2013 Young Economist Of The Year Essay Outline

On By In 1
MottoAmor urget habendi (Acquisitiveness impels)
Formation1890 as the British Economic Association - 1902 became Royal Economic Society on receiving a Royal Charter
Legal statusRegistered charity
PurposePromoting the study of economic science


Peter Neary (2017-2018)

Main organ

Executive Committee and Council / Economic Journal

The Royal Economic Society (RES) is a professional association that promotes the study of economic science in academia, government service, banking, industry, and public affairs. Originally established in 1890 as the British Economic Association, it was incorporated by royal charter on December 2, 1902. The society is a charity registered with the U.K. Charity Commission under charity number 231508.[1]

The RES has two publications produced by Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: The Economic Journal, first published in 1891, and The Econometrics Journal, first published in 1998. Both journals are available online through the RES website.[2] In addition, the RES supports a number of committees, including the Women’s Committee and the Conference of Heads of University Departments of Economics (CHUDE). The society also hosts an annual conference.[3]

Today, the society is managed by an Executive Committee that is responsible for developing and executing the society's policies and activities. Currently the Society's president (2017-2018) is Peter Neary, professor of Economics at the University of Oxford.

In 2017, the society created a centralised office in Westminster, London, and appointed its first Chief Executive, Leighton Chipperfield.


British Economic Association was founded in response to changing attitudes towards economics in the 1880s. Up until that point, the study of economics was typically taught as part of a broad curriculum, alongside subjects such as history and philosophy,[4] and those engaging in the study of economics came from a number of professions and academic disciplines. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, there were academic movements to clearly demarcate and to define disciplines as scholarly subjects in their own right. For example, those in the fields of history and philosophy inaugurated such journals as The English Historical Review (1886) and Mind (1887),[4] publications aimed mainly at their respective areas of study. Economic thinkers followed this example.

The same period also saw the revival of fundamentalist, socialist critique of economics. In order to protect the discipline from damaging criticism while still encouraging intellectual discussion, many economic thinkers strove to draw economics more decidedly within the realm of scholarly debate.[4]

The establishment of an economic society in this era of change indicated a desire to strengthen economics as a well-respected academic discipline, and to encourage debate and research between specialist scholars. In an announcement to the American Economic Association dated 1887 which proposed the formation of an Economic Society in Britain, scholars acknowledged common criticisms of economics and the contemporary disunity in the discipline. They called for a society which would aim to advance theory, consolidate economic opinion, encourage historical research, and critique industrial and financial policy.[5]

Initial proposals for a society[edit]

Initial proposals for a British Society of Economics were drafted as early as 1883.[4] Discussion began between Herbert Somerton Foxwell and Sir Robert Harry Inglis Palgrave. Palgrave had suggested creating a society specializing in the publication of translations and reprints of significant economic works. However, Foxwell had a more ambitious scheme in mind - a society that published a quarterly journal along the lines of the Quarterly Journal of Economics or the Journal des Économistes.[6]

There is no doubt that Foxwell's plans were influenced by foreign models, such as the German body Verein für Socialpolitik, founded in 1887, the French journals, the Journal des Économistes and the Revue d'Economie Politique established in 1841 and 1887, and the American Economic Association inaugurated in 1885.[7] Indeed, in 1887, Foxwell published an announcement in the Association’s publication saying "it is scarcely doubtful that we shall shortly follow the lead so ably set us on your side of the Atlantic."[5] As the discipline of economics was promoted and strengthened in America and Europe, scholars in the U.K. recognized an increasing urgency to ensure that British economic thought was represented. Certainly, Foxwell was not the only economist to propose the establishment of a scholarly journal in Britain. The Economic Review was established by scholars in Oxford in 1889, the year before the British Economic Association was inaugurated in London, and its publication, The Economic Journal, was set up.[8]

While there was a recognized need for a society of economists in the 1880s, it took a considerable time for Foxwell’s plans to come to fruition. One of the reasons for the delay was Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), Professor at Cambridge. Foxwell and Palgrave were keen to involve Marshall in the development of the association and its publication. Marshall was fully supportive of their plans, but as preparations progressed, he became preoccupied in completing his Principles of Economics. His former pupil, Edward Gonner, tried to encourage Marshall to participate in discussions to finalise the society but was unable to drive Marshall to action. He remarked to Foxwell that:

... for the next two years or so the matter must rest in abeyance unless active measures be taken. Of course, I know he will be glad if such be done and I am sure he will render assistance but he will not take the initiative.[9]

Gonner and Foxwell had to move on with the foundation of the society without Marshall. Marshall was only drawn back into the discussion when proposals for the nature of the society did not meet his approval.

Nature of the society[edit]

There had been much debate about what kind of society should be formed. Palgrave, Foxwell, and Marshall had discussed the idea that an economic journal should be attached to the Royal Statistical Society. But after some negative discussions with the society, the idea was dropped.[10] Marshall had hoped the group would come together naturally, centred around scholars at Cambridge.[9] Gonner, however, wanted the society to be an honoured institution of scholars. He argued that members should be selected "not for an interest in economics but for work." "Some scientific qualification" should also be essential for membership.[9] Foxwell seems to have agreed with this approach. However, Marshall opposed the idea. He explained to Foxwell: "I don’t want to include 'mere' businessmen. But I don’t want to exclude Bank Directors and others of the class who are for me, at least, the most interesting members of the Political Economy Club...It is men of affairs from whom I learn".[9] Marshall succeeded in persuading his friends. At its inauguration the society was made available to all those with an interest in economics, regardless of their scholarly qualifications.

