Recollections of My Career

Editorial Note:Professor Sumitro Djojohadilcusomo is one of the principal architects of Indonesia's post-independence economic policy. He has held key economic portfolios in both the immediate post-independence era and in the New Order. In addition, as Professor of Economics at the University of Indonesia, and as a tireless lecturer and writer on economic issues, he has been instrumental in shaping the education of several generations of economics students in Indonesia, many of whom are now in key government positions. At the end of August, Professor Sumitro generously agreed to be interviewed on his long career by two members of the BIES editorial board, Anne Booth and Thee Kian Wie. In preparing this interview for publication, the editors have tried to preserve Professor Sumilro's own words to the greatest extent possible; his lucid and entertaining remarks are thus reproduced with a minimum of editing. The interview began with a question to Professor Sumitro about his early training in economies.     

Eila Linnanmäki,Espanjantauti Suomessa. Influenssaepidemia 1918–1920

Abstract

Economic historians are familiar with the conflict in their work between, on the one hand, phenomenological analysis based upon or, more precisely, guided by modern economic theory, and on the other, causal analysis, of a kind common to all historical disciplines, but operating within the special conceptual framework and terminology of economics. The conflict becomes more apparent as one moves backward in time, simply because knowledge of the facts usually decreases until a point is reached where economic theory has to take the place of facts. Since economic theory is mainly derived from a large body of data drawn from recent times, it is obviously necessary to use very great care when applying modern theory to the anlysis of economic data drawn from the past.     

A theorist on basic questions of economic history

Abstract

The author of this slim, essay-like book—now translated into Swedish¹—s-is a leading economic theoretician, noted for his contribution to the development of Keynesian theory and to the theory of the short-run dynamics of the trade cycle, as well as to modem theory of macro-economic growth. He is, however, known to a generation of modern economists above all as a ‘market’ theorist within the Walrasian tradition. In the present book he abandons his role as a strict market theorist, concerned with such things as the ‘existence’ and ‘stability’ of market equilibria, and attempts to explain the historical emergence and development of the market system or economy as an institution or set of institutions. He disarmingly forfeits any claims to expertise on this topic, and I think wisely so; but he is far from being altogether a layman or a newcomer to economic history. He professes an early love of the subject, and although it was a romance that never resulted in marriage, he has, through constant association with leading British economic historians and through his own writings in the history of economic thought, preserved and developed some of the faculties of a historian. Yet, this book-as its title indicates-is essentially theoretical. Hicks develops a set of interpretative hypotheses mainly by a priori reasoning. The empirical references must be looked upon more as illustrations of his theses than as evidence in support of their empirical validity.     

II. The farm territories

Abstract

The enquiries into the organization of farm territories in Norway must be based partly upon the study of old records, and partly upon field work. As long as the breach with the past is still a fairly recent occurrence, the field investigations will produce more than simply a record of the visible traces of the past. Of course, this record itself plays a very important part. Features such as characteristic boundary marks, various traces and relics found within the old multiple abode (tun), of holdings which have moved outside it, former balks that are still visible—these are all important pieces in the jigsaw puzzle which must be completed in order to obtain a picture of the ancient organization of the farm territory. But in addition to this, we can make use of the memories of those of the farming population who grew up in earlier times and took part in the daily work and who know of old traditions which were handed down to them by still earlier generations. The younger generations worked alongside the older and carried on the inheritance from them. This is clearly shown in the story about the man who took his young son along to show him the boundaries of the farm. Every time they reached an important marking on the boundary the father gave his son a box on the ear so that the spot should stand out in his memory. One of the Institute's most reliable informants, an old schoolmaster from Sunnmöre, can account for traditions as far back as to the middle of the eighteenth century; he usually confirms his tales with such expressions as: ‘The old man said so, and he got it from grandma’.     

Swedish trade unions and the social democratic party: The formative years

Abstract

The history of labour movements in many countries of the Western world includes a period in which the relationship between the trade-union arm and the political arm undergoes significant change. This formative period is conditioned in an immediate way by the political framework and more generally by the economic and social milieu. In respect of the actors themselves—trade unions and party organisations—latter-day interpreters have frequently regarded developments of union-party relationships as a process in which the unions, to the extent they are successful and true to their character and objectives as trade unions, free themselves from party domination. ¹ The most obvious example is found in the works of the late Professor Selig Perlman, especially his A Theory of the Labor Movement, (New York, 1928). It is recognised here that Perlman did not discuss Swedish developments. The historical fragment which follows is intended to demonstrate that, for the Swedish experience, such an interpretation leaves much to be desired.     

