Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T04:29:21.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Journal is Born: 1935

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

V. W. Bladen*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access

Extract

In 1921, when I came to Canada, Canadian economics was “colonial” in character; English and American influences blended but there was little native thought or work. The re-establishment of the Canadian Political Science Association in 1929 (it had been founded in 1913 and had foundered in 1914) was a symptom of the growing strength of the native elements, and it quickly contributed towards further strengthening of these elements. Harold Innis had foreseen this and worked hard but quietly for the development of the Association. He had recognized, too, the necessity for a Canadian outlet for Canadian writing on economics; not because the Canadian papers then being written could not be published in English and American periodicals but because he foresaw a great stimulus to Canadian economists to write more when they had their own journal. The example of the Canadian Historical Review with its effect on Canadian historical scholarship was not without influence. With the support of E. J. Urwick, Harold Innis had been able in 1928 to establish Contributions to Canadian Economics, published by the University of Toronto Press. Then in 1930 came the first of the new Proceedings of the Canadian Political Science Association (called volume II, since volume I had been published in 1913), edited by Clifford Curtis and printed by the Jackson Press in Kingston.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Throughout the negotiations the views of McGill remained unknown. After the vote Dr. MacGibbon must have wondered whether, and worried lest, the dissentients were from McGill. In a letter in October I find I wrote to him: “I am glad to say that McGill did not vote against the journal; if they voted they voted for it. Leacock wrote supporting it too late for his name to be mentioned in the leaflet.”