Finding an editor[edit]

The inclusive attitude of society membership was also extended to the aims of its proposed journal. It was agreed that the publication should provide a forum for all views and opinions. The criteria for selection in the journal would be scholarly excellence, not political or scholarly persuasion.[11] However, there was much difficulty in finding a suitable editor to manage such a journal. Foxwell had favoured the appointment of John Neville Keynes as editor, but he was not available.[6] Foxwell admitted that without Keynes, the appointment was a difficult one:

...any number of men with strong views will volunteer, but these are just the persons we don’t want. We want cool heads, keen brains and impartial judgement. With these are required scholarship, information and, if possible, a knowledge of German. It seems to me a most difficult and delicate post.[12]

The search for an editor caused serious delays. It was not until 1890, the year of the society’s inauguration, that Francis Ysidro Edgeworth was appointed editor. Edgeworth held a chair in Economics at King's College London and was appointed Drummond Professor of Political Economy at Oxford University in 1891. Though his academic standing made him an excellent candidate for the role, Edgeworth admitted the difficulties of establishing a new journal:

I wrote to Marshall asking advice on every small difficulty which arose, until he protested that, if the correspondence was to go on at that rate, he would have to use envelopes with my address printed on them.[13]

Despite initial difficulties, Edgeworth’s editorship was highly successful and he remained editor for the next 34 years.[14]

Inauguration of the society[edit]

After years of discussion and delay, the British Economic Association (BEA) was inaugurated at University College London on 20 November 1890. Alfred Marshall wrote a letter of invitation to scholars and businessmen interested in economics, drawing around 200 people to the meeting. In the letter, Marshall set out the central aims of the society, to encourage debate and enable the dissemination of economic research through the medium of a British academic journal.[11]

Attendees unanimously showed their support for the plans. Edgeworth was formally appointed as editor of The Economic Journal. George Goschen, Second Viscount Goschen, the statesman and businessman, was selected as president of the society.[9]

George Bernard Shaw politely questioned the suitability of "a gentleman who was identified with any political party in the state" as head of the society, but Marshall responded:

I am one of those who am not in political support of Mr. Goschen. I believe all agree with me that since we cannot have an economist who has no political opinions at all; we could not have a better President than Mr. Goschen.[15]

Early years[edit]

After the elections, the BEA wasted no time in carrying out its aims to publish a journal. The first issue of The Economic Journal was printed in March 1891, with the editor’s promise that:

The most opposite doctrines may meet here as on a fair field...Opposing theories of currency will be represented with equal impartiality. Nor will it be attempted to prescribe the method, any more than the result, of scientific investigation.[11]

While The Economic Journal provided an outlet for the scholarly assessment of economic theory and policy, and helped to establish economics as a distinct and significant area of research, the BEA was slow to make an impact on the development of economics in other areas. As president, Goschen demonstrated a vehement desire to improve the status of economics in public opinion. At the inaugural council meeting, he warned of a "general idea that economists had finished their proper work in the education of the nation." At the BEA annual dinner in 1895, he argued that economics "was not treated with the respect accorded to other sciences."[16]

But despite Goschen’s vocal concern, the BEA could not make an immediate impact. The council made a bid to the Council of Legal Education to add economics to its subject of instruction, but failed to succeed in this endeavour.[16]

The slow progress of the BEA in its early years may be explained by the difficulties in establishing a financially viable association and journal. Membership fluctuated considerably in the first ten years, rising to a high of 750 members in 1893-4 before falling by around 40 per cent between 1892 and 1900. During this period, it was necessary to reconsider the printing arrangements of the Journal to ensure the financial stability of the association.[16] In time, the association established itself as a stable and successful economic institution. By the beginning of World War II, membership had risen to over 4,500 under the management of John Maynard Keynes.[17] Aside from the impact of successive presidents and editors, it is possible that the application for royal charter in 1900 had some effect on this gradual improvement, establishing the BEA as a well-respected and significant economic institution.

Royal charter[edit]

The secretary of the BEA, Henry Higgs, proposed that the council apply for royal charter ten years after its inauguration. Ten volumes of the Economic Journal were presented to King Edward VII, with the request that he become Patron of the Society.[18] Royal charter was duly granted on 2 December 1902. The charter indicated the society’s work to further economic science, its collection of a specialist library and its publication of a journal, saying:

And whereas in order to secure the property of the said society, to extend its operations, and to give it its due position among the Scientific Institutions of Our Kingdom, we have been besought to grant George Joachim Viscount Goschen, and to those who now are members of the said society, or who shall from time to time be elected Fellows of the Royal Economic Society hereby incorporated, Our Royal Charter of Incorporation for the purposes aforesaid.[19]

The British Economic Association, on accepting the royal charter, became the Royal Economic Society.

Society activity[edit]

The Royal Economic Society has supported the study of economics through engagement in a variety of activities.

Palgrave had been keen to establish the publication of economic works from the society's very inception.[6] The RES has supported a number of such publications; for example, the works and correspondence of David Ricardo,[20]Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics,[21]Centenary Essays and Correspondence, the Essay on the Principle of Population, Principles of Political Economy, and Travel Diaries of T. R. Malthus,[22]Francis Ysidro Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics and Papers on Political Economy[23] and Hiroshi Mizuta’s work on Adam Smith’s library.[24] The society also published The Economic Advisory Council: A Study of Economic Advice During Depression and Recovery by Susan Howson and Donald Winch.[23]

The preservation of the history of economics was also at the forefront of the Royal Economic Society’s activities from its early years. The council funded the repair of Adam Smith’s grave in 1942[25] and organized the cleaning of Malthus’ memorial in the 1960s.[26] In 1972, it supported the organization of a bicentennial Exhibition on Ricardo at the Drapers Company.[27] The society also took a great interest in recording its own history. In the 1960s, the society liaised with A.W. Coats, providing him with archival access to help with the writing of his paper, "Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", which was published in The Economic Journal.[20][28] In 1990, John Hey and Donald Winch co-edited A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal to celebrate the centenary of the society and the journal.[29] The RES also gave support and sponsorship to the publication of the Guide to Archive Sources in the 1970s, a volume which became the basis for a website on economists' papers from the years 1750-2000.[30]

The society supported contemporary economic research by hosting specialist conferences on varied topics including Decision Analysis (1973), Wages and Unemployment (1981), and Exchange Rate Systems (1986).[31] Today, the RES conference is an annual event, attracting over 400 presenters speaking on varied topics over several days.

