The population of the Eastern Townships of the province of Quebec has been growing steadily since this area was first settled in the early nineteenth century, but its composition has been gradually changing from English-speaking to French-speaking Canadians. This change has been due to urban and industrial forces which have both influenced the English Canadians to leave the Townships and the French Canadians to use the area as a new frontier for their surplus population. The impact of these forces affected the English, the first settlers, sooner than the French. As early as 1860, influences stemming from the cities gradually caused drastic changes in their way of life. These included a declining birth-rate, mechanization of farms, and ambitions for a higher and more sophisticated standard of living. Also, the agricultural products of the English Canadians entered the wider provincial and national markets before those of the French, another factor influential in changing their mode of life.

This earlier orientation of the English-speaking group to urban patterns has caused them to move slowly out of the Townships to the more urbanized parts of Canada. Census figures show that this movement has been going on since 1861. At the same time, French Canadians have been steadily moving in, so that now the 12 counties comprising the Eastern Townships are from 70 to 99 per cent French.

The striking feature of labour relations in France is the wide scope of governmental regulation and influence. Employers and unions rarely succeed in solving their labour problems by joint action, and the strikes of August, 1953, attest to the discontent of a large portion of the French labour force.

Until the First World War, relations between labour and management were on an individual, rather than a collective, basis. Employers and workers had organized for collective action, but, except in the printing and coal mining industries, relations between the trade unions, strongly influenced by syndicalism, and the defensive associations of employers were chiefly violent in nature. Both unions and employers opposed government intervention in the labour market, and the government respected this sentiment.

During the war it became necessary for the government to bring employers and unions together on arbitration committees and in less formal discussions in order to encourage uninterrupted production through the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes. Thus the first widespread contact between employers and unions took place under the auspices of the government. The syndicalist philosophy of the French trade unions was abandoned, partly as a result of this demonstration of the importance of governmental support, and partly as a result of the political success of the Communists in Russia.

The study of politics in the United States today is something in size, content, and method unique in Western intellectual history. As Professor Pendleton Herring has recently said: “Political science as a subject of systematic enquiry started with Aristotle but as a profession it has won its greatest recognition in the United States and within our generation. One fact is clear: no other country in the world has so large, so well trained, so competent a profession dedicated to the teaching and analysis of government… . This profession … is now part of our national strength.” Not merely has the size of “the profession” grown so much since Aristotle's day, but the method has also markedly changed. American methods have consciously aspired to the modern concepts of natural science. There has been an advocacy of an integrated science of society, resting especially on concepts drawn from modem physics, biology, and psychology, and on a marked displacement of speculative philosophy and historical study. There now follow, from a sceptical foreigner, some reflections on the claims of Professor Herring. It is surely important for friends and neighbours to make some judgment on how a political science profession can become a “partof … national strength” and how relevant these new methods can be to the peculiar historical experience of the United States.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. Primarily it is an attempt to isolate some of the structural parameters governing New Zealand's balance of trade during the inter-war period. A secondary end, a by-product of the first, is to throw some light on the controversy between “elasticity pessimists” and “elasticity optimists.” Born out of very real problems concerning monetary policy on the international level, and carried on by some of the most acute and productive minds among economists, this controversy has, I believe, been in general a good and highly fruitful one. If any criticism is to be made, it must be methodological, and concern itself with the statistical procedures used by one side, and the tendency of the other side toward a priori refutation instead of empirical investigation. I also believe that, while the statistical data are highly imperfect, the best possible use has not been made of what data exist, and that at this stage only more, and more carefully weighted, evidence can help us on. The present investigation offers only a little of the great amount of such evidence which is needed.

