Institute of Economic and Social History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University (1993–2018)

Institute of Economic and Social History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University (1993–2018) Matěj Spurný, Barbora Štolleová Institute of Economic and Social History of the Faculty of Arts of Charles University (“IESH”, “FA CUNI”), which celebrates aquarter-century of its existence in 2018, is ahistorical, highly specialised workplace, firmly established on the plane of teaching and research within the network of academic and scientific research institutes in the Czech Republic, and with resonance at international level.1 Aretrospective glance at its activities bears testimony to the process of institutionalising economic and social history as an independent subdiscipline within Czechoslovak and later Czech historical science in the post-1989 era. It is also atestament to the gradual scientific profiling of this institution towards modern and contemporary economic and social history of the Czech Lands and Central Europe, which on the one hand naturally emerged from the long-term academic specialisation of its staff, and, on the other hand, it has been indirectly enforced by alimited material background resulting in asustained “chamber” character, i.e. the limited staffing of the institute. Despite an overall decline in interest in social science studies in the Czech Republic in recent years, where there has been anoticeable decline in the number of candidates for history study, the twenty-five year-old journey of IESH is an impressive record of achievement. By conceptual and systematic development of awide range of research topics and researchers’ projects, as well as the ability to integrate an expert scientific focus on researchers from other institutes at home and abroad, the institute enters into abroader historical and international discourse and contributes to adeeper understanding of economic and social processes in modern times. On the teaching plane it has succeeded in integrating economic and social history into the teaching of history at the FA CUNI. Likewise, one of the strengths of the IESH activities is the longterm successful development of specialised doctoral studies promoting the education of anew generation of economic and social historians. 1 This study was conducted at Charles University as part of PROGRES Q09: History— Key to understanding the globalized world. 8 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE IESH AND THE FIRST YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE (1990S) The economic and social history discipline was established at the Prague FA CUNI in close relation to an organisational restructuring at Charles University in 1990, when the Department of Economic and Social History was created in June 1990 under the formal direction of Vladimír Kašík. It was transformed into an Institute of Economic and Social history in September 1993, formally consisting of two separate seminars (seminar on Economic History and seminar on Social History) under joint management. In the words of Zdeněk Jindra, who was one of the key initiators in December 1989 of an independent Department (the proposal for the establishment was handed to Dean František Černý on 28.12.1989 after aprior expert meeting with Josef Petráň and Jaroslav Pátek). In September 1992 he took over its leadership and from the summer of 1993 stood at the head of the new institute in response to the demand for aspecialised workplace in asituation where economic and social history in Czechoslovakia was in the long-term “completely inadequate and crippled institutional base for teaching and research” and it was treated as an “appendage” to political history, and in the case of social history, an “oversimplified and narrowed view” in the form of unilateral preferring of the political history of the labour movement at the expense of abroader conception of social history.2 The arguments put forward for the founding of aspecialised workplace also pointed out the abandonment of the traditions of the discipline after the interwar period, when anumber of historians worked at the FA CUNI focusing on economic and social history (Kamil Krofta— Bedřich Mendl— František Roubík— František Kutnar), and it was claimed that the field of study was lagging behind western and neighbouring countries. The idea that systematic development of the field of economic and social history was conceivable within the existing historical workplaces at the Prague FA CUNI (Department/Institute of Czech History; Department/Institute of General/ World History) was dismissed by the initiators of the establishment of the department. Economic and social history was, as is apparent from Jindra’s thesis about the conception of the discipline sent to the dean in April 1991 and published ayear later,3 intended as afreestanding scholarly discipline with aspecific research focus, with an integrative and interdisciplinary position as against historical science and social and economic sciences, requiring an adequate independent institutional background. However cogent may have been the arguments presented by the initiators of the establishment of aprofessional workplace for economic and social history, in ret2 Collection of documents concerning the establishment of the Department of Economic and Social History and its transformation into the IESH (mainly correspondence between Zdeněk Jindra and the Dean’s office, handwritten minutes taken by Zdeněk Jindra from meetings in the newly established institute), see the IESH archive; Cf. Zdeněk Jindra, Kustavení katedry hospodářských asociálních dějin na Filosofické fakultě Karlovy University vroce 1990 ajejí počáteční úkoly, Hospodářské dějiny 20, 1992, pp.299–305. 3 Zdeněk Jindra, Téze ke koncepci oboru akatedry hospodářských asociálních dějin na Filozofické fakultě Karlovy univerzity, Hospodářské dějiny 20, 1992, pp.261–266. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 9 rospect it has to be said that the very decision to establish or renew the economic and social history discipline after the Velvet Revolution in the early 1990s was arelatively uncertain and risky undertaking. First of all, in Marxist historiography the emphasis was placed precisely on economic and social history, in whose interest the workplaces devoted to the history of the labour movement were built in the era of Stalinism alongside ordinary historical institutes and departments. Many of these specific historical workplaces, including the Department of the History of the Labour Movement at the FA CUNI led by Zdeněk Kárník, were abolished after the year 1968, since they had become the centre of Marxist revisionism in historiography in the 1960s, emphasising the Marxist conceived economic and social history, the history of social strata and the history of the proletariat, the emphasis continued to acertain extent, at least at the rhetorical level (whereas in fact Czech historiography had significantly shifted towards political history conceived as aseries of events in the 1970s and 1980s). The support for this direction along with astrong representation of texts written in the fashion of theses (the sources were primarily to support ideological assumptions, such as exploitation of the lower classes, the rise of class consciousness and the existence of class struggle) in the Czechoslovak academic community and among the interested lay public, created asignificantly negative image of social and economic history as asubordinate discipline. This negative connotation could not be completely wiped out even by some outstanding studies whose methodology rested on economic and social historical approaches, which are among the best that the Czech and Slovak historiography produced during the era of normalisation.4 The founders of the department and later the Institute of Economic and Social History insisted, alongside the first-Republic tradition, on the international status and the importance of economic and social history at foreign universities and other research institutions (in western European countries, including Germany, and in the U.S.), the situation was in fact less favourable in this respect. In particular, social history has witnessed amajor rise in key European historiographies, sometimes coupled with atemporary dominance, roughly from the mid-1960s. This role of structurally, economically and socially historically based research symbolises the establishment in Germany of the so-called Bielefeld School. In the Anglo-Saxon world a groundbreaking work by Edward P. Thompson “The Making of the English Working Class” (1963)5 and an essay by Eric Hobsbawm “From Social History to The History of Society” (1971)6 were decisive in this context. On the contrary, since the beginning of the 1980s structurally based economic and social history has met with mounting criticism, which drew its strength and persuasive force from postmodern reflection, i.e. the influence of the linguistic moment on Western historiography. This questioning of some of the underlying assumptions and hence the relevance of the macro-perspective, as proposed 4 See for example Otto Urban, Kapitalismus ačeská společnost. Kotázkám formování české společnosti v19.století. Prague 1978, some works by Josef Petráň, parts of some works by Miroslav Hroch, and others. 