business cycles, financial crises, comparative development etc happen? Why is there such a large disconnect between the academic journals and what practitioners are doing?

I reasoned that such a non-intuitive phenomenon must be rooted in a long history - akin to economic phenomena themselves, e.g., inequality. A long cumulative process of secular, mechanical dynamics must have allowed technocrats to gain a monopoly on the economics curriculum over time. And my suspicion is somewhat confirmed by the contemporary discourse, as commentators question the lack of diversity in the Econ Nobel, that it is still a 'big boys club' with the risk of group-think. But that's beside the point.

This book reinforced my view that economics really is the human condition - on a realist level, the average person's daily life is dominated by worries over their mortgage, their bills, the economy, their job, rent, inflation, and putting food on the table. And, perhaps more importantly, it is an ancient concern - humans have been constrained by our economic life since the birth of man. Realizing that economics is an ancient concern thus gives birth to 2 ways to view the history of economic thought, as Backhouse elucidates - 1) We can see economic thought as a continuous process of updating old ideas and getting closer to the truth, so the classic texts no longer have much to teach us, since they are out-dated (think Malthus), 2) We can see economic thought as a diverging process, where certain ideas can get lost and ought to be re-discovered.

I gravitate towards the latter.

In my view, what are the characteristics of being in an ancient field? What it means is straight out of Ecclesiastes (my favourite book in the Bible, incidentally) - What has happened now has happened before, and what will happen in the future will happen before. Everything has happened before, and nothing is truly new. I'd even go as far as to claim that someone who thinks much new stuff is happening, hasn't read enough history.

To paraphrase Jim Grant, there are 2 types of knowledge - cumulative and cyclical. Fields like medicine and the natural sciences are cumulative - atoms and cells don't have feelings and don't change, so each generation can build on the ideas of the former. Doctors no longer believe in idiotic folk stories like blood-letting or what have you. But fields like economics are cyclical, which pose a different challenge. Regime changes happen far too often to count. In a field with cyclical knowledge, one generation has far less valuable information to pass to the next - how can parents give their kids good investment advice, without taking into account the changed economy and market structures? Without taking into account that maybe their kids have different financial goals? How can someone who grew up in the high inflation era in the 70s teach their grandkids something useful about saving?

Clearly, in 'cyclical' fields, it is crucial to separate every piece of knowledge into 2 components - the time-constant and time-varying component. The time-constant component will contain universal truths, and the time-varying component will contain factors only specific to a certain regime.

Humans will always be driven by the same recurring themes of human nature - lust, greed, fear, envy, arrogance, etc. The seeds of success spurs its own destruction.

Economics is a tricky subject to put one's thumb on, so that's why studying the history of its thought is a pleasure, because you can see from the comfort of your own home, how other thinkers before you have struggled with it. And with that, comes a small touch of schadenfreude. Lmao

[James]

Starting by examining the society depicted in Homer's epics and ending with an honest attempt to portray the many different schools of modern economics, Backhouse presents a summary that is as great in scope as it is in scale.

In the introduction, he makes it very clear that he will be examining the history of economic ideas and the discipline itself, rather than the history of economic phenomena. However, it would be impossible to do so without considering the context that each person referenced was viewing the world from, and thus a somewhat comprehensive description of how trade and academic thinking have evolved is featured throughout. The result is a text that tells quite a clear 'story' of how we have attempted to understand economic phenomena throughout history, whilst the phenomena itself has been evolving.

Admittedly, there were chapters that I found difficult to follow as certain ideas unfamiliar to me were examined with an assumed understanding, or when highly theoretical ones didn't have the time to be fully discussed, but the overall picture presented is one I am very satisfied with taking away.

[Benedict]

Hi.
Recent habit, is to read several books at Autumn, mixing their input.
NB. I am going to take the (perhaps mistaken) move, of reviewing these, as I go along... (for strength). Books: Fingers in the Sparkle Jar (at p100), The Jewel Garden (near photos), Pride Book of the Film (have met the cast), (Blackmore history of Economics.)

Hang on! one sec. A demon approaches. This a review site. So...
I must aspire to the put-down.
Now will that demon get me here...

The basis of the original decision- they were books on the shelf (ie free). They had orange covers. ... That is pretty much it, sadly. (and no laughing matters- using time well is important.)
The observation you could have seen coming a mile off, possibly. If, partly , the move into Winter-time is about energy, then a supportive read at Autumn should support. Possible, none of these people (except the Economics don) are particularly happy.

They were and are free. They are still orange. Ta.

