fbpx
Wikipedia

Protectionism

Protectionism, sometimes referred to as trade protectionism, is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors and raise government revenue. Opponents argue that protectionist policies reduce trade, and adversely affect consumers in general (by raising the cost of imported goods) as well as the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries against which the protections are implemented.[1]

Political poster by the British Liberal Party presenting their view of the differences between an economy based on free trade versus one based on protectionism. The free trade shop is shown as full of customers due to its low prices. The shop based on protectionism shows higher prices and a lack of customers, and with animosity between the business owner and the regulator.
Anti-free trade postcard from 1910

Protectionism has been advocated mainly by parties that hold economic nationalist[a] positions, while economically liberal[b] political parties generally support free trade.[2][3][4][5][6]

There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare,[7][8][9][10] while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers have a significantly positive effect on economic growth.[8][11][12][13][14][15] Some scholars, such as Douglas Irwin, have implicated protectionism as the cause of some economic crises, most notably the Great Depression.[16] Although trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors,[17][18] free trade often lowers the costs of goods and services for both producers and consumers.[19]

Protectionist policies edit

 
Logo of Belgium's National League for the Franc's Defense, 1924

A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. These include:

  • Tariffs and import quotas are the most common types of protectionist policies.[20] A tariff is an excise tax levied on imported goods. Originally imposed to raise government revenue, modern tariffs are now used primarily to protect domestic producers and wage rates from lower-priced importers. An import quota is a limit on the volume of a good that may be legally imported, usually established through an import licensing regime.[20]
  • Protection of technologies, patents, technical and scientific knowledge [21][22][23]
  • Restrictions on foreign direct investment,[24] such as restrictions on the acquisition of domestic firms by foreign investors.[25]
  • Administrative barriers: Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules (e.g., regarding food safety, environmental standards, electrical safety, etc.) as a way to introduce barriers to imports.
  • Anti-dumping legislation: "Dumping" is the practice of firms selling to export markets at lower prices than are charged in domestic markets. Supporters of anti-dumping laws argue that they prevent the import of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down. However, in practice, anti-dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters.
  • Direct subsidies: Government subsidies (in the form of lump-sum payments or cheap loans) are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against imports. These subsidies are purported to "protect" local jobs and to help local firms adjust to the world markets.
  • Export subsidies: Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports. Export subsidies have the opposite effect of export tariffs because exporters get payment, which is a percentage or proportion of the value of exported. Export subsidies increase the amount of trade, and in a country with floating exchange rates, have effects similar to import subsidies.
  • Exchange rate control: A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market. Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports, leading to an improvement in its trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will lead to higher inflation in the country in the long run, which will, in turn, raise the real cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports.
  • International patent systems: There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level. Two strands of this argument exist: one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another, and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers "good citizenship" status despite 'de facto protectionism'. Peter Drahos explains that "States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies. There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems. One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions, participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius...knowing all the while that one's domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon."[26]
  • Political campaigns advocating domestic consumption (e.g. the "Buy American" campaign in the United States, which could be seen as an extra-legal promotion of protectionism.)
  • Preferential governmental spending, such as the Buy American Act, federal legislation which called upon the United States government to prefer US-made products in its purchases.

In the modern trade arena, many other initiatives besides tariffs have been called protectionist. For example, some commentators, such as Jagdish Bhagwati, see developed countries' efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism. Also, the imposition of restrictive certification procedures on imports is seen in this light.

Further, others point out that free trade agreements often have protectionist provisions such as intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions that benefit large corporations. These provisions restrict trade in music, movies, pharmaceuticals, software, and other manufactured items to high-cost producers with quotas from low-cost producers set to zero.[27]

History edit

 
Tariff Rates in Japan (1870–1960)
 
Tariff Rates in Spain and Italy (1860–1910)

In the 18th century, Adam Smith famously warned against the "interested sophistry" of industry, seeking to gain an advantage at the cost of the consumers.[28] Friedrich List saw Adam Smith's views on free trade as disingenuous, believing that Smith advocated for free trade so that British industry could lock out underdeveloped foreign competition.[29]

Some have argued that no major country has ever successfully industrialized without some form of economic protection.[30][31] Economic historian Paul Bairoch wrote that "historically, free trade is the exception and protectionism the rule".[32]

According to economic historians Douglas Irwin and Kevin O'Rourke, "shocks that emanate from brief financial crises tend to be transitory and have a little long-run effect on trade policy, whereas those that play out over longer periods (the early 1890s, early 1930s) may give rise to protectionism that is difficult to reverse. Regional wars also produce transitory shocks that have little impact on long-run trade policy, while global wars give rise to extensive government trade restrictions that can be difficult to reverse."[33]

One study shows that sudden shifts in comparative advantage for specific countries have led some countries to become protectionist: "The shift in comparative advantage associated with the opening up of New World frontiers, and the subsequent “grain invasion” of Europe, led to higher agricultural tariffs from the late 1870s onwards, which as we have seen reversed the move toward freer trade that had characterized mid-nineteenth-century Europe. In the decades after World War II, Japan's rapid rise led to trade friction with other countries. Japan's recovery was accompanied by a sharp increase in its exports of certain product categories: cotton textiles in the 1950s, steel in the 1960s, automobiles in the 1970s, and electronics in the 1980s. In each case, the rapid expansion in Japan's exports created difficulties for its trading partners and the use of protectionism as a shock absorber."[33]

In the United States edit

 
Tariff rates (France, UK, and US)
 
Average tariff rates in US (1821–2016)
 
US trade balance (1895–2015)

According to economic historian Douglas Irwin, a common myth about US trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century.[34] A review by The Economist of Irwin's 2017 book Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy states:[34]

Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there. A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall, and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again. By the time that happened, the economy would be recovering, giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery. 'Mr. Irwin' also attempts to debunk the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power, a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today. As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23% in 1870 to 36% in 1913, the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost, estimated at around 0.5% of GDP in the mid-1870s. In some industries, they might have sped up development by a few years. But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas.

According to Irwin, tariffs have serve three primary purposes in the United States: "to raise revenue for the government, to restrict imports and protect domestic producers from foreign competition, and to reach reciprocity agreements that reduce trade barriers."[35] From 1790 to 1860, average tariffs increased from 20 percent to 60 percent before declining again to 20 percent.[35] From 1861 to 1933, which Irwin characterizes as the "restriction period", the average tariffs increased to 50 percent and remained at that level for several decades. From 1934 onwards, which Irwin characterizes as the "reciprocity period", the average tariff declined substantially until it leveled off at 5 percent.[35]

Economist Paul Bairoch documented that the United States imposed among the highest rates in the world from around the founding of the country until the World War II period, describing the United States as "the mother country and bastion of modern protectionism" since the end of the 18th century and until the post-World War II period.[36] Alexander Hamilton, the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, was of the view, as articulated most famously in his "Report on Manufactures", that developing an industrialized economy was impossible without protectionism because import duties are necessary to shelter domestic "infant industries" until they could achieve economies of scale.[37] The industrial takeoff of the United States occurred under protectionist policies 1816–1848 and under moderate protectionism 1846–1861, and continued under strict protectionist policies 1861–1945.[38] In the late 19th century, higher tariffs were introduced on the grounds that they were needed to protect American wages and to protect American farmers.[39] Between 1824 and the 1940s, the U.S. imposed much higher average tariff rates on manufactured products than did Britain or any other European country, with the exception for a period of time of Spain and Russia.[40] Up until the end of World War II, the United States had the most protectionist economy on Earth.[41]

The Bush administration implemented tariffs on Chinese steel in 2002; according to a 2005 review of existing research on the tariff, all studies found that the tariffs caused more harm than gains to the US economy and employment.[42] The Obama administration implemented tariffs on Chinese tires between 2009 and 2012 as an anti-dumping measure; a 2016 study found that these tariffs had no impact on employment and wages in the US tire industry.[43]

In 2018, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström stated that the US was "playing a dangerous game" in applying tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from most countries and stated that she saw the Trump administration's decision to do so as both "pure protectionist" and "illegal".[44]

The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration during the China–United States trade war led to a reduction in the United States trade deficit with China.[45]

Europe edit

In the United Kingdom edit

Great Britain, and England in particular, became one of the most prosperous economic regions in the world between the late 1600s and early 1800s as a result of being the birthplace of the industrial revolution that began in the mid-eighteenth century.[46] The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The Navigation Acts of the late 17th century required all trade to be carried in English ships, manned by English crews (this later encompassed all Britons after the Acts of Union 1707 united Scotland with England).[47] Colonists were required to send their produce and raw materials first of all to Britain, where the surplus was then sold-on by British merchants to other colonies in the British empire or bullion-earning external markets. The colonies were forbidden to trade directly with other nations or rival empires. The goal was to maintain the North American and Caribbean colonies as dependent agricultural economies geared towards producing raw materials for export to Britain. The growth of native industry was discouraged, in order to keep the colonies dependent on Britain for their finished goods.[48][49] From 1815 to 1870, Britain reaped the benefits of being the world's first modern, industrialised nation. It described itself as "the workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in almost any other market.[50]

By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a free-trade policy, meaning open markets and no tariffs throughout the empire.[51] The Corn Laws were tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported food and corn enforced in the United Kingdom between 1815 and 1846, and enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership. The laws raised food prices and the costs of living for the British public, and hampered the growth of other British economic sectors, such as manufacturing, by reducing the disposable income of the British public.[52] The Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, achieved repeal in 1846 with the support of the Whigs in Parliament, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party.

The possessions of the East India Company in India, known as British India, was the centrepiece of the British Empire, and because of an efficient taxation system it paid its own administrative expenses as well as the cost of the large British Indian Army. In terms of trade, India turned only a small profit for British business.[53] However, transfers to the British government was massive: in 1801 unrequited (unpaid, or paid from Indian-collected revenue) was about 30% of British domestic savings available for capital formation in Britain.[54][55]

By the late-nineteenth century, Britain was the quintessential free-trade country. However, that did not mean that it was unaffected by foreign tariffs, especially those of the United States under the McKinley Tariff and Dingley Tariff.[56] Economic historian Brian Varian estimated that, but for the protectionism in Britain's overseas markets, Britain's exports would have been 57% higher in 1902.[57]

By the interwar era, Britain began to drift away from free trade. There was a piecemeal erosion of free trade in the 1920s, including under the system of so-called safeguarding duties.[58][59][60] Then, with the Import Duties Act of 1932, Britain moved in a decisively protectionist direction.[61][62]

In continental Europe edit

Europe became increasingly protectionist during the eighteenth century.[63] Economic historians Findlay and O'Rourke write that in "the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, European trade policies were almost universally protectionist," with the exceptions being smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark.[63]

Europe increasingly liberalized its trade during the 19th century.[64] Countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland, and arguably Sweden and Belgium, had fully moved towards free trade prior to 1860.[64] Economic historians see the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 as the decisive shift toward free trade in Britain.[64][65] A 1990 study by the Harvard economic historian Jeffrey Williamson showed that the Corn Laws (which imposed restrictions and tariffs on imported grain) substantially increased the cost of living for British workers, and hampered the British manufacturing sector by reducing the disposable incomes that British workers could have spent on manufactured goods.[66] The shift towards liberalization in Britain occurred in part due to "the influence of economists like David Ricardo", but also due to "the growing power of urban interests".[64]

Findlay and O'Rourke characterize 1860 Cobden Chevalier treaty between France and the United Kingdom as "a decisive shift toward European free trade."[64] This treaty was followed by numerous free trade agreements: "France and Belgium signed a treaty in 1861; a Franco-Prussian treaty was signed in 1862; Italy entered the “network of Cobden-Chevalier treaties” in 1863 (Bairoch 1989, 40); Switzerland in 1864; Sweden, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic towns in 1865; and Austria in 1866. By 1877, less than two decades after the Cobden Chevalier treaty and three decades after British Repeal, Germany “had virtually become a free trade country” (Bairoch, 41). Average duties on manufactured products had declined to 9–12% on the Continent, a far cry from the 50% British tariffs, and numerous prohibitions elsewhere, of the immediate post-Waterloo era (Bairoch, table 3, p. 6, and table 5, p. 42)."[64]

Some European powers did not liberalize during the 19th century, such as the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire which remained highly protectionist. The Ottoman Empire also became increasingly protectionist.[67] In the Ottoman Empire's case, however, it previously had liberal free trade policies during the 18th to early 19th centuries, which British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli cited as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 Corn Laws debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufacturers of the world" in 1812.[36]

