The history of European trade is replete with cases of aggressive and restrictive commercial policies. These policies were part of the permanent nature of economic relationships among European nations from feudalism onward. Keynes' golden age passage in The Economic Consequences of the Peace exaggerates the extent to which prewar Europe was a free trade zone.

Since the early seventies studies on the Italian economy of the thirties have become one of the liveliest aspects of the debate on Fascism as a whole. This trend reverses the long neglect of the early postwar period and the lack of information that went with it. Fresh ideas and facts are now contributed at a fast pace; all attempts to summarize views and trends are bound to be soon outdated by new research. The central notion of these recent studies is that some of the structural features of the present-day Italian economy came to life in the early thirties as a response to die depression.

The Japanese occupy a unique place in the history of America's immigrants. They were denied the privilege of naturalization (until 1952), forbidden to purchase or lease farm land (in California, 1913–1956), driven from their homes by the wartime evacuation and confined in concentration camps (1942–1945). Yet the Japanese are now one of the most successful of all ethnic groups in America. The narrative of this remarkable experience has been written often and well, and detailed studies of its political, legal, and social aspects have been made. Economic historians, however, have done relatively little to analyze and learn from the Japanese-American experience.

Since the publication of Frederick Jackson Turner's famous essay, historians have implicitly recognized the significance of community characteristics on levels of economic opportunity. Nevertheless, even though the last two decades have witnessed the publication of a number of occupational mobility studies of a wide variety of communities, the nature of the community under examination has been largely overlooked. Thus, while the authors of these studies have frequently found different levels of mobility, the practical necessity of focusing on one community in these undertakings has precluded any systematic attempt either to explain variances among communities or to measure precisely the impact of community characteristics on levels of opportunity.