Search

Two mimeographed papers were circulated through the mails before the meeting to a selected list of persons interested in the subject of economic nationalism, one by P. H. Knight on, "The Implications of Nationalism to Economic Theory," and the other by Max Handman on "Nationalism and the Industrial Revolution." This article analyzes these papers. In introducing the discussion of his paper, Knight stressed its constructive import against an impression reported that it seemed to try to close the door against any hope for liberty. It did aim to bring out the seriousness of the situation, but less on the ground of historical inevitability in the abstract than of inference from the ordinary behavior of men in group relations today, and the motives manifested. Professor Handman presented a brief outline of his paper with an enumeration of the forms of nationalism and particularly of nationalism as shown in protectionism and imperialism. The effects of the Industrial Revolution were described with particular reference to India, Germany, Italy and Spain. He concluded that wherever nationalism strives to obtain the advantage in productive technique which is a characteristic of the Revolution, the reason is not to be sought in the economic advantages, which such an increase in production might give, but rather in the increase of international power and prestige which an effective productive system brings with it.

The article presents discussions by economists on some papers that are published in the May 1, 1970 issue of the journal "American Economic Review." The author states that economist Harry Magdoff's paper, published in the present issue of the journal, reminds its readers that neoclassical economics deals with market relations and not with power relations. The study of imperialism, in contrast, is mainly concerned with the level of coordination above that of the market where state power is used to manipulate the economic framework within which supply and demand interplay. The analytical focus is the way one-country exercises power over another and how this affects trade, development and the distribution of income. According to the author, the first point to be stressed is that the neoclassical model, which includes market equations and excludes political equations is misspecified and yields biased estimates and wrong predictions. The comfortable assumption that one can concentrate on economic relations and leave the analysis of power to other disciplines is not tenable when one admits the crucial role of the state in shaping the economy through its policies on infrastructure, education, production and other things.

The article presents comments of economist Jonathan R.T. Hughes and Herman E. Krooss on research conducted by Lawrence Harper and Peter E. McClleland on Navigation Acts related to British Imperial Policy and its effect on colonial America. It is suggested that Navigation Acts had no important economic consequences, on the revolutionaries of Colonial America that could be measured by known evidence and quantitative techniques. Harper estimates that the burden of British policy was from $2 millions to $7 millions, depending upon whether one accepted his minimum or maximum estimates. Krooss comments on McClelland's papers by saying that it is refreshing and short and it avoids the worst sophistries of Occam's Razor and resorts to the fundamentals of simple economics. Disagreements among historians involve much more than the dollar-and-cents direct costs of the Navigation Acts. The "cement of empire" and the "ubiquity of smuggling" are the issues that remain arguable. As McClelland says, "What remains obscure is the motivation for colonial Indignation." And precise methodology and the right numbers do not cast any further light on this essential obscurity.

The article attempts to demonstrate that the dependence of Latin American countries on other countries cannot be overcome without a qualitative change in their internal structures and external relations. The author shows that relations of dependence to which these countries are subjected conform to a type of international and internal structure, which leads them to underdevelopment or more precisely to a dependent structure that deepens and aggravates the fundamental problems of their peoples. The concept of dependence permits economists to see the internal situation of these countries as part of world economy. In the Marxian tradition, the theory of imperialist has been developed as a study of the process of expansion of imperialist centers and of their world domination. In the epoch of the revolutionary movement of the Third World, economists have to develop the theory of laws of internal development in those countries that are the object of such expansion and are governed by them. This theoretical step transcends the theory of development, which seeks to explain the situation of underdeveloped countries as a product of their slowness or failure to adopt patterns of efficiency characteristic of developed countries.

This article presents the list of books on the topic transportation and communication. Some of the books are "The Economics of Air Mail Transportation," by P.T. David, "Communications in the Far East," by F.V. De Fellner, "The Illinois Central Railroad and its Colonization Work," by P.W. Gates, "Transit Unification and Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Manhattan Railway Company, Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation," by B.L. Weissman, and "A Hundred Years of Inland Transport, 1889-193," by C.E.R. Sherrington.