The countries of Western Europe began to steadily liberalize their economies after World War II and the protectionism of the interwar period.[63]

In Canada edit

Since 1971 Canada has protected producers of eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, and turkey with a system of supply management. Though prices for these foods in Canada exceed global prices, the farmers and processors have had the security of a stable market to finance their operations.[citation needed] Doubts about the safety of bovine growth hormone, sometimes used to boost dairy production, led to hearings before the Senate of Canada, resulting in a ban in Canada. Thus, supply management of milk products is consumer protection of Canadians.[68]

In Latin America edit

Most Latin American countries gained independence in the early 19th century, with notable exceptions including Spanish Cuba and Spanish Puerto Rico. Following the achievement of their independence, most of the Latin American countries adopted protectionism. They both feared that any foreign competition would stomp out their newly created state and believed that lack of outside resources would drive domestic production.[69] The protectionist behavior continued up until and during the World Wars. During World War 2, Latin America had, on average, the highest tariffs in the world.[70][71]

Argentina edit

Juan Perón erected a system of almost complete protectionism against imports, largely cutting off Argentina from the international market in the 1940s. Protectionism created a domestically oriented industry with high production costs, incapable of competing in international markets. At the same time, output of beef and grain, the country's main export goods, stagnated.[72] The IAPI began shortchanging growers and, when world grain prices dropped in the late 1940s, it stifled agricultural production, exports and business sentiment, in general.[73] Despite these shortcomings, protectionism and government credits did allow an exponential growth of the internal market: radio sales increased 600% and fridge sales grew 218%, among others.[74] During this period Argentina's economy continued to grow, on average, but more slowly than the world as a whole or than its neighbors, Brazil and Chile. By 1950, Argentina's GDP per capita accounted fell to less than half of that of the United States.[75]

Impact edit

There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.[11][12][13][8][76][77][78] However, protectionism can be used to raise government revenue and enable access to intellectual property, including essential medicines.[79]

Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is intended to help. Mainstream economists instead support free trade.[28][80] The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage.[81] Protectionism results in deadweight loss; this loss to overall welfare gives no-one any benefit, unlike in a free market, where there is no such total loss. According to economist Stephen P. Magee, the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.[82]

Armed conflicts edit

 
Graph showing the increase in Chinese opium imports by year.

Protectionism has been accused of being one of the major causes of war. Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist, the American Revolution, which came about ostensibly due to British tariffs and taxes. According to a slogan of Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), "When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."[83]

On the other hand, archaeologist Lawrence H. Keeley argues in his book War Before Civilization that disputes between trading partners escalate to war more frequently than disputes between nations that don't trade much with each other.[84] The Opium Wars were fought between the UK[c] and China over the right of British merchants to engage in the free trade of opium. For many opium users, what started as recreation soon became a punishing addiction: many people who stopped ingesting opium suffered chills, nausea, and cramps, and sometimes died from withdrawal. Once addicted, people would often do almost anything to continue to get access to the drug.[85]

The ongoing Russo-Ukraine War began in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and the signing of the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement in 2014, which included a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area for Ukraine and the European Union (EU).[86]

Positive impacts edit

Intellectual property edit

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations.[87] TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)[d] between 1989 and 1990[88] and is administered by the WTO. Statements by the World Bank indicate that TRIPS has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment to low-income countries, though it may have done so for middle-income countries.[89]

Statements by the World Bank indicate that TRIPS has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment to low-income countries, though it may have done so for middle-income countries.[90] Critics argue that TRIPS limits the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic producers.[36] The TRIPS agreement allows the grant of compulsory licenses at a nation's discretion. TRIPS-plus conditions in the United States' FTAs with Australia, Jordan, Singapore and Vietnam have restricted the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations, antitrust remedies, and cases of public non-commercial use.[36]

Access to essential medicines edit

One of the most visible conflicts over TRIPS has been AIDS drugs in Africa. Despite the role that patents have played in maintaining higher drug costs for public health programs across Africa, this controversy has not led to a revision of TRIPS. Instead, an interpretive statement, the Doha Declaration, was issued in November 2001, which indicated that TRIPS should not prevent states from dealing with public health crises and allowed for compulsory licenses. After Doha, PhRMA, the United States and to a lesser extent other developed nations began working to minimize the effect of the declaration.[91]

In 2020, conflicts re-emerged over patents, copyrights and trade secrets related to COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostics and treatments. South Africa and India proposed that WTO grant a temporary waiver to enable more widespread production of the vaccines, since suppressing the virus as quickly as possible benefits the entire world.[92][93] The waivers would be in addition to the existing, but cumbersome, flexibilities in TRIPS allowing countries to impose compulsory licenses.[94][95] Over 100 developing nations supported the waiver but it was blocked by the G7 members.[96] This blocking was condemned by 400 organizations including Doctors Without Borders and 115 members of the European Parliament.[97] In June 2022, after extensive involvement of the European Union, the WTO instead adopted a watered-down agreement that focuses only on vaccine patents, excludes high-income countries and China, and contains few provisions that are not covered by existing flexibilities.[98][99]

Government Revenue edit

Proponents of protectionism argue that tariffs raise government revenue via customs. Developing countries, including least developed countries (LDCs), often do not collect income taxes because personal incomes are often too low to tax and they lack the capability to collect such taxes from individuals.[100]

United States edit
U.S. Historical Tariffs (Customs)
and Tax Collections by the Federal Government
(All dollar amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars)
Year Tariff
Income
Budget
% Tariff
Federal
Receipts
Income
Tax
Payroll
Tax
Average
Tariff
1792 $4.4 95.0% $4.6 $- $- 15.1%
1795 $5.6 91.6% $6.1 $- $- 8.0%
1800 $9.1 83.7% $10.8 $- $- 10.0%
1805 $12.9 95.4% $13.6 $- $- 10.7%
1810 $8.6 91.5% $9.4 $- $- 10.1%
1815 $7.3 46.4% $15.7 $- $- 6.5%
1820 $15.0 83.9% $17.9 $- $- 20.2%
1825 $20.1 97.9% $20.5 $- $- 22.3%
1830 $21.9 88.2% $24.8 $- $- 35.0%
1835 $19.4 54.1% $35.8 $- $- 14.2%
1840 $12.5 64.2% $19.5 $- $- 12.7%
1845 $27.5 91.9% $30.0 $- $- 24.3%
1850 $39.7 91.0% $43.6 $- $- 22.9%
1855 $53.0 81.2% $65.4 $- $- 20.6%
1860 $53.2 94.9% $56.1 $- $- 15.0%
1863 $63.0 55.9% $112.7 $- $- 25.9%
1864 $102.3 38.7% $264.6 $- $- 32.3%
1865 $84.9 25.4% $333.7 $61.0 $- 35.6%
1870 $194.5 47.3% $411.3 $37.8 $- 44.6%
1875 $157.2 54.6% $288.0 $- $- 36.1%
1880 $184.5 55.3% $333.5 $- $- 27.6%
1885 $181.5 56.1% $323.7 $- $- 32.6%
1890 $229.7 57.0% $403.1 $- $- 27.6%
1900 $233.2 41.1% $567.2 $- $- 27.4%
1910 $233.7 34.6% $675.2 $- $- 15.0%
1913 $318.8 44.0% $724.1 $35.0 $- 17.6%
1915 $209.8 30.1% $697.9 $47.0 $- 12.5%
1916 $213.7 27.3% $782.5 $121.0 $- 8.9%
1917 $225.9 20.1% $1,124.3 $373.0 $- 7.7%
1918 $947.0 25.8% $3,664.6 $2,720.0 $- 31.2%
1920 $886.0 13.2% $6,694.6 $4,032.0 $- 16.8%
1925 $547.6 14.5% $3,780.1 $1,697.0 $- 13.0%
1928 $566.0 14.0% $4,042.3 $2,088.0 $- 13.8%
1930 $587.0 14.1% $4,177.9 $2,300.0 $- 19.2%
1935 $318.8 8.4% $3,800.5 $1,100.0 $- 15.6%
1940 $331.0 6.1% $5,387.1 $2,100.0 $800.0 12.6%
1942 $369.0 2.9% $12,799.1 $7,900.0 $1,200.0 13.4%
1944 $417.0 0.9% $44,148.9 $34,400.0 $1,900.0 10.6%
1946 $424.0 0.9% $46,400.0 $28,000.0 $1,900.0 7.7%
1948 $408.0 0.9% $47,300.0 $29,000.0 $2,500.0 5.5%
1950 $407.0 0.9% $43,800.0 $26,200.0 $3,000.0 4.5%
1951 $609.0 1.1% $56,700.0 $35,700.0 $4,100.0 5.5%
1955 $585.0 0.8% $71,900.0 $46,400.0 $6,100.0 5.1%
1960 $1,105.0 1.1% $99,800.0 $62,200.0 $12,200.0 7.3%
1965 $1,442.0 1.2% $116,800.0 $74,300.0 $22,200.0 6.7%
1970 $2,430.0 1.3% $192,800.0 $123,200.0 $44,400.0 6.0%
1975 $3,676.0 1.3% $279,100.0 $163,000.0 $84,500.0 3.7%
1980 $7,174.0 1.4% $517,100.0 $308,700.0 $157,800.0 2.9%
1985 $12,079.0 1.6% $734,000.0 $395,900.0 $255,200.0 3.6%
1990 $11,500.0 1.1% $1,032,000.0 $560,400.0 $380,000.0 2.8%
1995 $19,301.0 1.4% $1,361,000.0 $747,200.0 $484,500.0 2.6%
2000 $19,914.0 1.0% $2,025,200.0 $1,211,700.0 $652,900.0 1.6%
2005 $23,379.0 1.1% $2,153,600.0 $1,205,500.0 $794,100.0 1.4%
2010 $25,298.0 1.2% $2,162,700.0 $1,090,000.0 $864,800.0 1.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
All dollar amounts are in millions of U.S. dollars
Income taxes include Individual and Corporate taxes
Federal expenditures often exceed Revenue by temporary borrowings.
Initially the U.S. Federal Government was financed mainly by customs(tariffs
Average Tariff Rate % = Customs Revenue/ cost of Imports (goods).
Other taxes collected are: Income Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Inheritance,
Tariffs—often called Customs or duties on imports, etc.
Income Taxes began in 1913 with the passage of 16th Amendment.
Payroll taxes are Social Security and Medicare taxes
Payroll Taxes began in 1940.
Many Federal government Excise taxes are assigned to Trust Funds
and are collected for and “dedicated” to a particular Trust.
Sources:
  • Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1957)[101]
  • Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1970)[102]
  • Bicentennial Edition Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970[103]
  • Historical Tables[104]
  • U.S. imports for consumption, duties collected, and ratio of duties to value, 1891–2016;
  • U.S. imports for consumption under tariff preference programs, 1976–2016[105]
  • U.S. Trade in Goods and Services-Balance of Payments (BOP) Basis, 1960–2010[106]

Tariffs were the greatest source of United States federal revenue (up to 95% at times) until the federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports. At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63% of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes, which exceeded the 25.4% generated by tariffs. In 1915 during World War I tariffs generated only 30.1% of revenues. Since 1935 tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income.

