With the growing emphasis on structural change and Schumpeterian innovation in economic development, the paradoxical concept “creative destruction” has come into wide use among economists and economic historians. It is an appealing concept because it recalls the death and birth cycles of nature and various tribal myths of gods shuttling between ferocity and compassion. But the concept has been applied to economic situations rather casually. This paper suggests that “creative destruction” is not an apt description of the way dominant production methods succeeded one another in the United States from 1850 to 1914, even though the term is applled to this era more than to any other. Data are presented to show that apparently obsolete methods survived and grew in the face of novel competition. An explanation of the staying power of partially outdated production methods is attempted.

Assessing the role of government in economic development in situations where public and private sectors coexist is extremely difficult. The nature of modern government is so complex and its activities are so broad, that a clear statement of “influence” or “impact” on a national economy becomes almost impossible. Interpretations of Japanese economic history illustrate these problems vividly. Few scholars have dealt with the issue explicitly, and those that have seem unable to reach clear conclusions.

The discussion of the social character of the English revolution is carried on at present largely in terms of the well-known controversy over the gentry. The debate which has been conducted has undoubtedly been welcomed by all historians as a valuable stimulus to think afresh and more deeply about the seventeenth century. But the preoccupation with the gentry, instructive as it has been, has also had its disadvantages, for it has served, I think, to obscure how much a general judgment on the social origin and development of the revolution depends on a knowledge of many other topics besides those to which R. H. Tawney, Lawrence Stone, and H. R. Trevor-Roper have drawn to our attention.

“Let those who will consult the spirit rappers to bring forth its ghost.”

Such was Professor Shannon's firm caveat as he laid Frederick Jackson Turner's safety-valve doctrine to rest after a post mortem performed with some gusto. The warning seems to have had the effect intended. Although Turner's frontier concept continues to influence the work of American historians and not a few economists the labor-safety-valve doctrine seems generally to have been accepted as dead and buried. We have little taste for ghosts or spirit rapping, but we would like to argue that die safety-valve doctrine, even if suffering from neglect, retains more than a spark of vitality.