The RES established activities to support economists at every stage in their career. The RES Annual Policy Lecture, established in 2001, aimed to expose sixth form students and members of the general public to the research of top economists.[32] The Young Economist of the Year essay competition initiated in 2007, its purpose being to encourage young students to think critically about key economic issues.[33] The Austin Robinson Prize (2007), given to the best paper published in The Economic Journal by an author within five years of completing their Ph.D., was instituted to support the development of early-career scholars.[34] The RES Prize (1990), given annually to the best paper published in The Economic Journal, was set up to celebrate the work of established economists.[35] In 1987, the Conference Heads of University Departments of Economics was established to bring together heads of Economic departments with the aim of promoting the teaching and studying of Economics in the UK.[36] In addition to these initiatives, the RES founded the Women’s Committee in 1996, developed to promote the role of women in the UK economics profession, with a particular concern for career entrants.[37]

One of the most significant of the Royal Economic Society’s recent activities was the inauguration of The Econometrics Journal (EctJ) in 1998. Recognizing the need for a journal dedicated to econometric research, the RES established the EctJ, with the aim of creating a top international field journal for the publication of macro- micro, and financial econometrics. In 2011 the editors of The Econometrics Journal initiated the annual Denis Sargan Econometrics Prize, awarded annually to the best article published in journal.[38]


  1. ^"Charity Commission for England and Wales". Crown copyright. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  2. ^"Royal Economic Society Home Page". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  3. ^"Royal Economic Society - Conference". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  4. ^ abcdAlon Kadish and Richard D. Freeman, ‘Foundation and Early Years’, in A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal, John D. Hey and Donald Winch (eds), (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p.22-24
  5. ^ abHerbert Somerton Foxwell, "The Economic Movement in England", Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2 (1887), p.103
  6. ^ abcA. W. Coats "The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.35
  7. ^Winch, Donald 'A Century of Economics' in Hey, J.D. and Winch D. Eds, A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society, (London: Blackwell, 1990), p.7
  8. ^A. W. Coats "The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.355
  9. ^ abcdeAlon Kadish and Richard D. Freeman, ‘Foundation and Early Years’, in A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal, John D. Hey and Donald Winch (eds), (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp.28-31
  10. ^A. W. Coats 'The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society', The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.351-2
  11. ^ abcFrancis Ysidro Edgeworth, "The British Economic Association", The Economic Journal, 1 (1891), p.1
  12. ^A. W. Coats "The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.353
  13. ^A. W. Coats "The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.362
  14. ^Past Editors Since 1891. Royal Economic Society Website. Retrieved 17 July 2013
  15. ^A. W. Coats "The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society", The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371, p.357
  16. ^ abcAlon Kadish and Richard D. Freeman, ‘Foundation and Early Years’, in A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal, John D. Hey and Donald Winch (eds), (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), pp.33-35
  17. ^Winch, Donald 'Wealth and Life: Essays on the Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain 1848–1914, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp.359ff
  18. ^Alon Kadish and Richard D. Freeman, ‘Foundation and Early Years’, in A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal, John D. Hey and Donald Winch (eds), (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p.43
  19. ^"The Royal Economic Society Charter of Incorporation", The Economic Journal, 13 (1903), 1-5, p.2
  20. ^ abRES Archive at LSE RES_10/2 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  21. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_10/6 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  22. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_10/13 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  23. ^ abRES Publications. RES Website. Retrieved 17 July 2013
  24. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_10/3/2 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  25. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_12/1 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  26. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_12/3 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  27. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_12/611 and RES_12/6/2 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  28. ^A. W. Coats 'The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society', The Economic Journal, 78 (1968), 349-371
  29. ^John D. Hey and Donald Winch (eds) A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p.35
  30. ^"Economists' Papers Preserving Economic Memory". Economists Papers. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  31. ^RES Archive at LSE RES_12/11 British Library of Political and Economic Science. Retrieved 17 June 2013.
  32. ^"Policy Lectures Series". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  33. ^"Essay Competition". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  34. ^"The Austin Robinson Memorial Prize". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  35. ^"Royal Economic Society Prize". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  36. ^"CHUDE". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  37. ^"RES Women's Committee". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 
  38. ^"Prize Winners". Royal Economic Society. Retrieved 4 September 2016. 

Further reading[edit]

  • ‘After Seven Years’, The Economic Journal, vol. 8, no. 29 (1898), 1–2 JSTOR
  • History of the Economic Journal
  • ‘The British Economic Association’, The Economic Journal, vol. 1, no. 1 (1891), 1–14, JSTOR
  • 'The Royal Economic Society. Charter of Incorporation', "The Economic Journal", vol.1, no. 14 (1903), 1-5 JSTOR
  • ‘The Society’s Jubilee’, The Economic Journal, vol. 50, no. 200 (1940), 401–409 JSTOR
  • Coats, A.W. ‘The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society’, The Economic Journal, vol. 68, no. 310 (1968), 349–371 JSTOR
  • Hey, John and Winch, Donald, "A Century of Economics: 100 Years of the Royal Economic Society and the Economic Journal", (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990)

External links[edit]

In which something old and powerful is encountered in a vault

FINGERS stroke vellum; the calfskin pages are smooth, like paper, but richer, almost oily. The black print is crisp, and every Latin sentence starts with a lush red letter. One of the book’s early owners has drawn a hand and index finger which points, like an arrow, to passages worth remembering.

