|
|
EH.RES History since the 1950s
This discussion seems to have come and gone, but I hope you will forgive
this indulgence as I am doing my studies part time and therefore it can be
difficult to keep up with lists on occasions.
My interest in economic history comes about through my PhD research on
national innovation systems, a neo-Schumpeterian concept that for me
translates into analyses of structure, trade and research and development
expenditure for the period since 1970 (for data reasons).
I want to make the suggestion that the period since 1950 doesn't require the
attention of historians simply because it is now history but because
historians bring a different mindset (which is why I lurk on this list).
This difference is (to my understanding) the acceptance, at least in part,
that today's outcomes are not necessarily the result of totally "rational"
processes (in the technical meaning of that term). In other words history
does have accidents and history continues to have an impact well after it
might be expected.
What I think matters are the recurring processes in economic development. I
therefore make two suggestions for what should be considered on the post 50s
research agenda.
Industrial location. While the literature on globalisation burgeons
massively, as I commented recently in my only other post, actual changes in
productive capability actually change slowly. My research thus leaves me
convinced that there is a huge unwritten literature on the historical
processes of development, including catch up and staying behind. While,
historians are doing a great job of pre-WWII, I wonder whether the backwards
and forwards linkages of research of the post war era would be very
profitable. Alice Amsden's post made a lot of the points relevant to this
issue.
Trade. Most neo-classical theories focus on cost and comparative advantage
at the industry trade or simple two country analysis level but not the
combination of the full range of industries and countries.
I came across the following quote in Drysdale (1994) during my research on
bilateral trade patterns:
"Two factors seem to have been of particular importance in determining
country bias levels: distance and common former membership of imperial
trading blocs. ... Preferential import restrictions dating mainly from the
1930s promoted intra-imperial trade, which continued with high intensity
after the cessation of the preference, but increasingly less powerful over
time. The decline of the old imperial trading blocs caused relative
distance to emerge more powerfully as a determinant of country bias in
trade".
Firstly, this is not the type of research that receives much attention or is
in fact, I would speculate, the type of research that trade commentators
want to promote.
Secondly, some of my preliminary trade results lead me to speculate that
some strong colonial era linkages are still continuing. However, it is out
my field to make too strong a comment on this. Therefore, for what its
worth I make the observation that there is a wealth of material in the post
war period which may be prove quite exciting to explore for those that have
an understanding of a country's longer term history.
Brian
Brian.Wixted@affa.gov.au <mailto:Brian.Wixted@affa.gov.au>
PhD Candidate
UWS, Australia
|
|
|
 Send comments and questions to admin@eh.net
|
||