New light on eighteenth century Sweden

Abstract

The second part of the late Professor Eli F. Heckscher's Economic History of Sweden,¹ with its 894 pages of text, together with notes, tables, diagrams, maps and index, is a large work even by comparison with the first part, which, in 707 pages of text, covered both the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In his introduction the author regrets that he was unable to retain the same clarity of layout. In fact, however, too concentrated an exposition would not have rendered justice to the astonishing research and the intensive thought, which have gone into the making of this book, and Heckscher's ability to capture the reader's attention by his lucidity of style and accessible presentation of his subject-matter is here shown to full advantage.²     

Swedish artisans in the nineteenth century

Abstract

The history of the artisan class and of the gild system in Sweden has been dealt with in a number of works, such as Professor E. Heckscher's Sveriges ekonomiska historia [The Economic History of Sweden] and in two of the volumes of the great work of Landsorganisationen ¹ Landsorganisationen, popularly known as ‘L.O’, the Swedish equivalent of the T.U.C. : Den svenska arbetarklassens historia [History of the Swedish Working Class], as well as in Professor E. Söderlund's Stockholms hantverkarklass 1720–1772 [The Artisan Class of Stockholm, 1720–1772]. These topics are of course also touched upon in histories of towns and other literature. However, in those studies which cover the whole country the subject has only been pursued to the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th. The subsequent period is discussed in Henry Lindström's two books Näringsfrihetens utveckling i Sverige 1809–1836 and Näringsirihetsirågan i Sverige 1837–1864 [The Development of Industrial Freedom in Sweden, 1809–1836, and The Problem of Industrial Freedom in Sweden, 1837–1864], but only from a special point of view. Thanks, however, to the good offices of Sveriges hantuerks- och småindustriorgonisation (The Swedish Craft and Minor Industries Organisation), an attempt has now been made, in a work by Dr. Tom Söderberg that has been in preparation for some time, to fill the gap thus existing in respect of the period after 1815. The result, in spite of the relatively limited number of pages, is a very comprehensive exposition, even if the subject obviously cannot be exhausted within the given frame of reference.     

Sweden's iron ore exports to Germany, 1933–1944

Abstract

Rolf Karlbom's article about Swedish iron ore exports to Germany during the Nazi era¹ is an attempt to examine a very important problem as yet unsolved—the significance of the Swedish ore deliveries to Germany. His study begins with the following two questions:² 1. ‘How much of the total consumption of this raw material by German industry did Swedish ore cover during these years?’

2. ‘How far was access to Swedish iron ore a sine qua non for the continuance of the armaments programme?’

3. These basic questions indicate the main problems. Karlbom's answers to them are not wholly convincing because of some weaknesses in his approach.

     

In defence of Heckscher and the idea of Mercantilism

Abstract

In his recent reappraisal of Heckscher's Mercantilism ² Dr. Coleman raised certain questions concerning Heckscher's methodological approach which transcend the immediate problem of the nature and validity of the idea of ‘mercantilism’ and have a bearing upon the broader issue of the relationships between economic conditions, ideas and policy. To the present writer, the danger that Heckscher's development of the idea of mercantilism will drive yet another wedge between the political and the economic historians as Dr. Coleman fears,³ is less serious than the danger that Heckscher's apparent reluctance to admit the influence of economic conditions upon economic ideas,⁴ and his readiness to pass directly from generalizations about economic ideas to generalizations about economic policy, will widen the existing gap between economic historians and historians of economic doctrine, two groups of scholars whose mutual services should be considerable. To the student of economic ideas who seeks to rescue his discipline from the sterile pursuit of tracing the genealogy of particular analytic propositions, of which some of his colleagues seem inordinately fond, the matter is one of crucial importance.     

Some observations on four series of Tuscan corn prices 1520–1630

Abstract

In his address to the International History Congress in Stockholm, 1960, Professor Earl J. Hamilton¹ regretted the lack of a history of Italian prices, a matter which was all the more surprising since there was known to be copious material—often systematically recorded—giving series of prices, particularly from the sixteenth century and later, in Italian archives. During the last thirty years numerous papers and publications based on this material have appeared which go some way towards filling the gap.     

Between micro and macro — what economic history can learn from modern economics

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss the role of economic history to modern economic theory. Taking my point of departure from the division that still haunts economic history — between micro and macro approaches — the paper argues that economic theory today is significantly different from what it was only twenty or thirty years ago. Hence, for example, the division between micro and macro has been upset in modern economics. Also the development of institutional economics, the use of concepts like “bounded rationality” or “path dependence” makes it necessary for economic historians to learn from and confront modern economic theorizing. Many economic historians criticise a version of (neo-classical) economics) that belongs rather to the past than to the present.     

SEHR & IEHA — the early years

Abstract

In January 1952, Professor Astrid Friis asked me to accompany her and our colleague Aksel E Christensen to Stockholm for the inaugural meeting of a closed circle of Nordic historians who had set themselves the task of publishing an English-language journal of economic history. The meeting was arranged by Professor Ernst Söderlund. By way of introduction he brought us greetings from Eli F Heckscher, who by his work and debating ability had done more than anyone else to create respect for the subject of economic history in Sweden, and whose name was also renowned internationally thanks in part to his book on mercantilism. His latest achievement was the second volume of his mammoth work of Swedish economic history. Heckscher was in hospital at the time and died shortly afterwards. Thus it came about that the torch was passed on, but still it was clear that the Heckscher era was ebbing to its close.     

Helge W. Nordvik In Memoriam

Abstract

Professor Helge W. Nordvik died suddenly on October 18, only 55 years old. He was trained both as historian and as economist at the Universities of Oslo and Bergen, and at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration. Most of his post-graduate education was spent at the LSE in London, where he obtained his MSc in economic history.     

Octogenarian John Kenneth Galbraith: Sunday scientist or superstar?

Summary In mid-October of last year John Kenneth Galbraith, world-famous American economist of Canadian descent and for many years Professor of Economics at Harvard University, celebrated his eightieth birthday. This paper features some of the brainchilds that made his name, for the most part laid down in popularly and very well-written best-selling books, of whichThe Affluent Society, published more than thirty years ago, has been the most influential; it comprises ideas that may regain topicality. Galbraith, who has been politically active on the left wing of the Democratic Party, is a follower of Thorstein Veblen, founding father of the typically American movement called institutionalism. He cannot pride himself upon the unqualified admiration and sympathy of his fellow-economists, whom he has often rebuffed. In spite of inadequacies in his reasoning he has enriched economic literature with some original contributions. He is still going strong and wielding his often acerbic pen.Retired economic journalist.The author thanks Professors A. Heertje and P. Hennipman for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.     

Social history as economic history in Sweden. Some remarks

Abstract

During the last two decades social history as a subject has developed rapidly, with regard both to the number of its practicioners as well as the general interest it attracts within the international academic community. In a book of some years ago D.C. Coleman even emphasized that its success has been so great that it has had a tendency to outcompete discourses of older and more distinguished standing; that is, political history as well as economic history. In several countries — particularly Britain — social history has acquired its own departments, and has thus created problems for the older and less buoyant disciplines which have had to compete with this vital and growing new subject for funding and students.¹     

The entelechies of mercantilism

Daniel Waldenström's debate article in this issue of the SEHR raises several interesting questions for discussion. I will not comment on his criticisms of Swedish economic historians' publishing practice and their international participation; I will state only that I think economic and business historians in the Nordic countries should increase their international activities and their publications in international journals. In my opinion this concerns particularly scholars in my own country, Norway. Waldenström makes, however, several normative assertions about economic history that concern the discipline as a whole, including the guiding principles of the editorial policy of the SEHR. His normative claims about content and the methodological foundations of economic history deserve an answer.     

