Australian and American Settler Capitalism: The Importance of a Comparison and its Curious Neglect

Why is Australia so little known about and studied in the United States when prima facie it is one of the best comparators for America; and why do Australian comparativists often ignore the American case? The discourse of difference has predominated in America rather than the discourse of similarity. But in Australia the opposite has been true. Here an equally powerful theme has been one of searching for comparisons, similarities, and generalities between Australia and other nations and societies. Through thinking about answers to these questions, partly via a discussion of some recent writing on America and Australia, this essay argues a case for the necessity for comparison within a world history perspective. More particularly, it argues that American intellectuals and journalists should pay more attention to comparators like Australia since its similarity with America affords valuable insights into American history, politics, economy, society, and institutions, just as the converse has proven to be valuable.     

The Murupara Project and Industrial Development in New Zealand 1945–65

In New Zealand, after the Second World War, the share of manufacturing in GDP rose relative to the share of agriculture. Although the government lacked a clearly articulated industrial policy, it was increasingly drawn into the promotion and support of firms in manufacturing. The Murupara pulp and paper scheme was the most spectacular instance of state intervention in the first two postwar decades. Tasman, the company set up to operate the pulp and paper mill, was a joint venture between the state, a New Zealand construction firm called Fletchers, and British multinationals. Tasman soon became New Zealand's leading exporter of manufactured products. The need to secure the market for Tasman's newsprint exports was one of the main reasons for the negotiation of a partial free trade agreement between New Zealand and Australia in 1965. This article explains the early history of Murupara, and discusses its contribution to industrial development and diversification in New Zealand.     

Agricultural institutions, industrialization and growth: The case of New Zealand and Uruguay in 1870–1940

In this paper we apply a model of early industrialization to the case of New Zealand and Uruguay in 1870–1940. We show how differences in agricultural institutions may have produced different development paths in two countries which were similar under many respects. While in New Zealand the active role of the Crown in regulating the land market facilitated access to land, in Uruguay land was seized by a small group of large landowners. Our model shows that land concentration may have negatively influenced industrialization and growth by impeding the formation of a large group of middle-income landowners and, as a consequence, the development of a domestic demand for basic manufactures. We support this view with a comparative analysis of agricultural institutions and industrial development in New Zealand and Uruguay.