Following a few theoretical remarks, three commodities—butter, lamb, and cheese—will be studied, in order to increase our information about New Zealand's trade balance. Only their behaviour in the United Kingdom market is analysed. This procedure immediately raises the question: how important are these goods as part of New Zealand's exports and how important is the United Kingdom market? The answer is that up to 1929 the sale of these three products in the United Kingdom made up about one-half of New Zealand's export receipts. Had wool been included, this proportion would have risen to about 70 per cent. After 1929 it declined somewhat, but never fell below 40 per cent. From this it seems to follow that whatever determines the demand in the United Kingdom for these three products affects significantly but not overwhelmingly New Zealand's balance of trade on the export side.

The proportion of an industry's output concentrated in a few large firms is recognized by economists as an important characteristic of industrial structure. Economic analysis agrees with the layman's judgment that high concentration is a major factor making for monopolistic practices, and there is ample confirmation in the record of antitrust investigations.

The degree of concentration is of course not by any means the only determinant of market behaviour. In the absence of collusion or government regulation, however, high concentration is a necessary condition for monopolistic practices, while low concentration is a necessary condition for the type of competition that tends to equate price and marginal costs. Moreover, with low concentration informal collusion is unlikely and the organization of formal collusion (for example, through a trade association) becomes difficult. Government regulation is frequently the result of political pressures the strength of which reflects either high concentration or close association of the business interests involved.

It is therefore important to investigate the degree of concentration and its causes. This paper presents a comparison of concentration in the manufacturing industries of Canada and the United States. We find, first, that most industries are more concentrated in Canada than in the United States. This can be ascribed to the fact that industries are typically much smaller in Canada, while firms are of about the same size as in the United States. Secondly, we find that industries with relatively high concentration in one country also tend to have relatively high concentration in the other, though the correlation coefficient is only about 0.7. It appears that cultural and technical similarities make for similar industry-size patterns in the two countries, while the technical similarities mean, further, that industries with a relatively large average size of firm in one country also have relatively large firms in the other.

Lottery tickets have been bought and sold in many countries for several centuries. There are many discussions of the historical social customs attending lotteries; the psychological, gambling, and fraudulent aspects of lotteries; the moral issues involved in the state licensing of lotteries; the lottery as a source of government revenue; and the mechanics of drawing. Economists have generally neglected to study the historical significance of lotteries. Friedman and Savage have suggested that the lottery may be a fruitful source of historical economic data; more recently, Aitken examined in some detail a large lottery firm which operated in the United States between 1821 and 1834. The purpose of this paper is to set down systematically quantitative measures of two essential lottery features: the inequality of the prize distribution and the actuarial value of the gamble. Some interesting historical comparisons can be made, and some hypotheses are suggested by the data which might be the subject of further research.

The lotteries of this study are restricted to those with cash prizes to lend some uniformity to the lottery terms and, from the consumer's point of view, to make all alternatives money incomes. The selection of the sample can best be described by giving a short history of English and United States lotteries.

The political and administrative Control of the Canadian military forces by the Government of Canada during the First World War, 1914–19, presented several novel problems to the Canadian system of cabinet government. A detailed examination of the relations between the Government of the Dominion (a clean word in 1916), as represented by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the military organization overseas, as represented by its chief staff officers, is useful to students of both cabinet government and public administration. This paper seeks to throw light on two facets of these political-military relations: first, the problem of making cabinet control effective over an army physically separated from Canada by geographical distance and relatively primitive communications; second, that of the extent to which effective political control over an army establishment beyond her borders enhanced the de facto meaning of dominion status.

In 1919 dominion status did not mean quite what it had come to mean in 1931. On the whole the control over high matters of war and peace lay beyond the powers of the Government of Canada. The British North America Act, 1867, had not foreseen the possibility that the advisors of the Governor General should assume control over the conduct of a great war. Even if it had been appropriate for Sir Robert Borden or his colleagues to direct policy in war, Parliament appeared to lack the power to legislate beyond the shores of Canada. When, after two years of war, Canada had placed a substantial army overseas, it became necessary to alter constitutional practice to fit the new facts produced by the war. This effort was considerably to modify the meaning of dominion status.