business learning training articles new learning business training opportunities finance learning training deposit money learning making training art loan learning training deposits make learning your training home good income learning outcome training issue medicine learning training drugs market learning money training trends self learning roof training repairing market learning training online secure skin learning training tools wedding learning training jewellery newspaper learning for training magazine geo learning training places business learning training design Car learning and training Jips production learning training business ladies learning cosmetics training sector sport learning and training fat burn vat learning insurance training price fitness learning training program furniture learning at training home which learning insurance training firms new learning devoloping training technology healthy learning training nutrition dress learning training up company learning training income insurance learning and training life dream learning training home create learning new training business individual learning loan training form cooking learning training ingredients which learning firms training is good choosing learning most training efficient business comment learning on training goods technology learning training business secret learning of training business company learning training redirects credits learning in training business guide learning for training business cheap learning insurance training tips selling learning training abroad protein learning training diets improve learning your training home security learning training importance

« August 2015 | Blog home | June 2016 »

September 2015

How do we write the international history of economics? On August 7, a group of historians of economic internationalism attempted to answer this question, in a panel organized by the Laureate Research Program in International History at the World Economic History Congress in Kyoto. Spanning WWI-era attempts to set up a peacetime global economic organization, the activities of Australian labor activists in interwar China, the World Bank and the Aid-India Consortium in the 1950s, and the early days of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the papers sought to excavate the long twentieth century history of cross-border economic organization and visions of the world economy. They also began a rich and nuanced conversation about international economics that will be continued in July 2016 in the Laureate’s Scales of Economy conference.

The panel opened with an introduction by Glenda Sluga, who also wrote her own observations of the experience in Kyoto in a post for this blog on August 8. In her introduction on the day, Sluga placed the recent surge of interest in the history of international political economy in the context of the wild popularity of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2013). As she noted, international institutions are notably and surprisingly absent in this and other recent blockbuster works on inequality, which tend to focus on economic management by nation states as opposed to multi- or inter-national organisations. Such discussions are of course directed at contemporary political debates; nonetheless, Sluga suggested that, if we take them as the starting point of a renewed historical interest in global inequality and attempts to ameliorate it, we risk losing the international context of many of these debates in the twentieth century. This possibility makes the work on international economic history undertaken by the following four panelists all the more critical and timely.

In the first paper Jamie Martin (Harvard) examined the economic implications of the technocratic internationalism that underpinned the interwar League of Nations. He began by tracing the wartime discussions about an inter-Allied project to manage the global economy, which he convincingly demonstrated were key to the later international economic policies pursued by the League. As Martin argued, the wartime goals of the Allies were repurposed for postwar use, undermining the League’s claims to economic neutrality and supposed promotion of peacetime economic objectives. Accordingly, throughout the interwar period the League’s economic programs were infused with a deeply politicized split between former allies and former belligerents, premised as they were on the permanent economic subordination of the Allies’ wartime enemies. Furthermore, the almost immediate postwar ‘red spectre’ of Bolshevik Russia was used to justify the expansion of the League’s precursor, the Supreme Economic Council, in 1919, which in turn laid the groundwork for the wide-ranging economic powers later claimed by the League’s technocrats.

Sophie Loy-Wilson (Sydney) continued the chronological focus on the interwar period, shifting from Geneva and Paris to Sydney and Shanghai. Her paper discussed the efforts of Australian labor activists to lobby for a reform of factory conditions in 1920s and 1930s China. As she argued, Australian union officials saw the rapidly industrializing China, and Shanghai in particular, as a site to ‘civilize capitalism at its inception through labor regulation.’ Anti-colonial sentiment fueled this engagement, as figures such as the Australian Eleanor Hinder saw China’s struggle against Britain as a humanitarian struggle against capitalism. In this way, these activists infused interwar internationalism with the language of class struggle and labor rights, a context that is often left out of histories of humanitarianism in this period. The activities of the Australians in Shanghai also left their mark, as Hinder drafted a series of factory acts in the 1930s and wrote about the harsh conditions among the city’s industrialized labour force in her report ‘The Long Hard Day in China,’ which raised international interest in the plight of the Shanghai workers. Loy-Wilson’s paper thus served to provincialize, to a certain extent, our classic accounts of internationalism focus on Europe and North America, highlighting the alternative configurations of ideas about class and colonial rights produced within the Asia-Pacific region.

In the third paper, David Engerman (Brandeis) traced the story of the Aid-India Consortium, a story he argued allows us to see the postwar dreams of global governance up close and personal. The Consortium, founded with Nehru’s support under the aegis of the World Bank in 1958, was supposed to channel and support foreign aid to India in an era in which both the Soviet Union and United States were attempting to garner ‘third-world’ support through specific aid projects in South Asia. Nehru hoped that the Aid-India Consortium would facilitate the provision of ‘non-project aid’ which would allow the Indian government more autonomy in funding development. However, tensions soon arose between donors, the Indian government, the Soviet Union and the United States. The World Bank did not, for example, approve of the rapid expansion of the public sector in India in the 1950s and 1960s. Soon, early commitments to non-intervention on the part of the Consortium gave way to attempts to influence the direction of Indian economic policy. In the end, Engerman argued, India was hardly in a position to benefit, as economic internationalism might have reconfigured power differentials but did little to diminish them.

The final paper, by Francine McKenzie (Western) recreated the early days of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the precursor to the World Trade Organization founded in Geneva in 1947. Like that of the Aid-India Consortium, the story of the GATT highlights the limits as well as the possibilities of global governance. Reflecting the tenor of the time, in its early days the explicitly liberal internationalist GATT pushed the notion that freer (if not entirely free) trade would raise global standards of living. Initially signed by 23 countries, the methodology of the organization was supposed to be multi-lateral, but it was also universalist, meaning that one set of processes was meant to work for all members. This led to an emergent tension in the organization, as more states from the developing world joined and decried the unfairness of global trade relations. By the 1960s, it became clear that although developing countries constituted the majority of GATT members, they were unable to use it to their advantage. Both Engerman and McKenzie thus underlined some of the limits of economic internationalism as it was practiced in the twentieth century, particularly for newly decolonized states fighting against an unequal global distribution of economic power.

As Eric Helleiner (Waterloo) argued in his role as discussant, all four papers highlighted the long history of engagement of international organizations with the crucial question of inequality. The political and discursive meanings of ‘inequality’ are not, however, unchanging over time. Helleiner suggested that there are three distinct if interrelated scales at which ‘inequality’ is produced: the domestic, the international and the global. While the interwar focus was squarely on domestic inequality - that is, the gap between rich and poor within a given state, the post-1945 debate shifted to the question of international inequality – inequality between nations. This shift was not inevitable and needs to be explained by historians. By understanding this shift better, we may be able to more clearly understand why international organizations today seem to be returning to domestic inequality as the key economic problem to be fought. Furthermore, it might help us to bridge the gap and form a better understanding of what truly global equality would look like. Stay tuned for more attempts to historicize international economics and global inequality at the Scales of the Economy conference in July 2016!


The ‘international turn’ is well and truly upon us. Over the past two decades, the rise of international history has plucked long-forgotten historical actors from obscurity, bred new historical methodologies, and brought new subject matter to the fore. In doing so, international history has reconfigured how we think about histories of politics, economics, and women, alongside the national, the transnational, and the global. But what might the study of memory have to add to this new international history?

On 19 and 21 August 2015, an interdisciplinary group of scholars convened first in Sydney and then Melbourne to answer this question, and to launch the Laureate’s ‘Sites of International Memory’ project. The project aims to recover sites of international memory as ‘memories’ of internationalism, global governance, and intellectual cooperation, in an era of nation-states. The two workshops were sponsored by a number of organisations: the Laureate Research Program in International History; the Australian National Commission for UNESCO in connection with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and the Australian Centre for Architectural History, Urban and Cultural Heritage at the University of Melbourne. Across the two days, speakers considered how sites of international memory have figured within national and international histories. The particular sites in question were conceptually and temporally diverse: from buildings to ideas to postage stamps. Lively discussion attended each paper, as participants hashed out what this project might look like. These conversations are set to continue well into the future, with edited volumes and future events planned with Madeleine Herren (Basel), Davide Rodogno (Geneva), and Peter Becker (Vienna).

The Sydney workshop began with an introduction from Professor Glenda Sluga, the project’s director and Laureate head. Professor Sluga posed a number of stimulating methodological and epistemological questions for the project, and drew attention to Michael Rothberg’s work on memory, in particular his conceptual framework for studying ‘noeuds de mémoire’ (‘knots of memory’). Subsequent discussion amongst workshop participants highlighted Rothberg’s emphasis on a multidirectional approach to memory, and how this might play out in relation to sites of international memory. Jay Winter (Yale) delivered the first paper of the day, in which he argued that the Historial de la grande guerre—the international museum of the Great War, founded by Winter and others in 1992 in Péronne, France—functioned as a transnational site of memory. Winter pointed to the use of the horizontal axis in the organisation of the museum, and an interest in authenticity over verisimilitude, as a means of enacting transnational memory. Marco Duranti (Sydney) continued this focus on physical space with a paper on the 1913 Peace Palace of the Hague. As Duranti explained, the Palace blended neo-Renaissance architecture with Christian and humanist iconography. This pre-modern aesthetic, Duranti argued, was reflective of an early twentieth-century romantic internationalism, which sought to unite opposing political groups behind a common internationalist cause. Finally, Roland Burke (La Trobe) explored postage stamps commemorative of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as constitutive of transnational and international memories.

The Melbourne workshop opened with a panel on UNESCO and its place in the Sites of International Memory project. Jens Boel (UNESCO) spoke first about UNESCO’s Memory of the World project—which aims to preserve and promote documentary heritage—and how sites of international memory might be protected. The focus of the panel then moved closer to home, as I (in the role of Laureate affiliate and researcher) surveyed the rich archival record of UNESCO’s involvement with Australia. My report formed part of the ‘Documenting UNESCO in Australia’ project, which seeks to recover this history of UNESCO in Australia, and which focuses in particular on the research areas of migration, cultural heritage, natural sciences and world heritage. Participants then benefited from a series of papers by major practitioners in museum and cultural heritage studies. William Logan (Deakin) assessed the prospect of Gelibolu (Gallipoli) being inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List, and what this might mean for memories of the First World War in Turkey and Australia. Anoma Pieris (Melbourne) compared Pacific War commemoration at two sites of wartime internment in Australia and the US, arguing that the seemingly innocuous architecture of settler colonies assumes a more violent undertone when associated with racist conflict. Turning to contemporary practices in museology, Jennifer Barrett (Sydney) probed the tensions between universalism and human rights discourses as central to the activist platform of the Federation of International Human Rights Museums. Lastly, Andrea Witcomb (Deakin) tracked the development of what she termed a ‘pedagogy of feeling’ within museum practices: a pedagogy designed to facilitate affective encounters between visitors and the past.

Ultimately, these workshops were an exciting sign of things to come. Workshop discussions flagged numerous avenues for future engagement between this new international history and the history of memory, and participants were coaxed into taking serious the possibility for interdisciplinary engagement. All this bodes well for the future of the Sites of International Memory project.