In 44BC Cicero, the Roman Republic’s great orator, wrote a book for his son Marcus called de Officiis (“On Duties”). It told him how to live a moral life, how to balance virtue with self-interest, how to have an impact. Not all his words were new. De Officiis draws on the views of various Greek philosophers whose works Cicero could consult in his library, most of which have since been lost. Cicero’s, though, remain. De

Officiis was read and studied throughout the rise of the Roman Empire and survived the subsequent fall. It shaped the thought of Renaissance thinkers like Erasmus; centuries later still it inspired Voltaire. “No one will ever write anything more wise,” he said. The book’s words have not changed; their vessel, though, has gone through relentless reincarnation and metamorphosis. Cicero probably dictated de Officiis to his freed slave, Tiro, who copied it down on a papyrus scroll from which other copies were made in turn. Within a few centuries some versions were transferred from scrolls into bound books, or codices.

A thousand years later monks meticulously made copies by hand, averaging only a few pages a day. Then, in the 15th century, de Officiis was copied by a machine. The lush edition in your correspondent’s hands—delightfully, and surprisingly, no gloves are needed to handle it—is one of the very first such copies. It was printed in Mainz, Germany, on a printing press owned by Johann Fust, an early partner of Johannes Gutenberg, the pioneer of European printing. It is dated 1466.

Some 500 years after it was printed, this beautiful volume sits in the Huntington Library in San Marino, California, its home since 1916. Few physical volumes survive five centuries. This one should last several more. The vault that holds it and tens of thousands of other volumes, built in 1951, was originally meant to double as a nuclear-bomb shelter.

Although this copy of de Officiis may be sequestered, the book itself is freer than ever. In its printed forms it has been a hardback and, more recently, a paperback, published in all sorts of editions—as a one off, a component of uniform library editions, a classic pitched at an affordable price, a scholarly, annotated text that only universities buy.

And now it is available in all sorts of non-printed forms, too. You can read it free online or download it as an e-book in English, Latin and any number of other tongues.

Many are worried about what such technology means for books, with big bookshops closing, new devices spreading, novice authors flooding the market and an online behemoth known as Amazon growing ever more powerful. Their anxieties cannot simply be written off as predictable technophobia. The digital transition may well change the way books are written, sold and read more than any development in their history, and that will not be to everyone’s advantage. Veterans and revolutionaries alike may go bust; Gutenberg died almost penniless, having lost control of his press to Fust and other creditors. But to see technology purely as a threat to books risks missing a key point. Books are not just “tree flakes encased in dead cow”, as a scholar once wryly put it. They are a technology in their own right, one developed and used for the refinement and advancement of thought. And this technology is a powerful, long-lived and adaptable one.

Books like de Officiis have not merely weathered history; they have helped shape it. The ability they offer to preserve, transmit and develop ideas was taken to another level by Gutenberg and his colleagues. Being able to study printed material at the same time as others studied it and to exchange ideas about it sparked the Reformation; it was central to the Enlightenment and the rise of science. No army has accomplished more than printed textbooks have; no prince or priest has mattered as much as “On the Origin of Species”; no coercion has changed the hearts and minds of men and women as much as the first folio of

Shakespeare’s plays. Books read in electronic form will boast the samepower and some new ones to boot. The printed book is an excellent means of channelling information from writer to reader; the e-book can send information back as well. Teachers will be able to learn of a pupil’s progress and questions; publishers will be able to see which books are gulped down, which sipped slowly. Already readers can see what other readers have thought worthy of note, and seek out like-minded people for further discussion of what they have read. The private joys of the book will remain; new public pleasures are there to be added.

What is the future of the book? It is much brighter than people think.

In which deaths foretold do not unfold

ALMOST as constant as the appeal of the book has been the worry that that appeal is about to come to an end. The rise of digital technology—and especially Amazon, a bookshop unlike any seen before—underlined those fears. In the past decade people have been falling over themselves to predict the death of books, of publishers, of authors and of bookshops, even of reading itself. Of all those believed at risk, only the bookshops have actually suffered serious damage.

Historically books were a luxury item. Having become cheap enough for the masses in the 20th century, in the 21st century digital technology and global markets have made them more accessible still. In

2013 around 1.4m International Standard Book Numbers (ISBNs) were issued, according to Bowker, a research firm, up from around 8,100 in 1960. Those figures do not capture the many e-books that are being self-published without an ISBN.

Many of those self-published books are ones in which traditional publishers would have had no interest, but which almost-free distribution makes worthwhile: do you feel like checking out some Amish fiction? The size of the text, as well as the size of the niche, becomes less of an issue, too; short stories and novellas are making a comeback. “Before there used to be too-big-to-carry and too-short-to-print,” says Michael Tamblyn, the boss of Kobo, an e-reading company. “Now all those barriers are gone.”

Even the most gloomy predictors of the book’s demise have softened their forecasts. Nicholas Carr, whose book “The Shallows” predicted in 2011 that the internet would leave its ever-more-eager users dumb and distracted, admits people have hung onto their books unexpectedly, because they crave immersive experiences. Books may

face more competition for audiences’ time, rather as the radio had to rethink what it could do best when films and television came along; the habit of reading for pleasure has fallen slightly in the past few years. But it has not dropped off steeply, as many predicted. The length and ambition of a bestseller such as Donna Tartt’s “The Goldfinch”—864 pages in paperback—shows that people still tackle big books.

And they are willing to cart them around, too. The much ballyhooed decline of the physical book has been far from fatal. “I thought everything was going to change so much more quickly and so much more radically,” says Ellie Hirschhorn, chief digital officer at Simon & Schuster, a big publisher, who had predicted in 2010 that half of all book sales would be e-books by 2013. Instead, last year e-books accounted for around 30% of consumer book sales (not including professional and educational books) in America, the largest book market in the world and the country where e-books took off most quickly. In Germany, the world’s third-largest, e-books were around 5% of consumer book sales last year, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, a consultancy. The growth rate of e-books has recently slowed in many markets, including America and Britain. Publishers now expect most of their sales to remain in print books for decades to come—some say for ever.

