Blood and Treasure is the story of the economics of conflict from the Viking Age to the war in Ukraine. Wars are expensive, both in human terms and monetary ones. Since at least the 1640s, in the aftermath of the British Civil Wars, the phrase 'blood and treasure' has sought to encapsulate these costs. Two economic notions, in particular, feature in this book: incentives and institutions. A rational look at incentives explains even the most seemingly irrational behaviour - and few things are as irrational as war. Crucially, incentives are not formed in a vacuum, they are shaped by the wider social, cultural and political context - the kind of things economists call institutions (i.e. the State). Over time institutions change and with them incentives change too. Together institutions and incentives shape and explain human behaviour. Over the long span of human history, nothing has shaped institutions - and hence economic outcomes - as much as war and violence. Blood and Treasure examines why Genghis Khan should be regarded as the father of globalisation, how New World gold and silver kept Spain poor, why some economists think of witch trials as a form of 'non-price competition', how pirate captains were pioneers of effective HR techniques, how handing out medals hurt the Luftwaffe in the Second World War and why economic theories helped to create a tragedy in Vietnam. Along the way it considers why some medieval kings were right to arm their soldiers with inferior weapons, takes some management lessons from Joseph Stalin and asks if a culture of patronage and cronyism helped the Royal Navy rise to greatness. It also analyses the changing economic costs of war and ask whether war is always bad for the economy.

Wars are expensive, both in human terms and monetary ones. But while warfare might be costly it has also, at times, been an important driver of economic change and progress. Over the long span of history nothing has shaped human institutions - and thus the process of economic development - as much as war and violence. Wars made states and states made wars. As the costs of warfighting grew so did state structures, taxation systems and national markets for debt. And as warfare became ever more destructive the incentive for governments to resort to it changed too.

Blood and Treasure looks at the history and economics of warfare from the Viking Age to the war in Ukraine, examining how incentives and institutions have changed over time. It surveys how warfare may have driven Europe's rise to global prominence, and it explains how the total wars of the twentieth century required a new type of strategy, one that took economics seriously.

Along the way it asks whether Genghis Khan should be regarded as the father of globalisation, explains how New World gold and silver kept Spain poor, ponders why some economists think of witch trials as a form of 'non-price competition', notes how pirate captains were pioneers of effective HR techniques, asks if handing out medals hurt the Luftwaffe in the Second World War and assesses if economic theories helped to create a tragedy in Vietnam. As well as considering why some medieval kings were right to arm their soldiers with inferior weapons, taking some management lessons from Joseph Stalin and asking if a culture of patronage and cronyism helped the Royal Navy rise to greatness.

Underpinning it all is a focus on how and why the economics of conflict have changed over time. Economics can help to explain war and understanding the history of warfare can help explain modern economics.

A pick for The Economist Books of the Year 2021 The UK is, at the same time, both one of the world's most successful economies and one of Europe's laggards. The country contains some of Western Europe's richest areas such as the south east of England, but also some of its poorest such as the north east or Wales. It's really not much of an exaggeration to describe the UK, in economic terms, as 'Portugal but with Singapore in the bottom corner'. Looking into the past helps understand why. Two Hundred Years of Muddling Through tells the story of how Britain's economy and politics have interacted with each other from the time of the Industrial Revolution right up to the pandemic of 2020. A few politicians, such as Peel, Gladstone, Attlee and Thatcher have managed to shape the economy but far more have been shaped by it. Depressing little in British economic debate is really new. This time is rarely, if ever, really different. The debates about the balance between economic openness and sovereignty that re-emerged after Brexit would have been familiar to Peel and Cobden in the 1840s. The size of the government's deficit has dominated politics since 2010 but fretting about the scale of the national debt was almost a national pastime during Victoria's reign. Worries about the failure of vocational training and a paranoia that German manufacturing was powering ahead were common in the days of Lloyd George and Asquith. Supposedly modern concerns about the impacts of new technology on jobs and inequality date back to at least Captain Swing and Ned Ludd. As the economy emerges from the Covid-19 recession and sets out on a new post-Brexit future an understanding of the past is vital to seeing how the future might play out.