One possible reading of the current issue is that we invite readers to ponder historical hauntings of modern political economies: austerity haunting “noncapitalist” contexts as proposed by Capotescu, Sanchez-Sibony, and Teixeira. Hindu nationalism haunting modern-day political economy as suggested by Balasubramanian’s historical deconstruction of Indian nationalism. Mexican silver haunting the history of the nineteenth-century international monetary system as demonstrated by Kuntz Ficker. Colonialism haunting African development as discussed by Green. The history of money haunting modern-day understandings of central bank digital currencies as argued by Bordo. And, as Flandreau argues, a little-known information system, the hidden force that shaped Kindleberger’s writing method.

Children know it well, ghosts are good at pranks. And by inviting the ghost of Kindleberger, this issue hopefully inherits some of his characteristic sense of humor. This is the place where we say that twenty-five years ago, Kindleberger’s article which we publish today was rejected by the Journal of Economic History and by the European Review of Economic History. We have enjoyed dealing with the difficulties that were created by defying time, having to pore over old referee reports, or ruminating on Kindleberger’s arguments in the light of subsequent research. French literary critic Pierre Bayard once suggested half-seriously to consider the crime of “anticipatory plagiarism.” We have had to deal with a related malfeasance: the quotation of posthumous work. No revision possible, and what about copyediting? We found a few answers which we leave it to the reader to discover. What a delight of confusion! The editorial work continues.