There are a number of reasons. One is that, as Russell Grandinetti, who oversees Amazon’s Kindle business, puts it, the print book is “a really competitive technology”: it is portable, hard to break, has high-resolution pages and a “long battery life”.

Technology companies that are used to consumers flocking to snazzy features and updates have found it surprisingly challenging

to compete with a format of such simplicity, and consumers are uninterested in their attempts to do so. All most want is the ability to change font size, which is attractive to older eyes. Experiments with reinventing the presentation of books—by embedding sound and video inside e-books, for example—have fallen flat. Sales of e-readers, the most popular of which is the Kindle, are in decline. “In a few years’ time,” a recent report by Enders Analysis, a research firm, predicts, “we will look back at e-readers and remember them as one of the shortest-lived of all consumer media devices.”

You do not need a dedicated e-reader to read an electronic book. The multipurpose tablet devices which are replacing e-readers let you read books and—crucially—buy them whenever you like. Some forms of book benefit a lot. Heavy readers of genre fiction—romance, thrillers and science fiction—were early converts to the cheaper, more portable alternative. Other sorts of book have remained more stubbornly in print form, for various reasons. Physical books make better gifts; many people still want bookshelves in their homes. Parents who feel that their children are spending too much time with screens go for printed books as an alternative, which means a new generation is growing up in contact with print.

Perhaps more unexpected than the flourishing of the book is the health of some publishers. When the music and newspaper industries were ravaged by the internet over a decade ago people feared the same fate would befall publishing. “I thought I would say to people, ‘I’m what used to be called a book publisher’,” says Dominique Raccah, the boss of Sourcebooks, an independent publisher. But the volume of book sales has stayed steady, and publishers are still, for the most part, the people

producing the books that sell. Revenues are down slightly because e-books are a significant part of the market and their prices are lower; but costs have fallen, and thus profits are still there to be made.

Publishers used to guess how many books to print and ship and then pay for unsold copies to be returned to them—sometimes as much as 40% of the print run. Print-on-demand systems—digital technology at the service of physical books—reduce risks by enabling publishers to print smaller batches and then fire off more copies quickly if a book sells well. This has proved especially helpful for smaller publishers, such as university presses, says John Ingram of Ingram Content Group, a book distributor.

Analogies with the music and newspaper businesses have proved flawed. The music business collapsed in part because the bundle it was

peddling fell apart: people wanted the right to buy one song, not the whole album. Books are not so easily picked apart. The music business also suffered because piracy was so easy: anyone who buys a CD can extract the music it contains in digital format in seconds, and can then share it online. Creating a digital file from a printed book by scanning each page, by contrast, is a nightmare. The fate of newspapers has been driven by the decline of advertising—a business publishers (which sell books to readers, not readers to advertisers) were never in.

Where the publishers do their selling, though, is changing a lot. The biggest change of the past decade is the decline of physical bookshops, which is good neither for publishers nor the booksellers whose doors have closed. Borders, a chain of American book shops, and Weltbild, a German one, have gone under. The change affects which books have a chance of breaking out: bestsellers flourish, but midlist books that might have been discovered while browsing in a bookstore are worse off, because consumers cannot easily stumble upon them while shopping on the internet. To continue to bring in customers bookshops have changed their look, and increased the space they assign to nonbook products, like stationery, cards and other gifts. “A bookstore is defending a very specific lifestyle, where you want to take time out of your day and write or think or read,” says Sarah McNally, owner of a bustling independent bookshop in Manhattan.

There have been two casts of villain. First came the large chain stores in the 1980s that wounded independent booksellers and put many out of business. More recently Amazon, an online retailer that started with books in 1999 and now claims to sell “everything”, has ensured an ongoing wave of closures. Amazon is believed to control

nearly half of total book sales and around two-thirds of e-book sales in America. In Britain its grip on the e-book market is even stronger. Booksellers and publishers see Amazon as similar to the enormous polar bear in the television show “Lost”, trampling through the tropical rainforest devouring victims at random.

Amazon is no devotee of literature. It sees books as a “gateway” commodity it can use to attract customers. It has squeezed publishers and muscled out other booksellers by discounting books and selling some below cost. Recently Amazon has been waging a very public, months-long war with Hachette, a large publisher, in which it has in the eyes of many abused the power that its market dominance provides in an attempt to squeeze Hachette’s profits and drive prices even lower. Already the average amount American consumers say they paid for a book (averaging both print and e-books) has declined around 40% since 2009, from $15.45 in 2009 to $9.31 last year, according to Nielsen, a research firm.

The book industry rightly feels torn between resenting Amazon for its dominance and its mercenary attitude towards books, while relying on the company for business and appreciating that it has made books more accessible to buyers. “They really are evil bastards,” Anthony Horowitz, an English novelist, has said about Amazon. “I loathe them. I fear them. And I use them all the time because they’re wonderful.” And it has opened the doors for a hurried rush towards self publishing.

In which new sorts of author meet new sorts of reader

BEFORE the 19th century it was common for writers to publish themselves, a practice that carried no particular stigma, but imposed a significant burden of inconvenience on seller and buyer alike. One author in Paris had to direct buyers to his home on “Mazarine Street...above the Café de Montpellier, on the second floor using the staircase on the right, at the far end of the alley”. As publishing became a mass-market business in subsequent centuries, the self-published came to be seen as kooks or egotists, and treated as marginal in either case. Readers went to bookshops, bookshops bought from publishers and that was the way it was. Bookshops mostly refused to stock them.

Today self publishing has made a comeback. The internet enables

people to sell their e-books and print books without the hassle of directing people to their homes or trying to get bookstores to display them. It also offers them success on a scale never before possible.

