What could and should researchers in Asian economic history do during the decade of the seventies? Given the number and the diversity of Asian nations, this is an extremely large question which a person endowed only with a normal amount of ego and without a thorough knowledge of all Asian economic histories should refrain from even attempting to answer. Apparently, however, my ego is above average in size, and to compensate for my much less than complete knowledge of Asian economic history, I resorted to the most efficient method of remedying this weakness: I picked the brains of the leading specialists.

It is frequently remarked that Africa is so diverse as to defy generalization. Perhaps one generalization that can legitimately be made is that today there exists in every sphere of government in every African country a “development consciousness,” preeminent within this consciousness a dependence on economic planning for growth. The historical lessons of Europe and America are proffered and the lessons are studied and more than occasionally applied in the African setting. The Euroamerican historical record is rich and ripe for study; the African record of economic history, on the other hand, nearly does not exist. The embarrassing lacunae of historical work on the economies of Africa is pronounced, whether one is speaking of the transitional economies which through increased trading links first bridged world and African communities in perhaps an irreversible way, or whether one is speaking of the colonial economies of increased dependence, or of the “development economies” of more recent years. And there is irony here, for when seen against the often thin character of the pre-colonial historical record, work on the economic features of pre-colonial Africa seems relatively more substantial than work on the colonial and post-colonial periods.

It will perhaps clarify the remarks that follow if we observe at the outset that the economic history of Latin America is in its infancy. This is not to say that the development of economic institutions, the operation of economic systems, the formation and growth of economic activities and attitudes, and the formulation and execution of economic policy have gone unnoticed in the history of Latin America. It is only to state that the formal discipline of economic history, even the use of economic history as part of a title, are of recent date. As in the historiography of most areas of the world, political developments and personalities in Latin America have constituted the core of historiography, and even today the “new” interdisciplinary history of half a century ago in the United States or the more recent French school of “total” history have drawn few adherents to Latin America. Many factors may be adduced to explain the delayed interest in economic history, but one may hazard the guess that there is a positive correlation between the degree of criticism of the nature and function of an economy and both the quantity and quality of economic historiography. At least in the United States, economic history owes no small debt to a muck-raking tradition. In Latin America, on the contrary, the nature of the literate elite and the limits on education have tended to stifle until recently the development of a body of economic literature of protest and, by extension, of economic history.