What do you think?
Rate this book
Not in Narrow Seas: The Economic History of Aotearoa New Zealand
Not in Narrow Seas is a major contribution to the history of Aotearoa New Zealand. It covers everything from the traditional gift-based Māori economy to the Ardern government’s attempt to deal with the economic challenges of global warming, and is the first economic history to underline the central role of the environment, beginning with the geological formation of these islands.
Economist Brian Easton throws new light on some cherished national myths. He argues that Britain’s entry into the EEC was not the major turning point that many assume; of much more lasting importance was the permanent collapse of wool prices in 1966. He asks how far it is true that New Zealand is an egalitarian country where ‘Jack’s as good as his master’. He offers the most extensive investigation yet of the Rogernomics revolution of the 1980s and early 1990s, and shows that governments of left and right are still grappling with its legacy.
Easton deals with the major economic trends since the war – the movement of Māori into the cities, of women into paid work, and of Pasifika people to Aotearoa. He analyses the rise of the modern Māori economy and the increased political power of business, and includes vivid pen portraits of the important yet largely unremembered people who shaped our economy. This is also a profoundly political history, which focuses not only on governments but the share of votes won by the parties: it is our first MMP history.
Economist Brian Easton throws new light on some cherished national myths. He argues that Britain’s entry into the EEC was not the major turning point that many assume; of much more lasting importance was the permanent collapse of wool prices in 1966. He asks how far it is true that New Zealand is an egalitarian country where ‘Jack’s as good as his master’. He offers the most extensive investigation yet of the Rogernomics revolution of the 1980s and early 1990s, and shows that governments of left and right are still grappling with its legacy.
Easton deals with the major economic trends since the war – the movement of Māori into the cities, of women into paid work, and of Pasifika people to Aotearoa. He analyses the rise of the modern Māori economy and the increased political power of business, and includes vivid pen portraits of the important yet largely unremembered people who shaped our economy. This is also a profoundly political history, which focuses not only on governments but the share of votes won by the parties: it is our first MMP history.
- GenresHistoryNonfiction
688 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2020
5 people are currently reading
72 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 21, 2023
I wish I could give this book a 5 given the significance of its contribution to recording times and aspects of the New Zealand economy never published before (significance of wool exports and going in-depth on the fact that despite NZ being held as leftist/progressive National or right of centre parties have governed for 2/3 of the time) but for a few reasons I can’t. Despite my opinions below, all should read this book especially those interested in our economy and there is no doubt that this will be Easton’s Magnum Opus.
Oddly it read at different times a half way between a textbook but then opinion, but never committing enough to be opinion; both considerable referencing but not citing large or controversial views/claims. In my opinion it also often missed making key points or context for the way something was e.g. claim that as much as a third of deterioration of mental health in NZ was due to income inequality after Rogernonics (I don’t doubt it but is it grounded in evidence or not?) or that the countryside is poorly represented in parliament (not in my view given it’s role or size relative to urban population proportions) or how privatisation of entities in the 80s in NZ took a matter or months vs 5 years for Thatcher (completely missing explanations that NZ’s much smaller and informal governmental structures meant less was needed to do it as well as Rogernomes having more pace/impatience about. It’s because of this (and the unnecessarily verbose and pretentious language) that I couldn’t recommend this book to more general audiences - and that is the biggest shame (noting some of it may be my personal style preference).
My overarching takeaway is where was the copy editor - so many minor but important things like sentences reading incorrectly or holes in arguments because of missing grammar, evidence or attention to sentence structure, or excessively dense writing appear.
“While Māori households are more likely to suffer from deprivation than non-Māori , the majority of poor households are non- Māori.” No shit - improving the outcomes and position of the marginalised has never been a game of absolute numbers and this repeated point was off the mark.
“Because no party can win a majority of the vote [in MMP].” “It is of crucial importance that there has been no single-party government under MMP”
I wonder how this changes Easton’s perspective on MMP. Surprised he didn’t wait to add in the 2020 election before printing especially given the 2021 reprint.
