Economic history concepts and applications

Charles P. Kindleberger pens a thesis but does not necessarily prove the thesis valid, nor does he provide, that even if valid, what importance to make of the thesis is the first place. He states "that the economic growth of a country - and its absorption of foreign technology, given enough initial social capacity - tends to follow an S or Gompertz or logistic curve" (Kindleberger, 1995, p. 231). He continues by giving an example of what he means by the S or Gompertz curve by showing that a country's technological advancement starts slowly, picks up speed and then slows down. Kindleberger then spends the rest of his paper, almost nine pages worth of information, presenting his case. His data shows that during the late eighteenth century and throughout the nineteenth century the Continent (Europe) more than made up the technological gap between Great Britain and many of the remainder of countries comprising Europe. According to Kindleberger, this catching up was accomplished through a number of means. Chief among the reasons for catching up was the access to travel by many of the curious individuals of the era. Many of these individuals gained access to the 'trade secrets' of manufacturers (especially steel and iron) by posing as cheap foreign laborers. This was true not only of the English who traveled abroad, but pertained to the French and Germans as well. Kindleberger writes "there is something of a dispute whether there is a difference between wandering in search of work, and travel undertaken more purposefully to acquire industrial knowledge" (p. 233).

Kindleberger addressed the issue of education, or lack thereof, of the citizenry as a factor in why technology creeps into certain areas, while roaring into others by showing that it might not be as big a factor as was previously believed. He writes that the Swedes are highly educated, but not in the proper areas, which is his reason for believing that education may not matter as much as being a part of a 'brain-drain'. Kindleberger also shows the 'dubious methods' used by a vast array of characters to obtain industrial knowledge. What Kindleberger failed to prove was the importance of the thesis that was presented in the paper. He showed many fine examples of how information, and the ensuing technological advancement, moved from country to country, and how that movement benefited the receiving countries. He also showed that there was an ebb and flow to the growth, and to the decline in various countries, but what he failed to show was any gains made from his reasoning. The reader could almost chuckle with glee in reading Kindleberger's statement; "the model is of little value for forecasting since economies, unlike human beings, can be reborn economically" (p. 231). Okay, the reader can then ask, then why would the writer spend almost 14 pages rambling on about how different countries are affected in such a manner? The paper was interesting regarding history, but the reader is almost positive that the author of the paper meant it for so much more, but provided so much less. Perhaps the writer should have taken up a career in teaching history, rather than one in technology.