92 SOCIAL SCIENTIST identify two primary factors that determine the relationship between nations: fipst, an ill-defined tendency to dominate politically other nations and second, defence of national interests, without however, any exposition of either the process through which these factors become part of living history, or even what these actually mean, particularly in times of peace. Other less important and mundane "economic" factors such as "tariffs and trade" are mentioned in passing but are not linked up to the "primary" factors. Within this sphere of international relations, governed by the above-mentioned factors, the oil majors are seen to operate. The v author sees no "simple relationship" between majors and parent governments. What he sees is that while for certain periods, "the image of the free-ranging, politically independent oil company holds true", for other periods the functioning of the companies "has been constrained by the interests of key governments" (p 23). For Turner, there are two practically different worlds. One that of governments where the determining factor is political "power-play", while the other is that of companies where it is search for oil, markets and (presumably) also profits. For most of the time, these two worlds peacefully co-exist, oblivious to the existence of the other. Turner identifies these periods as: 1) pre-1914, 2) 1928-1939, and 3) 1954-1970—periods of general politico-economic stability. But at times, as in 1) 1914-1918, 2) 1939-1954, and 3) post-1970, periods which Turner calls "times of stress", these two worlds have enmeshed, marking "extensive parent government involvement in the industry" (p 22). That Turner's periodization of the development of the oil industry is generally accurate is granted, bur not so his formulations which remain at the level of description of reality as it appears rather than what it actually is. Thus, throughout the book we have a presentation of the chronological flow of events, rather than any attempt to understand the process which creates these events. Not surprisingly, key issues get lost in a mass of trivia and one does not acquire any understanding whatsoever of the international oil industry and its development. An Alternative Thesis Interestingly enough, Turner's formulations can be used to prove a thesis quite contrary to his. If we look at the development of the international oil industry in the context of the development of monopoly capitalism/imperialism, not only does Turner's