The political hazards that host country governments pose multinational companies are multifaceted and persistent. This study focuses on the experience of the Canadian subsidiary of British retailer W.H. Smith and Son in order to examine how host country policy can influence a multinational operating in the cultural industries. While bargaining models have previously provided the principal analytical lens for analyzing the interaction between multinationals and host governments, I argue that such frameworks lack the necessary nuance in order to explain fully the interaction between the Canadian government and W.H. Smith. In order to address the intricacy of these relations, it is necessary to integrate insights from new institutional economics with conventional bargaining frameworks.

On Monday, April 13, 1840, one William Bement moved to his farm at Northumberland, west of the Hudson River and north of Albany, New York. On that same day he started a diary in which he not only meticulously recorded the conventional observations about the weather but also set down details of his activities as a farmer and considerable information about the financial side of his farming. The diary ends abruptly on Sunday, February 20, 1842, apparently because Bement's career as a farmer was then coming to a close.

In the manner of the Creole tradesmen of Louisiana, whose lagniappe to their patrons is legendary, the Editor offers a similar bonus to readers of the Review. Instead of trifling presents added to a purchase, however, our lagniappe will be notes and documents illustrative of the evolution of business enterprise.

Professor van der Wee reviews Raymond de Roover's important new study of medieval business history, The Bruges Money Market around 1400.

Do we know what capitalism means? Are we annoyed by what seems a change in the use of the term? How about some other words of high import, such as democracy, labor, people, religion, communism, fascism? How can we be scholars, journalists, politicians, or even intelligent voters without having a clear concept of these terms? Or is it just a matter of pedantry that I am insisting on? Perhaps the extreme points of view are expressed by the words “scholarship” and “propaganda.” The propagandist certainly wants no limitations put upon his strategic use of terms. He is a master in intellectual crookedness and is irked by any effort that cramps his style.

Business history presents so many problems and opportunities that I hardly know which ones to discuss in the time available or where to start. Perhaps it is well to begin by reminding ourselves just what business history is, for there is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point. I refuse to attempt a precise definition because it seems to be impossible to obtain a satisfactory definition of the term “business” itself, but I think that I can give a fairly clear idea of the scope of the field.

Professor Miner recounts the complex story of the loss of Cherokee control of mineral development on tribal lands in what later became Oklahoma. These events constitute a chapter in the long history of the loss of Indian sovereignty in the wake of the expansion of the white man's civilization across the continent.