Ten years ago, the Central Bank of Ecuador organized a Center for Research and Culture under the direction of Irving Zapater in order to study Ecuador’s economy, its economic history, and, more generally, its culture. Since then, a number of volumes have appeared on these subjects, and two journals have been started: Cultura and Revista Ecuatoriana de Historia Económica. The volume under review is the last of a series of works on economic history which have been edited by Carlos Marchan Romero, the director of Revista Ecuatoriana de Historia Económica. It has been published to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the foundation of the Central Bank. The volume contains 8 articles by members of the above-mentioned center; a selection of leaflets on economic matters which appeared between 1921 and 1927; a translation of 11 reports sent to the Quai d’Orsay by the French representatives in Quito during roughly the same years; and a chronology of events between 1920 and 1929.
The authors have two stated goals: one is methodological and the other is substantive. With regard to the first, the authors claim that the dominant methodological perspective in the volume derives from economic history, perceived as a discipline with its own methods and techniques. As for the substantive goal, while elucidating the circumstances that surrounded the creation of the Central Bank in Ecuador, the authors want to contribute to an ongoing debate in Ecuadorian historiography concerning the economic crisis of the 1920s, and the reforms that followed.
The methodological goal is not handled in a clear and consistent manner. Economic history is defined and practiced in two contrasting ways. On the one hand, it is sometimes viewed as that branch of history which uses economic theory and statistics. On the other hand, it is also seen as that discipline which applies economic theory to the historical context, thus giving economics a temporal and spatial dimension. In my opinion, neither view constitutes an adequate conception of economic history.
This problem notwithstanding, Marchán and his team do make a contribution to Ecuadorian historiography. According to the traditional interpretation, the crisis and reforms of the 1920s were of such a nature that this decade is to be seen as the end of an era and the beginning of a new one. During the last ten years, revisionists have challenged this interpretation and argue instead, albeit from different perspectives, that the 1920s are best understood in terms of continuities. Marchán and his colleagues join in this debate, and convincingly show that during the 1920s, as the export economy fell into a deep crisis, the Ecuadorian government moved away from a model of outward expansion, and began to articulate one aimed at developing the internal market. Thus, the authors put the traditional interpretation, or a version thereof, back on its feet again. They do so, however, using new tools: a systematic use of economic data and economic analysis and an interdisciplinary approach that permits them to carry their explorations beyond economic life into politics. In my opinion, this is no mean feat, and the result is a most welcome development in Ecuadorian historiography.
