Economic History Society marks 100 years with landmark conference showcasing new research
Home > Economic History Society marks 100 years with landmark conference showcasing new research
The Economic History Society (EHS) today celebrates its centenary with a major international conference on Friday 10 April 2026 to Sunday 12 April 2026 at the London School of Economics, highlighting a century of scholarship and unveiling new research that reshapes our understanding of the economic past.
—
The centenary also offers an opportunity to reflect on the Society’s contributions to public debate and policy understanding. By examining the past with rigorous methods and new data, economic historians continue to inform discussions about today’s most pressing issues.
Founded in 1926, the Society has played a central role in advancing the study of how economies and societies evolve over time. The centenary conference reflects this legacy, bringing together leading scholars from around the world to present cutting-edge research spanning centuries and continents.
A key focus of the conference is the presentation of new academic work that sheds fresh light on long-standing historical questions while opening new avenues of inquiry. The programme features research on topics including financial crises, inequality, labour markets, economic development, and the long-run impacts of policy decisions.
Among the highlights are the following new papers:
TEMPORARY ENERGY BOOMS CAN DRIVE LASTING INDUSTRIAL GROWTH:
EVIDENCE FROM THE INDIANA GAS BOOM OF THE 1880s
A new economic history study of the late 19th and early 20th centuries revisits one of the most famous U.S. energy booms—the Indiana natural gas discovery of the 1880s—and finds that temporary resource windfalls can deliver lasting economic benefits without triggering “Dutch disease.”
Using newly assembled county-level data, in the paper Assaf Abraham of the University of Mannheim combines historical census records, manufacturing surveys, and geological maps to track how access to natural gas affected local economies starting in the 1880s. The author exploits the geographic spread of gas fields as a natural experiment, comparing counties with and without access before, during, and after the boom.
The key finding is striking: counties located on the gas belt experienced a large and persistent increase in manufacturing activity. Industrial output and the number of establishments rose significantly during the boom, with effects that remained long after gas supplies declined: estimates suggest gas-area counties experienced roughly double the increase in industrial activity initially, then maintained a steady lead for decades, while manufacturing growth in non-gas counties was much more modest. Manufacturing activity was still 30% higher in affected areas nearly a century later.
Crucially, there is no evidence of Dutch disease. Rather than crowding out industry, the temporary resource boom strengthened it—because the gas was used locally as a cheap energy input instead of being exported. This lowered production costs and attracted energy-intensive industries, creating long-term industrial clusters.
The study challenges conventional fears about resource booms and offers a timely message. In today’s volatile energy landscape, access to abundant, affordable, and secure energy can be a powerful driver of growth. Temporary energy windfalls, if deployed domestically, may enhance industrial resilience rather than undermine it.
Full Paper available here:
To contact the author:
Author: Assaf Abraham
Affiliation: University of Mannheim
Email: assaf.abraham@uni-mannheim.de
DYING FOR A COFFEE: WHY RESOURCE BOOMS CAUSE VIOLENCE
A new study by Daniel Sanchez of the Paris School of Economics examines a central question in economic history and development: do commodity booms promote prosperity—or fuel conflict? Focusing on Colombia’s coffee expansion during the First Globalization (c. 1880–1930), the paper traces how one of the world’s most valuable export crops reshaped patterns of violence over time, particularly during La Violencia (1948–1965).
The study constructs a novel municipality-level dataset combining historical records on coffee cultivation, violent deaths, political variables, and demographics spanning roughly 1880 to 1965. Exploiting the geographic spread of coffee suitability and expansion, the author compares municipalities with different exposure to the coffee boom, tracking long-run effects on conflict.
The findings are striking. Rather than reducing violence, the coffee boom shifted and intensified it geographically. Municipalities with higher coffee exposure experienced significantly higher rates of killings during La Violencia. The results are large and striking: a one–standard–deviation increase in coffee cultivation is linked to 5.5 additional violent deaths, with coffee exposure explaining up to half of the observed variation in violence across municipalities.
The mechanism appears to be that coffee generated high-value, easily appropriable (“lootable”) wealth, enabling armed groups to extract rents and sustain violence.
The paper challenges the view that export booms are inherently stabilising. Its implications are highly relevant today: as global demand surges for commodities—from oil to critical minerals—resource windfalls can increase conflict risk where institutions are weak, underscoring the importance of governance in managing economic shocks.
Full paper available here:
To contact the author:
Author: Daniel Sanchez
Affiliation: Paris School of Economics
Email: d.sanchez.ordonez@psemail.eu
PICKING LOSERS: HOW ACTIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICY FAILED IN EASTERN EUROPE
A new study by Marco Cokić (London School of Economics) offers a warning for today’s industrial policy debate: even massive state-led efforts to “pick winners” can fail to produce competitive industries if they do not consider the country’s comparative advantage. Focusing on socialist Eastern Europe from the 1960s to the 1980s, the paper asks whether directing investment into priority sectors translated into lasting export success and international competitiveness.