[Will Lyons · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very thorough journey through the history of economic analysis and theory, clearly signposted by the historical era reviewed, and the particular focus of the economists in question. Beginning with Classical and Biblical precedents, the book journeys all the way through Smith and Ricardo, arriving at contemporary issues of climate change, global development and the Financial Crisis, with particular attention to Keynes, Friedman and Alfred Marshall. An excellent work of synthesis and extrapolation, Backhouse has created the perfect primer for anyone seeking to understand how economic thought has progressed, with each thinker meticulously set within their historical context and challenges. One learns to appreciate how multifaceted the discipline has become, with numerous specialisations and theorems at play in contemporary economic analysis, and senior economists in international organisations like the IMF and World Bank shaping how politics unfolds globally.

[LAMS · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5.

This is the first non-fiction book I've ever read, so my 3/5 rating does take into account of how I have fared reading a non-fiction book. But overall, I found the book interesting to read. I found some chapters more interesting than others, and at times, likely due to my lack of knowledge, did not grasp some topics very well.

It is also worth mentioning that the history of economics is very wide so while there are numerous topics in this book, it only covers them lightly which is why the author did a great job of compiling a long list of literature at the end that he would recommend for people to read should they want further reading on specific topics.

But overall, as someone who is interested in economics and it being the first non-fiction book I've read, I am glad I have read it.

[Paddy Molloy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very commendable effort to summarise an entire discipline within 300 pages. As a Keynesian, I took particular insult with his seeming dismissal of key counter-cyclical policies, particularly, how he claims Keynes ideas were not new but rather synthesised from earlier thoughts. Thought the pacing was slightly off with too little at the end on the GFC and modern economic thoughts including the revival of protectionism and rejection of neoliberalism.

That being said, this is an essential overview for any aspiring undergraduate students, which covers the theoretical base of all major theories you will look into.

[Abdullrhman Mahfoodh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Full of facts. Although I'd change the title to "history of notable economists" to be a more accurate description of the book. For a person wanting to understand the history of economic development from the market and political angle, I'd not recommend this book. Chapters are missing a sense of flow and chronological order, so it can be rather boring to read. I think this book is a great reference book to read a specific chapter and gather information, but a poor introduction to economics for the layman.

[C]

I'm glad to have read this in that it was a reasonably short overview of the history of economic ideas, and in that I now have both a very basic understanding of various strains of economic thought and analysis and realize how poor a grasp I still have of the subject. As such, I don't really think I can competently evaluate Backhouse's text beyond saying that in spite of its careful efforts to avoid explicit bias, his viewpoint is almost certainly significantly to the right of my own.

[Lucas Lissel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Boken börjar väldigt bra med bakgrund, hur ekonomin först hanteras av moralfilosofer som Socrates samt inflytande folk som Newton och Hume har! Första halvan är intressant då man ser kopplingen mellan allt. Sen kommer man till när grabbarna ska försöka göra komplex matte av allt och boken blir värre. Inte nödvändigtvis författarens fel, det e ju historien trots allt men shit vad tråkigt med ekvationer hit o dit

[Hans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engrossing evolutionary analysis of how economists develop(ed) theories, models and approaches by interpreting what they saw in the real world and by applying logic. Convincingly argues how hard it is to back engineer why something happens the way it does. The longitudinal view also shows why economic thinking comes in waves and will continue to evolve.

[Axel · Rating 3 out of 5]

At just about over 300 pages and already a bit dated it gives enough insight into the economic history of Europe and North America to be interesting. Its limited scope however limits how interesting it is.

[Ding Ong · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a good summary of economics but might not be a good introduction material for those who are new to the field. This book tied up the many seemingly unrelated economic concepts with history, explaining the origins of the concepts and connecting the concepts with the authors.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just unbelievably good overview of history and economic history. Extremely broad and touches of everything with appraise depth (not lots, but enough to be legible to myself, a person with degree in economics). Fair. Earlier history is perhaps most interesting

[Praveen Kishore · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent concise book on history of economics as an academic field of enquiry.

[Frank Ashe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not economic history but a history of economics - we need both. Gives a good perspective on the whys and hows of the debates.

[Badki · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really solid survey tracing the origins of present economic thought all the way back to the ancient world. Far more readable than expected but gets rather technical in some sections

[Maciej Sroczyński · Rating 3 out of 5]

nwm spodziewalem sie wiecej po tej ksiazce

[Elias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tydlig och nyanserad genomgång av ekonomisk historia. Kommer metodiskt fram till de teorier och metoder vi använder oss av idag för att analysera och tolka ekonomiska sammanhang och fenomen.

[Kevin]

Good, but I think there are better books out there on economic history and if there is not one, there ought to be.