The staple approach to the study of economic history is primarily a Canadian innovation; indeed, it is Canada's most distinctive contribution to political economy. It is undeveloped in any explicit form in most countries where the export sector of the economy is or was dominant. The specific terminology—staple or staples approach, or theory, or thesis—is Canadian, and the persistence with which the theory has been applied by Canadian social scientists and historians is unique.

The leading innovator was the late Harold Innis in his brilliant pioneering historical studies, notably of the cod fisheries and the fur trade; others tilled the same vineyard3 but it is his work that has stamped the “school.” His concern was with the general impact on the economy and society of staple production. His method was to cast the net widely. The staple approach became a unifying theme of diffuse application rather than an analytic tool fashioned for specific uses. There was little attempt to limit its application by the use of an explicit framework. Methodologically, Innis' staple approach was more technological history writ large than a theory of economic growth in the conventional sense.

In his widely discussed stage theory of economic growth Professor W. W. Rostow has attempted to reach a level of historical generalization somewhat similar to that essayed by the pioneers in the discipline of economic history. Herbert Heaton observed that early economic historians were interested in a search for “the laws of social development” and for conclusions “as to the character and sequence of stages through which the economic life of society has actually moved.” Their valiant attempts to put historical generalization in the place of economic theory, concluded Heaton, were not successful. One purpose of this paper is to show that Rostow's analysis, while relying more on economic theory than its predecessors, is no more successful in understanding specific cases of economic development and, more widely, contains many difficulties as a general theory of development.

In a world beset by problems of accelerated development and structural adjustment, influencing the level and direction of investment has become a major governmental preoccupation. Investment is the key to economic growth and transformation; hence there is concern over where it will go. In this connection investment control in post-war Britain provides a fairly good but neglected case study. Although generalization must hurdle many obstacles of time, place, institutional framework, and history, British experience affords some insights into the nature and workings of investment control, its limitations, and its possibilities.

No one questions the power of Parliament to approve or condemn the actions of the Queen's ministers. But has it or has it not also the power to advise, to ask the Crown to take or not to take some particular action? May says that the British Parliament, at any rate, has: “An Address to Her Majesty is the form ordinarily employed by both Houses of Parliament for making their desires and opinions known to the Crown.” The subjects of such Addresses “have comprised every matter of foreign or domestic policy; … the administration of justice; … and, in short, representations upon all points connected with the government and welfare of the country.”

Edward Blake was equally clear and emphatic that the Canadian Parliament also possessed this power. Replying on April 30, 1890, to Sir John Thompson's contention that it would be unconstitutional for the Government to disallow a provincial Act after announcing that it would not disallow, Blake said flatly that this was wrong, because Thompson's doctrine might