In studies of the late medieval economy, the dominant position of the textile industry has long been recognized. Since the opening decades of this century however, scholarly attention has been directed almost exclusively toward the luxury industries of silk and fine woolens, which involved a complex financial and commercial structure geared to the satisfaction of the needs and desires of a wealthy and select clientele. Relatively neglected is that branch of the textile industry devoted to the production of low-priced cotton cloth for popular consumption. This neglect is all the more surprising in view of a rich if somewhat dispersed documentation attesting to the importance of this industry in numerous towns of Northern Italy. The large-scale production of cotton cloth posed problems of financing and organization not unlike those of silk and wool and gave rise to similar entrepreneurial forms. At the same time a study of the organization of cotton manufacture provides a number of unique insights into aspects of economic organization in Northern Italy. In the period covered by this paper, the cotton manufacturing centers of this area formed a single production zone characterized by a high degree of economic interdependence and a marked tendency toward the standardization of products.

I shall confine my comments to the papers by Messrs. Mendels and Hohenberg, which lie within my period of interest and competence. First, regarding Mendels: I found this a very useful survey, wide-ranging in space and time, with very strong coverage of the literature. One of its many virtues is that it tries to grapple with some of the serious difficulties of analysis and explanation, especially in the statistical realm. Despite, or perhaps because of, these general merits, however, there are a number of points of detail that are open to criticism. Let me take these seriatim:

Protection of a domestic manufacturing industry to encourage its expansion through import substitution is equivalent (in the absence of equal protection for agriculture) to a “tax” on agriculture to support the development of the industrial sector. To call this policy of biasing the intersectoral terms of trade to favor industry a typical strategy of underdeveloped countries would be, if anything, to understate its universality. The arguments for and against such a strategy are well known, and an approximation of the benefits to the industrial sector can be gleaned from the national accounts of many countries. What remains hidden in the accounts, however, is the cost to the agricultural sector as a result of its being forced to trade at less favorable terms of trade than those provided by the world market. The purpose of this paper is to work out a simple methodology for measuring this cost and then to attempt an estimate of the cost in a particular case.

There are few words whose mere employment is capable of throwing American listeners into such paroxysms of righteous or offended indignation as the words “American imperialism.” This reaction is largely a reflection of the fact that “imperialism” is one of those words whose implicit domain of meaning is very large and even encompasses mutually contradictory elements as revealed by single user's notions of the world let alone different users' notions. In addition, the word conveys a strong connotation of ethically undesirable behavior to almost all users and readers.

… for each period into which our economic history may be divided, there is a distinct and separate class of capitalists. In other words, the group of capitalists of a given epoch does not spring from the capitalist group of the preceding epoch. At every change in economic organization we find a breach of continuity. It is as if the capitalists who have up to that time been active, recognize that they are incapable of adapting …. They withdraw from the struggle and become an aristocracy, which if it again plays a part in the course of affairs does so in a passive manner only, assuming the role of silent partners. In their place arise new men.…