Lecturer ignites controversy in talk

The word "prodigy" tends not to be associated with historians or humanities' scholars. But that didn't deter History Professor Benjamin Nathans from introducing Niall Ferguson as such on Wednesday afternoon. Ferguson, an Oxford history professor and visiting scholar at New York University, delivered the inaugural lecture of the History Department's 2000-2001 Walter Annenberg Lecture Series. About 40 Penn professors and students attended Ferguson's lecture, which was titled, "The Business of Politics: 1900-2000." Ferguson, a well-respected scholar, drew the lecture from his upcoming book, The Cash Nexus. In it, Ferguson, who focuses his research on power-wealth relationships, attempted to debunk what he describes as the "double helix theory," or the notion that economic growth and democratization are linked in a directed irreversible "upwards spiral." "There is not a causal relationship [between the two] in either direction," Ferguson said, expressing a controversial argument that sparked heated debate among audience members during a brief discussion session after the lecture. He used an illustration of the economic growth and decline of European nations, and contrasted those with a rating of their democratic nature. "I found almost a perfect zero correlation," he told the audience. Controversy, though, is nothing new for Ferguson. Over the past few years, he has claimed a public prominence generally inaccessible to academics. His 1998 book about the First World War, The Pity of War, sparked a widespread and heated public debate over the causes of, and culpability for, the Great War. In his book, Ferguson lays blame on England -- a thesis that was, according to Ferguson, "surprisingly well accepted in England, but very negatively received in Germany." The Cash Nexus, which is due to be published in February 2001, is eagerly anticipated by historians and members of the academic community. The book includes a study of Adolf Hitler's rise to power. "When I posed the question of Hitler's rise to power, I took a counter-factual that was so great, so against the grain, that I had no chance of ever convincing anybody," Ferguson said. "And that was irresistible." Most of the audience members were either History majors or History professors, but even those not concentrating in history still found the talk informative. "I almost expected to be asked why I was there, but I'm really glad I went," said College sophomore Veronika Sikorski, a probable International Relations major. "It related to a lot of other stuff I've studied."