emphasizing mathematical modelling and quantitative sources. Canadian economic historians like Douglas McCalla would later question whether Innis’ emphasis on staple exports was sufficient to account for the emerging size and complexity of Canada’s economy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, arguing that endogenous economic activity was more important. Innis’s approach found application in other fields as well: briefly in history before being supplanted in the 1970s by social history, as well as historical geography and the new Canadian political economy. In the latter field, Mel Watkins would combine Innis’s writings with dependency theory to forward the proposition that Canada historically had been caught in a “staples trap” – a trap that hindered Canada’s economic evolution into an industrial mixed economy. It was a controversial notion. Contemporaries such as Robin Neill and Hugh Aitkens denied that Watkins’ writings bore any relation to those of Innis; more recently, Paul Kellogg has charged that Watkins’ staples theory is not supported empirically. As Evenden perceptively notes, “One might ask whether we are still debating Innis, or whether we are now debating the legacy of Innis’ legacy” (xv). Evenden’s introduction suffers from an important limitation, however: it reduces the significance and substance of Innis’ economic writings to the staples hypothesis. Their import extends well beyond that. Innis’ The Cod Fisheries, for example, was one of the pioneering works in Atlantic history, published nine years before Braudel’s The Mediterranean (La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe ii [Colin, 1949]), the point of departure for many scholars providing accounts of Atlantic historiography. As well, Innis’s economic writings have been central in debates considering their impact on his later communication writings. Those debates have revealed that the substance of Innis’ economics extended well beyond staples. In Emergence and Empire: Innis, Complexity, and the Trajectory of History (2013), I show that Innis was an early forerunner of the field of complexity economics, a field that emphasizes the importance of self-organization, positive feedback, and other processes implicated in the evolution of economic systems. Harold Innis, in short, was a far deeper and far more sophisticated economic thinker than many historians appreciate. Reference to this volume will help them see that, and I hope they do. There is no reason to continue aligning Innis with Schrodinger’s unfortunate feline. john bonnett Brock University

中文翻译：

---

1919–1939年加拿大的货币和财政思想与政策

强调数学建模和定量来源。后来，像道格拉斯·麦卡拉（Douglas McCalla）这样的加拿大经济历史学家会质疑，因尼斯对大宗商品出口的重视是否足以说明19世纪和20世纪加拿大经济的新兴规模和复杂性，他们认为内生经济活动更为重要。因尼斯的方法在其他领域也有应用：在历史上曾短暂地出现过，后来在1970年代被社会历史，历史地理学和新的加拿大政治经济学所取代。在后一个领域，梅尔·沃特金斯（Mel Watkins）将结合因尼斯（Innis）的著作和依赖理论来提出这样的主张，即加拿大历来被困在“订书钉陷阱”中，该陷阱阻碍了加拿大经济向工业混合经济的演变。这是一个有争议的概念。Robin Neill和Hugh Aitkens等当代人否认沃特金斯的著作与因尼斯的著作有任何关系。最近，保罗·凯洛格（Paul Kellogg）指控沃特金斯的订书钉理论没有得到经验支持。正如Evenden敏锐地指出的那样，“人们可能会问我们是否还在辩论Innis，或者我们现在是否正在辩论Innis的遗产”（xv）。然而，Evenden的介绍受到一个重要的限制：它降低了Innis的经济著作对主要假设的意义和实质。它们的意义远不止于此。例如，因尼斯（Innis）的《鳕鱼渔业》（Cod Fisheries）是大西洋历史上的开创性著作之一，比布罗代尔（Baudel）的《地中海》（菲利普二世（Méditerranéeet le mondeméditerranéenàl'époquede Philippe ii）[Colin，1949年]）出版了九年，提供大西洋史学研究的许多学者的出发点。同样，考虑到英尼斯的经济著作对他后来的通讯著作的影响，英尼斯的经济著作一直是辩论的中心。这些辩论表明，Innis的经济学实质已远远超出了主要内容。在《新兴与帝国：因尼斯，复杂性和历史轨迹》（2013年）中，我表明因尼斯是复杂性经济学领域的早期先驱者，该领域强调自我组织，积极反馈和其他过程的重要性牵涉到经济体系的演变。简而言之，哈罗德·英尼斯（Harold Innis）是一位比许多历史学家所理解的更为深刻和成熟的经​​济思想家。参考该卷将帮助他们看到这一点，我希望他们这样做。没有理由继续使Innis与Schrodinger不幸的猫科动物保持一致。约翰·邦内特·布鲁克大学