ABSTRACT
Our understanding of Canada’s economic past is in a state of flux. During the first half of the twentieth century, Canadian economic history matured as a discipline, and some degree of agreement was reached about the course of Canada’s economic development (represented, for example, by Easterbrook and Aitken’s 1956 text). Since then, the methodological revolution involving more explicit use of economic theory and statistical methods has led to a questioning of the conventional wisdom. The cornerstone of “old” Canadian economic history, the staple theory, has been shown to have, at best, only partial relevance to economic development since the mid-nineteenth century. Research on specific issues has discredited old conclusions and established new ones. George’s 1968 paper, for example, forced a reassessment of railway policy. In addition, an upsurge of interest by Canadian historians in economic matters has increased our understanding of government policy formation (e.g., Nelles, 1974), business history and social history. A failing of this recent activity, however, has been its inability to present a satisfactory general explanation of Canada’s economic development. The theories presented in chapter 3 all have weaknesses, due to either lack of completeness or inapplicability to some periods or parts of the economy, but nothing has been established in their place.