Drawing on a novel dataset that combines primary and secondary sources across eight Eastern European countries with detailed sectoral trade data, the study links investment flows to trade outcomes at the industry level, an exercise that has not been attempted at this scale before.
The key facts are striking. Every country in the Bloc devoted 30–60% of total investment to industry, with heavy concentration in metallurgy, mining, and chemicals regardless of national endowments. This uniformity prevented regional specialisation and integration. In the short run, higher investment did boost exports, but these gains were not sustained. Export effects faded and reversed within four to five years. The paper’s conclusion is not that there was too much investment, but that it was systematically misallocated.
A detailed case study of Yugoslavia sharpens the picture further. Investments directed into sectors aligned with the country’s comparative advantage, such as chemicals and machinery, delivered strong and lasting export returns. But investment in strategic yet economically suboptimal sectors, such as food production and natural resource extraction, was negatively associated with export performance. The lesson is that industrial policy only works when governments target sectors where genuine competitive potential exists.
The broader lesson is highly relevant today. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have become fans of industrial policy, from green subsidies to strategic manufacturing for defence. But the historical record shows that investment at scale is no guarantee of success. The risk is not just picking the wrong winners—but continuing to back them despite clear signs of failure.
Full paper available here:
https://bit.ly/47wOZir
To contact the author:
Author: Marco Cokić
Affiliation: London School of Economics
Email: m.cokic@lse.ac.uk
WHEN ELITES DOMINATE THE CLASSROOM:
HOW PEER COMPETITION CROWDS OUT NON-ELITE STUDENTS
A new study by Cyril Thomson (University of Bologna) examines a central question in the debate on selective schooling: do elite schools expand opportunity, or do they crowd out non-elite students? Focusing on colonial India, the paper provides rare causal evidence on how peer composition in schools shapes long-run outcomes.
The study assembles a novel dataset of over 37,000 high school graduates, linking caste background, school peers, and later progression into university and the legal profession. The empirical strategy exploits variation in cohort-level exposure to elite peers, allowing the author to isolate how the presence of high-status students affects the trajectories of non-elite classmates.
The results are striking. Non-elite merchant caste students exposed to more elite peers were significantly less likely to progress to university or sit the mukhtarship (legal) examination. The effects are substantial and systematic: crowding-out occurs specifically in cohorts dominated by elites whose status depended on education—Brahmins and Kayasthas—but not from groups like Rajputs, whose status was independent of academic pathways.
Institutional context also plays an important role. The negative effects are strongest in private schools, while they are attenuated in government and missionary schools. One possible explanation is that access to university depended partly on “good conduct” certificates issued by headmasters, which may have allowed local elites greater discretion in private schools. However, where no such gatekeeping existed, such as entry to legal exams, the negative peer effects persist across all schools.
The paper’s contribution to the literature is clear: elite schooling, even with non-elite representation, can redistribute opportunity away from non-elites. It highlights a key mechanism—peer-driven crowding out—through which private and selective education systems may reinforce, rather than reduce, inequality.
Full paper available here:
https://bit.ly/3NzeNDR
To contact the author:
Author: Cyril Thomson
Affiliation: University of Bologna
Email: cyril.thomson2@unibo.it
ELECTRICITY DIDN’T DIVIDE, IT INTEGRATED:
HOW NEW PRODUCTIVITY TECHNOLOGIES CAN HELP BRIDGE SOCIAL DIVIDES
A new study by Sara Benetti (University of British Columbia) challenges a common narrative about technological change. While new technologies are often blamed for social disruption and division, the paper shows that they can also promote integration—particularly in diverse societies shaped by migration.
The paper asks: how does electrification affect social cohesion between immigrants and native workers? It studies the expansion of electricity in the United States between 1900 and 1940, combining newly digitised data on the high-voltage grid with full-count Census data. Exploiting the staggered rollout of electrification across counties, the paper identifies causal effects on workplace and residential integration.
The results show large and measurable effects. Electrification significantly increased workplace diversity, with electrified areas experiencing a 5–10% rise in the share of immigrants working alongside natives. At the same time, occupational segregation declined, as electrification reduced the need for language-specific and craft-based skills. Residential patterns shifted as well: electrified counties saw a meaningful reduction in segregation indices among manufacturing workers, alongside a weakening of the negative relationship between immigration and local public goods provision.
These changes were economically meaningful. Electrification is estimated to account for a substantial share of the observed increase in workplace integration during this period, with effects concentrated in industries most affected by new technologies. The paper’s core argument is that technologies which standardise tasks and lower coordination barriers can foster integration rather than division.
The lesson for today is clear. While debates on AI and automation focus on risks, this evidence shows that technological change can strengthen social cohesion—helping integrate immigrants and bridge racial and social divides when adoption reduces barriers between groups.
Full paper available here:
To contact the author:
Author: Sara Benetti
Affiliation: University of British Columbia
Email: sara.benetti.cespedes@gmail.com
