Maria Bach (Ph.D., King's College London) is Assistant Professor of Economics at the American University of Paris. Her research focuses on the history of economics, especially 19th-century India. She podcasts at ceterisneverparibus.net.
As an economic historian, do you feel like you have more in common with economists or with historians?
I see myself more as an historian of economics – that is to say, I analyse the history of ideas, intellectual thought (whatever you want to call it) rather than events, facts and economic trends. I do however contextulise the texts and discourse I analyse, so I use economic history research in my research. So do I feel more like an historian than economist? My gut instinct would say the latter. I am a trained economist, I did economics and mathematics for my undergraduate and development economics for my masters of science – which is not always the case for historians of economics. I had to learn historical techniques and approaches in my PhD, but my research leans towards understanding how interlocutors observe and perceive the economy from the perspective of an economist. Of course, I contribute to historical research by documenting and analysing texts that were written in the past, but I analyse more from an economics perspective than historical.
You've studied and taught in France and the U.K. and elsewhere. Are there any noteworthy differences between the way economics is taught in those countries and elsewhere?
The main difference I have seen in France and UK in economics teaching is the inclusion of history of economics in France (and not in the UK). Otherwise, it’s pretty similar. Perhaps there is a bit more socialist slant in France than in the UK, but this will depend on the university and professor.
Prof. William Collins (Ph.D., Harvard University) is the Terence E. Adderley Jr. Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of Enterprising America: Businesses, Banks, and Credit Markets in Historical Perspective (University of Chicago Press, 2015).
Which teacher or professor had the biggest impact on your career path
(whether it was an economist or someone who taught another subject), and
what made that person a good teacher?
There is a long line of educators from my elementary school days through
graduate school and beyond who have had profound influences on my
career path. I would start with those who encouraged a love for
reading, writing, and independent investigation.
Being an academic economist entails asking good questions and crafting
clearly written answers; that is at the core of what we do. The single
most important professor in my career has been Jeff Williamson. Jeff
was both my undergraduate thesis advisor and
my dissertation advisor. His expertise, genuine enthusiasm for
research and teaching, generosity of time, and confidence in his
students (including me) made a world of difference.
Economics is a much more quantitative field than it was a long time ago. What are the trade-offs when it comes to this change?
There have been real gains from the quantitative turn in economics. In
theory, it requires more precise statements of the model one has in mind
and descriptions of how it works. In empirical work, it requires
better data and more careful interpretation
of patterns detected in those data. I suppose one tradeoff is that it
is easy to loose sight of the forest when one is deep in the technical
trees. Many of the problems we work on require intense attention to
technical details, but communicating the importance
of any project requires a broader vision. A second potential tradeoff
is that some important and complex questions may not be well suited to
formal modeling and econometric analysis, but it might still be useful
for economists to weigh in on those questions
to the extent that we can.
Prof. Raymond Sauer (Ph.D., University of Washington) is Professor of Economics at the University of Clemson. He is the founder of The Sports Economist, a popular multi-author weblog which
focuses on economic aspects of sport, and is former President of the
North American Association of Sports Economists.
You have written a lot on the economic aspects of sports. Is the “sports and economics” niche full, or is there room for more people to work in this area?
First, I believe there is plenty of work left to do in the field of sports economics. I've been around a while and have seen the field blossom. At its best sports economics uses the sports as a way illustrate economic forces at work, while simultaneously informing us about sports in ways we might not have otherwise understood. There are plenty of young people just getting started and I'm sure they will do fantastic work for years to come.
Everyone is familiar with Moneyball. In your opinion, what is the best book about sports and economics that is less well known and what makes it great?
As for great books about sports and economics, Moneyball is a standout, as you mention. A lesser known but excellent book is The Baseball Economist, by John Charles Bradbury. JC is a sharp economist, huge baseball fan, and is superb at rendering complicated statistical findings into readable prose. Although the book is a bit dated), the economic thinking in it sets it apart from other sabremetric books and it is full of interesting nuggets. The chapter on "The Mazzone Effect" in particular is worth savoring. Also, as an Astros fan I must mention Astroball, by Ben Reiter. The 2017 Astros were a championship squad built on sharp analytical thinking, smart economic management, and great character. Reiter's book chronicles this moment, a dozen years or so after Michael Lewis' classic.
