In the last two decades or so a new field of teaching and research, business history, has made its appearance. Like other fields of interdisciplinary origin it remains ill defined, and its literature exhibits the many points of view of its devotees, among whom are to be found historians, economists, students of administration, corporate officers, public relations men, and free-lance writers in search of drama. Consequently, we find wide variations in both analytical quality and historical accuracy and balance among the works. Very few of the studies approach the ideal of blending detailed historical investigation, meaningful analysis, and effective presentation, yet many nonetheless have marked interest. In this paper I shall endeavor, not to note in a comprehensive manner the many works, but rather to comment on how some of them have illuminated certain aspects of economic history, economics, and administration.

The laissez-faire theory in its various European forms is not as simple or clearcut as it is sometimes presented. Nor is it merely the converse of another theory equally complex but which is often taken simply as one of organization and complete state intervention. From the Physiocrats on, the exponents of the theory of laissez-faire, or freedom of industry, set themselves the task not only of freeing the economy and the individual, but also of directing and nurturing activity designed to improve the economy. This aim took the form of the advocacy of a wide variety of social and state actions; for example, the promotion of a stable currency, science and invention, education of the labor force, humanitarian reforms, especially in penology, and cultural, ideological, and even aesthetic advances. In short, the issue of individualism often became the broader issue of civilization.

Industrial growth and chronic, in many cases severe, inflation are two salient features of the past-war economic history of the larger Latin American countries. There is general recognition that the two phenomena are related, at least in the sense that industry has been one of the major recipients of state subsidies and inflationary credit. But beyond this, analysis divides into the usual demand inflation and cost-push categories.

In historical studies of industrialization prominent attention is usually given to the development of large-scale industry and whenever small industry is considered at all, it is usually introduced only as the starting point of, or a contrast to, large industrial enterprises. This concern with large industry also predominated in the earliest post-war discussions on the economic development of underdeveloped countries and from this period stem the famous and often ridiculed schemes of giant steel plants and other large industrial establishments in littleadvanced countries. During the last few years, however, the general climate of opinion has changed and increasing attention has been paid to small scale and even cottage industries. This has been especially pronounced in the countries of southern and southeastern Asia and is strongly supported by various studies and conferences of the Economic Commission on Asia and the Far East and other organizations associated with the United Nations operating in this part of the world.