Two lessons provided of the four from the sale of Telecom were mere observations that did not and could not hold lessons and he incorrectly named the (recently established) Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
I didn’t like the perspective essays discussing/defending the different points in the spectrum of Rogernomics along the political spectrum. In all were points I don’t consider someone from that position on the same team would admit or believe. I would’ve preferred he either or both offer his informed opinion based in fact rather than hypotheticals from ideology (though one can surmise which is his view - the correct one in my opinion). I also don’t agree that this book is “the first proper MMP history”. Despite its unwieldy length, considerably more could have been devoted to more recent times and governments along with their most well known but also lesser known policies and records compared to the depth of the early years - then I would consider it the first proper history of MMP.
If only he could have updated the manuscript for COVID and the economic response. This would have fulfilled the question mark over the last and current phase of economic development at the end and the impact this has and will continue to have on the political economy.
I found two quotes on New Zealand particularly relatable in my experience:
New Zealanders have an ambiguous relationship with their government; they want it to leave them alone when they are doing well but they expect it to come to their aid when they are not - to privatise profits and socialise losses.
The nation’s discourse is dominated by truthiness - truth determined by belief rather than evidence.
Oddly it read at different times a half way between a textbook but then opinion, but never committing enough to be opinion; both considerable referencing but not citing large or controversial views/claims. In my opinion it also often missed making key points or context for the way something was e.g. claim that as much as a third of deterioration of mental health in NZ was due to income inequality after Rogernonics (I don’t doubt it but is it grounded in evidence or not?) or that the countryside is poorly represented in parliament (not in my view given it’s role or size relative to urban population proportions) or how privatisation of entities in the 80s in NZ took a matter or months vs 5 years for Thatcher (completely missing explanations that NZ’s much smaller and informal governmental structures meant less was needed to do it as well as Rogernomes having more pace/impatience about. It’s because of this (and the unnecessarily verbose and pretentious language) that I couldn’t recommend this book to more general audiences - and that is the biggest shame (noting some of it may be my personal style preference).
My overarching takeaway is where was the copy editor - so many minor but important things like sentences reading incorrectly or holes in arguments because of missing grammar, evidence or attention to sentence structure, or excessively dense writing appear.
“While Māori households are more likely to suffer from deprivation than non-Māori , the majority of poor households are non- Māori.” No shit - improving the outcomes and position of the marginalised has never been a game of absolute numbers and this repeated point was off the mark.
“Because no party can win a majority of the vote [in MMP].” “It is of crucial importance that there has been no single-party government under MMP”
I wonder how this changes Easton’s perspective on MMP. Surprised he didn’t wait to add in the 2020 election before printing especially given the 2021 reprint.
Two lessons provided of the four from the sale of Telecom were mere observations that did not and could not hold lessons and he incorrectly named the (recently established) Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.
I didn’t like the perspective essays discussing/defending the different points in the spectrum of Rogernomics along the political spectrum. In all were points I don’t consider someone from that position on the same team would admit or believe. I would’ve preferred he either or both offer his informed opinion based in fact rather than hypotheticals from ideology (though one can surmise which is his view - the correct one in my opinion). I also don’t agree that this book is “the first proper MMP history”. Despite its unwieldy length, considerably more could have been devoted to more recent times and governments along with their most well known but also lesser known policies and records compared to the depth of the early years - then I would consider it the first proper history of MMP.
If only he could have updated the manuscript for COVID and the economic response. This would have fulfilled the question mark over the last and current phase of economic development at the end and the impact this has and will continue to have on the political economy.
I found two quotes on New Zealand particularly relatable in my experience:
New Zealanders have an ambiguous relationship with their government; they want it to leave them alone when they are doing well but they expect it to come to their aid when they are not - to privatise profits and socialise losses.
The nation’s discourse is dominated by truthiness - truth determined by belief rather than evidence.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 24, 2024
Almost Marxist but refuses to see agency in the actions of the working-class, Māori or women. They're just subjects who the state can rule in more or less beneficent ways.
Also cleaves to the classic canard that New Zealand is in some way a neo-colony.
Has some good stuff about the role of ecology in New Zealand's economy, namely that it is particularly dependent on quarries; depletable resources.
Also cleaves to the classic canard that New Zealand is in some way a neo-colony.
Has some good stuff about the role of ecology in New Zealand's economy, namely that it is particularly dependent on quarries; depletable resources.
October 2, 2023
Disappointingly I really struggled with this. I normally love Brian Easton, but this book seemed all over the place. His strength is as a commentator of the political economy, and those parts are excellent, but the book lacks structure and seems at times like a random collection of points he wanted to make.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews