It's late and this was hastily written, but I hope you can use some of it.
1) 'It' is fine there. Perfect. (-:
2) Whose bicentenary, or the bicentenary of what? Evidently of the thing published in 1817, but you need to make that clear. '... in celebration of the bicentenary of Boeckh's groundbreaking work, held at Bielefeld University in September 2017.'
>>As can be deduced from the title of the introductory chapter ‘200 Years after August Boeckh’s The Public Economy of Athens: Perspectives of Economic History for the 21st Century’, which also seems to be the title of the book, the book is not about the past but the future of economic history.
I don't like this; it's just awkward. Why be so coy with 'deduced' and 'seems,' and why even quote what is already an unfortunate, unwieldy title? Maybe it was unwise of the authors to name the book after the first chapter, but surely you can find a way around it. Could you even just bury the long title in a note and call it something more manageable in the text? Like, '... the resulting Festschrift is not about the past but the future of economic history.'
>>In recent years, a lot of books have used new methods.
Pfui deibel, 100 lashes with a wet noodle, setzen, 6! usw.
'A lot of' is conversational, not written language. Expunge it from your academic writing. (*f5* As hb says.)
And the observation is utterly trivial. New books have used new methods?! Please. Hopefully that was a very rough draft.
A different option:
Among many discussions of new economic methods (?) in recent years, this (commemorative?) collection edited by Günther and Rohde stands out for its (sheer) variety of approaches, including quantitative, comparative, economic, and frame analysis.
*Who? Why wasn't all the relevant bibliographic information simply given at the first mention? Again, don't be coy; just tell people what they need to know up front.