The term ‘Regions of Recent White Settlement’ can be simply described as a phrase used predominantly by economists to characterize areas that were settled mostly though European migration during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, in reality the term has much complexity and a greater dimensionality when trying to define a precise meaning, and furthermore an understanding. By exploring who developed the term in conjunction with conducting investigation into those who further tried to clarify it, we can begin to grasp an understanding of the fundamental characteristics that were exhibited by ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’, and whether or not this is useful as an explanatory model.

The term ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ was developed and used by Ragnar Nurske an international economist and policy maker who worked primarily in the fields of international finance and economic development. He also spent much of his time examining the circle of poverty in underdeveloped countries, linking it to insufficient investment. He used the term ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ to define “areas which successfully developed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in response to the stimulus of expanding world trade which accompanied the industrialisation of the North Atlantic economies.” They were areas which experienced a “distinct process of growth which was unique to a specific time period”, being the Mid Nineteenth Century to the onset of World War I or at the latest, the Great Depression. They were immense, productive and relatively empty areas located in the ‘temperate latitudes’ of the world, available for agriculture and grazing. There is much evidence that eludes the industrialization of Western Europe and the subsequent demand for primary products lead to the growth of these areas. Immigrants were attracted by the high salaries that resulted from the overwhelming demand for labor and the prospects of ‘upward social mobility’ in these new and abundant societies. In fact, as a result of the great development of these regions and corresponding wealth, income per capita and standards of living were among some of the highest in the world. Many attempts have been made in the past to clarify, elucidate and further explore the concept and model of the term ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. In fact there are numerous other terms that have been developed in reference to these regions such as “new lands,” “new countries,” “open spaces,” “dominion capitalist societies,” “frontier societies,” and “settler societies”. In particular, the work of Professor John McCarty and Dr Donald Denoon is of interest.

Professor John McCarty essentially develops an idealistic model of a ‘Region of Recent Settlement’ which he deems “pure-type”. The so called “pure-type” model features four characteristics which he establishes are common to all ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. These characteristics include geography, he suggests that ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were predominantly established in “large open grasslands”, a highly distinctive feature. Population by “primitive peoples”, ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were only “sparsely-occupied by primitive peoples when European settlement commenced”. Economic Structure, ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were capitalist economies, built on the “production and export of cash crops”. Reliance on Europe, ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ relied on labour and capital imports from Europe. McCarty then uses this information to form a hierarchy of regions according to their ‘purity’, which can be ascertained by analysing the extent to which they correspond with the aforementioned characteristics. However, there are several problems that arise from McCarty’s proposed model of examining ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. Firstly his term “pure-type” is not derived from definition, only his own idyllic sense of a ‘Region of Recent Settlement’. He also uses little to no empirical data. ‘Regions of recent settlement’ must be defined by facts, their use and reliance on European Migrants and capital, Involvement in expanding the global economy and their place in time being the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. Another issue that can be raised is that ‘location’ does not make an area either more or less of a ‘Region of Recent Settlement’. For example, we can compare the geography of the Argentine Pampas region – comprised of mild grasslands - and South Australia – the warm woodland in the wheat belt. The differences mentioned do not affect the success or the validity of these areas as ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. Also, ranking countries in reference to ‘pure-type’ alludes that those lower on the list were less successful ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. This however, is not true. Again, an example can be seen when comparing the Argentine Pampas (which was placed low in the ‘purity’ rankings) and Australia (which came in near the top of McCarty’s ranking system). McCarty appears to have ranked these areas based on impressions of the Australian government railways in comparison to the privately owned lines on the Pampas. However, if one were to use McCarty’s ‘pure-type’ model it appears that in fact, the Argentine Pampas region conformed to the defined ‘pure-type’ more so than any Australian region. This is based on McCarty’s focus on geography, as the original stimulus to the Pampas was the development of grasslands rather than minerals. This leads to evidence which suggests that McCarty’s method of ranking was flawed. He ranks some areas based on his impression of countries as a whole rather than particular regions.

Dr Donald Denoon uses the term “settler societies” in reference to ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ however he does not exactly define the term. Firstly, he assigns a number of societies as ‘settler societies’ including South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. However, he does not clarify why these have been selected and others abandoned. Secondly, he identifies characteristics that are shared by these ‘settler societies’ that differentiate them from “contemporary societies outside Europe”. Much of Denoon’s approach results in incoherencies and confusion as the characteristics that he claims differentiate so called ‘settler societies’ from other forms of society do not do so. In fact one characteristic of ‘settler societies’ - that they were settled by Europeans - does not even appear on his list. Denoon’s model essentially lacks coherence based on a few reasons. He does not define ‘settler societies’ making the concept appear vague and of ill design whilst another problem is that he assumes that the boundaries of ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ align with political boundaries.

We can further analyse and understand ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ by dividing them into three groups depending on politics. The first group consists of entire countries as ‘Regions of recent Settlement’ such as Australia and New Zealand, which were more or less comprised of settler societies. These are the few cases where it is acceptable to label entire countries as ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. The second group consists of “National Units” that are primarily comprised of ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ but have considerable regions of ‘Non-Recent’ pre nineteenth century European settlement. Yet, the politics of the said areas are more strongly influenced by the present older regions. It can be expected that the political orientation of the region would be more traditional. A possible example that fits into the classification of group two may be Canada, as the early settled regions tend to preserve their character despite the great social and economic changes present in the reminder of the country. Group three consists of areas in which “European settlement had long been established but the region of recent settlement had intruded at a later date.” In this group the main disagreements between the old and new regions may concern economic policies. It is suggested that Argentina and Brazil may fit into this category.

Land prices in ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were low compared to developed settlements and hence they bore little weight on the costs of production. Because of this the regions developed a competitive advantage, allowing them to under sell old settlements in the European meat and grain markets. This contributed to their vigorous new role in the expansion of the world economy during the late nineteenth century, which is also known as the ‘first wave’ of globalisation. Not only were settler societies efficient exporters of primary products needed for the industrialisation of Western Europe, they also become consumers of European goods. This meant that their position in the ‘international division of labour’ was diverse as ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ also attracted large quantities of immigrants originating from Europe as mentioned previously. These factors lead to settler societies then implementing comparative advantage, exporting products that required their most abundant resource – land. Globally this process was unique from a historical viewpoint as growth was not only experienced in particular regions, it was felt worldwide and people, capital and goods flowed liberally. However, the Great Depression brought development and growth to an end. As the available land began to diminish so did the development strategy of settler societies. Further growth would now be dependant on profitability and a new social and political structure began to develop. ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were notable for their social initiatives including women’s suffrage and old age pension as they were relatively free from “social constraints on change”.

‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ were “engines of growth” for the countries in which they belonged. They also had the potential to provide stimulus and growth to older regions, dependant on the strength of the linkages present. Although the term ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’ has been expanded into explanatory models that are useful in developing our understanding, the models face inconsistencies which may simultaneously hinder our understanding of the term. However, in recent times interest in other factors relating to the period have helped to provide a more informed and balanced view of the developmental experiences of ‘Regions of Recent Settlement’. Researchers are now beginning to take into account new issues that may have been previously ignored, such as the effects of gender, class and ethnicity on the development of settler societies. This may hopefully result in future explanatory models that are truly useful in developing our understanding of this amazing period in time.