5 Edward P.Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, London 1963. 6 Eric J.Hobsbawm, From Social History to the History of Society, Daedalus 100, 1971, no.1, pp.20–45. 10 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 by economic and social history, this may have culminated during the 1990s, but leading social historians show that the fundamental weakening of the field of study, associated with the rise and increasing persuasive force of the new cultural history, gender history and the history of everyday life had already begun after the year 1980.7 The establishment of the department, and of the institute, and restoration of economic and social history in the Faculty of Arts on the threshold of the 1990s falls into what was not avery auspicious period for the discipline due to several practically unrelated trends. In particular, in personnel terms, they cannot completely deny acertain link to the temporarily stigmatised history of the labour movement. They are more methodically inspired in the German-speaking environment, where, at the time of their creation, the economic and structurally conceived social history of “Bielefeld Pattern” grow rather defensive. Yet, with hindsight, the effort to establish economic and social history as key historiographic approaches developed in the faculty seems to have been clearly beneficial. This was the achievement of personalities who cultivated the discipline (and could enrich it with new methodological approaches, including some related to cultural history), as well as general developments in relation to events such as the crisis of neoliberal capitalism after the year 2008 (which in general challenge the ability of postmodern historiography to actually explain the causes of ahistorical change), and among other things, the renaissance of structurally anchored historiographic approaches. The technical profile of the newly founded Department of Economic and Social History and later the Institute of Economic and Social History was built up gradually. We can see in the surviving documents relating to the first years of the existence of the Department/Institute the driving ambition and the vision of the work of an estimated 10 to 12 internal members studying economic and social history (on the plane of research and teaching) in awide sweep from the Middle Ages to the present. However, the actual research profile of the internal members of the institute was in fact narrower. The single-minded focus on the branch of economic history lay from the outset in the capitalist era. The lifelong topics of Zdeněk Jindra, who led the Institute of Economic and Social History until 1996, and until the academic year 1999/2000 hosted aseminar on economic history, included banking in the context of the development of acapitalist modern economy, history of arms production (the Krupp Group), and economic and political relations in Central Europe including their idea concepts (Mitteleuropa).8 7 The year 1980 as amomentous year is mentioned by, among others, Geoff Eley, Is all the world atext? From Social History to the History of Society Two Decades Later, In: Gabrielle M.Spiegel (ed.), Practicing History: New Directions in Historical Writing after the Linguistic Turn, New York 2004, pp.35–61 (Eley wrote this text as aworking study in 1990), or Jürgen Kocka, Losses, Gains and Opportunities: Social History Today, Journal of Social History 37, 2003, no.1, pp.21–28. 8 Zdeněk Jindra, Der Rüstungskonzern Fried. Krug AG 1914–1918: die Kriegsmateriallieferugen für deutsche Heer und die deutsche Marine, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et Historica, Monographia 98, Prague 1986; Zdeněk Jindra, Když Krupp byl „dělovým králem“: fa Fried. Krupp/Essen od založení ocelárny po rozšíření ve zbrojovku akoncern (1811— počátek 90.let 19.století), Prague 2009. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 11 Jaroslav Pátek, studying in the long-term the history of science and technology and the history of agriculture, turned his attention in the 1990s to the issue of Czechoslovak banking in abroader context shaping the international credit market and newly, to the history of entrepreneurship.9 The middle generation of historians, who found their feet within the economic branch of the newly constructed workplace, also clearly focused on the 19th and 20th century. While Drahomír Jančík was developing his scholarly profile from the economic issues of central and south-eastern Europe in the 1930s, and more particularly from the mutual relations between the states of the Little Entente and Germany,10 in the case of Eduard Kubů the steppingbridge was the Czechoslovak foreign policy between the wars, especially in relation to Germany, which traditionally belonged to its most important economic partners.11 The youngest member of the economic history seminar, Ivan Jakubec, entered the area of economic history through atransfer of techniques and technologies and his personal platform in the following years was to be the tertiary sphere (transport, infrastructure, logistics).12 The only person to study briefly older economic history, namely the early modern era, in the newly established workplace was Věra Michovská (nee Šádová). The staffing situation in the seminar on social history appeared to be somewhat tense in the first few years. Its core consisted of three rehabilitated members from the department of the labour movement, who had been persecuted at the end of the 1960s by the normalisation regime (Vladimír Kašík, Zdeněk Kárník and Jan 9 In addition to aseries of teaching texts for secondary schools and grammar schools from the 1970s and 1980s, Pátek mainly addressed in the pre-November period the issue of agriculture, e.g. Jaroslav Pátek, Vývoj mechanizace zemědělské výroby včeských zemích vprvé polovině 20.století. Prague 1970; Jaroslav Pátek, Racionalizace zemědělské výroby mechanizací včeských zemích vprvní polovině 20.století, 2 vols. Prague 1972. As for Jaroslav Pátek cf. Ivan Jakubec, Kúmrtí Jaroslava Pátka, Hospodářské dějiny— Economic History 23, 2004, pp.289–291. Ivan Jakubec— Zdeněk Jindra, In memory of Jaroslav Pátek, Prager WISOHIM 7, 2004–2005, pp.274–275. Lexikon českých historiků 2010, Ostrava 2013, p.400. 10 Drahomír Jančík, Německo aMalá dohoda: hospodářské pronikání Německa do Jugoslávie aRumunska vprvní polovině 30.let, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et Historica. Monographia 134, 1990 (as abook published in Prague 1990); Drahomír Jančík, Třetí říše arozklad Malé dohody: hospodářství adiplomacie vPodunají vletech 1936–1939, Prague 1999. 11 Eduard Kubů, Německo— zahraničněpolitické dilema Edvarda Beneše (hospodářské vztahy sNěmeckem včeskoslovenské zahraniční politice let 1918–1924), Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica and Historica. Monographia, 144, 1992 (as abook publication published in Prague 1994); Antonín Klimek— Eduard Kubů, Československá zahraniční politika 1918–1938: kapitoly zdějin mezinárodních vztahů, Prague 1995. 12 Ivan Jakubec, Vývoj československých aněmeckých drah 1929–1937, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica and Historica. Monographia 139, 1991 (as abook published in Prague 1991), Ivan Jakubec, Železnice aLabská plavba ve střední Evropě 1918–1938: dopravněpolitické vztahy Československa, Německa aRakouska vmeziválečném období, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica and Historica. Monographia, 151, 1995. 