Economic development and deliberate policy to accelerate its pace are relatively recent concepts, but the facts of development and economic policies to bring it about are, of course, ancient. Mercantilist, Colbertian, cameralism Smithian policies, all had in mind what now is called development; and much of the discussion of the stages of growth with which German economists during the nineteenth century were so preoccupied is obviously a preoccupation with growth at a time at which pure theory concentrated on the allocation of resources and on slowly developing an intellectual apparatus of which one could cease to be ashamed.

Technological change has come to absorb an increasing share of the attention of the economist in recent years. Several attempts have been made to assess the quantitative importance of technological change, as opposed to increases in factor supplies, in accounting for the secular rise in per capita incomes in the United States. It appears, in all these studies, that technological changes (shifts in the production function) have been far more important than has the mere growth in the supplies of capital and labor inputs, as conventionally measured (movement along an existing production function). In a sense, this should be cause for deep concern, since the comparative neglect of the process of technological change (with the major exceptions until very recent years, of the works of Marx, Schumpeter, and Usher) suggests a serious malallocation of our intellectual resources. If the studies of such people as Abramovitz and Solow are even approximately correct with respect to orders of magnitude, then the contribution of technological change to rising per capita incomes absolutely dwarfs the contribution from a rising but qualitatively unchanging stock of capital. It would appear that we have indeed been playing Hamlet without the Prince.

This paper is concerned with two questions: What was iron and steel used for in the course of the late nineteenth century? And how were the uses of iron and steel affected by changes in the methods of production of iron and steel? The first question asks what was the composition of the iron and steel industry's output, that is, what products were being produced. The second question asks if the changes in this composition were caused by changes in the supply schedules of the industry.

The railroads played an important role in the economic history of the United States. It was an epic role, involving enterprise on a grand scale, evoking heated passions, and rich in anecdote and drama.

Many writers—some of them reputable scholars, others important public officials—have implicitly assumed or explicitly argued that economic growth leads toward political stability and perhaps even to peaceful democracy. They have argued that “economic development is one of the keys to stability and peace in the world”; that it is “conditions of want and instability on which communism breeds”; and that economic progress “serves as a bulwark against international communism.” A recent and justly famous book on revolution by Hannah Arendt ascribes the most violent forms of revolutionary extremism mainly to poverty.

Agrarian reform has become a major subject of political discussion in Latin America. Its preeminence is due to developments within Latin America, to the late President John F. Kennedy and the Alliance for Progress which he sponsored; and to the Castro regime in Cuba. In this paper we shall discuss the background of the problem throughout the area, and then look in some detail at the four major agrarian reform efforts which have been undertaken so far: those of Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Cuba.

The International Bankers Committee on Mexico has been generally ignored by American diplomatic historians, and those who have mentioned it have missed the basic significance of its organization and operation. The writer of the leading text dealing with the Latin American policy of the United States devotes less than a paragraph to the Committee and says, “The United States did not even demand arbitration. It left the bondholders to their own representations to the Mexican Government.” This statement can be compared to a description of an iceberg which deals only with that part showing above the surface of the water. The heart of this presentation will be the analysis of that part of the Committee's activities which lay beneath the surface—a study in the interaction of government, business, and revolution. The basic thesis involved is that the Committee was an unofficial instrument of the United States government, as it attempted to influence certain aspects of the Mexican Revolution.

The study of the economic history of modern China is underdeveloped. There is urgent need for original work both in ascertaining facts and in interpretations. Though investigations into the various phases of the Chinese economy had been made by the Chinese Maritime Customs since the 1860's, and by interested contemporary observers such as Morse and Wagel, statistical surveys on a large scale were not systematically conducted with any degree of reliability until the 1930's. They represented the efforts of the government, academic institutions, and individual scholars. A comprehensive survey on agriculture was made by John L. Buck and the National Agricultural Research Bureau of the National Government. An industrial census of Chinese-owned factories was planned and carried out by D. K. Lieu for the National Resources Commission of the National Government. Mining statistics were collected by government agencies under the direction of Ting Weng-chiang and Weng Wen-hao. Railway statistics have been published (since 1915) and a monumental collection of some 37 huge volumes on transportation and communications was compiled by the Ministry of Communications. The Nankai Institute of Economics—with which professors Franklin Ho, Fang Hsien-ting (H. D. Fong), C. M. Li and many others were associated—made significant contributions in the study of prices, terms of trade, modern industries, and handicrafts. Banking statistics were collected by various institutions, especially the Bank of China. The most comprehensive work on foreign investment was done by C. F. Remer and later by the Japanese East Asian Research Institute. The Japanese Manchuria Railway provided a great deal of economic information on Manchuria after the latter was taken by Japan in 1931. A few sample studies were made both by research institutions and by the government on the characteristics of the Chinese population.

Indian society is one of the most complex in existence, and we know little about its structure, functioning, or—more important—its development and dynamics. The neglect of Indian's economic history, particularly the period 1800–1947, is one of the most distressing gaps. It is dismaying to realize that even within very broad ranges of error we do not know whether during the past century-and-a-half the economy's performance improved, stagnated, or actually declined. Not only is ignorance of Indian economic behavior over time disturbing in itself, but the attempts at planning since 1947 have suffered because of this. It is difficult to predict outcome and consequences of any major development policy in the absence of any clear clues about the long-run dynamics of the Indian economy and society.

The economic history of the underdeveloped areas of the world, insofar as it has been written at all, has been written mainly by Western scholars. In the field of economic history, at any rate, Japan is far from underdeveloped. She has more economic historians per thousand academics than any other country in the world. Roughly a quarter of all faculty members of departments of economics are economic historians. Others are to be found in departments of history, in social science research institutes, and in faculties of agriculture, law, and even engineering. Even the local amateur antiquarian is far more interested in the economic activities of his forebears than is his European or American counterpart.