At last spring’s London Book Fair there was a booth rented by eight authors who said that, between them, they had sold a staggering 16m books and spent weeks on the New York Times bestseller list—all without the help of a traditional publisher. They are used to having their claims dismissed; Bella Andre, a self-published romance writer with an economics degree from Stanford, got so irked when a publisher challenged her heady sales figures that she took a picture of a bank statement and sent it to him.

“No one is counting our books in any survey that comes out in the media,” sighed Barbara Freethy, another romance writer. She says that, as of September, she has sold over 4.8m books.

To write a book costs nothing but time. To hire an editor, cover designer, formatter and publicist can, if you think them necessary, be done for $2,000 or less. Amazon will publish and sell the resultant e-book to any of its 250m customers who may be interested; smaller sites will do the same, and many offer print-on-demand sales, too. Authors who self publish an e-book through Amazon get up to 70% of net sales, as opposed to the 25% they might get on an e-book that went through a publisher.

Last year Amazon’s sales of self-published books were around $450m, according to one estimate; a former Amazon executive thinks the number is higher. In America about a quarter of the books that got an ISBN in 2012 were self-published, according to Bowker—almost 400,000 titles. In 2013 self-published books accounted for one out of

every five e-books purchased in Britain, according to Nielsen.

“Wool” started off as a short story online about a subterranean city called the Silo. Reader enthusiasm and feedback encouraged its author, Hugh Howey, to extend it into a novel. More enthusiasm followed. Simon & Schuster, a big publisher, did an unusual deal to license rights to the print book, while Mr Howey continued to sell the e-book off his own bat. It became a bestseller and may become a film. The film of “Fifty Shades of Grey”, the poster-child for online fiction, hits cinemas

next year. Like “Wool”, E.L. James’s “Fifty Shades...” started off online, and some of its e-book success has been attributed to the fact that reading erotica is more discreetly done on a tablet. But since being acquired by Random House it has done remarkably well in its printed form, too. All told, it and its two sequels have chalked up sales of over 100m worldwide.

Like Ms James, most writers still sign with publishers when they have the chance, because print books remain such a sizeable chunk of the market. But the self-publishing boom is changing how those publishers work. Self-published authors attract readers by selling their books for just a few dollars and are aggressive about offering promotions to boost sales. This puts pressure on publishers’ prices—especially in genre fiction, where self publishing is most powerful. In the past five years the revenues of Harlequin, a publisher of romantic fiction, have dropped by around $100m; in May it was purchased by HarperCollins. As well as changing what publishers can charge for some types of book, self publishing also changes how they go about finding them. Publishers hoping to spot the next hot thing have started to scour online writing sites, such as Wattpad, where people receive feedback on their work from other users. Any interest they show is normally warmly appreciated. In the past 12 months the average earnings for self-published authors have probably been around $1,180, reckons Mark Coker, the boss of Smashwords, a self-publishing platform, with most of them getting less than that. Such authors find themselves highly dependent on Amazon’s recommendation system and websites that offer promotions to boost their sales; most readers still gravitate to books that have been professionally written, edited and reviewed.

But the advantages of being “properly published”—editors, promotion, and the like—should not be oversold. “We have to be careful not to compare the reality of self publishing with the ideal of legacy publishing,” says Barry Eisler, a thriller writer.

In 2011 he walked away from a publisher’s advance of $500,000 in favour of the self-publishing route; he says the decision paid off well. Susan Orlean, an author and a staff writer at the New Yorker, considered something similar for a recent book. “In a million years I would have never thought of that before,” she says. She thinks the day will come when publishers may have to start unbundling their services. “The mere fact that publishers make hardcover books won’t be a powerful enough argument. They will have to reimagine their role.” Publishers could start offering “light” versions of their services, such as print-only distribution, or editing, and not taking a cut of the whole pie.

Publishers realise that they have to change. “Publishers will only be relevant if they can give authors evidence that they can connect their works to more readers than anybody else,” admits Markus Dohle, who runs Penguin Random House, the world’s largest consumer-book publisher.

Such connection is crucial, because the same technology that is making it easier for people to publish their own books is also making it easier for them to explore new ways of finding, sharing, discussing and indeed emulating the books of others. (Ms James’s “Fifty Shades of Grey” started off as fan-fiction based on the characters of Stephenie Meyer’s bestselling “Twilight” books.) From online reviews to the world’s numerous literary festivals to all sorts of social media, writers are ever more aware of and available to their audiences. Ms Orlean says

she was used to “writing into the void”, but now posts regularly about what she is working on. For her and others the contact seems like an opportunity. Others find it irksome. Most, probably, see it as a bit of both. But it is not going away. And it is not entirely new.

In Cicero’s day authors ready to launch their newest work would gather their friends at home or in a public hall for a spirited recitatio, or reading. Audiences would cry out when they liked a particular passage. Nervous authors enlisted their friends to lend support, and sometimes even filled seats with hired “clappers”. They were keenly aware of the importance of networking to get influential acquaintances to recommend their works to others. The creation of books started off as something both personal and social; the connection embodied in that dual nature is at the heart of what makes books so good at refining and advancing thought. It was just that the practicalities of publishing in the printing-press age made the personal connections a bit harder to see.

In which standards are always in steep decline, and life gets ever better

THOSE whose tastes do not run to the dystopic “Wool” or the embondaged “Fifty Shades...”, who fear that nothing good can come of readers asking authors anything on Reddit and that Flaubert was well-served by his lack of Facebook friends, will find a kindred spirit in Niccoló Perotti. In 1471 the humanist scholar complained to a friend, “Now that anyone is free to print whatever they wish, they often disregard that which is best and instead write, merely for the sake of entertainment, what would be best forgotten, or better still, be erased from all books.” His worries were echoed for centuries. “If everyone writes, who will read?” asked Christoph Martin Wieland, an 18th-

century German writer.

