Forward thinking

I’ve started reading Mark Mazower’s [amazon_link id=”0141011939″ target=”_blank” ]Governing the World: The History of an Idea[/amazon_link]. It traces the idea of international governance back to its origins in the early 19th century. Two chapters in, I’ve already learned a lot. One striking point is that a kind of ‘future mentality’ emerged in the mid-years of the 19th century, and helps explain the acceleration of economic and political change:

“Historians of overseas European settlement have recently begun to argue that what was once written off as a boom/bust mentality of the colonial frontier needs to be taken more seriously as a kind of bet on the future that emerged quite suddenly in the 19th century in response to the shrinkage of time and space, a moment when the pace of change seemed to be accelerating. This ‘future thinking’ drove both capitalism and colonialism. It expressed itself in speculative fevers and land grabs, survived the inevitable crashes, failures and disappointments, and found confirmation in rapidly growing cities, new transcontinental communications, and a succession of technological marvels.”

Economists pay so much attention to modelling expectations, but don’t think enough beyond the mathematical formalities about how the way people think about both the future and the past determines the decisions and choices they make today. The only place I’ve come across this kind of thinking modelled is an old (1991) Paul Krugman QJE paper, History versus Expectations.

I like Mark Mazower’s books, having read both hisĀ [amazon_link id=”0140241590″ target=”_blank” ]Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century[/amazon_link] and[amazon_link id=”0007120222″ target=”_blank” ] Salonica, City of Ghosts[/amazon_link]. More on this one when I’ve got my head around his thesis.

[amazon_image id=”0141011939″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]Governing the World: The History of an Idea[/amazon_image]

Embarrassment of Riches

The Financial Times this weekend had a wonderful article by Simon Schama about the re-opening of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. He writes: “In an age of interchangeable international art fairs, all flogging indistinguishable contemporary art, there is something deeply stirring about a great art institution being unafraid to reassert the distinctiveness of its national culture and history, and to make it a cause for popular rejoicing rather than uncool embarrassment.”

The article sent me back to Schama’s 1987 book [amazon_link id=”0006861369″ target=”_blank” ]The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age[/amazon_link].

[amazon_image id=”0006861369″ link=”true” target=”_blank” size=”medium” ]The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age[/amazon_image]

It’s a brilliant account of the feedbacks between cultural innovation and confidence and economic strength, although Schama doesn’t express it in those terms. Still, the country had by the 17th century a troubled and war-torn recent history, nor is it without geographical disadvantages (small and potentially very wet). Its military and economic success calls for explanation.

The revamped Rijksmuseum sounds fantastic – can’t wait to visit. Here’s what the website says about Amsterdam’s age of prosperity.