12 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 Měchýř),13 then Vladimír Dubský14 and Renáta Wolgemuthová, whose research roots were also planted in the sphere of workers’ institutions, in particular trade unions and worker’s councils. Acardinal problem was the approaching retirement age of the majority of the appointees and the question of guaranteeing the continuity of teaching and research in the field of social history. Ahighly sceptical typescript from the year 1993 taking stock of the situation in social history (author of the document is probably Z.Kárník) dryly noted that the department— seminar on social history is a“currently able to provide teaching of the core subjects […] but unless the management of the faculty realises the importance of this discipline and does not allow the recruitment of new specialists in the social history, by 1995 (the retirement year for the last members), this discipline will no longer be taught in the faculty.”15 The personnel base in social history gradually thinned due to the departure of Vladi mír Kašík, death of Vladimír Dubský, and the transition of Renáta Wolgemuthová and Jan Měchýř to the position of external members. The stalemate was broken by the engagement of Jiří Štaif, who went over to the FA CUNI in the process of rebuilding the Academy of Sciences in the year 1993. While the professional interest of Zdeněk Kárník who directed the seminar on social history until the year 2000, shifted from his original research on political parties at the time of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire16 towards an extensive synthesis of the history of the First Czechoslovak Republic,17 the sole focus of Jiří Štaif has been on the era of the long nineteenth century. He devoted his attention to the development of civil society in the Czech Lands in the 19th century (anticipating his later interest in multiethnicity and elites), and he studied systematically the history of the 19th and 20th century, including histo13 As for the Department of Labour Movement, including the involvement of these social historians, most recently Jan Calta, Stranická historiografie na Filozofické fakultě Univerzity Karlovy vletech 1953–1970, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Historia Universitatis Carolinae Pragensis, Tomus LVII, Fasc. 1, 2017, pp.81–103. See also Jakub Jareš— Matěj Spurný— Katerina Volná, Sminulostí zúčtujeme: Sebereflexe Filozofické fakulty UK vdokumentech sedmdesátých adevadesátých let 20.století, Prague 2014. 14 Vladimir Dubský also worked in the 1960s in the original Department of the Labour Movement, however, after its abolition, he was transferred to the Department of Czechoslovak History within the framework of Charles University in Prague. Josef Petráň— Lydia Petráňová, Filozofové dělají revoluci: Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy během komunistického experimentu (1948–1968–1989), Prague 2015. 15 This is an undated document, part of the folder related to the transformation of the Department to the Institute. IESH Archive. 16 Arevised version of his work from year 1968 was published by Zdeněk Kárník under the same name in 1996. Zdenek Kárník, Socialisté na rozcestí: Habsburk, Masaryk či Šmeral?, Prague 1968; Zdenek Kárník, Socialisté na rozcestí: Habsburk, Masaryk či Šmeral, Prague 1996. 17 Zdenek Kárník, České země véře První republiky (1918–1938). Part one, Vznik, budování azlatá léta republiky (1918–1929), Prague 2000; Zdenek Kárník, České země véře První republiky (1918–1938). Part two, Československo ačeské země vkrizi avohrožení (1930– 1935), Prague 2002; Zdeněk Kárník, České země véře První republiky (1918–1938). Part three, Opřežití aoživot (1936–1938), Prague 2003. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 13 riography of economic and social history.18 In the second half of the 1990s an internal member was engaged for several years in the course of the social history seminar, one of the first graduates of the doctoral study of this specialisation, Jana Šetřilová (Čechurová), to focus on the issues of political and societal representations in the era of the First Republic and to garner recognition in the academic community as aresult of her intense editorial activities.19 The research activities of the IESH were initially carried out separately within the individual seminars. This was partly due to some persisting animosities among some of the members of the oldest generation of the staff of the Institute, which was based on divergent views on conceptions and other professional orientations of the workplace, and in part it was also personal. The research of members of the social history seminar in the 1990s was conducted within the bounds of broadly defined projects “social policy development in the Czech Lands in the 19th and 20th century” and “social history of the Czech Lands” under the direction of Zdeněk Kárník. The output was aseries of chronologically ordered research probes (mainly analyses and micro-historical studies),20 followed by anthologies of study texts compiled from selected annotated documents from awide gamut of the sources of social history (from sources of official or socio-political nature to memoirs and oral histories).21 By the middle of the 1990s the research subject in the social history seminar was also multiethnicity and, specifically, the issues of co-existence and cohabitation of Czechs, Germans and Jews in society in the Czech Lands in the era of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.22 Under the direction R.Wolgemuthová aresearch project was carried out simultaneously 18 Jiří Štaif, Revoluční léta 1848–1849 ačeské země, The works of the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Series A, Monographia 3, Prague 1990. Jiří Štaif, Historici, dějiny aspolečnost: historiografie včeských zemích od Palackého ajeho předchůdců po Gollovu školu, 1790–1900. Part I, II. Prague 1997. 19 Jana Čechurová currently works at the Institute of Czech History, FA CUNI. At the time of her work in the IESH Cf. Jana Čechurová, Alois Rašín: dramatický život českého politika, Prague 1997; Jana Čechurová, Čeští svobodní zednáři ve XX. století, Prague 2002. 20 The studies were published in 4 volumes under the editorial direction of Zdeněk Kárník in cooperation with Jan Měchýř and Jiří Štaif. Zdeněk Kárník (ed.), Knovověkým sociálním dějinám českých zemí. II., Zdob rakouských apředlitavských (1848–1918), Prague 1998; Jiří Štaif— Zdeněk Kárník eds.), Knovověkým sociálním dějinám českých zemí s. I., Čechy mezi tradicí amodernizací 1566–1848, Prague 1999; Zdeněk Kárník (ed.), Knovověkým sociálním dějinám českých zemí. III., Od války kválce 1914–1939, Prague 1998; Zdeněk Kárník— Jan Bladder (eds.), Knovověkým sociálním dějinám českých zemí. IV., Zvraty apřevraty 1939–1992, Prague 2001. 21 Jaroslav Čechura— Zdeněk Kárník— Jana Čechurová, Antologie studijních textů knovověkým sociálním dějinám, 2 volumes, Prague 2002. 22 Zdeněk Kárník ed., Sborník kproblematice multietnicity: české země jako multietnická společnost: Češi, Němci aŽidé ve společenském životě českých zemí 1848–1918, Prague 1996. As for the issue, see Karel Kazbunda (Z.Kárník edited), Otázka česko-německá vpředvečer velké války: zrušení ústavnosti země České tzv.annenskými patenty z26.července 1913, Prague 1995. 14 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 on the women’s emancipation movement in the Czech Lands.23 Following aboom in the socio-historical research in the 1990s which brought into it thematic diversity and opened up the possibility of applying new methods and theoretical and interpretation concepts, the IESH seminar on social history sparked by the turn of the millennium abroader methodological debate on the state of the art and perspectives for further development of the social history discipline.24 Collective research on economic history was undertaken at the beginning of the 1990s with aproject dedicated to the topic of economic integration and disintegration in Central and South-Eastern Europe since the mid-19th century. In this context, engagement was agreed for several foreign projects, which managed to accredit the newly established workplace in abroader international forum. The major share was acquired by the employees of IESH from the year 1993 on the Austrian project “Wirtschaftspolitische Rolle Österreichs in Mitteleuropa in der Zeit zwischen den Weltkriegen” under the leadership of the doyen of economic history, Alice Teichová (University of Cambridge) and the Viennese historian Alois Mosser (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien),25 and the subsequent international publication outputs. Following an international conference jointly organised by the IESH in 1994 in Prague, aset of studies was published analysing the changes in the Central European market (capital market, labour market and goods market) between the wars.26 In the year 1996, under the editorial direction of Alice Teichová and Herbert Matis (Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) acollective work was published, again with active participation of Czech economic historians headed by the IESH, dealing with Austro-Czechoslovakian economic relations in the inter-war period. These were captured from the perspective of continuity or discontinuity of economic development after the First World War, the role of each country in the creation of anew economic order and in the context of options and limits to their cooperation.27 The foreign publications were followed by the staff of the IESH economic history seminar plus related researchers publishing in the year 1999 amonothematic 23 One of the projects was aCharles University internal grant 1998–2000 under the name “ Projektování ženského osudu aspolečenského postavení ženy včeských zemích v19./20.století“, The literary historian Jaroslava Janáčková was also in the team alongside R.Wolgemuthová and Marcela Starcová (currently an external lecturer of IESH, who deals with issues of everyday life and alimentary culture in the course of the IESH teaching). 24 John Mullan— Jiří Štaif (eds.), Knovověkým sociálním dějinám českých zemí. VI., Sociální dějiny dnes. Prague 2004. 25 Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were at the heart of the research project funded by the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research. As for the participation of Czech historians, see the IESH archive. 26 Jaroslav Pátek— Alice Teichová— Alois Mosser (eds.), Der Markt im Mitteleuropa der Zwischenkriegszeit = The Market in Interwar Central Europe: [internationale Wissenschaftskonferenz der Karls-Univesität Prag 16.–19. Mai 1994], Prague 1997. 27 Alice Teichová— Herbert Matis (eds.), Österreich und die Tschechoslowakei 1918–1938: die wirtschaftliche Neuordnung in Zentraleuropa in der Zwischenkriegeszeit. Studien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte und Wirtschaftspolitik; Bd. 4.Vienna 1996. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 15 issue of Acta Universitatis Carolinae under the title “Collisions, rivalries and pragmatism”, which offered additional surveys from the field of Austro-Czechoslovakia economic relations in the interwar period.28 Alongside the economic development of Central Europe after the First World War, the attention of the staff of the economic history seminar shifted to the development of the financial market and aclose analysis of the Central European environment, with asymptomatic link between the banking sector and industry. The project concentrated under the leadership of Zdeněk Jindra on the joint-stock commercial banks and their significance in the context of the broader economic development of the Czech Lands (Czechoslovakia) from the late 19th century to 1945.29 Again, Alice Teichová, who was the link to aresearch intent of London School of Economics and Political Science titled “Banking and Industry 1918–39” played an initiatory role in this. The share of Teichová in the formation of the so-called Prague School of Economic History, which was ateam of economic historians centred around the IESH,30 as well as in the context of the overall constitution of the economic and social history in Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic in the post-1989 era, in retrospect, appears to be crucial, which is also evidenced by the collections published on the occasion of her life jubilees in 199531 and 2008.32 28 Kolize, řevnivost apragmatismus: československo-rakouské hospodářské vztahy 1918–1938. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et historica 1, 1997 (published as abook in aseries Studia Historica, No.45, Prague 1999). 29 Zdějin českého bankovnictví v19.a20.století = From the history of the Czech banking system in the 19th and 20th centuries. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et Historica, Studia Historica 5, 1997 (published as abook in the series Studia Historica, No.47, Prague 2000). 30 The IESH economic history seminar (Ivan Jakubec, Drahomír Jančík, Zdenek Jindra, Eduard Kubů and Jaroslav Pátek) formed the core of the team of Prague economic historians. The members who were closest in their research intentions, and in this sense tied their careers to the IESH from the outset were Jiří Šouša (Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences, FA CUNI) and Jiří Novotný (Archive of the Czech National Bank), who is currently focusing on the development of Czech banking, see Jiří Novotný— Jiří Šouša, Banka ve znamení zeleného čtyřlístku, Prague 1996. Since the turn of the millennium, one who has begun close cooperation with the IESH is, for example, Jiří Hájek (Institute of History of the Czech Academy of Science), Marcela Efmertová (Czech Technical University). Above all, the Prague School of Economic History has engaged many of its own graduates, masters and doctoral specialists in economic and social history (see below for this). 31 In the year 1994 the publishing house Karolinum put out aseminal work by Alice Teichová “Mezinárodní kapitál aČeskoslovensko“ and ayear later an anthology of studies for her 75th jubilee. Alice Teichová, Mezinárodní kapitál aČeskoslovensko vletech 1918–1938, Prague 1994; Československo astřední Evropa vmeziválečném období = Die Tschechoslowakei und Mitteleuropa in der Zwischenkrigszeit. Acta Universitatis Carolinae. PhIlosophica et Historica 3, 1994 (published as abook in the series Studia Historica, No.40, Prague 1996). 32 Gertrude Enderle-Burcel— Eduard Kubů— Jiri Šouša— Dieter Stiefel (eds), Discourses: essays for Mikuláš Teich & Alice Teichová, Pelhřimov 2008. 22 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 and Ivan Jakubec (transport relations between Czechoslovakia and Germany).60 At the level of the seminar on social history, the period of socialism, and above all normalisation, became along-standing central theme of Michal Pullmann (internal member of the IESH since 2001).61 In 2005, after Jana Čechurová joined the Institute of Czech History in the FA CUNI, Jakub Rákosník also joined the seminar on social history with the theme of unemployment during the inter-war period,62 expanding Wirtschaftsreformen. Tschechoslowakei und DDR im Vergleich. In: Christoph Boyer (ed.), Sozialistische Wirtschaftsreformen. Tschechoslowakei und DDR im Vergleich, Frankfurt am Main 2006, pp.3–62; Drahomír Jančík— Eduard Kubů, Zwischen Planbefehl und Markt: Der Diskurs der zweiten tschechoslowakischen Wirtschaftsreform. In: Christoph Boyer (ed.), Socialist economic reforms. Czechoslovakia and GDR in comparison, Frankfurt am Main 2006, pp.65–124. 60 Ivan Jakubec, Československo-německé dopravněpolitické vztahy vobdobí studené války se zvláštním zřetelem na železnici alabskou plavbu (1945/1949–1989). In: AUC— Philo sophica and Historica, Monographia, Prague 2007; Ivan Jakubec, Schlupflöcher im „Eisernen Vorhang“: Tschechoslowakisch-deutsche Verkehrspolitik im Kalten Krieg: Die Eisenbahn und Elbeschiffahrt 1945–1989, Stuttgart 2006. 61 In this period Michal Pullmann also published several studies based on his PhD thesis, see e.g. Michal Pullmann, Spravedlnost ademokracie vmoderní době. Přelom roku 1918 mezi revolucí areformou, In: Marek Hrubec (ed.), Spravedlnost ademokracie vevropské integraci, Prague 2005, pp.111–135, plus studies on theoretical issues of social history such as Michal Pullmann Habitus et classes. Les pistes ouvertes par la sociologie de Pierre Bourdieu dans le domaine de l’historie sociale, In: L’inspiration française dans les sciences sociales en Pays tcheques, Cahiers du CEFRES 29, Prague 2004, pp.257–270. In the second half of the decade, Michal Pullmann gradually established himself as an expert in the social history of state socialism in Czechoslovakia when the following studies were published: Michal Pullmann, Sociální dějiny atotalitněhistorické vyprávění, Soudobé dějiny 15, 2008, no.3–4, pp.703–717, Michal Pullmann, Planning, Efficiency, and the Socialist Entrepreneurship: Economic Reform and Elite Transformation in the Late Communist Czechoslovakia, Prague Economic and Social History Papers, 2010, no.1, pp.86–95 or Michal Pullmann, Michal Pullmann, Vervollkommnung, Intensivierung, Beschleunigung, Perestrojka. Die Planung in den sowjetischen und tschechoslowakischen Wirtschaftsdebatten der achtziger Jahre. In: Martin Schulze Wessel— Christiane Brenner (eds.), Zukunftsvorstellungen und staatliche Planung im Sozialismus. Die Tschechoslowakei im ostmitteleuropäischen Kontext 1945–1989, Munich 2010, pp.253–282. 62 Together with Michal Pullmann, Jakub Rákosník returned to the post-socialist historiography the theme of the working class, see Jakub Rákosník— Michal Pullman, „Dělnická třída“ vmoderní sociální historiografii, Dějiny-teorie-kritika, 2008, no.2, pp.271–288. The apex of his publishing activity is the issue of unemployment in the interwar period, see his monograph Jakub Rákosník, Odvrácená tvář meziválečné prosperity: nezaměstnanost vČeskoslovensku vletech 1918–1938, Prague 2008. In along series of studies, Jakub Rákosník studied social security topics in interwar and postwar Czechoslovakia, see e.g. Jakub Rákosník, Sociální stát jako kategorie výzkumu historické sociologie, Historická sociologie 1, 2009, no.1, pp.65–79. The apex of his research efforts with this theme is amonograph, Jakub Rákosník, Sovětizace sociálního státu: Lidově demokratický režim asociální práva občanů vČeskoslovensku vletech 1945–1960, Prague 2010. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 23 his topic to investigate the broader aspects of the development of the welfare state in Czechoslovakia. In the course of the first decade, athematic shift can also be noted in the offer of the IESH elective lectures. External collaborators of long standing dealing with medieval and early modern issues of economic and social history in teaching were gradually replaced by experts directly tied to the institute’s research activity. It was, for example, Jiří Šouša (Department of Auxiliary Historical Sciences, FA CUNI), which belonged from the beginning to the very core of the so-called Prague School of Economic History, Marcela Efmertová (Czech Technical University) focusing on the development of electrical engineering, Pavla Vošahlíková (Historical Institute of the CAS), which in the course of teaching developed the theme of everyday life and advertising in the Czech Lands in the 19th and 20th century. In the seminar on social history, the issue of contemporary social history was newly accentuated in the course of the teaching. It was crucial for the further development of the IESH that resulted in aconsiderable boom in both intramural and extramural doctoral studies. If, before the end of the millennium, the study of the doctoral specialisation “modern economic and social history” was more of achamber affair, in 2006 Jiří Štaif gave in his “IESH development concept” for the given year the number of 36 PhD students. In most cases they were the original IESH diploma holders.63 The graduates subsequently settled in important historical workplaces in the Czech Republic, where they developed further the discipline of economic and social history (Historical Institute of the CAS, National Technical Museum, National Museum of Agriculture, Institute of Contemporary History of the CAS, Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, and many others), while this rising generation of economic and social historians assured the continuity in the IESH. In the case of the economic history seminar the youngest generation of historians was engaged as visiting lecturers (participation in research projects or elective lectures, establishment of institutional cooperation), in the case of social history it was immediately integrated into it during the first decade (Michal Pullmann, Jakub Rákosník). DECADES IN AVORTEX OF SPECIALISATION (THE IESH FROM THE END OF THE FIRST DECADE TO THE PRESENT DAY) We can regard the turn of the first and second decade of the 21st century as the beginning of another significant transformation of the Institute, which can be characterised, however, as well as the previous two decades, in essence as evolutionary, not revo lutionary. The organic interconnection of change and continuity is also 63 Even in the conception of the doctoral study, the efforts of the IESH members to create an extramural academic communication platform were clearly manifested, inter alia. Aspecial seminar was set up in which the doctoral candidates defended and subsequently discussed the starting theses of their dissertations before the broader scholarly community (sectoral council). 24 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 represented by Michal Pullmann, who, after Jiří Štaif at the end of 2010, was appointed director of the IESH and performed this function until the beginning of his work as dean in the year 2018. With regard to teaching, the IESH could fully benefit from an integral incorporation of economic and social history into the bachelor’s study of history, which had occurred afew years earlier. Master’s specialisation and doctoral studies were successfully developed. On the research plane, the focus of the IESH’s interest remained firmly anchored in the era of modern economic and social history, i.e. in the 19th century and 20th century, although the IESH was firmly established in the research on the latest history and in this context there was amore pronounced specialisation of both seminars. The advent of Michal Pullmann’s directorship of the IESH resulted in asubstantial contribution at the international cooperation level, which was strengthened in the first place with the German, but also with the American or British environment. At the turn of the second decade, the most significant proof of this trend was the project “Sozialistische Diktatur als Sinnwelt” (Socialism as aworld of ideas), which participated in the Potsdam Centre for Contemporary History (Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung) alongside the IESH and the Institute for Contemporary History of the CAS. As part of the project in the IESH, lectures were given and seminars were run by prominent figures in contemporary social and cultural history, such as Martin Sabrow, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Thomas Lindenberger, Matthias Midell, Alexei Jurčak and Jörg Baberowski. In the context of the project “Socialism as aworld of ideas”, at the same time, we succeeded in enlisting the cooperation of several foreign scientific institutions and universities, alongside the aforementioned ZZF, for example with the University of Regensburg and the Institute for the History of Southeast Europe, with the University of Munich, and, above all, with the Collegium Carolinum and the Leipzig GWZO, and thanks to the guest researcher Celia Donert, relations were also established with the University of Liverpool. All these links persist after the end of the project for many years, in the form of academic exchanges, hosting, membership of consultative bodies and mutual synergies in general. Among the important partners to the seminar on economic history are, in addition to the Centre for Economic and Social History in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ostrava and the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy Sciences in particular, prestigious universities in Vienna, Berlin (Freie Universität Berlin), Cologne, Düsseldorf, London (London School of Economics) and Paris. Asignificant step towards fostering international cooperation was the creation of an assistant professorship for German historians, which, with the university support and support of the German DAAD organisation (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) has been since February 2011 an integral part of the Institute of Economic and Social History. The economic historian Torsten Lorenz (2011–2016, formerly at the University of Viadrina in Frankfurt on the Oder) and an expert on global history and the history of modern genocides Boris Barth (since 2016, previously at the University of Konstanz). Although at the research level the IESH has evolved in some aspects in adirect follow-up to the first decade of the millennium, overall it is possible to talk about the shift in the professional profiling of the workplace and the advancing specialisation of the two seminars. In the context of the seminar on social history, in the research Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 25 area in this period the greatest continuity with the previous period is represented by Jiří Štaif, who published on its threshold asuccessful monograph on František Palacký 64 (other journalistic and publication outputs were created for this topic)65 and in collaboration with other Czech and foreign colleagues in the following years he continued to do research on the social and cultural history of the Czech Lands in the 19th and early 20thcentury. In his work Jiří Štaif followed several strata shaping modern society in this era. In the wake of Palacký and other public figures (Sabina, Rieger, Masaryk) they were on the one hand political and cultural elites,66 but on the other hand, the focus of attention was equally on the masses, on the poor, and in this context on the conceptualisation of social issues and social policy.67 As part of both of these research fields, Jiří Štaif entered into broader Central European and European debates and published some of his studies in collective monographs together (and with comparative intent) with historians from Germany, Hungary, Romania, and other countries.68 Another line of research and publications by Jiří Štaif is particularly important in terms of theoretical background and methodological inspiration for social history at the IESH in general: It is afocus on the sources of aliterary nature that allow for an interconnection between the socio-cultural and the historical approaches. The analysis of the construction and the contents of historical and literary texts or general artistic production, from annalists and chroniclers to authors of the Czech national literary canon, Jiří Štaif has brought to light in his works anumber of phenomena from the life of the Czech society in the 19th century.69 Although, in terms of time and specific topics, Jiří Štaif was somewhat isolated in this period in the part of the seminar on social history, in terms of methodological (cultural historical inspiration, emphasis on discourses and representations) he was profiled in asimilar direction as his other colleagues, or beat the path for them in part. Jakub Rákosník and particularly Michal Pullmann, mainly profiled themselves after 2010 as social historians of the period of state socialism in Czechoslovakia. J.Rákosník entered this period with an extensive monograph on the Sovietisation of the social state in Czechoslovakia in the late 1940s and in the 1950s, which became 64 Jiří Štaif, František Palacký. Život. Dílo. Mýtus, Prague 2009. 65 Jiří Štaif, František Palacký jako místo historické paměti se zvláštním zřetelem kMoravě. In: Historica Olomucensia, Vol.40, Olomouc 2011, pp.65–93, Jiří Štaif, Palacký, Rieger aRusko 1848–1898 Identita, zkušenost ageopolitika. In: Jiří Hanuš et al., Rusko aZápad. Eseje o(ne)porozumění, Brno 2015, pp.105–130. 66 Jiří Štaif, Palacký, Rieger aRusko 1848–1898. Identita, zkušenost ageopolitika. In: Jiří Hanuš et al., Rusko aZápad. Eseje o(ne)porozumění, Brno 2015, pp.105–130. 67 Jiří Šouša— Jiří Štaif, Diskurzivní reprezentace sociální otázky: Čechy na přelomu 19.a20.století. In: Milan Hlavačka— Pavel Cibulka (eds.), Chudinství achudoba jako sociálně historický fenomén: ambivalence dobových perspektiv, individuální akolektivní strategie chudých ainstrumentária řešení, Prague 2013, pp.100–134. 68 Jiří Štaif, The Social Question as aFocus of Interest of the Political and Entrepreneurial Elites: Lands of the Bohemian Crown 1880–1914. In: Judith Pál— Vlad Popovici, Elites and Politics in Central and Eastern Europe (1848–1918), Frankfurt am Main 2014, pp.81–99. 69 Jiří Štaif, Human Happiness, Identity and aVillage Chronicler’s World. Václav Jan Mašek of Vodokrty, Prague Economic and Social History Papers 14, 2011, pp.30–43. 26 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 quite soon an authoritative and indispensable handbook for all researchers studying the welfare state in post-war Czechoslovakia.70 J.Rákosník did not abandon his efforts to further research and conceptualising of the social and economic history of interwar Czechoslovakia (written jointly with Jiří Noha), amonograph devoted to the effects of the Great Depression on European society.71 In this essay-like study he brought together both topics when he set them in the concept (also widely used by many in the Czech and Czechoslovak milieu) of the “long thirties”.72 With other authors J.Rákosník cherished the tradition of social history to capture the transformations of society (in interaction with political decisions and changes in the functioning of the economy) in the “long term”; together with Igor Tomeš, he worked on social policies, and addressed on the advice of Radka Šustrová the issue of marriage and population growth in the Czech Lands in the “short 20th century “.73 While Jakub Rákosník started in methodical terms from the structurally conceived social history of the Bielefeld School (H. U. Wehler, J.Kocka) and from the reference framework of the theorists of modernity (Peter Wagner) and historical sociology, Michal Pullmann has drawn more inspiration from the boundaries of social history, cultural history and historical anthropology, authors such as the German historians Alf Lüdtke and Martin Sabrow, and the American historian and anthropologist Alexei Jurčak. Jurčak’s work on the last Soviet generation was essential for the new concept of the late state socialism and its degradation in Czechoslovakia, as Pullmann introduced it in his monograph on the reconstruction and fall of socialism in Czechoslovakia. His book “The End of the Experiment”74 has become the subject of alively academic, but also social debate, and contributed significantly to the visibility of the IESH both in the faculty and in the non-faculty milieu. One of the former PhD students inspired and largely shaped by these methodological approaches at the turn of the first and second decade, Matěj Spurný, who was engaged after his graduation (2010) as an internal member within the IESH social history seminar, and gradually became another profiling personality of the seminar on social history. His book on multiethnicity and the building of state socialism,75 as well as his habilitation thesis on technocratic thinking and problems of socialist 70 See Footnote 62. 71 Jakub Rákosník— Jiří Noha, Kapitalismus na kolenou: dopad velké hospodářské krize na evropskou společnost vletech 1929–1934, Prague 2012. 72 Jakub Rákosník, Dlouhá 30.léta (1929–1945): konceptuální přístupy ktransformaci modernity, Dějiny— teorie— kritika 7, 2010, no.2, pp.222–238. 73 Jakub Rákosník— Igor Tomeš, Sociální stát vČeskoslovensku: právně-institucionální vývoj vletech 1918–1992, Prague 2012, Jakub Rákosník— Radka Šustrová, Rodina vzájmu státu. Populační růst ainstituce manželství včeských zemích 1918–1989, Prague 2016. 74 Michal Pullmann, Konec experimentu. Přestavba apád komunismu vČeskoslovensku, Prague 2011. Some of the topics are further developed in ajoint publication with Pavel Kolář— Michal Pullmann, Co byla normalizace? Studie opozdním socialismu, Prague 2016. 75 Matěj Spurný, Nejsou jako my. Česká společnost amenšiny vpohraničí (1945–1960), Prague 2011, published in German as Matěj Spurný, Der lange Schatten der Vertreibung. Ethnizität und Aufbau des Sozialismus in tschechischen Grenzgebieten (1945–1960), Wiesbaden 2019. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 27 planning in the face of acrisis of organised modernity (demonstrated with alocal case of the North Bohemian city of Most)76 spurred both academic and public debates in the Czech Republic and abroad. Although the members of the social history seminar do not overlap in terms of focus on individual historical periods, they cover aperiod from the beginning of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century, and thanks to methodological compatibility there is astrong potential for collective research and book projects. Most recently this involves research on legitimisation crises in modern Czech history, whose main reading and discussion output is the collective monograph “Milestones in Modern Czech History” published in 2018.77 While the research orientation of the IESH social history members has been dynamically evolving in completely new directions, the staff of the economic history seminar culminated on the threshold of the second decade in the great research themes established by the beginning of the new millennium, as evidenced by the already mentioned collective monograph from the year 2011 devoted to the phenomenon of economic nationalism in the long-term perspective of the 19th and 20thcentury78, and by the publication produced by the team of Drahomír Jančík, Eduard Kubů, Jiří Novotný and Jiří Šouša devoted to Aryanisation.79 In the following period, the research plane did not interrupt the continuity. The attention of Eduard Kubů turned in the context of economic elites research on the Czech rural milieu in the 19th and 20th century, specifically on the issue of agrarianism and agrarian elites within the broader framework of social, economic and cultural development of rural society.80 Together with Jiří Šouša (an economic historian operating in the long-term in close association with the IESH), they focused on German agrarian movement in the Czech Lands, proceeding in their research in an interdisciplinary fashion, in close association with literary science. The subject of their research was fiction, namely the specific genre of the so-called rustic novel, which in the context of the efforts to shape and consolidate the state and national identities suggested avivid image of the mentality of the rural society.81 The authors’ tandem shifted in the middle of the second decade its attention to Masaryk’s foreign action in the years 1915–16 82 and in 76 Matěj Spurný, Most do budoucnosti. Laboratoř socialistické modernity na severu Čech, Prague 2016. Published in English as Matthew Spurný, Making the Most of Tomorrow: ANorth Bohemian Laboratory of Socialist Modernism, Prague 2019. 77 Jakub Rákosník— Matěj Spurný— Jiří Štaif, Milníky moderních českých dějin. Krize konsenzu alegitimity vletech 1848–1989, Prague 2018. 78 See Footnote 50. 79 See Footnote 52. 80 Eduard Kubů— Torsten Lorenz— Uwe Müller— Jiří Šouša (eds.), Agrarismus und Agrareliten in Ostmitteleuropa, Berlin— Prague 2013. 81 Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša— Aleš Zářický (eds.), Český aněmecký sedlák vzrcadle krásné literatury 1848–1948: diskurz mezi historií aliterární vědou na téma selského ahraničářského románu, Prague 2014. 82 Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša, T.G. Masaryk ajeho c.k. protivníci: československá zahraniční akce ženevského období vzápase srakousko-uherskou diplomacií, zpravodajskými službami apropagandou (1915–1916), Prague 2015. 28 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 interdisciplinary cooperation with lawyers and economists to the phenomenon of the economic crisis,83 although it did not abandon the issue of agrarian and rural development. This is evidenced by acollective monograph published in association with National Museum of Agriculture in the year 2017, which put the peasant and farmer at the centre of their interest at the time of “wars” between the 17th and the 20th century,84 and finally, acritical-historical edition devoted to Antonín Švehla from the year 2018. Eduard Kubů and Jiří Šouša mediated through the memoirs of the diplomat Karel Mečíř abrand new, novel view of Antonín Švehla not only as apolitician and founding personality of the First Czechoslovak Republic, but also in his everyday stereotype thinking and behaviour as an ordinary man.85 The continuity of research in the context of the seminar on economic history can also be noted in the case of Ivan Jakubec, who, in the context of his abiding interest in technology and infrastructures developed the theme of patent transfers, licences and customs concessions as potential factors in raising the technical standards in interwar Czechoslovakia.86 Under his joint direction with Zdeněk Jindra auniversity teaching text about the economic history of the Czech Lands from the mid-18th century to the year 1918 was revised in the year 2015.87 Most recently, Ivan Jakubec subjected together with Jan Štemberk88 to an in-depth examination tourism in the Czech Lands and Slovakia in the years of the Nazi occupation. Their monograph from 2018 analyses the limits and development factors of tourism in avery specific period, revising to agreat extent the simplistic perception of this phenomenon during the war.89 In the case of Drahomír Jančík in the last decade, the researcher’s significant predilection for the latest economic history of Czechoslovakia can be traced. Following the research period 1945–1948, when he studied with Tomáš Kalina the Red Army’s predatory practices and the Czechoslovak two-year plan,90 he focused in aseries of 83 Eduard Kubů— Jaromir Soukup— Jiří Šouša (eds), Fenomén hospodářské krize včeských zemích 19.až počátku 21.století. Cyklický vývoj ekonomiky vprocesu gradující globalizace, Prague/Ostrava 2015. 84 Jitka Balcarová— Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša (eds.), Venkov, rolník aválka včeských zemích ana Slovensku vmoderní době, Prague 2017. 85 Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša (eds.), Rozmluvy sAntonínem Švehlou aoŠvehlovi: vzpomínky agrárního diplomata Karla Mečíře: historicko-kritická edice, Prague 2018. 86 Ivan Jakubec, Transfer inovací: patenty, licence a celní úlevy v meziválečném Československu, Prague 2014. 87 See Footnote 58. 88 Jan Štemberk, Podnikání vautomobilové dopravě včeských zemích vprvní polovině 20.století, Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et Historica. Monographia, 165, Prague 2010; Jan Štemberk, Fenomén cestovního ruchu: možnosti alimity cestovního ruchu vmeziválečném Československu, Pelhřimov 2009; Jan Štemberk, Pěšky, na lyžích, na kole, lodí či autem: kdějinám československé turistiky vletech 1945–1968, Pelhřimov 2017. 89 Ivan Jakubec— Jan Štemberk, Cestovní ruch pod dohledem třetí říše, Prague 2018. 90 Drahomír Jančík— Tomáš Kalina, Kořistní praxe Rudé armády vČeskoslovensku vletech 1945–1946, Historický obzor. Časopis pro výuku dějepisu apopularizaci historie 25, 2014, no.11/12, pp.265–277, Drahomír Jančík— Tomáš Kalina, Náš plán je geniální improviza- Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 29 studies his interest on the development of the Czechoslovak economy under the communist regime and during the normalisation, concentrating on the ratio between the state power and economy and the control mechanism (directive planning) in contrast to the economic realities.91 At the same time, he developed anumber of topics from the period of the interwar decade.92 The breadth of the research subject of Drahomír Jančík is illustrated in acollective synthesis of the centenary of the Czechoslovak state prepared under the direction of Jindřich Dejmek, where he worked on lengthy passages devoted to the economic and social development of Czechoslovakia between the wars and in the post-war era.93 The pivotal topics that have become the constant in the scientific work of the IESH in the last decade undoubtedly include business history. Analysis of the functioning of specific economic operators and their interactions, capturing the dynamics of entrepreneurial strategies, transformations of organisations and management, or the legal framework for business is perceived as atool used to understand broader mechanisms characterising market developments. Reflecting this issues in the context of the economic history seminar in 2014 culminated with the publication of acollective monograph focusing on prominent First Republic business personalities and firms. It was created under the editorial guidance of Drahomír Jančík and anew member of the economic history seminar, Barbora Štolleová (whose main research focus is in the long term on the issues of agriculture and the economy of the Czech Lands during the period of Nazi cí.“: formování konceptu československé dvouletky ajejí rozporné výsledky (1946–1948), Moderní dějiny: časopis pro dějiny 19.a20.století = Modern History. Journal for the History of the 19th and 20th century 22, 2014, no.2), pp.189–219. 91 Drahomír Jančík, Státní moc aekonomika vobdobí československého jara, posrpnové „konsolidace“ anástupu normalizace. In: Jiří Petráš— Libor Svoboda (eds): Jaro ´68 anástup normalizace. Československo vletech 1968–1971. Prague— České Budějovice 2017, pp.306–332; Drahomír Jančík, Od jedné ekonomické reformy vČeskoslovensku na práh reformy druhé aneb Od krize ke krizi. In: Jiří Petráš— Libor Svoboda, Československo vletech 1954–1962, Prague 2015, pp.234–250, Drahomír Jančík, Mocenské centrum, direktivní plánování ahospodářská realita před nástupem Pražského jara. In: Jiří Petráš— Libor Svoboda, Předjaří. Československo 1963–1967, Prague 2016, pp.212–215. Drahomír Jančík, Kolaps třetí československé pětiletky (1961–1962): mechanismy nerovnováhy vcentrálně-přídělovém modelu ekonomiky vporozumění Zdislava Šulce. In: Eduard Kubů— Eduard Soukup— Jiří Šouša (eds.), Fenomén hospodářské krize včeských zemích 19.až počátku 21.století: cyklický vývoj ekonomiky vprocesu gradující globalizace, Prague/Ostrava 2015, pp.415–440. 92 E.g. Drahomír Jančík, Agrarismus acesta „básníků české půdy“ kruralismu: obraz vesnice vrevue Sever avýchod literární generace Josefa Knapa. In: Kubů, E.— Šouša, J.— Zářický, A. (eds.), Český aněmecký sedlák vzrcadle krásné literatury 1848–1948: diskurz mezi historií aliterární vědou na téma selského ahraničářského románu, Prague 2014, pp.590–613; Drahomír Jančík, „Pít či nepít— to jest, oč tu běží“. Střety příznivců aodpůrců abstinence vmeziválečném Československu, Historická sociologie, 2014, no.1, pp.47–69. 93 Jindřich Dejmek et al., Československo. Dějiny státu, Prague 2018, Chapters 3.3; 6.3; 7.4; 8.3.1–8.3.3. 30 WISOHIM/ESHP 28 occupation),94 and in addition to experienced researchers in the field its preparation was supported by the younger and youngest generations of economic historians bred by the IESH.95 In 2017 the staff of the IESH with associated researchers took part in amonothematic issue of the Czech Historical Journal devoted to entrepreneurship96 and ayear later participated in acollective monograph under the direction of Ivan Hlavačka devoted to family business.97 The outlined scholarly gamut of the IESH, the continuity represented most clearly by the economic history and, conversely, the transformation in particular in the field of social history, is mirrored in the profile of the volumes of the Institute’s journal, WISOHIM. Here we will find avariety of theoretical and historiographic reflexions whose authors were both members of the seminar of social history and external authors. In the majority the contributions to the magazine come from the pen of academic staff of the IESH and doctoral students of the Institute, with anumber of papers written by outside writers and authors (Jaroslav Čechura, Martina Power, Jiří Hanuš, Rudolf Kučera, Milena Lenderová, Lukáš Fasora, and others) that confirm that WISOHIM remains aplatform for professional presentation and discussion within the wider professional community of social and economic historians in the Czech Republic (and to some extent beyond its borders). The trends outlined in both seminars on social and economic history have also been reflected in the latest accreditation. In the bachelor’s cycle, from the academic year 2011/2012, both basic compulsory courses of economic and social history (originally social history from the middle of the 18th century to the present and similarly, economic history within the same time span), were extended according to achronological key from the original two semesters to three semesters, while the social (and 94 Barbora Štolleová graduated from the doctoral study at IESH in 2011, from the year 2008 participated in the teaching and the research intentions of the IESH. In 2017, she became an internal member of the seminar on economic history. Barbora Štolleová, Pod kuratelou Německé říše: zemědělství Protektorátu Čechy aMorava, Prague 2014; Miloš Hořejš— Barbora Štolleová, Hospodářský nacionalismus včase nacionálního socialismu (1938–1945). In: Drahomír Jančík— Eduard Kubů (eds.), Nacionalismus zvaný hospodářský. Střety azápasy onacionální emancipaci/ převahu včeských zemích 1859–1945, Prague 2011, pp.503–575; Barbara Štolleová, Obraz sedláka včeském venkovském aselském kalendáři na přelomu 19.a20.století. In: Eduard Kubů— Jiří Šouša— Aleš Zářický (eds.), Český aněmecký sedlák vzrcadle krásné literatury 1848–1948, Prague, pp.284–314. As for the issue of joint-companies during the war, Barbora Štolleová, Between Autonomy and the Reich Administration Economic Department of the Reich Protector’s Office (1939–1942), Prager wirtschaftsund sozialhistorische Mitteilungen = Prague Economic and Social History Papers 24, 2016, pp.50–69, Barbora Štolleová, Legal Regulation of Joint-Stock Companies in the Bohemian Lands and Its Changes during the Nazi Occupation (1939–1945), Prager wirtschaftsund sozialhistorische Mitteilungen = Prague Economic and Social History Papers 27, 2018, pp.75–93. 95 Drahomír Jančík— Barbora Štolleová (eds.), Pivo, zbraně i tvarůžky. Podnikatelé meziválečného Československa ve víru konjunktur akrizí, Prague 2014. 96 Czech Historical Journal 115, 2017, no.3. 97 Milan Hlavačka et al., Rodinné podnikání vmoderní době, Prague 2018. Matěj SPurný, BarBOra ŠtOllEOvá 31 in parallel, economic) history after the year 1945 became aseparate single-semester course with lectures and (usually several parallel) exercises. Aconsiderable space was given to the latest history in both subdisciplines. In recent years, especially in the context of social history, lectures and exercises in this course touched for the first time and they are trying to historicise for the students even the period after the year 1989. Since the academic year 2013/2014, the follow-up master’s specialisation has also been amended. In addition to acommon basis for all master’s students of history, students of the social history seminar now have compulsory “Basic Interpretation Problems of Social History”, “Historiography of Economic and Social History”, “History of Social Theories”, “Contemporary Problems of Social History” and “Analysis and Reading of Key Texts of Social History After the Year 1945”. In addition to the specialised lectures for the seminar members (meant to conceptualise modern social history, critical theory, the family and family policy), in the wide range of optional subjects in social history some lectures are regularly repeated, for example the lectures of Pavla Vošahlíková (on everyday life and lifestyle, advertising and artistic creation) or Tomáš Vilímek from the Institute for Contemporary History (on elections in the era of state socialism or, for example, on the resistance against the communist dictatorship). In the academic year 2013/14, the latter phenomenon (resistance, but in more general contexts) was also dedicated to an interdisciplinary course, which was led, together with Michal Pullmann and Matěj Spurný, by apolitical scientist and Iberoamericanist, Radek Buben. This is an example of the attempts at interdisciplinarity, which was no bed of rose in the FA CUNI, but for which the IESH strives in other specialised lectures delivered in association with architects, art historians or Romani studies experts. In the IESH, since the middle of the second decade part of the offer is regularly specialised lectures directed by foreign experts, from Germany (the aforementioned DAAD associate professors or lectures given by Annina Gagyiová to the history of consumption in Central Europe after the year 1945), from Romania (Ciprian Cirniala) or Slovenia (Ana Kladnik). In the case of the seminar on economic history , the students of the master’s cycle, starting in the academic year 2013/2014, have had alongside the compulsory subjects, the following compulsory subjects: “Basic Interpretation Problems of Economic History”, “Historiography of Economic and Social History”, “Ideas, Economics and Politics”, “Economic History— the Phenomenon of Modern Culture” and last but not least, “ Business, Production and Consumption in Modern Times”. Business and the consumer issues can be described in terms of the profile of the economic history seminar in the last decade as largely determining. They were related directly or indirectly to the elective seminars under the leadership of E.Kubů (entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship in the Czech Lands of the 19th and 20th centuries), D.Jančík (Producers and consumers of the 20th century), I.Jakubec (Problems of economic history with afocus on the history of technology, transport and communications in the 18th– 20th century); or series of specialised lectures, for example given by I.Jakubec and J.Štemberk to development of the tertiary sphere (transport, travel), by B.Štolleová to development of business during the Nazi occupation, M.Franc (Masaryk Institute and the Archives of the CAS), by M.Starcová (Institute of Archaeology of the CAS) on the issues of everyday life and alimentary culture, by J.Slavíček on the development