The purpose of this paper is to serve as a point of departure for discussion of the relationship of regional differentiation and growth to general economic development. In addition to touching on methodological problems, I hope to establish two specific points: (a) that the needs of economic history call for particular perspectives in delimiting regions, and (b) that study of regional interaction can provide insights in an understanding of national economic development.

This study, based on primary sources, shows that the army's role in the wartime mobilization of the industry was fundamental and extensive. It determined aircraft prices and labor exemptions, regulated the industry's supply of credit and raw materials, limited patent rights, and ultimately interfered in management-labor relationships. Its policies resulted in the industry's expansion and concentration and in above average real wages for the industry's labor force. The article concludes that while the mobilization of the aircraft industry was successful, military regulation of the German war economy in World War I was generally inefficient.

Economic growth occurs when individuals of a society engage in productive, positive-sum games. Conventional measures of growth, however, include measures of positive- and negative-sum games. This paper establishes a framework for distinguishing between productive (positive-sum) and transfer (negative-sum) activity. The role of the Constitution in promoting productive activity is discussed.

On December 11, 1847, the Journal des chemins de fer, founded and edited in Paris since 1842 by an Englishman, declared that the French rentes had fallen as much as if the government was about to be overthrown. The King, who was ill in body at the time, yet perfectly comfortable in mind, recovered, but on February 24, 1848, he and his government fell in a revolution that was as sudden and dramatic as it was triumphant. Among its leaders were Socialists, like Louis Blanc, who controlled a considerable body of workingmen, some of whom belonged to the building trades and the domestic industries of the capital, while others had been brought to Paris some years before to work on the fortifications. They were moved first to the barricades; then, after being victorious there, to the national workshops organized by Louis Blanc, now a member of the provisional government, who had proclaimed on behalf of the workingmen the “right to work,” as the most important organ of the workingmen, L'Atelier, had proclaimed the limitation of hours, the right to organize, and a minimum wage. These demands seem reasonable to us now, but they were thought dangerous then, not only by a majority of the provisional government, but also by the majority of the new legislature and of the French people.

In preparing a review article of writings on colonial economic history since 1945, one would have little to say if he had to confine himself to studies mentioning economic history in their titles. Textbooks, whether old stand-bys recently revised1 or newly written, devote comparatively few of their pages to the period before 1790, and the colonial volume in the Rinehart Economic History series has not yet appeared.

On August 26, 1935, delegates from sixty-five American Federationof Labor locals in the automobile industry gathered in Detroit to launch the International Union, United Automobile Workers of America. Although many of the delegates thought that the A.F. of L. had unnecessarily delayed the convocation of this convention, they were no doubt mindful of the fact that an international was being formed in an industry where only a little more than two years previously unionism had been conspicuous primarily because of its absence.

The agitation in mid-nineteenth-century Russia for the abolition of serfdom gave the first great stimulus to Russian scholarly interest in the history of the peasantry. The persistence of the land problem down to the Revolution and since then the Soviet preoccupation with the primary producer have kept alive this interest. As a result, a large number of studies of the agrarian history of their country, many of them works of high value, have been written by Russian scholars both before and since 1917. One of the most recent and most important contributions to the literature of this subject has been made by B. D. Grekov in his history of the peasantry from earliest times to the seventeenth century. Although its author remains carefully within the doctrinal limits imposed by the current standards of orthodoxy in Soviet historiography, his work is indispensable for the study not only of agrarian history but of all phases of early Russian history.