Globalisation and its discontents: an Indonesian perspective

It is indeed a great honour for me to give the 2011 Heinz Arndt Memorial Lecture. The first time I met the great Professor Heinz Arndt was as a nine‐year‐old back in 1966 when our family first came to Canberra and Heinz was my father's (Panglaykim) new boss. I recall that he picked us up at the airport and within the first week we had visited his house in Deakin, where he gave me and my two brothers games such as Chinese checkers and books that his own kids had outgrown. So my first thought was: what a kind and thoughtful man. Little did I know that I would end up being what he often termed his ‘academic grandchild’. I never took a class from Heinz or was fortunate enough to be supervised by him. However, I had many interactions with him when I was a student at the Australian National University (ANU) and, upon graduation, as an aspiring young academic. He had an important influence on the course of my life. First, he encouraged me to do my PhD in the USA. After I completed my masters at the ANU under Peter Drysdale, I toyed with the idea of continuing with a PhD at the Research School of Pacific Studies. However, Heinz convinced me to go to the USA because he thought it would widen my horizons. He was right. Second, there was the importance of being disciplined and thorough in undertaking country or regional research. One of the most important initiation exercises for an academic working on Indonesia was to do a ‘Survey of Recent Developments’ for the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies. I recall being given a yellowed document that had been formulated by Heinz with precise guidelines on topics, structure, and people to see and interview. We found similar guidelines on regional surveys when we did economic surveys of all the provinces a few years later. I found that doing the research and interviews for the survey was the easy part. The hard part was the two weeks spent in Canberra writing up the survey and being subjected to peer review. The draft was presented to the ‘editorial team’ and others, including, of course, the venerable Professor Arndt. I am glad to say that I passed in terms of substance; but of course there were lots of edits to do following Heniz's traditional typed‐up comments, both general and specific! Third, despite being a formidable figure and someone with a reputation for strong opinions, Heinz was the same kind and thoughtful man I remembered as a nine‐year‐old. He always had the time of day for the young academics, especially those from Indonesia. I had many cups of tea with him as a student and later as an aspiring academic. I still recall his room in University House filled with his books and the filing cabinet near the bathroom, where he would inevitably pull out the right references and reading materials that one needed. I learned a lot about the importance of mentoring and encouraging the young—many of whom have succeeded and are in the room today. This lecture is to honour Professor Heinz Arndt. I believe Professor Arndt was a true internationalist and therefore he would tackle with gusto the rumblings of discontent on globalisation. He would be thorough in trying to understand the manifestations of globalisation and its sources of discontent. He would also be of the firm belief that the benefits of globalisation outweigh its costs and come up with strategic ideas on how to best manage globalisation to counter ‘globaphobia’. I hope I do justice to this topic in the Heinz Arndt tradition.     

SOME COMMENTS ON PROFESSOR RÄDEL'S “PROFIT MAXIMIZATION—CAN IT BE JUSTIFIED?”*

In the confrontation of the principle of acquisition with the principle of self-sufficiency, Professor Rädel's suggestive and penetrating paper condenses Werner Sombart's work on modern capitalism. As is well known, Sombart characterized the economic objective of medieval man, as one of meeting needs, and that of modern man as one of seeking profits. To quote Rädel: “The principle of self-sufficiency (‘Bedarfsdeckungsprinzip’), the characteristic basic objective of economic activity of the middle ages, is replaced by the principle of acquisition, as much as ‘traditionalism’ is replaced by ‘rationality’ as formal principles of economic operations. It is the essential characteristic of the principle of acquisition that the primary aim of economic activity is no longer the satisfaction of the requirements of man, which are relatively limited and personal in nature, but rather the acquisition of wealth represented by a sum of money, which is entirely unlimited and of a more impersonal anonymous nature.”¹ Rädel also mentions the linkage, drawn by Sombart, between the “development of the modern democratic state, modern technology and the discovery of new continents” and the growth of capitalism, together with the formation of a “spirit of wordliness… and of lust for power.”²     

Reflections on Economic Policy Making: 1945–51

Editorial Note:Mohammad Saubari was Secretary-General of the Department of Finance in the early 1950s. After his suspension from the civil service during the Guided Democracy years, he worked for several United Nations agencies in Indonesia. The following note, is based on his comments on the Indonesian translation of the interview with Professor Sumitro (Sumitro 1986), which were published in Kompas earlier this year, on his contribution to a commemorative volume published to honour Sjafruddin Prawiranegara in 1986, and on an interview which he gave to Anne Booth and Thee Kian-Wie in Jakarta in May 1987.     

The monetary history of Rome

Abstract

The internationally-renowned Swedish historian, Professor Sture Bolin, has devoted himself, ever since his youth, to the problems of monetary history and to the study of coinage as a historical source. His doctoral thesis on the finds of Roman coins in independent Germany ¹ Fynden av romerska mynt i det fria Germanien. appeared in 1926; it was an important work which, by using numismatic source material, contributed considerably to the understanding of the relations between the Roman Empire and the Germans. After the publication of this work he continued to study the functions of money in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, and this research resulted in the publication, between 1939 and 1957, of a number of important papers. During the same period he worked steadily on a major work designed to provide a synthesis of the problems relating to the state and its currency from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The first volume of this work, State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. ² Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1958, p. 357, 45 Sw. Kr. , has now been published. The book is the product of a lifelong study of a central theme of economic history, and it unquestionably justifies the great efforts expended on it. It is a work of genius, epoch-making in its field, throwing completely new light upon Roman monetary history, and marking a culminating point in this branch of study.