As new means of production, new means of distribution and new audiences have grown up hand in hand throughout the modern history of the book, they have always been looked at askance by representatives of the old order. This may be why novelties have often been slow to take over. Scrolls continued to be used for hundreds of years after the codex was developed. Early printed books tried to diminish the shock of the new by looking like handwritten manuscripts, rather as e-books have, to date, aped print.

But as printers grew in ambition they experimented with ways to make new sorts of “book” that could do things the old ones could not. The ability to mass produce short pamphlets easily and cheaply led to the creation of Flugschriften, or “flying writings”, such as those penned by Martin Luther; these pamphlets were purchased by people who had never been able to afford a book. Printers gradually pushed into other new genres with no history: almanacs that would forecast weather patterns, chapbooks containing folk tales.

In the 19th century stereotyping, which allowed for whole sheets to be set at once, gave publishers the opportunity to reach new populations of readers through magazines and newspapers and also to expand the world of book-buyers. Their “Yellowbacks” (in Britain) and dime novels (in America) started off as affordable reprints of older books, not least because that meant not having to pay authors. But in time the publishers came to experiment with new types of content that reflected readers’ interests and demography, such as Westerns and guides to practical knowledge. A similar pattern arose with the introduction of affordable and portable paperbacks in the middle of the

20th century.

Experiments with form have been complemented by experiments with business models. Publishers in the 17th and 18th centuries often sold books by “subscription”, which meant that consumers would agree in advance to buy a book after seeing a prospectus. It acted as a market test. If not enough people were interested, the project could be dropped.

In the 18th century another new model arose in Britain, tailored to the needs of a literate class that wanted to read more than it wanted to buy: “circulating libraries” sold annual memberships that allowed readers to always have a book on the go. The most powerful of them, Mudie’s, was the Amazon of its day in terms of market power, says Leah Price, a professor of English at Harvard University. It would often buy up as much as half of a book’s print run for its network of borrowers; if Mr Mudie chose not to stock an author’s book, it could become an immediate dud. The circulating libraries’ business model encouraged publishers to put out books in three volumes, so three people could be reading one book at once; novelists would write to the form, fleshing out their prose to fill the “triple-decker” format. The development of magazine and newspaper serialisation further encouraged some novelists towards length, as well as setting up a distinctive rhythm of cliffhangers at the end of each instalment.

People tend to think of new genres as inferior to those that preceded them. Novels were particularly popular among circulating libraries’ patrons, much to the chagrin of the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who harrumphed that he “dare not compliment their pass-time, or rather kill-time, with the name of reading”. But history has been kinder to Walter Scott’s triple-deckers and the serialised

doorstops of Alexandre Dumas, as it has to self-published oddities such as Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass” or Marcel Proust’s “Swann’s Way”. Publishing technologies have replaced each other; business models have come and gone. But the various forms of book that have been encouraged along the way have almost all, like the texts of the greatest themselves, persisted.

In which ideas from the past move on into the future

OF THE various ways in which technology is expanding what a book can be, one of the most successful so far has been to add to books something that children have enjoyed for ever, and that most people required until the 20th century: another person to do the reading. The cost of recording audiobooks has fallen from around $25,000 in the late 1990s to around $2,000-3,000 today, says Donald Katz of Audible, an audiobook firm owned by Amazon. Books that lend themselves to performance or seek to inculcate self-improvement do particularly well as readings; commuting provides a perfect time for partaking of them. Audible, which is headquartered in New Jersey, says it is the largestemployer of actors in the New York area. They do their spirited

recordings from texts read off iPad screens—which they prop up on piles of books.

Information technology could provide new ways of getting words from the page to the brain, as well as old ones. Spritz is an application which beams words to a reader one at a time. Like a treadmill, readers can set their own speed and read more quickly, because their eyes can stay in one place instead of scanning a page. Its most immediate application is to allow longish texts to be read on smallish screens, such as those of watches. However Frank Waldman, Spritz’s boss, thinks people will consume whole books this way, as well as poetry, allowing poets to set their poem’s cadence for readers. (The scrolling version of this essay allows you to read this chapter by way of spritz, should you wish.)

The syncopated spritzing of sonnets and sestinas may or may not turn out to be a big hit; but new sorts of book that use the capabilities of technology for more than just recreating pages are, in time, a sure thing. And so is the decline, even possibly the demise, of some old sorts of book.

Matt MacInnis of Inkling, an e-book company, says that the key question is “What are the things books used to do for us that software will now do for us?” Presenting people with procedural information they need in order to take on a simple task or fulfil a well-stated goal is one of those things. Books that simply tell people how to fix their Toyota, how to cook tarte tatin or how to find a place to stay in Tokyo would seem to have a limited future unless they can become objects that meet aspirational, not just informational, needs. On the other hand, books which actually teach, rather than simply inform, could have a

very bright future, their pedagogy enriched by embedded media and software that adapts them to the user’s pace and needs.

And if publishers find that some sorts of book no longer make money, they will be able to do a better job selling the ones that do thanks to the far greater amounts of data that can be gathered when books are sold on the internet or read in electronic form.

HarperCollins, for example, has found that when it discounts backlist books, around 10% of consumers buy another title from that author. “That’s information we never had before in the print world,” says Brian Murray, the boss of HarperCollins. Another big publisher is experimenting with “dynamic pricing” on around half of its e-books.

Data can also help decide what sort of content to acquire, particularly in the fields of academic, business and science publishing. Safari Books Online, a sort of database for book content owned by O’Reilly Media, uses data about subscribers’ reading habits to improve its offerings in this way. And Amazon has a trove of data about how people read, including how much time they spend on each page and when they abandon books. As yet, publishers do not have much access to these data; Amazon keeps them to itself. If or when publishers gain more, and start to think about them more deeply, data may be one of the aspects of the electronic world that change their business most.

