//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts









Loading...
New working paper! “On the Origins of Modern East Asia: Knowledge and the Economic Transformation of Japan and China in the Late 19th Century” with Debin Ma and Weiwen Yin Available at: digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_...
Annual update: Economics and Political Science of Religion Articles Published in Top Journals, 2000-present
New survey on religion and gender with the amazing @jeanetbentzen.bsky.social & @chuncheekokecon.bsky.social 🎉
SIOE 2026 at INSEAD Fontainebleau! 13-15 July. Call: www.sioe.org/conference/2...
The Economic History Review has published a virtual issue collecting the contributions of 2025 Nobel Laureate Joel Mokyr in the journal. I had the privilege of writing the introductory essay. You can read it here, together with Joel's articles and reviews. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1...
3mo
3mo
6mo
Beginning in Summer 2026, I will be one of the co-editors of Journal of Economic History. I will be taking over from Bishnu Gupta, who has done a fantastic job the last four years. Looking for papers asking big questions. Answers must be convincing, but methodology is secondary IMO
Stories like this pop up often here. My take: this happens when the author is not making it clear what the advancement is relative to their own past work It’s not reviewers being stupid. At best it’s bad writing. At worst it’s authors obfuscating to make the contribution seem bigger than it is