The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 57)

غرض

عنوان

The Dispossession of the Peasantry (ص 57)

المحتوى

41
time, he offers no explanation for the stability of manufacture’s share in
employment and output in the Arab economy throughout the 1930s and into the end
of the Mandate. The “massive inflow of capital imports” and other resources that
Metzer assigns as the primary reason for the growth in the Jewish economy could
not but inhibit competition from the Arab economy in general but especially in
manufacture.
This applies to the period preceding WWII and during the war. The massive
spending during the war and especially its demand for manufactured products
would have had a more positive impact on Arab manufactures if it did not have to
compete with Jewish European manufacture. A discussion or acknowledgment of
competition nullifies, or at least substantially weakens, the two separate economies
postulate because competition implies mutual impact.
Trade was dealt with as external trade and bilateral trade (1.e., between
Arabs and Jews and between each with the outside world). External trade grew
substantially and fast during the Mandate period and was primarily determined by
Jewish imports. The external trade of each economy varied substantially in volume
and composition. In 1922, the Arab economy’s share was 62 percent of the total
external trade of the country. By 1935, the situation was reversed such that the
Jewish economy’s share rose to 70 percent of the total.’ The composition of
trade also varied. The Jewish economy had a much higher ‘share of its total imports
comprised of durable and capital goods.
“Tbid., Table 5.8, 168.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

هو جزء من

The Dispossession of the Peasantry

تاريخ

٢٠٠٦

المنشئ

Riyad Mousa

مجموعات العناصر

Generated Pages Set

Theses رسائل ماجستير ودكتوراه