Suchergebnisse

Considering as young countries those parts of the world which were occupied and to some extent populated as a result of "Europe's expansion", which began with the discovery of America and extended to Australia, New Zeeland and some parts of Africa, the author tries to make a distinction between two completely different types of colonies in accordance with the way these areas were colonized. In the "exploitation" type of colony, a small number of european immigrants were conquerors, governors, missionaries, landowners, lawyers, merchants, military or civil servants and belonged to a superiors class, whereas the natives were doing most of the actual work. In the "colonization" type, the native population, which was very scarce, has been dislodged and some cases exterminated and the work was done by the immigrants or imported slaves. Argentina, Uruguay, the South of Brazil and Chile belong to the "colonization" type as also most of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zeeland, whereas most of the Latin- American republics were colonies of the "exploitation type". To-day these countries, especially those of English origin, enjoy a high income level, because the access to education and technical knowledge enabled the population to get the benefit of a high productivity. As to the countries of Spanish origin, before the second world war, Argentina and Uruguay had a per capita income very close to that of the English origin countries, but comparing with the year 1950, although Argentina is in a higher position than other Latin-American countries, her income level is lower than that of ten countries of Western Europe. One can say that the material living standard is generally higher in Argentina than in other Latin-American countries of the "exploitation" type, but lower than in the "colonization" type of British origin countries. ; Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas

Is Economic History one subject or two? The question has been posed twice during the present century, each time by the growth of a vigorous body of research concerned with economic changes over time but developed largely in isolation from conventional economic history. In each case the new work was quantitative in method, and the result was the phenomenon of two separate bodies of scholarship—the one written in prose and calling itself economic history, the other written mainly in figures and calling itself by another name.

For the period between the adoption of the Constitution and the outbreak of the Civil War recent contributions have been considerable in amount and particularly notable for a high degree of concentration on the relationship between government and the economy. In 1945 a reader of the literature in the field would have found little to warn him against the assumption that the statesmen and legislators of the ante-bellum republic were faithful adherents, particularly in the economic field, of the Jeffersonian doctrine that that government is best which governs the least. Current scholarship, however, has forced a revision of this traditional view; and it is now clear that American governments intervened actively on a wide range of economic questions and in varied and complex interrelations with the activities of individuals and corporations. This significant correction has resulted in large part from two related shifts in the direction of research that have given increased attention to the economic role of state, and even local, authorities as contrasted with that of the national government, and to the promotive as contrasted with the regulatory functions of government.

The subject I should like to discuss grows directly out of the theme of the meetings as a whole. They have been concerned with the American West as an Underdeveloped Region, and the title was intended to suggest the analogy between the United States of an earlier period and the so-called underdeveloped nations of the present day. To many it would suggest a contrast in policy. These other nations are now in many cases striving to achieve economic development by national planning and deliberate measures of governmental policy. On the other hand the United States achieved its massive economic development without over-all economic planning, without five-year plans or explicit national targets of input and output, and—it is sometimes believed—without the adoption of policies deliberately intended to promote development.