This may not be to the advantage of authors seeking to make a living at their trade. One of the reasons dud books get published is that no one is quite sure what will sell. Publishers spread their bets on the basis of instinct, taste, friendship, hunches and stubbornness—for all of which a more data-rich world has less room. While there will be more books, there may be fewer people who can make a full living as writers

and publishers, says Mike Shatzkin, an industry analyst.

This too could in part be seen as a return to previous eras, when people did not expect to earn a living by writing books, but used books as a means to advance their career or as a creative outlet. It is clear that most self-published authors are not doing it for the money they can reasonably expect to get—they are doing it to leave a mark, if only a digital one. Those who make a living too may increasingly be the ones who become marketable personalities online, on the festival circuit and elsewhere, rather than being just faded pictures on the inside back cover.

And writers who are not also performers may find that new opportunities arise. People with an idea for a book they cannot afford to take the time to write no longer have to go to a publisher. They can offer something like old-fashioned subscriptions to prospective readers, either on generalist crowdfunding sites, such as Indiegogo, or through specialist firms such as Pubslush and Unbound. Many will not get funded; some will succeed beyond their dreams. In February a young woman raised $380,000 through Kickstarter for “Hello Ruby”, a children’s book that teaches programming skills. Some will go on to greatness. Unbound, founded in 2011, has already helped produce a novel, Paul Kings north’s “The Wake”, which was long listed for the 2014 Man Booker prize in fiction.

Such funding is just another way in which the functions previously all wrapped up in publishing are being unbundled, and in which books are becoming more social. Those who use e-reading devices can see which passages were highlighted by other users, and there is talk of expanding offerings so people can discuss books in the margin at the

same time. Bob Stein of the Institute for the Future of the Book predicts that some e-books will start to be sold with a “gloss” of commentary from their authors or other well-known critics, sort of like the director’s cut version of films.

There will be new experiments in storytelling, new genres born of the electronic age, and new authors who never would have been discovered in a print-only world. But there will also go on being lots of books in print—many of which may be more pleasant to hold, feel and own than ever before. In the face of the e-book there is “an imperative now to make the entire physical package itself special”, says Scott Moyers, an editor at Penguin Press. At the extreme is Arion Press, which sells sumptuous copies of classics that have been printed on letterpresses. Its two-volume Don Quixote with goatskin binding and lush illustrations sets readers back a bit more than $4,000.

Books will evolve online and off, and the definition of what counts as one will expand; the sense of the book as a fundamental channel of culture, flowing from past to future, will endure. People may no longer try to pass on wisdom to their sons and daughters through slave-written scrolls, as Cicero did in de Officiis, or even in print. It may even be that Voltaire was right, and that none of them will ever write anything more wise than what was set down 2,000 years ago. But it will not be for want effort, or of opportunity, or of an audience of future readers ready to seek out wisdom in the books that they leave behind.

Selected bibliography

Bassett, Troy J.“The Production of Three-Volume Novels, 1863-1897”, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (2008) pp. 61-75

Book Industry Study Group, “Consumer Attitudes Toward E-Book Reading”, 2013

Bower, Joseph L. and Christensen, Clayton M.“Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave”, Harvard Business Review, January-February 1995

Cicero, Marcus Tulliusde Officiis Mainz: Johann Fust and Peter Schoeffer, 1466

Coover, Robert“The End of Books”, The New York Times, June 21st 1992

Coser, Lewis A., Kadushin, Charles and Powell, Walter W.Books: The Culture and Commerce of Publishing New York: Basic Books, 1982

Darnton, Robert“A World Digital Library is Coming True!”, The New York Review of Books, May 22nd 2014

Darnton, RobertThe Case for Books: Past, Present, and Future. New York: PublicAffairs, 2009

Erickson, Lee“The Economy of Novel Reading: Jane Austen and the Circulating Library”, Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol 30, No 4. (Autumn, 1990), pp 573-590

Felton, Marie-Claude“The Enlightenment and the Modernization of Authorship: Self-Publishing Authors in Paris (1750-91)”, The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (December, 2011), pp. 439-469

Frederick, John T.“Hawthorne’s ‘Scribbling Women’”, The New England Quarterly (June, 1975), pp 231-240

Howard, NicoleThe Book: The Life Story of a Technology Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009

Johns, AdrianNature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998

Lyons, MartynBooks: A Living History J. Paul Getty Museum, 2011

McCabe, Douglas“Consumer books: slow transformation”, Enders Analysis (August, 2014)

Katz, BillDahl’s History of the Book Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1995

McLuhan, MarshallUnderstanding Media: The Extensions of Man Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994

Merkoski, JasonBurning the Page: The eBook Revolution and the Future of Reading Naperville: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2013

Pavel, Thomas G.The Lives of the Novel: A History Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013

Pettegree, AndrewThe Book in the Renaissance New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010

Piper, AndrewBook Was There: Reading in Electronic Times Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012

Plant, MarjorieThe English Book Trade: An Economic History of the Making and Sale of Books London: George Allen & Unwin, 1965

Price, Leah“Dead Again”, The New York Times August 10th 2012

Rainie, Lee and Zickuhr, Kathryn“Younger Americans and Public Libraries”, Pew Research (September 10th, 2014)

Schiffrin, AndréThe Business of Books: How International Conglomerates Took Over Publishing and Changed the Way We Read London: Verso, 2000

Thompson, John B.Merchants of Culture: Publishing in the Twenty-First Century New York: Plume, 2012

Winsbury, RexThe Roman Book Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 2009

Wischenbart, Rüdiger“Global eBook: A Report on Market Trends and Developments”, Rudiger Wischenbart Content & Consulting (February, 2014)


Photo credits by section: Bridgeman, Alamy, Bridgeman, Bridgeman, Bridgeman, Reuters, Getty Images, Bridgeman, CardCow, Magnum, Bert Kaufmann. Flip book effect by Marcio Aguiar's Wowbook library.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *