Calculated Values: Finance, Politics, and the Quantitative Age was written by William Deringer, an associate professor of science technology and society at MIT in 2018. Deringer received his bachelors degree in History at Harvard in 2006 and his masters and Ph.D. degrees on the History of Science at Princeton University in 2009 and 2012 respectively. Deringer has focused his research on the history of the social sciences, finance, and the sociology of quantification, with most of his publications and collaborations centered on the history of finance and ‘calculations’[1]. Within Calculated Values, Deringer argues that numbers and ‘calculations’ gained the authoritative status that we associate with them today in the decades after 1688’s Glorious Revolution and the subsequent financial debates that occurred in the English Parliament. Deringer attempts to show how the highly publicized debates over England’s finances and the idea of ‘calculating’ revenues and expenditures in part lead to wider acceptance of numbers as an objective arbiter of facts despite the often-misleading tactics of those who employed ‘calculations’ to sway public opinion.
In the introduction Deringer ‘briefly’ discusses contemporary states such as France, Prussia and the Dutch Republic’s relationship with calculations and financial policy, specifically in regards to the secrecy often associated with the discussion had between the leaders of these states and their financial ministers. Deringer compares these states approaches to England’s fiscal policies and institutions under the reigns of Charles II and James II visa a vis William and Mary’s relationship with Parliament in 1688. Despite this initial focus, Deringer does not discuss why relations between the crown and parliament changed after the Dutch ‘invasion’ nor are the efforts and ideals of the royal’s discussed. Each subsequent chapter details a major event and financial debate that took place after 1688 and the evolution of numbers and calculations use in English (and then British) politics.
The first few chapters deal with the ‘introduction’ of calculating and numbers into English political debate. Chapter one focuses on Parliament’s efforts to figure out where England’s revenues came from and where they went in spite of traditions that kept royal affairs such as the payment of crown officials (and bribes of parliament members) under wraps as well as the public conception of calculation and numbers in general as a form of sorcery (a sentiment that continues to thrive in the modern day). Chapter two discusses the financial wizardry that was involved in determining how much Scotland should be pre-emptively compensated for English national debt and other considerations of the Act of Union (the unification of England and Scotland into Great Britain). Deringer mentions some incidents relevant to his financial focus that prompted the Act of Union such as the Darien fiasco and the desires of Scottish imperialists but does not delve deeply into the motivations or effects behind this momentous event in British history. Chapter three details the rise of two-party politics in Britain (again without going into how and why these parties formed), their conflict over the perceived trade deficit with France and the solidification of attitudes towards numbers and calculations as political tools useful in proving one’s position while denigrating one’s opponent.
Chapter four departs from the pattern established in previous chapters by focusing primarily on the influential figures that created and promoted financial theories during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. While Deringer has incorporated individual narratives in his work to highlight the origins of certain calculations and arguments into previous chapters, it is in this chapter that Deringer argues that the arguments and calculations advanced by these individuals were often far more influential (and long lasting) than the people who created them. Of more import however is Deringers argument that the questions/arguments raised by these calculations could be more impactful on how people perceived financial matters and England/Britain’s financial status than responses and rebuttals. Chapter five is largely a demonstration of how real-world events could vindicate certain arguments, as the bursting of a financial ‘bubble’ surrounding a particular English company resulted in praise for those whose financial calculations had predicted the event and greater acceptance of the importance on numbers in political discussions.
Returning to the typical layout in this book, chapters six deals with the use of ‘political arithmetic’ to predict future economic or societal developments. Chapter seven ends the ‘meat’ of the book by showing how some in Britain had begun to discuss the problems and dangers in trusting numbers and calculations inherently, demonstrating how thoroughly the initial skepticism surrounding the use of calculations in political arguments had been supplanted by (in some people’s eyes) uncritical acceptance of any numbers presented to the public by their political opponents. While the subject of chapter six is arguably more ‘important’ to the development of our modern understanding of calculation’s place in political discussions, chapter seven does more neatly bookend Deringers discussion on how the societal view of ‘calculating’ changed dramatically in the decades after 1688.
While I cannot fault Deringer’s use of sources or his inclusion of direct narratives throughout his book, I similarly cannot deny that this book was very difficult to get through for me. The choice of subject, falling under the much-maligned category of ‘Math’, perhaps doomed Deringer’s attempts at engaging this reader from the start as I found myself largely ignoring the graphical and statistical evidence presented throughout the book. While Deringer would occasionally bring up how the common people interacted with numbers and calculations in their daily lives and even argued that it would be reductive to say the adoption of calculating was a ‘top-down’ affair or that it diffused from London and the cities into the countryside, I still feel that something is missing in the discussion of why and how numbers became such an integral part of daily life despite Deringer using over 300 pages to ostensibly show how this occurred.
[1] https://sts-program.mit.edu/people/sts-faculty/william-deringer/
