Abstract
The article discusses major works on economic history published by Urals scholars over the past few decades and outlines the main stages of their research development. The analysis of these works leads to the theoretical conclusion that there has been a recent upsurge in the scholarly interest in economic history. This trend is related to the multimethodological approach gaining popularity among these scholars and the two disciplines, economics and history, drawing closer together. There is a popular belief that history can prove useful to any economist as a storage of economic facts tested by life itself and as a collection of various economic experiments. History, however, is also very important as a source of economic ideas. Thus, there is a process of genuine ‘cross-disciplinary communication’, which manifests itself in economists and historians’ exchanging theories developed within the framework of their disciplines. In its modern stage, the economic history of the Urals focuses on the problems which were not previously covered by historical studies for a number of objective reasons: some sources were classified and unavailable due to security control; and some topics were considered inappropriate to raise in studies of national history. Historians have now turned to such questions as the creation and development of industry-specific territorial production complexes, which used to be predominantly studied by economists. Nowadays, economic history discovers new topics for research, expands its database of sources, applies diverse methodology, and uses conceptual approaches and methods developed both by Russian and foreign economists.
Highlights
Modern historical studies have developed in marked contrast to the classical research paradigm
History can be of use as a treasury of economic facts tested by scepticism; as a collection of experiments in all aspects of economics; as an endless source of economic ideas and so on
This work is a perfect illustration of the fact that economists and historians have different objects of study when conducting research in economic history: historians are more interested in the historical experience of a developing economy at various stages, while economists focus on the present state of economic development
Summary
Modern historical studies have developed in marked contrast to the classical research paradigm. The remarkable fact is that at that time there were no other works containing an integrated analysis of the economic development of a large region: in the Urals, but in the whole country Another interesting feature of this work is that it was a result of real collaboration between historians and economists. This work is a perfect illustration of the fact that economists and historians have different objects of study when conducting research in economic history: historians are more interested in the historical experience of a developing economy at various stages, while economists focus on the present state of economic development. Bakunin realized new approaches to studying the Soviet-period Urals economy in his work devoted to the features of the Ural industrial region [7]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.