In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Gerschenkron Advantage: New directions for forging ahead in Malaysian Economic History Loh Wei Leng Introduction The main agenda of economic history1 is to understand the function of economies in the past, seemingly a task for a person trained in the discipline of economics, rather than in history. However, as an adequate understanding of past economies requires locating the particular economy under scrutiny within the context of a relevant era and area, it would necessitate a familiarity with matters beyond the specialization of economic history into other fields in history, such as social, cultural or political history. And, even though there is recognition that temporal and spatial dimensions are pre-requisites in the analysis of any economic history topic – that is to say, the context of a time or period and a place or specific geographical region, which does not involve special knowledge of the economy – it cannot be denied that the branch of economic history draws heavily on the allied social science discipline of economics. This is amply illustrated when we turn to look at historical factors of causation (an enduring concern of not just economic historians but also of historians in general), as applied to specific themes or subjects. The themes of economic change and development2 and their negative manifestations, economic downturns and depressions, are among the major topics3, which preoccupy every generation of economic historians who seek to identify sources of such phenomena. If one takes a look 159 1 Cf. D.C. North, “Structure and Performance: The Task of Economic History”, Journal of Economic Literature, XVI, 3, 1978: 963–978. 2 See for example the titles of some classic works which are much cited, from K. Polyani, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston: Beacon, 1944, through W.A. Lewis, Growth and Fluctuations 1870–1913, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1978 to D.S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor, London: Abacus, 1998. 3 For other themes and subjects on the rise in the past 10 years, 1991–2000, see R. Whaples, “The Supply and Demand of Economic History: Recent Trends in the Journal of Economic History”, Journal of Economic History, 62, 2, June 2002: 524–525, noting current developments “especially a recent push toward examining political, cultural and institutional questions, and increased attention to business cycles and depressions, labor markets and migration, and standards of living and health…” at the main schools of thought4 in economic history, the mainstream neoclassical and the alternative Marxist approach, it will be seen that they essentially offer different explanations and analytical frameworks to address these pertinent issues. While that may be so, nonetheless, there is continual reworking and adaptation of existing theories with new ideas and, often, new evidence constantly emerging which any serious scholar cannot afford to ignore. To do so, would mean that one is always behind the current state of the art, not drawing on the latest findings of one’s peers. The result - one’s work does not deal with issues which are at the forefront of the field. Worse still, one’s analysis of a particular topic under examination is bereft of possible insights which can be brought to bear on one’s research and, ultimately, on the final product, be it a journal article or a monograph. The main argument of the paper is that, as a late developer5, Malaysian economic history has the advantage of being in a position to draw on work done elsewhere, not only to catch up but it also has the possibility and potential to forge ahead. This is in line with what the well-known Russian-born, Harvard economic historian, Alexander Gerschenkron6 wrote in 1952, in the era when newly independent nations – comparatively less developed – sought to close the gap with the industrialized nations of the west, their former colonial masters. Gerschenkron ’s view was that, due to the coexistence of advanced and backward countries, the latter could skip several stages, which the former had to go through, by adopting their advanced technology. Indeed, as his research shows, “Germany thus had derived full advantages from being a relatively late arrival in the field of industrial development…from having been 160 4 For more on the approaches of the main schools of thought, see the relevant chapters in J. Tosh, The Pursuit of History, Revised 3rd ed., London and New York: Longman, 2002 and P. Burke, ed., New Perspectives on Historical Writing, Cambridge: Polity Press...

Share