In the December 1968 issue of this Journal, Professors Officer and Smith question the “classical and generally accepted view of Reciprocity.” A careful reading of earlier writing on this subject casts doubt upon the novelty of their conclusions. D. C. Masters, one of their authorities, was aware of the limited effects of the Treaty. In Reciprocity, 1846-1911, he writes, “To a considerable extent the prosperity of the period, including the increase in American-colonial trade, was the result of factors other than the treaty itself.” My note raises questions about the authors' use of customs union theory (Part I) and their interpretation of the data (Part II).

This article uses data on regional output and imports to examine the relationship between imports and regional growth in the Northeast. The tariff rates, both nominal and effective, are considered as evidence of national policy that may have benefited this particular region. The findings are that particular industries do benefit from tariff protection, but their location is due to regional resource advantages.

In Claude-Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, three great movements have taken their origin. The first is characterized by the names Enfantin and Bazard, the second by those of Comte and Taine, the third by Lesseps and Péreire. Enfantin and Bazard were men of imagination, Comte and Taine men of science, Lesseps and Péreire men of action. No other father has engendered such different children. Enfantin and Bazard made Saint-Simon the bearer of a new gospel of salvation; in his name they founded a church and strove to win for it all nations. Comte and Taine made Saint-Simon the founder of a new philosophy; from his ideas they developed a system of knowledge and gained for it the nineteenth century. Lesseps and Péreire made Saint-Simon the pioneer of a new world; from his inspiration they created waterways and railways, banks and factories.

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.