Negative impacts edit

Living standards edit

A 2016 study found that "trade typically favors the poor", as they spend a greater share of their earnings on goods, as free trade reduces the costs of goods.[107] Other research found that China's entry to the WTO benefitted US consumers, as the price of Chinese goods were substantially reduced.[108] Harvard economist Dani Rodrik argues that while globalization and free trade does contribute to social problems, "a serious retreat into protectionism would hurt the many groups that benefit from trade and would result in the same kind of social conflicts that globalization itself generates. We have to recognize that erecting trade barriers will help in only a limited set of circumstances and that trade policy will rarely be the best response to the problems [of globalization]".[109]

Growth edit

According to economic historians Findlay and O'Rourke, there is a consensus in the economics literature that protectionist policies in the interwar period "hurt the world economy overall, although there is a debate about whether the effect was large or small."[63]

Economic historian Paul Bairoch argued that economic protection was positively correlated with economic and industrial growth during the 19th century. For example, GNP growth during Europe's "liberal period" in the middle of the century (where tariffs were at their lowest), averaged 1.7% per year, while industrial growth averaged 1.8% per year. However, during the protectionist era of the 1870s and 1890s, GNP growth averaged 2.6% per year, while industrial output grew at 3.8% per year, roughly twice as fast as it had during the liberal era of low tariffs and free trade.[110] One study found that tariffs imposed on manufactured goods increase economic growth in developing countries, and this growth impact remains even after the tariffs are repealed.[111] However, another study examining the tariff variation across the Australian colonies prior to Federation did not find any association between tariffs and growth.[112]

According to Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin, "that there is a correlation between high tariffs and growth in the late nineteenth century cannot be denied. But correlation is not causation... there is no reason for necessarily thinking that import protection was a good policy just because the economic outcome was good: the outcome could have been driven by factors completely unrelated to the tariff, or perhaps could have been even better in the absence of protection."[113] Irwin furthermore writes that "few observers have argued outright that the high tariffs caused such growth."[113]

According to Oxford economic historian Kevin O'Rourke, "It seems clear that protection was important for the growth of US manufacturing in the first half of the 19th century; but this does not necessarily imply that the tariff was beneficial for GDP growth. Protectionists have often pointed to German and American industrialization during this period as evidence in favor of their position, but economic growth is influenced by many factors other than trade policy, and it is important to control for these when assessing the links between tariffs and growth."[114]

A prominent 1999 study by Jeffrey A. Frankel and David H. Romer found, contrary to free trade skeptics' claims, while controlling for relevant factors, that trade does indeed have a positive impact on growth and incomes.[115]

Economist Arvind Panagariya criticizes the view that protectionism is good for growth. Such arguments, according to him, arise from "revisionist interpretation" of East Asian "tigers"' economic history. The Asian tigers achieved a rapid increase in per capita income without any "redistributive social programs", through free trade, which advanced Western economies took a century to achieve.[78][116]

Developing world edit

There is broad consensus among economists that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labor standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing—and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates—has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions.[117] The Nobel laureates, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, have argued for free trade as a model for economic development.[11] Alan Greenspan, former chair of the American Federal Reserve, has criticized protectionist proposals as leading "to an atrophy of our competitive ability. ... If the protectionist route is followed, newer, more efficient industries will have less scope to expand, and overall output and economic welfare will suffer."[118]

Protectionists postulate that new industries may require protection from entrenched foreign competition in order to develop. Mainstream economists do concede that tariffs can in the short-term help domestic industries to develop but are contingent on the short-term nature of the protective tariffs and the ability of the government to pick the winners.[119][120] The problems are that protective tariffs will not be reduced after the infant industry reaches a foothold, and that governments will not pick industries that are likely to succeed.[120] Economists have identified a number of cases across different countries and industries where attempts to shelter infant industries failed.[121][122][123][124][125]

Current world trends edit

 
Protectionist measures taken since 2008 according to Global Trade Alert[126]

Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist, however, such as the Common Agricultural Policy[127] in the European Union, longstanding agricultural subsidies and proposed "Buy American" provisions[128] in economic recovery packages in the United States.

Heads of the G20 meeting in London on 2 April 2009 pledged "We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras". Adherence to this pledge is monitored by the Global Trade Alert,[129] providing up-to-date information and informed commentary to help ensure that the G20 pledge is met by maintaining confidence in the world trading system, deterring beggar-thy-neighbor acts and preserving the contribution that exports could play in the future recovery of the world economy.

Although they were reiterating what they had already committed to in the 2008 Washington G20 summit, 17 of these 20 countries were reported by the World Bank as having imposed trade restrictive measures since then. In its report, the World Bank says most of the world's major economies are resorting to protectionist measures as the global economic slowdown begins to bite. Economists who have examined the impact of new trade-restrictive measures using detailed bilaterally monthly trade statistics estimated that new measures taken through late 2009 were distorting global merchandise trade by 0.25% to 0.5% (about $50 billion a year).[130]

Since then, however, President Donald Trump announced in January 2017 the U.S. was abandoning the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) deal, saying, “We’re going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken everybody out of our country and taken companies out of our country, and it’s going to be reversed.”[131] President Joe Biden has largely continued Trump's protectionist policies, and has not negotiated any new new free trade agreements since assuming office in January 2021.[132]

See also edit

Further reading edit

  • Milner, Helen V. (1988). Resisting protectionism: global industries and the politics of international trade. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01074-8.
  • Hudson, Michael (2010). America's Protectionist Takeoff, 1815–1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy. ISLET. ISBN 978-3-9808466-8-4.

References edit

  1. ^ Piketty, Thomas (19 April 2022). A Brief History of Equality. Belknap Press. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
  2. ^ Murschetz, Paul (2013). State Aid for Newspapers: Theories, Cases, Actions. Springer Science+Business Media. p. 64. ISBN 978-3-642-35690-2. Parties of the left in government adopt protectionist policies for ideological reasons and because they wish to save worker jobs. Conversely, right-wing parties are predisposed toward free trade policies.
  3. ^ Peláez, Carlos (2008). Globalization and the State: Volume II: Trade Agreements, Inequality, the Environment, Financial Globalization, International Law and Vulnerabilities. United States: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-230-20531-4. Left-wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right-wing parties.
  4. ^ Mansfield, Edward (2012). Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. Princeton University Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-691-13530-4. Left-wing governments are considered more likely than others to intervene in the economy and to enact protectionist trade policies.
  5. ^ Warren, Kenneth (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior: A–M, Volume 1. Sage. p. 680. ISBN 978-1-4129-5489-1. Yet, certain national interests, regional trading blocks, and left-wing anti-globalization forces still favor protectionist practices, making protectionism a continuing issue for both American political parties.
  6. ^ "The End of Reaganism". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
  7. ^ Fairbrother, Malcolm (1 March 2014). "Economists, Capitalists, and the Making of Globalization: North American Free Trade in Comparative-Historical Perspective". American Journal of Sociology. 119 (5): 1324–1379. doi:10.1086/675410. ISSN 0002-9602. PMID 25097930. S2CID 38027389.
  8. ^ a b c Mankiw, N. Gregory (24 April 2015). "Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade" 14 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine. The New York Times. Retrieved 10 August 2021. "Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another.... But economists reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade."
  9. ^ "Economic Consensus On Free Trade". PIIE. 25 May 2017. Retrieved 27 February 2018.
  10. ^ Poole, William (2004). "Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart?". Review. 86 (5). doi:10.20955/r.86.1-6.
  11. ^ a b c See P. Krugman, "The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade", American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 83(3), 1993 ; and P. Krugman, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1994.
  12. ^ a b "Free Trade". IGM Forum. 13 March 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  13. ^ a b "Import Duties". IGM Forum. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  14. ^ "Trade Within Europe". IGM Forum. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  15. ^ Poole, William (September/October 2004). "Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart" 7 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review. 86 (5): pp. 1–6. "... most observers agree that '[t]he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal.'" Quote at p. 1.
  16. ^ Irwin, Douglas (2017). Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression. Princeton University Press. pp. vii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-4008-8842-9.
  17. ^ Poole, William (2004). "Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart?". Review. 86 (5). doi:10.20955/r.86.1-6. One set of reservations concerns distributional effects of trade. Workers are not seen as benefiting from trade. Strong evidence exists indicating a perception that the benefits of trade flow to businesses and the wealthy, rather than to workers, and to those abroad rather than to those in the United States.
  18. ^ Xiong, Ping (2012b). "Patents in TRIPS-Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS: Do They Affect Public Health?". Journal of World Trade. 46 (1): 155. doi:10.54648/TRAD2012006.
  19. ^ Rosenfeld, Everett (11 March 2016). "Here's why everyone is arguing about free trade". CNBC. Retrieved 10 August 2021.
  20. ^ a b Paul Krugman, Robin Wells & Martha L. Olney, Essentials of Economics (Worth Publishers, 2007), pp. 342–345.
  21. ^ Wong, Edward; Tatlow, Didi Kirsten (5 June 2013). "China Seen in Push to Gain Technology Insights". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  22. ^ Markoff, John; Rosenberg, Matthew (3 February 2017). "China's Intelligent Weaponry Gets Smarter". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  23. ^ "The Unpleasant Truth About Chinese Espionage". Observer.com. 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  24. ^ Ippei Yamazawa, "Restructuring the Japanese Economy: Policies and Performance" in Global Protectionism (eds. Robert C. Hine, Anthony P. O'Brien, David Greenaway & Robert J. Thornton: St. Martin's Press, 1991), pp. 55–56.
  25. ^ Crispin Weymouth, "Is 'Protectionism' a Useful Concept for Company Law and Foreign Investment Policy? An EU Perspective" in Company Law and Economic Protectionism: New Challenges to European Integration (eds. Ulf Bernitz & Wolf-Georg Ringe: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 44–76.
  26. ^ Peter Drahos; John Braithwaite (2002). Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?. London: Earthscan. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-85383-917-7.
  27. ^ [1] 17 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine
  28. ^ a b Free to Choose, Milton Friedman
  29. ^ The National System of Political Economy, by Friedrich List, 1841, translated by Sampson S. Lloyd M.P., 1885 edition, Fourth Book, "The Politics", Chapter 33.
  30. ^ Shafaeddin, Mehdi (1998). "How did Developed Countries Industrialize? The History of Trade and Industrial Policy: the Cases of Great Britain and the USA". United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
  31. ^ Reinert, Eric (2007). How Rich Countries got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. New York: Carroll & Graf.
  32. ^ "Trade Policy and Economic Development". A Trading Nation: Canadian Trade Policy from Colonialism to Globalization. ISBN 978-0-7748-0894-1.
  33. ^ a b C, Feenstra, Robert; M, Taylor, Alan (23 December 2013). "Globalization in an Age of Crisis: Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty-First Century". NBER. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226030890.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-03075-3.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ^ a b "A historian on the myths of American trade". The Economist. Retrieved 26 November 2017.
  35. ^ a b c Irwin, Douglas A. (2 August 2020). "Trade Policy in American Economic History". Annual Review of Economics. 12 (1): 23–44. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409. ISSN 1941-1383. S2CID 241740782.
  36. ^ a b c d Paul Bairoch (1995). . University of Chicago Press. pp. 31–32. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2017. Cite error: The named reference "auto" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  37. ^ Paul Bairoch (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press. p. 33.
  38. ^ Paul Bairoch (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press. p. 34.
  39. ^ Paul Bairoch (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press. p. 36.
  40. ^ Paul Bairoch (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press. pp. 34, 40.
  41. ^ Santosh Mehrotra; Sylvie Guichard (2020). Planning in the 20th Century and Beyond: India's Planning Commission and the NITI Aayog. Cambridge University Press. p. 285. ISBN 978-1-108-49462-5. Most importantly, the United States was the birthplace of the idea of infant industry protection, and indeed was the most heavily protected economy in the world for about a century, until the Second World War
  42. ^ Read, Robert (1 August 2005). "The Political Economy of Trade Protection: The Determinants and Welfare Impact of the 2002 US Emergency Steel Safeguard Measures" (PDF). World Economy. 28 (8): 1119–1137. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2005.00722.x. ISSN 1467-9701. S2CID 154520390.
  43. ^ Chung, Sunghoon; Lee, Joonhyung; Osang, Thomas (1 June 2016). "Did China tire safeguard save U.S. workers?" (PDF). European Economic Review. 85: 22–38. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.12.009. ISSN 0014-2921.
  44. ^ "Why American allies are angry". Gulfnews.com.
  45. ^ "Foreign Trade – U.S. Trade with China". United States Census Bureau.
  46. ^ Baten, Jörg (2016). A History of the Global Economy. From 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-107-50718-0.
  47. ^ Darwin, 2012 pp. 21–22
  48. ^ Darwin, 2012 p. 166
  49. ^ Max Savelle (1948). Seeds of Liberty: The Genesis of the American Mind. Kessinger. p. 204ff. ISBN 978-1-4191-0707-8.
  50. ^ Harold Cox, ed., British industries under free trade (1903) pp, 17–18.
  51. ^ Lynn, Martin (1999). Porter, Andrew (ed.). "British Policy, Trade, and Informal Empire in the Mid-19th Century". The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. 3: 101–121. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205654.003.0006.
  52. ^ Williamson, Jeffrey G (1 April 1990). "The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal". Explorations in Economic History. 27 (2): 123–156. doi:10.1016/0014-4983(90)90007-L.
  53. ^ P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: 1688–2000 (2nd ed. 2002) ch. 10
  54. ^ Mukherjee, Aditya (2010). "Empire: How Colonial India Made Modern Britain". Economic and Political Weekly. 45 (50): 73–82. JSTOR 25764217.
  55. ^ Habib, Irfan (1995). "Colonisation of the Indian Economy". Essays in Indian History. New Delhi: Tulika Press. pp. 304–46.
  56. ^ Varian, Brian D. (2018). "Anglo‐American trade costs during the first era of globalization: the contribution of a bilateral tariff series†". The Economic History Review. 71 (1): 190–212. doi:10.1111/ehr.12486. ISSN 0013-0117.
  57. ^ Varian, Brian D. (2023). "British exports and foreign tariffs: Insights from the Board of Trade's foreign tariff compilation for 1902". The Economic History Review. 76 (3): 827–843. doi:10.1111/ehr.13214. ISSN 0013-0117.
  58. ^ Varian, Brian D. (2019). "The growth of manufacturing protection in 1920s Britain". Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 66 (5): 703–711. doi:10.1111/sjpe.12223. ISSN 0036-9292.
  59. ^ Varian, Brian D. (18 August 2022). "Protection and the British rayon industry during the 1920s". Business History. 64 (6): 1131–1148. doi:10.1080/00076791.2020.1753699. ISSN 0007-6791.
  60. ^ Foreman-Peck, James (1979). "TARIFF PROTECTION AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE: THE BRITISH MOTOR INDUSTRY BEFORE 1939". academic.oup.com. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041444. Retrieved 6 January 2024.
  61. ^ de Bromhead, Alan; Fernihough, Alan; Lampe, Markus; O’Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj (1 February 2019). "When Britain Turned Inward: The Impact of Interwar British Protection". American Economic Review. 109 (2): 325–352. doi:10.1257/aer.20172020. ISSN 0002-8282.
  62. ^ Capie, Forrest (2011). Depression and protectionism: Britain between the wars. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-60704-9.
  63. ^ a b c d Findlay, Ronald; O'Rourke, Kevin H. (2009). Power and Plenty. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-14327-9. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  64. ^ a b c d e f Findlay, Ronald; O'Rourke, Kevin H. (1 January 2003). "Commodity Market Integration, 1500–2000". NBER: 13–64.
  65. ^ Harley, C. Knick (2004). "7 – Trade: discovery, mercantilism and technology". The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain. Cambridge University. pp. 175–203. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521820363.008. ISBN 978-1-139-05385-3. Retrieved 27 June 2017.
  66. ^ Williamson, Jeffrey G (1 April 1990). "The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal". Explorations in Economic History. 27 (2): 123–156. doi:10.1016/0014-4983(90)90007-L.
  67. ^ Daudin, Guillaume; O’Rourke, Kevin H.; Escosura, Leandro Prados de la (2008). "Trade and Empire, 1700–1870". Documents de Travail de l'Ofce.
  68. ^ Richard Wolfson (1999) How Bovine Growth Hormone Was Rejected in Canada 7 January 2023 at the Wayback Machine, from Consumerhealth.org 22(9)
  69. ^ Gallas, Daniel (August 2018). "The Country Built on Trade Barriers". BBC News. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
  70. ^ Coatsworth, John; Williamson, Jeffrey (June 2002). "THE ROOTS OF LATIN AMERICAN PROTECTIONISM: LOOKING BEFORE THE GREAT DEPRESSION". NBER Working Paper Series.
  71. ^ "Mercosur in Brief". mercosur.
  72. ^ . Commanding Heights: The Battle For The World Economy. PBS. Archived from the original on 26 April 2011.
  73. ^ Antonio Cafiero (7 May 2008). . Página/12. Archived from the original on 11 February 2012.
  74. ^ Pablo Gerchunoff (1989). Peronist Economic Policies, 1946–1955. di Tella y Dornbusch. pp. 59–85.
  75. ^ Arnaut, Javier. (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 April 2012.
  76. ^ William Poole, Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart 7 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, September/October 2004, 86(5), pp. 1: "most observers agree that '[t]he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal.'"
  77. ^ "Trade Within Europe | IGM Forum". Igmchicago.org. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  78. ^ a b Panagariya, Arvind (18 July 2019). "Debunking Protectionist Myths: Free Trade, the Developing World, and Prosperity". Cato Institute Economic Development Bulletin (31). SSRN 3501729.
  79. ^ Hickel, Jason (2018). The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions. Windmill Books. ISBN 978-1786090034.
  80. ^ Krugman, Paul R. (1987). "Is Free Trade Passe?". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1 (2): 131–44. doi:10.1257/jep.1.2.131. JSTOR 1942985.
  81. ^ Krugman, Paul (24 January 1997). The Accidental Theorist 20 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Slate.
  82. ^ Magee, Stephen P. (1976). International Trade and Distortions In Factor Markets. New York: Marcel-Dekker.
  83. ^ DiLorenzo, T. J., Frederic Bastiat (1801–1850): Between the French and Marginalist Revolutions. accessed at [Ludwig Von Mises Institute] 2012-04-13 13 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  84. ^ Keeley, Lawrence. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage Reprint Edition. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
  85. ^ Canada, Asia Pacific Foundation of. "The Opium Wars in China". Asia Pacific Curriculum.
  86. ^ Traynor, Ian; Grytsenko, Oksana (21 November 2013). "Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war: Ukraine was due to sign accord at summit next week but MPs reject key bills, especially on freeing Yulia Tymoshenko from jail". The Guardian.
  87. ^ See TRIPS Art. 1(3).
  88. ^ Gervais, Daniel (2012). The TRIPS Agreement: Negotiating History. London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. Part I.
  89. ^ Xiong, Ping (2012b). "Patents in TRIPS-Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS: Do They Affect Public Health?". Journal of World Trade. 46 (1): 155. doi:10.54648/TRAD2012006.
  90. ^ Xiong, Ping (2012b). "Patents in TRIPS-Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS: Do They Affect Public Health?". Journal of World Trade. 46 (1): 155. doi:10.54648/TRAD2012006.
  91. ^ Timmermann, Cristian; Henk van den Belt (2013). "Intellectual property and global health: from corporate social responsibility to the access to knowledge movement". Liverpool Law Review. 34 (1): 47–73. doi:10.1007/s10991-013-9129-9. S2CID 145492036. from the original on 23 June 2020. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
  92. ^ Nebehay, Emma Farge, Stephanie (10 December 2020). "WTO delays decision on waiver on COVID-19 drug, vaccine rights". Reuters. from the original on 28 February 2021. Retrieved 25 February 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  93. ^ "Members to continue discussion on proposal for temporary IP waiver in response to COVID-19". World Trade Organisation. from the original on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
  94. ^ Baker, Brook K.; Labonte, Ronald (9 January 2021). "Dummy's guide to how trade rules affect access to COVID-19 vaccines". The Conversation. from the original on 23 February 2021. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
  95. ^ "An Unnecessary Proposal: A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID-19 Vaccines". Cato Institute. 16 December 2020. from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
  96. ^ "G7 leaders are shooting themselves in the foot by failing to tackle global vaccine access". Amnesty International. 19 February 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2021.
  97. ^ Pietromarchi, Virginia (1 March 2021). "Patently unfair: Can waivers help solve COVID vaccine inequality?". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 26 April 2021.
  98. ^ "TRIPS Waiver | Covid-19 Response". covid19response.org.
  99. ^ "WTO finally agrees on a TRIPS deal. But not everyone is happy". Devex. 17 June 2022.
  100. ^ "The Least Developed Countries Report 2022". United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
  101. ^ Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1957); Value of Exports and Imports: 1790 to 1957, pp. 537–38; Value of Merchandise Imports and Duties: 1821 to 1957, p. 539; Indexes of Quantity and Unit Value of Exports and Imports: 1879 to 1957, pp. 540–41; Value of Merchandise Exports and Imports, by Groups of Customs Districts: 1860 to 1954, pp. 542–43; Value of Merchandise Exports and Imports, by Economic Classes: 1820 to 1957, pp. 544–45; Exports of Selected U. S. Merchandise: 1790 to 1957, pp. 546–47; Imports of Selected Products: 1790 to 1957, pp. 548–49; Value of General Imports, by Country of Origin: 1790 to 1957, pp. 552–53 [2]
  102. ^ Historical Statistics of the United States (Colonial Times to 1970) {Part 2 Zip file: CT1970p2-12;} Series Y 343–51 (1940–1970) Customs, Tot. Receipts, Income taxes; Payroll taxes, Excise; Y342 339 (1940 1970) Receipts; Y-352 357 (1789–1939) Government Receipts: Total (1789–1970), Customs (1789–1970), Y 358 373 Excise tax (1863–1970) Income Tax (1916–1970); Series U 1–25 Balance of International Payments Imports (1790–1970) [6] Accessed 5 Aug 2011 [3]
  103. ^ Bicentennial Edition Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 [4]
  104. ^ Whitehouse Historical Tables 1940–2016; Table 1.1 Tot. Receipts (1901–2010); Table 2-1, 2–4 Excise Tax (1934–2010); Table 2-5 Customs (1940–2010) [5] Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  105. ^ U.S. imports for consumption, duties collected, and ratio of duties to value, 1891–2016; U.S. imports for consumption under tariff preference programs, 1976–2016 [6]
  106. ^ U.S. Trade in Goods and Services – Balance of Payments (BOP) Basis, 1960–2010 [7] Accessed 5 Aug 2011
  107. ^ Fajgelbaum, Pablo D.; Khandelwal, Amit K. (1 August 2016). "Measuring the Unequal Gains from Trade" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 131 (3): 1113–80. doi:10.1093/qje/qjw013. ISSN 0033-5533. S2CID 9094432.
  108. ^ Amiti, Mary; Dai, Mi; Feenstra, Robert; Romalis, John (28 June 2017). "China's WTO entry benefits US consumers". VoxEU.org. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
  109. ^ Rodrik, Dani. "Has Globalization Gone Too Far?" (PDF). Institute for International Economics.
  110. ^ Bairoch, Paul (1993). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 47.
  111. ^ DeJong, David (2006). "Tariffs and Growth: an empirical exploration of contingent relationships". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 88 (4): 625–40. doi:10.1162/rest.88.4.625. S2CID 197260.
  112. ^ Varian, Brian D. (2022). "Revisiting the tariff‐growth correlation: The Australasian colonies, 1866–1900". Australian Economic History Review. 62 (1): 47–65. doi:10.1111/aehr.12233. ISSN 0004-8992. S2CID 245356574.
  113. ^ a b Irwin, Douglas A. (1 January 2001). "Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth-Century America". World Economy. 24 (1): 15–30. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.200.5492. doi:10.1111/1467-9701.00341. ISSN 1467-9701. S2CID 153647738.
  114. ^ H. O'Rourke, Kevin (1 November 2000). "British trade policy in the 19th century: a review article". European Journal of Political Economy. 16 (4): 829–42. doi:10.1016/S0176-2680(99)00043-9.
  115. ^ Frankel, Jeffrey A; Romer, David (June 1999). "Does Trade Cause Growth?". American Economic Review. 89 (3): 379–99. doi:10.1257/aer.89.3.379. ISSN 0002-8282.
  116. ^ Panagariya, Arvind (2019). Free Trade and Prosperity: How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-091449-3.
  117. ^ Krugman, Paul (21 March 1997). In Praise of Cheap Labor 7 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Slate.
  118. ^ Sicilia, David B. & Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. (2000). The Greenspan Effect, p. 131. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-134919-2.
  119. ^ "The Case for Protecting Infant Industries". Bloomberg.com. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  120. ^ a b Baldwin, Robert E. (1969). "The Case against Infant-Industry Tariff Protection". Journal of Political Economy. 77 (3): 295–305. doi:10.1086/259517. JSTOR 1828905. S2CID 154784307.
  121. ^ O, Krueger, Anne; Baran, Tuncer (1982). "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument". American Economic Review. 72 (5).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  122. ^ Choudhri, Ehsan U.; Hakura, Dalia S. (2000). "International Trade and Productivity Growth: Exploring the Sectoral Effects for Developing Countries". IMF Staff Papers. 47 (1): 30–53. JSTOR 3867624.
  123. ^ Baldwin, Richard E.; Krugman, Paul (June 1986). "Market Access and International Competition: A Simulation Study of 16K Random Access Memories". NBER Working Paper No. 1936. doi:10.3386/w1936.
  124. ^ Luzio, Eduardo; Greenstein, Shane (1995). "Measuring the Performance of a Protected Infant Industry: The Case of Brazilian Microcomputers" (PDF). The Review of Economics and Statistics. 77 (4): 622–633. doi:10.2307/2109811. hdl:2142/29917. JSTOR 2109811.
  125. ^ "US Tire Tariffs: Saving Few Jobs at High Cost". PIIE. 2 March 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
  126. ^ "Independent monitoring of policies that affect world trade". Global Trade Alert. Retrieved 16 December 2016.
  127. ^ "A French Roadblock to Free Trade". The New York Times. 31 August 2003. Retrieved 22 May 2010.
  128. ^ "Brussels Warns US on Protectionism". Dw-world.de. 30 January 2009. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  129. ^ "Global Trade Alert". Globaltradealert.org. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  130. ^ "Trade and the Crisis: Protect or Recover" (PDF). Imf.org. Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  131. ^ Baker, Peter (23 January 2017). "Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama's Signature Trade Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 July 2018.
  132. ^ Hayashi, Yuka (28 December 2023). "Biden Struggles to Push Trade Deals with Allies as Election Approaches". The Wall Street Journal.
  1. ^ Economic nationalism is an ideology that prioritizes state intervention in the economy, including policies like domestic control and the use of tariffs and restrictions on labor, goods, and capital movement.
  2. ^ Economic liberalism is a political and economic ideology that supports a market economy based on individualism and private property in the means of production.
  3. ^ France also fought on the side of the UK in the Second Opium War.
  4. ^ The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is a legal agreement between many countries, whose overall purpose was to promote international trade by reducing or eliminating trade barriers such as tariffs or quotas. According to its preamble, its purpose was the "substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences, on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis."

External links edit

  •   Media related to Protectionism at Wikimedia Commons

protectionism, protectionist, redirects, here, other, uses, protectionist, disambiguation, sometimes, referred, trade, protectionism, economic, policy, restricting, imports, from, other, countries, through, methods, such, tariffs, imported, goods, import, quot. Protectionist redirects here For other uses see Protectionist disambiguation Protectionism sometimes referred to as trade protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods import quotas and a variety of other government regulations Proponents argue that protectionist policies shield the producers businesses and workers of the import competing sector in the country from foreign competitors and raise government revenue Opponents argue that protectionist policies reduce trade and adversely affect consumers in general by raising the cost of imported goods as well as the producers and workers in export sectors both in the country implementing protectionist policies and in the countries against which the protections are implemented 1 Political poster by the British Liberal Party presenting their view of the differences between an economy based on free trade versus one based on protectionism The free trade shop is shown as full of customers due to its low prices The shop based on protectionism shows higher prices and a lack of customers and with animosity between the business owner and the regulator Anti free trade postcard from 1910Protectionism has been advocated mainly by parties that hold economic nationalist a positions while economically liberal b political parties generally support free trade 2 3 4 5 6 There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare 7 8 9 10 while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers have a significantly positive effect on economic growth 8 11 12 13 14 15 Some scholars such as Douglas Irwin have implicated protectionism as the cause of some economic crises most notably the Great Depression 16 Although trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains and can in the short run cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import competing sectors 17 18 free trade often lowers the costs of goods and services for both producers and consumers 19 Contents 1 Protectionist policies 2 History 2 1 In the United States 2 2 Europe 2 2 1 In the United Kingdom 2 2 2 In continental Europe 2 3 In Canada 2 4 In Latin America 2 4 1 Argentina 3 Impact 3 1 Armed conflicts 3 2 Positive impacts 3 2 1 Intellectual property 3 2 2 Access to essential medicines 3 2 3 Government Revenue 3 2 3 1 United States 3 3 Negative impacts 3 3 1 Living standards 3 3 2 Growth 3 3 3 Developing world 4 Current world trends 5 See also 6 Further reading 7 References 8 External linksProtectionist policies editMain article Tariff nbsp Logo of Belgium s National League for the Franc s Defense 1924A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals These include Tariffs and import quotas are the most common types of protectionist policies 20 A tariff is an excise tax levied on imported goods Originally imposed to raise government revenue modern tariffs are now used primarily to protect domestic producers and wage rates from lower priced importers An import quota is a limit on the volume of a good that may be legally imported usually established through an import licensing regime 20 Protection of technologies patents technical and scientific knowledge 21 22 23 Restrictions on foreign direct investment 24 such as restrictions on the acquisition of domestic firms by foreign investors 25 Administrative barriers Countries are sometimes accused of using their various administrative rules e g regarding food safety environmental standards electrical safety etc as a way to introduce barriers to imports Anti dumping legislation Dumping is the practice of firms selling to export markets at lower prices than are charged in domestic markets Supporters of anti dumping laws argue that they prevent the import of cheaper foreign goods that would cause local firms to close down However in practice anti dumping laws are usually used to impose trade tariffs on foreign exporters Direct subsidies Government subsidies in the form of lump sum payments or cheap loans are sometimes given to local firms that cannot compete well against imports These subsidies are purported to protect local jobs and to help local firms adjust to the world markets Export subsidies Export subsidies are often used by governments to increase exports Export subsidies have the opposite effect of export tariffs because exporters get payment which is a percentage or proportion of the value of exported Export subsidies increase the amount of trade and in a country with floating exchange rates have effects similar to import subsidies Exchange rate control A government may intervene in the foreign exchange market to lower the value of its currency by selling its currency in the foreign exchange market Doing so will raise the cost of imports and lower the cost of exports leading to an improvement in its trade balance However such a policy is only effective in the short run as it will lead to higher inflation in the country in the long run which will in turn raise the real cost of exports and reduce the relative price of imports International patent systems There is an argument for viewing national patent systems as a cloak for protectionist trade policies at a national level Two strands of this argument exist one when patents held by one country form part of a system of exploitable relative advantage in trade negotiations against another and a second where adhering to a worldwide system of patents confers good citizenship status despite de facto protectionism Peter Drahos explains that States realized that patent systems could be used to cloak protectionist strategies There were also reputational advantages for states to be seen to be sticking to intellectual property systems One could attend the various revisions of the Paris and Berne conventions participate in the cosmopolitan moral dialogue about the need to protect the fruits of authorial labor and inventive genius knowing all the while that one s domestic intellectual property system was a handy protectionist weapon 26 Political campaigns advocating domestic consumption e g the Buy American campaign in the United States which could be seen as an extra legal promotion of protectionism Preferential governmental spending such as the Buy American Act federal legislation which called upon the United States government to prefer US made products in its purchases In the modern trade arena many other initiatives besides tariffs have been called protectionist For example some commentators such as Jagdish Bhagwati see developed countries efforts in imposing their own labor or environmental standards as protectionism Also the imposition of restrictive certification procedures on imports is seen in this light Further others point out that free trade agreements often have protectionist provisions such as intellectual property copyright and patent restrictions that benefit large corporations These provisions restrict trade in music movies pharmaceuticals software and other manufactured items to high cost producers with quotas from low cost producers set to zero 27 History edit nbsp Tariff Rates in Japan 1870 1960 nbsp Tariff Rates in Spain and Italy 1860 1910 In the 18th century Adam Smith famously warned against the interested sophistry of industry seeking to gain an advantage at the cost of the consumers 28 Friedrich List saw Adam Smith s views on free trade as disingenuous believing that Smith advocated for free trade so that British industry could lock out underdeveloped foreign competition 29 Some have argued that no major country has ever successfully industrialized without some form of economic protection 30 31 Economic historian Paul Bairoch wrote that historically free trade is the exception and protectionism the rule 32 According to economic historians Douglas Irwin and Kevin O Rourke shocks that emanate from brief financial crises tend to be transitory and have a little long run effect on trade policy whereas those that play out over longer periods the early 1890s early 1930s may give rise to protectionism that is difficult to reverse Regional wars also produce transitory shocks that have little impact on long run trade policy while global wars give rise to extensive government trade restrictions that can be difficult to reverse 33 One study shows that sudden shifts in comparative advantage for specific countries have led some countries to become protectionist The shift in comparative advantage associated with the opening up of New World frontiers and the subsequent grain invasion of Europe led to higher agricultural tariffs from the late 1870s onwards which as we have seen reversed the move toward freer trade that had characterized mid nineteenth century Europe In the decades after World War II Japan s rapid rise led to trade friction with other countries Japan s recovery was accompanied by a sharp increase in its exports of certain product categories cotton textiles in the 1950s steel in the 1960s automobiles in the 1970s and electronics in the 1980s In each case the rapid expansion in Japan s exports created difficulties for its trading partners and the use of protectionism as a shock absorber 33 In the United States edit Main articles Protectionism in the United States and Tariffs in United States history nbsp Tariff rates France UK and US nbsp Average tariff rates in US 1821 2016 nbsp US trade balance 1895 2015 According to economic historian Douglas Irwin a common myth about US trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century 34 A review by The Economist of Irwin s 2017 book Clashing over Commerce A History of US Trade Policy states 34 Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again By the time that happened the economy would be recovering giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery Mr Irwin also attempts to debunk the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23 in 1870 to 36 in 1913 the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost estimated at around 0 5 of GDP in the mid 1870s In some industries they might have sped up development by a few years But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas According to Irwin tariffs have serve three primary purposes in the United States to raise revenue for the government to restrict imports and protect domestic producers from foreign competition and to reach reciprocity agreements that reduce trade barriers 35 From 1790 to 1860 average tariffs increased from 20 percent to 60 percent before declining again to 20 percent 35 From 1861 to 1933 which Irwin characterizes as the restriction period the average tariffs increased to 50 percent and remained at that level for several decades From 1934 onwards which Irwin characterizes as the reciprocity period the average tariff declined substantially until it leveled off at 5 percent 35 Economist Paul Bairoch documented that the United States imposed among the highest rates in the world from around the founding of the country until the World War II period describing the United States as the mother country and bastion of modern protectionism since the end of the 18th century and until the post World War II period 36 Alexander Hamilton the first United States Secretary of the Treasury was of the view as articulated most famously in his Report on Manufactures that developing an industrialized economy was impossible without protectionism because import duties are necessary to shelter domestic infant industries until they could achieve economies of scale 37 The industrial takeoff of the United States occurred under protectionist policies 1816 1848 and under moderate protectionism 1846 1861 and continued under strict protectionist policies 1861 1945 38 In the late 19th century higher tariffs were introduced on the grounds that they were needed to protect American wages and to protect American farmers 39 Between 1824 and the 1940s the U S imposed much higher average tariff rates on manufactured products than did Britain or any other European country with the exception for a period of time of Spain and Russia 40 Up until the end of World War II the United States had the most protectionist economy on Earth 41 The Bush administration implemented tariffs on Chinese steel in 2002 according to a 2005 review of existing research on the tariff all studies found that the tariffs caused more harm than gains to the US economy and employment 42 The Obama administration implemented tariffs on Chinese tires between 2009 and 2012 as an anti dumping measure a 2016 study found that these tariffs had no impact on employment and wages in the US tire industry 43 In 2018 EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom stated that the US was playing a dangerous game in applying tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from most countries and stated that she saw the Trump administration s decision to do so as both pure protectionist and illegal 44 The tariffs imposed by the Trump administration during the China United States trade war led to a reduction in the United States trade deficit with China 45 Europe edit In the United Kingdom edit Main article Economic history of the United Kingdom See also British Empire Great Britain and England in particular became one of the most prosperous economic regions in the world between the late 1600s and early 1800s as a result of being the birthplace of the industrial revolution that began in the mid eighteenth century 46 The government protected its merchants and kept others out by trade barriers regulations and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm The Navigation Acts of the late 17th century required all trade to be carried in English ships manned by English crews this later encompassed all Britons after the Acts of Union 1707 united Scotland with England 47 Colonists were required to send their produce and raw materials first of all to Britain where the surplus was then sold on by British merchants to other colonies in the British empire or bullion earning external markets The colonies were forbidden to trade directly with other nations or rival empires The goal was to maintain the North American and Caribbean colonies as dependent agricultural economies geared towards producing raw materials for export to Britain The growth of native industry was discouraged in order to keep the colonies dependent on Britain for their finished goods 48 49 From 1815 to 1870 Britain reaped the benefits of being the world s first modern industrialised nation It described itself as the workshop of the world meaning that its finished goods were produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable locally manufactured goods in almost any other market 50 By the 1840s Britain had adopted a free trade policy meaning open markets and no tariffs throughout the empire 51 The Corn Laws were tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported food and corn enforced in the United Kingdom between 1815 and 1846 and enhanced the profits and political power associated with land ownership The laws raised food prices and the costs of living for the British public and hampered the growth of other British economic sectors such as manufacturing by reducing the disposable income of the British public 52 The Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel a Conservative achieved repeal in 1846 with the support of the Whigs in Parliament overcoming the opposition of most of his own party The possessions of the East India Company in India known as British India was the centrepiece of the British Empire and because of an efficient taxation system it paid its own administrative expenses as well as the cost of the large British Indian Army In terms of trade India turned only a small profit for British business 53 However transfers to the British government was massive in 1801 unrequited unpaid or paid from Indian collected revenue was about 30 of British domestic savings available for capital formation in Britain 54 55 By the late nineteenth century Britain was the quintessential free trade country However that did not mean that it was unaffected by foreign tariffs especially those of the United States under the McKinley Tariff and Dingley Tariff 56 Economic historian Brian Varian estimated that but for the protectionism in Britain s overseas markets Britain s exports would have been 57 higher in 1902 57 By the interwar era Britain began to drift away from free trade There was a piecemeal erosion of free trade in the 1920s including under the system of so called safeguarding duties 58 59 60 Then with the Import Duties Act of 1932 Britain moved in a decisively protectionist direction 61 62 In continental Europe edit Europe became increasingly protectionist during the eighteenth century 63 Economic historians Findlay and O Rourke write that in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars European trade policies were almost universally protectionist with the exceptions being smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark 63 Europe increasingly liberalized its trade during the 19th century 64 Countries such as the Netherlands Denmark Portugal and Switzerland and arguably Sweden and Belgium had fully moved towards free trade prior to 1860 64 Economic historians see the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 as the decisive shift toward free trade in Britain 64 65 A 1990 study by the Harvard economic historian Jeffrey Williamson showed that the Corn Laws which imposed restrictions and tariffs on imported grain substantially increased the cost of living for British workers and hampered the British manufacturing sector by reducing the disposable incomes that British workers could have spent on manufactured goods 66 The shift towards liberalization in Britain occurred in part due to the influence of economists like David Ricardo but also due to the growing power of urban interests 64 Findlay and O Rourke characterize 1860 Cobden Chevalier treaty between France and the United Kingdom as a decisive shift toward European free trade 64 This treaty was followed by numerous free trade agreements France and Belgium signed a treaty in 1861 a Franco Prussian treaty was signed in 1862 Italy entered the network of Cobden Chevalier treaties in 1863 Bairoch 1989 40 Switzerland in 1864 Sweden Norway Spain the Netherlands and the Hanseatic towns in 1865 and Austria in 1866 By 1877 less than two decades after the Cobden Chevalier treaty and three decades after British Repeal Germany had virtually become a free trade country Bairoch 41 Average duties on manufactured products had declined to 9 12 on the Continent a far cry from the 50 British tariffs and numerous prohibitions elsewhere of the immediate post Waterloo era Bairoch table 3 p 6 and table 5 p 42 64 Some European powers did not liberalize during the 19th century such as the Russian Empire and Austro Hungarian Empire which remained highly protectionist The Ottoman Empire also became increasingly protectionist 67 In the Ottoman Empire s case however it previously had liberal free trade policies during the 18th to early 19th centuries which British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli cited as an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition in the 1846 Corn Laws debate arguing that it destroyed what had been some of the finest manufacturers of the world in 1812 36 The countries of Western Europe began to steadily liberalize their economies after World War II and the protectionism of the interwar period 63 In Canada edit Main article National Policy Since 1971 Canada has protected producers of eggs milk cheese chicken and turkey with a system of supply management Though prices for these foods in Canada exceed global prices the farmers and processors have had the security of a stable market to finance their operations citation needed Doubts about the safety of bovine growth hormone sometimes used to boost dairy production led to hearings before the Senate of Canada resulting in a ban in Canada Thus supply management of milk products is consumer protection of Canadians 68 In Latin America edit See also Economic history of Argentina Most Latin American countries gained independence in the early 19th century with notable exceptions including Spanish Cuba and Spanish Puerto Rico Following the achievement of their independence most of the Latin American countries adopted protectionism They both feared that any foreign competition would stomp out their newly created state and believed that lack of outside resources would drive domestic production 69 The protectionist behavior continued up until and during the World Wars During World War 2 Latin America had on average the highest tariffs in the world 70 71 Argentina edit Juan Peron erected a system of almost complete protectionism against imports largely cutting off Argentina from the international market in the 1940s Protectionism created a domestically oriented industry with high production costs incapable of competing in international markets At the same time output of beef and grain the country s main export goods stagnated 72 The IAPI began shortchanging growers and when world grain prices dropped in the late 1940s it stifled agricultural production exports and business sentiment in general 73 Despite these shortcomings protectionism and government credits did allow an exponential growth of the internal market radio sales increased 600 and fridge sales grew 218 among others 74 During this period Argentina s economy continued to grow on average but more slowly than the world as a whole or than its neighbors Brazil and Chile By 1950 Argentina s GDP per capita accounted fell to less than half of that of the United States 75 Impact editThere is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth 11 12 13 8 76 77 78 However protectionism can be used to raise government revenue and enable access to intellectual property including essential medicines 79 Protectionism is frequently criticized by economists as harming the people it is intended to help Mainstream economists instead support free trade 28 80 The principle of comparative advantage shows that the gains from free trade outweigh any losses as free trade creates more jobs than it destroys because it allows countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage 81 Protectionism results in deadweight loss this loss to overall welfare gives no one any benefit unlike in a free market where there is no such total loss According to economist Stephen P Magee the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1 82 Armed conflicts edit See also Opium Wars nbsp Graph showing the increase in Chinese opium imports by year Protectionism has been accused of being one of the major causes of war Proponents of this theory point to the constant warfare in the 17th and 18th centuries among European countries whose governments were predominantly mercantilist and protectionist the American Revolution which came about ostensibly due to British tariffs and taxes According to a slogan of Frederic Bastiat 1801 1850 When goods cannot cross borders armies will 83 On the other hand archaeologist Lawrence H Keeley argues in his book War Before Civilization that disputes between trading partners escalate to war more frequently than disputes between nations that don t trade much with each other 84 The Opium Wars were fought between the UK c and China over the right of British merchants to engage in the free trade of opium For many opium users what started as recreation soon became a punishing addiction many people who stopped ingesting opium suffered chills nausea and cramps and sometimes died from withdrawal Once addicted people would often do almost anything to continue to get access to the drug 85 The ongoing Russo Ukraine War began in the aftermath of the Revolution of Dignity and the signing of the European Union Ukraine Association Agreement in 2014 which included a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area for Ukraine and the European Union EU 86 Positive impacts edit Intellectual property edit Main articles TRIPS Agreement and Intellectual property The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights TRIPS is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization WTO It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property IP as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations 87 TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT d between 1989 and 1990 88 and is administered by the WTO Statements by the World Bank indicate that TRIPS has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment to low income countries though it may have done so for middle income countries 89 Statements by the World Bank indicate that TRIPS has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment to low income countries though it may have done so for middle income countries 90 Critics argue that TRIPS limits the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic producers 36 The TRIPS agreement allows the grant of compulsory licenses at a nation s discretion TRIPS plus conditions in the United States FTAs with Australia Jordan Singapore and Vietnam have restricted the application of compulsory licenses to emergency situations antitrust remedies and cases of public non commercial use 36 Access to essential medicines edit One of the most visible conflicts over TRIPS has been AIDS drugs in Africa Despite the role that patents have played in maintaining higher drug costs for public health programs across Africa this controversy has not led to a revision of TRIPS Instead an interpretive statement the Doha Declaration was issued in November 2001 which indicated that TRIPS should not prevent states from dealing with public health crises and allowed for compulsory licenses After Doha PhRMA the United States and to a lesser extent other developed nations began working to minimize the effect of the declaration 91 In 2020 conflicts re emerged over patents copyrights and trade secrets related to COVID 19 vaccines diagnostics and treatments South Africa and India proposed that WTO grant a temporary waiver to enable more widespread production of the vaccines since suppressing the virus as quickly as possible benefits the entire world 92 93 The waivers would be in addition to the existing but cumbersome flexibilities in TRIPS allowing countries to impose compulsory licenses 94 95 Over 100 developing nations supported the waiver but it was blocked by the G7 members 96 This blocking was condemned by 400 organizations including Doctors Without Borders and 115 members of the European Parliament 97 In June 2022 after extensive involvement of the European Union the WTO instead adopted a watered down agreement that focuses only on vaccine patents excludes high income countries and China and contains few provisions that are not covered by existing flexibilities 98 99 Government Revenue edit Proponents of protectionism argue that tariffs raise government revenue via customs Developing countries including least developed countries LDCs often do not collect income taxes because personal incomes are often too low to tax and they lack the capability to collect such taxes from individuals 100 United States edit U S Historical Tariffs Customs and Tax Collections by the Federal Government All dollar amounts are in millions of U S dollars Year TariffIncome Budget Tariff FederalReceipts IncomeTax Payroll Tax AverageTariff1792 4 4 95 0 4 6 15 1 1795 5 6 91 6 6 1 8 0 1800 9 1 83 7 10 8 10 0 1805 12 9 95 4 13 6 10 7 1810 8 6 91 5 9 4 10 1 1815 7 3 46 4 15 7 6 5 1820 15 0 83 9 17 9 20 2 1825 20 1 97 9 20 5 22 3 1830 21 9 88 2 24 8 35 0 1835 19 4 54 1 35 8 14 2 1840 12 5 64 2 19 5 12 7 1845 27 5 91 9 30 0 24 3 1850 39 7 91 0 43 6 22 9 1855 53 0 81 2 65 4 20 6 1860 53 2 94 9 56 1 15 0 1863 63 0 55 9 112 7 25 9 1864 102 3 38 7 264 6 32 3 1865 84 9 25 4 333 7 61 0 35 6 1870 194 5 47 3 411 3 37 8 44 6 1875 157 2 54 6 288 0 36 1 1880 184 5 55 3 333 5 27 6 1885 181 5 56 1 323 7 32 6 1890 229 7 57 0 403 1 27 6 1900 233 2 41 1 567 2 27 4 1910 233 7 34 6 675 2 15 0 1913 318 8 44 0 724 1 35 0 17 6 1915 209 8 30 1 697 9 47 0 12 5 1916 213 7 27 3 782 5 121 0 8 9 1917 225 9 20 1 1 124 3 373 0 7 7 1918 947 0 25 8 3 664 6 2 720 0 31 2 1920 886 0 13 2 6 694 6 4 032 0 16 8 1925 547 6 14 5 3 780 1 1 697 0 13 0 1928 566 0 14 0 4 042 3 2 088 0 13 8 1930 587 0 14 1 4 177 9 2 300 0 19 2 1935 318 8 8 4 3 800 5 1 100 0 15 6 1940 331 0 6 1 5 387 1 2 100 0 800 0 12 6 1942 369 0 2 9 12 799 1 7 900 0 1 200 0 13 4 1944 417 0 0 9 44 148 9 34 400 0 1 900 0 10 6 1946 424 0 0 9 46 400 0 28 000 0 1 900 0 7 7 1948 408 0 0 9 47 300 0 29 000 0 2 500 0 5 5 1950 407 0 0 9 43 800 0 26 200 0 3 000 0 4 5 1951 609 0 1 1 56 700 0 35 700 0 4 100 0 5 5 1955 585 0 0 8 71 900 0 46 400 0 6 100 0 5 1 1960 1 105 0 1 1 99 800 0 62 200 0 12 200 0 7 3 1965 1 442 0 1 2 116 800 0 74 300 0 22 200 0 6 7 1970 2 430 0 1 3 192 800 0 123 200 0 44 400 0 6 0 1975 3 676 0 1 3 279 100 0 163 000 0 84 500 0 3 7 1980 7 174 0 1 4 517 100 0 308 700 0 157 800 0 2 9 1985 12 079 0 1 6 734 000 0 395 900 0 255 200 0 3 6 1990 11 500 0 1 1 1 032 000 0 560 400 0 380 000 0 2 8 1995 19 301 0 1 4 1 361 000 0 747 200 0 484 500 0 2 6 2000 19 914 0 1 0 2 025 200 0 1 211 700 0 652 900 0 1 6 2005 23 379 0 1 1 2 153 600 0 1 205 500 0 794 100 0 1 4 2010 25 298 0 1 2 2 162 700 0 1 090 000 0 864 800 0 1 3 Notes All dollar amounts are in millions of U S dollars Income taxes include Individual and Corporate taxesFederal expenditures often exceed Revenue by temporary borrowings Initially the U S Federal Government was financed mainly by customs tariffs Average Tariff Rate Customs Revenue cost of Imports goods Other taxes collected are Income Tax Corporate Income Tax Inheritance Tariffs often called Customs or duties on imports etc Income Taxes began in 1913 with the passage of 16th Amendment Payroll taxes are Social Security and Medicare taxesPayroll Taxes began in 1940 Many Federal government Excise taxes are assigned to Trust Funds and are collected for and dedicated to a particular Trust Sources Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1957 101 Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 102 Bicentennial Edition Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 103 Historical Tables 104 U S imports for consumption duties collected and ratio of duties to value 1891 2016 U S imports for consumption under tariff preference programs 1976 2016 105 U S Trade in Goods and Services Balance of Payments BOP Basis 1960 2010 106 Tariffs were the greatest source of United States federal revenue up to 95 at times until the federal income tax began after 1913 For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20 on foreign imports At the end of the American Civil War in 1865 about 63 of Federal income was generated by the excise taxes which exceeded the 25 4 generated by tariffs In 1915 during World War I tariffs generated only 30 1 of revenues Since 1935 tariff income has continued to be a declining percentage of Federal tax income Negative impacts edit Living standards edit A 2016 study found that trade typically favors the poor as they spend a greater share of their earnings on goods as free trade reduces the costs of goods 107 Other research found that China s entry to the WTO benefitted US consumers as the price of Chinese goods were substantially reduced 108 Harvard economist Dani Rodrik argues that while globalization and free trade does contribute to social problems a serious retreat into protectionism would hurt the many groups that benefit from trade and would result in the same kind of social conflicts that globalization itself generates We have to recognize that erecting trade barriers will help in only a limited set of circumstances and that trade policy will rarely be the best response to the problems of globalization 109 Growth edit According to economic historians Findlay and O Rourke there is a consensus in the economics literature that protectionist policies in the interwar period hurt the world economy overall although there is a debate about whether the effect was large or small 63 Economic historian Paul Bairoch argued that economic protection was positively correlated with economic and industrial growth during the 19th century For example GNP growth during Europe s liberal period in the middle of the century where tariffs were at their lowest averaged 1 7 per year while industrial growth averaged 1 8 per year However during the protectionist era of the 1870s and 1890s GNP growth averaged 2 6 per year while industrial output grew at 3 8 per year roughly twice as fast as it had during the liberal era of low tariffs and free trade 110 One study found that tariffs imposed on manufactured goods increase economic growth in developing countries and this growth impact remains even after the tariffs are repealed 111 However another study examining the tariff variation across the Australian colonies prior to Federation did not find any association between tariffs and growth 112 According to Dartmouth economist Douglas Irwin that there is a correlation between high tariffs and growth in the late nineteenth century cannot be denied But correlation is not causation there is no reason for necessarily thinking that import protection was a good policy just because the economic outcome was good the outcome could have been driven by factors completely unrelated to the tariff or perhaps could have been even better in the absence of protection 113 Irwin furthermore writes that few observers have argued outright that the high tariffs caused such growth 113 According to Oxford economic historian Kevin O Rourke It seems clear that protection was important for the growth of US manufacturing in the first half of the 19th century but this does not necessarily imply that the tariff was beneficial for GDP growth Protectionists have often pointed to German and American industrialization during this period as evidence in favor of their position but economic growth is influenced by many factors other than trade policy and it is important to control for these when assessing the links between tariffs and growth 114 A prominent 1999 study by Jeffrey A Frankel and David H Romer found contrary to free trade skeptics claims while controlling for relevant factors that trade does indeed have a positive impact on growth and incomes 115 Economist Arvind Panagariya criticizes the view that protectionism is good for growth Such arguments according to him arise from revisionist interpretation of East Asian tigers economic history The Asian tigers achieved a rapid increase in per capita income without any redistributive social programs through free trade which advanced Western economies took a century to achieve 78 116 Developing world edit See also Infant industry argument There is broad consensus among economists that free trade helps workers in developing countries even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labor standards of developed countries This is because the growth of manufacturing and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates has a ripple effect throughout the economy that creates competition among producers lifting wages and living conditions 117 The Nobel laureates Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman have argued for free trade as a model for economic development 11 Alan Greenspan former chair of the American Federal Reserve has criticized protectionist proposals as leading to an atrophy of our competitive ability If the protectionist route is followed newer more efficient industries will have less scope to expand and overall output and economic welfare will suffer 118 Protectionists postulate that new industries may require protection from entrenched foreign competition in order to develop Mainstream economists do concede that tariffs can in the short term help domestic industries to develop but are contingent on the short term nature of the protective tariffs and the ability of the government to pick the winners 119 120 The problems are that protective tariffs will not be reduced after the infant industry reaches a foothold and that governments will not pick industries that are likely to succeed 120 Economists have identified a number of cases across different countries and industries where attempts to shelter infant industries failed 121 122 123 124 125 Current world trends edit nbsp Protectionist measures taken since 2008 according to Global Trade Alert 126 Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist however such as the Common Agricultural Policy 127 in the European Union longstanding agricultural subsidies and proposed Buy American provisions 128 in economic recovery packages in the United States Heads of the G20 meeting in London on 2 April 2009 pledged We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras Adherence to this pledge is monitored by the Global Trade Alert 129 providing up to date information and informed commentary to help ensure that the G20 pledge is met by maintaining confidence in the world trading system deterring beggar thy neighbor acts and preserving the contribution that exports could play in the future recovery of the world economy Although they were reiterating what they had already committed to in the 2008 Washington G20 summit 17 of these 20 countries were reported by the World Bank as having imposed trade restrictive measures since then In its report the World Bank says most of the world s major economies are resorting to protectionist measures as the global economic slowdown begins to bite Economists who have examined the impact of new trade restrictive measures using detailed bilaterally monthly trade statistics estimated that new measures taken through late 2009 were distorting global merchandise trade by 0 25 to 0 5 about 50 billion a year 130 Since then however President Donald Trump announced in January 2017 the U S was abandoning the TPP Trans Pacific Partnership deal saying We re going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken everybody out of our country and taken companies out of our country and it s going to be reversed 131 President Joe Biden has largely continued Trump s protectionist policies and has not negotiated any new new free trade agreements since assuming office in January 2021 132 See also editAmerican System economic plan Autarky Brexit Currency war Developmentalism Digital Millennium Copyright Act Economic nationalism Free trade debate Globalization Henry C Carey Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire Imperial Preference International trade Market preserving federalism National Policy Not invented here Project Labor Agreement Protected Geographical Status Protection or Free Trade Protectionism in the United States Protective tariff Rent seeking Resistive economy Smoot Hawley Act Tariff Reform League 1923 United Kingdom general election Voluntary export restraint Washington ConsensusFurther reading editMilner Helen V 1988 Resisting protectionism global industries and the politics of international trade Princeton New Jersey Princeton University Press ISBN 978 0 691 01074 8 Hudson Michael 2010 America s Protectionist Takeoff 1815 1914 The Neglected American School of Political Economy ISLET ISBN 978 3 9808466 8 4 References edit Piketty Thomas 19 April 2022 A Brief History of Equality Belknap Press Retrieved 5 January 2024 Murschetz Paul 2013 State Aid for Newspapers Theories Cases Actions Springer Science Business Media p 64 ISBN 978 3 642 35690 2 Parties of the left in government adopt protectionist policies for ideological reasons and because they wish to save worker jobs Conversely right wing parties are predisposed toward free trade policies Pelaez Carlos 2008 Globalization and the State Volume II Trade Agreements Inequality the Environment Financial Globalization International Law and Vulnerabilities United States Palgrave MacMillan p 68 ISBN 978 0 230 20531 4 Left wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right wing parties Mansfield Edward 2012 Votes Vetoes and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements Princeton University Press p 128 ISBN 978 0 691 13530 4 Left wing governments are considered more likely than others to intervene in the economy and to enact protectionist trade policies Warren Kenneth 2008 Encyclopedia of U S Campaigns Elections and Electoral Behavior A M Volume 1 Sage p 680 ISBN 978 1 4129 5489 1 Yet certain national interests regional trading blocks and left wing anti globalization forces still favor protectionist practices making protectionism a continuing issue for both American political parties The End of Reaganism POLITICO Magazine Retrieved 24 March 2017 Fairbrother Malcolm 1 March 2014 Economists Capitalists and the Making of Globalization North American Free Trade in Comparative Historical Perspective American Journal of Sociology 119 5 1324 1379 doi 10 1086 675410 ISSN 0002 9602 PMID 25097930 S2CID 38027389 a b c Mankiw N Gregory 24 April 2015 Economists Actually Agree on This The Wisdom of Free Trade Archived 14 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine The New York Times Retrieved 10 August 2021 Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another But economists reach near unanimity on some topics including international trade Economic Consensus On Free Trade PIIE 25 May 2017 Retrieved 27 February 2018 Poole William 2004 Free Trade Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart Review 86 5 doi 10 20955 r 86 1 6 a b c See P Krugman The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 83 3 1993 and P Krugman Peddling Prosperity Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations New York W W Norton amp Company 1994 a b Free Trade IGM Forum 13 March 2012 Retrieved 24 June 2017 a b Import Duties IGM Forum 4 October 2016 Retrieved 24 June 2017 Trade Within Europe IGM Forum Retrieved 24 June 2017 Poole William September October 2004 Free Trade Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart Archived 7 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review 86 5 pp 1 6 most observers agree that t he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal Quote at p 1 Irwin Douglas 2017 Peddling Protectionism Smoot Hawley and the Great Depression Princeton University Press pp vii xviii ISBN 978 1 4008 8842 9 Poole William 2004 Free Trade Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart Review 86 5 doi 10 20955 r 86 1 6 One set of reservations concerns distributional effects of trade Workers are not seen as benefiting from trade Strong evidence exists indicating a perception that the benefits of trade flow to businesses and the wealthy rather than to workers and to those abroad rather than to those in the United States Xiong Ping 2012b Patents in TRIPS Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS Do They Affect Public Health Journal of World Trade 46 1 155 doi 10 54648 TRAD2012006 Rosenfeld Everett 11 March 2016 Here s why everyone is arguing about free trade CNBC Retrieved 10 August 2021 a b Paul Krugman Robin Wells amp Martha L Olney Essentials of Economics Worth Publishers 2007 pp 342 345 Wong Edward Tatlow Didi Kirsten 5 June 2013 China Seen in Push to Gain Technology Insights The New York Times Retrieved 16 October 2017 Markoff John Rosenberg Matthew 3 February 2017 China s Intelligent Weaponry Gets Smarter The New York Times Retrieved 16 October 2017 The Unpleasant Truth About Chinese Espionage Observer com 22 April 2016 Retrieved 16 October 2017 Ippei Yamazawa Restructuring the Japanese Economy Policies and Performance in Global Protectionism eds Robert C Hine Anthony P O Brien David Greenaway amp Robert J Thornton St Martin s Press 1991 pp 55 56 Crispin Weymouth Is Protectionism a Useful Concept for Company Law and Foreign Investment Policy An EU Perspective in Company Law and Economic Protectionism New Challenges to European Integration eds Ulf Bernitz amp Wolf Georg Ringe Oxford University Press 2010 pp 44 76 Peter Drahos John Braithwaite 2002 Information Feudalism Who Owns the Knowledge Economy London Earthscan p 36 ISBN 978 1 85383 917 7 1 Archived 17 October 2006 at the Wayback Machine a b Free to Choose Milton Friedman The National System of Political Economy by Friedrich List 1841 translated by Sampson S Lloyd M P 1885 edition Fourth Book The Politics Chapter 33 Shafaeddin Mehdi 1998 How did Developed Countries Industrialize The History of Trade and Industrial Policy the Cases of Great Britain and the USA United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Reinert Eric 2007 How Rich Countries got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor New York Carroll amp Graf Trade Policy and Economic Development A Trading Nation Canadian Trade Policy from Colonialism to Globalization ISBN 978 0 7748 0894 1 a b C Feenstra Robert M Taylor Alan 23 December 2013 Globalization in an Age of Crisis Multilateral Economic Cooperation in the Twenty First Century NBER doi 10 7208 chicago 9780226030890 001 0001 ISBN 978 0 226 03075 3 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link a b A historian on the myths of American trade The Economist Retrieved 26 November 2017 a b c Irwin Douglas A 2 August 2020 Trade Policy in American Economic History Annual Review of Economics 12 1 23 44 doi 10 1146 annurev economics 070119 024409 ISSN 1941 1383 S2CID 241740782 a b c d Paul Bairoch 1995 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes University of Chicago Press pp 31 32 Archived from the original on 12 October 2017 Retrieved 16 August 2017 Cite error The named reference auto was defined multiple times with different content see the help page Paul Bairoch 1995 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes University of Chicago Press p 33 Paul Bairoch 1995 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes University of Chicago Press p 34 Paul Bairoch 1995 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes University of Chicago Press p 36 Paul Bairoch 1995 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes University of Chicago Press pp 34 40 Santosh Mehrotra Sylvie Guichard 2020 Planning in the 20th Century and Beyond India s Planning Commission and the NITI Aayog Cambridge University Press p 285 ISBN 978 1 108 49462 5 Most importantly the United States was the birthplace of the idea of infant industry protection and indeed was the most heavily protected economy in the world for about a century until the Second World War Read Robert 1 August 2005 The Political Economy of Trade Protection The Determinants and Welfare Impact of the 2002 US Emergency Steel Safeguard Measures PDF World Economy 28 8 1119 1137 doi 10 1111 j 1467 9701 2005 00722 x ISSN 1467 9701 S2CID 154520390 Chung Sunghoon Lee Joonhyung Osang Thomas 1 June 2016 Did China tire safeguard save U S workers PDF European Economic Review 85 22 38 doi 10 1016 j euroecorev 2015 12 009 ISSN 0014 2921 Why American allies are angry Gulfnews com Foreign Trade U S Trade with China United States Census Bureau Baten Jorg 2016 A History of the Global Economy From 1500 to the Present Cambridge University Press p 13 ISBN 978 1 107 50718 0 Darwin 2012 pp 21 22 Darwin 2012 p 166 Max Savelle 1948 Seeds of Liberty The Genesis of the American Mind Kessinger p 204ff ISBN 978 1 4191 0707 8 Harold Cox ed British industries under free trade 1903 pp 17 18 Lynn Martin 1999 Porter Andrew ed British Policy Trade and Informal Empire in the Mid 19th Century The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume III The Nineteenth Century 3 101 121 doi 10 1093 acprof oso 9780198205654 003 0006 Williamson Jeffrey G 1 April 1990 The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal Explorations in Economic History 27 2 123 156 doi 10 1016 0014 4983 90 90007 L P J Cain and A G Hopkins British Imperialism 1688 2000 2nd ed 2002 ch 10 Mukherjee Aditya 2010 Empire How Colonial India Made Modern Britain Economic and Political Weekly 45 50 73 82 JSTOR 25764217 Habib Irfan 1995 Colonisation of the Indian Economy Essays in Indian History New Delhi Tulika Press pp 304 46 Varian Brian D 2018 Anglo American trade costs during the first era of globalization the contribution of a bilateral tariff series The Economic History Review 71 1 190 212 doi 10 1111 ehr 12486 ISSN 0013 0117 Varian Brian D 2023 British exports and foreign tariffs Insights from the Board of Trade s foreign tariff compilation for 1902 The Economic History Review 76 3 827 843 doi 10 1111 ehr 13214 ISSN 0013 0117 Varian Brian D 2019 The growth of manufacturing protection in 1920s Britain Scottish Journal of Political Economy 66 5 703 711 doi 10 1111 sjpe 12223 ISSN 0036 9292 Varian Brian D 18 August 2022 Protection and the British rayon industry during the 1920s Business History 64 6 1131 1148 doi 10 1080 00076791 2020 1753699 ISSN 0007 6791 Foreman Peck James 1979 TARIFF PROTECTION AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE THE BRITISH MOTOR INDUSTRY BEFORE 1939 academic oup com doi 10 1093 oxfordjournals oep a041444 Retrieved 6 January 2024 de Bromhead Alan Fernihough Alan Lampe Markus O Rourke Kevin Hjortshoj 1 February 2019 When Britain Turned Inward The Impact of Interwar British Protection American Economic Review 109 2 325 352 doi 10 1257 aer 20172020 ISSN 0002 8282 Capie Forrest 2011 Depression and protectionism Britain between the wars London Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 60704 9 a b c d Findlay Ronald O Rourke Kevin H 2009 Power and Plenty Princeton University Press ISBN 978 0 691 14327 9 Retrieved 16 October 2017 a b c d e f Findlay Ronald O Rourke Kevin H 1 January 2003 Commodity Market Integration 1500 2000 NBER 13 64 Harley C Knick 2004 7 Trade discovery mercantilism and technology The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain Cambridge University pp 175 203 doi 10 1017 CHOL9780521820363 008 ISBN 978 1 139 05385 3 Retrieved 27 June 2017 Williamson Jeffrey G 1 April 1990 The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal Explorations in Economic History 27 2 123 156 doi 10 1016 0014 4983 90 90007 L Daudin Guillaume O Rourke Kevin H Escosura Leandro Prados de la 2008 Trade and Empire 1700 1870 Documents de Travail de l Ofce Richard Wolfson 1999 How Bovine Growth Hormone Was Rejected in Canada Archived 7 January 2023 at the Wayback Machine from Consumerhealth org 22 9 Gallas Daniel August 2018 The Country Built on Trade Barriers BBC News Retrieved 10 November 2021 Coatsworth John Williamson Jeffrey June 2002 THE ROOTS OF LATIN AMERICAN PROTECTIONISM LOOKING BEFORE THE GREAT DEPRESSION NBER Working Paper Series Mercosur in Brief mercosur Argentina Trade Policy Commanding Heights The Battle For The World Economy PBS Archived from the original on 26 April 2011 Antonio Cafiero 7 May 2008 Intimidaciones boicots y calidad institucional Pagina 12 Archived from the original on 11 February 2012 Pablo Gerchunoff 1989 Peronist Economic Policies 1946 1955 di Tella y Dornbusch pp 59 85 Arnaut Javier Understanding the Latin American Gap during the era of Import Substitution Institutions Productivity and Distance to the Technology Frontier in Brazil Argentina and Mexico s Manufacturing Industries 1935 1975 PDF Archived from the original PDF on 26 April 2012 William Poole Free Trade Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart Archived 7 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Review September October 2004 86 5 pp 1 most observers agree that t he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal Trade Within Europe IGM Forum Igmchicago org Retrieved 24 June 2017 a b Panagariya Arvind 18 July 2019 Debunking Protectionist Myths Free Trade the Developing World and Prosperity Cato Institute Economic Development Bulletin 31 SSRN 3501729 Hickel Jason 2018 The Divide A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions Windmill Books ISBN 978 1786090034 Krugman Paul R 1987 Is Free Trade Passe The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1 2 131 44 doi 10 1257 jep 1 2 131 JSTOR 1942985 Krugman Paul 24 January 1997 The Accidental Theorist Archived 20 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine Slate Magee Stephen P 1976 International Trade and Distortions In Factor Markets New York Marcel Dekker DiLorenzo T J Frederic Bastiat 1801 1850 Between the French and Marginalist Revolutions accessed at Ludwig Von Mises Institute 2012 04 13 Archived 13 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine Keeley Lawrence War Before Civilization The Myth of the Peaceful Savage Reprint Edition Retrieved 5 January 2023 Canada Asia Pacific Foundation of The Opium Wars in China Asia Pacific Curriculum Traynor Ian Grytsenko Oksana 21 November 2013 Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war Ukraine was due to sign accord at summit next week but MPs reject key bills especially on freeing Yulia Tymoshenko from jail The Guardian See TRIPS Art 1 3 Gervais Daniel 2012 The TRIPS Agreement Negotiating History London Sweet amp Maxwell pp Part I Xiong Ping 2012b Patents in TRIPS Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS Do They Affect Public Health Journal of World Trade 46 1 155 doi 10 54648 TRAD2012006 Xiong Ping 2012b Patents in TRIPS Plus Provisions and the Approaches to Interpretation of Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS Do They Affect Public Health Journal of World Trade 46 1 155 doi 10 54648 TRAD2012006 Timmermann Cristian Henk van den Belt 2013 Intellectual property and global health from corporate social responsibility to the access to knowledge movement Liverpool Law Review 34 1 47 73 doi 10 1007 s10991 013 9129 9 S2CID 145492036 Archived from the original on 23 June 2020 Retrieved 31 October 2020 Nebehay Emma Farge Stephanie 10 December 2020 WTO delays decision on waiver on COVID 19 drug vaccine rights Reuters Archived from the original on 28 February 2021 Retrieved 25 February 2021 a href Template Cite news html title Template Cite news cite news a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link Members to continue discussion on proposal for temporary IP waiver in response to COVID 19 World Trade Organisation Archived from the original on 27 February 2021 Retrieved 25 February 2021 Baker Brook K Labonte Ronald 9 January 2021 Dummy s guide to how trade rules affect access to COVID 19 vaccines The Conversation Archived from the original on 23 February 2021 Retrieved 25 February 2021 An Unnecessary Proposal A WTO Waiver of Intellectual Property Rights for COVID 19 Vaccines Cato Institute 16 December 2020 Archived from the original on 25 February 2021 Retrieved 25 February 2021 G7 leaders are shooting themselves in the foot by failing to tackle global vaccine access Amnesty International 19 February 2021 Retrieved 25 April 2021 Pietromarchi Virginia 1 March 2021 Patently unfair Can waivers help solve COVID vaccine inequality Al Jazeera Retrieved 26 April 2021 TRIPS Waiver Covid 19 Response covid19response org WTO finally agrees on a TRIPS deal But not everyone is happy Devex 17 June 2022 The Least Developed Countries Report 2022 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Retrieved 5 January 2023 Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1957 Value of Exports and Imports 1790 to 1957 pp 537 38 Value of Merchandise Imports and Duties 1821 to 1957 p 539 Indexes of Quantity and Unit Value of Exports and Imports 1879 to 1957 pp 540 41 Value of Merchandise Exports and Imports by Groups of Customs Districts 1860 to 1954 pp 542 43 Value of Merchandise Exports and Imports by Economic Classes 1820 to 1957 pp 544 45 Exports of Selected U S Merchandise 1790 to 1957 pp 546 47 Imports of Selected Products 1790 to 1957 pp 548 49 Value of General Imports by Country of Origin 1790 to 1957 pp 552 53 2 Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 Part 2 Zip file CT1970p2 12 Series Y 343 51 1940 1970 Customs Tot Receipts Income taxes Payroll taxes Excise Y342 339 1940 1970 Receipts Y 352 357 1789 1939 Government Receipts Total 1789 1970 Customs 1789 1970 Y 358 373 Excise tax 1863 1970 Income Tax 1916 1970 Series U 1 25 Balance of International Payments Imports 1790 1970 6 Accessed 5 Aug 2011 3 Bicentennial Edition Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 4 Whitehouse Historical Tables 1940 2016 Table 1 1 Tot Receipts 1901 2010 Table 2 1 2 4 Excise Tax 1934 2010 Table 2 5 Customs 1940 2010 5 Accessed 5 Aug 2011 U S imports for consumption duties collected and ratio of duties to value 1891 2016 U S imports for consumption under tariff preference programs 1976 2016 6 U S Trade in Goods and Services Balance of Payments BOP Basis 1960 2010 7 Accessed 5 Aug 2011 Fajgelbaum Pablo D Khandelwal Amit K 1 August 2016 Measuring the Unequal Gains from Trade PDF The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131 3 1113 80 doi 10 1093 qje qjw013 ISSN 0033 5533 S2CID 9094432 Amiti Mary Dai Mi Feenstra Robert Romalis John 28 June 2017 China s WTO entry benefits US consumers VoxEU org Retrieved 28 June 2017 Rodrik Dani Has Globalization Gone Too Far PDF Institute for International Economics Bairoch Paul 1993 Economics and World History Myths and Paradoxes Chicago University of Chicago Press p 47 DeJong David 2006 Tariffs and Growth an empirical exploration of contingent relationships The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 4 625 40 doi 10 1162 rest 88 4 625 S2CID 197260 Varian Brian D 2022 Revisiting the tariff growth correlation The Australasian colonies 1866 1900 Australian Economic History Review 62 1 47 65 doi 10 1111 aehr 12233 ISSN 0004 8992 S2CID 245356574 a b Irwin Douglas A 1 January 2001 Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth Century America World Economy 24 1 15 30 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 200 5492 doi 10 1111 1467 9701 00341 ISSN 1467 9701 S2CID 153647738 H O Rourke Kevin 1 November 2000 British trade policy in the 19th century a review article European Journal of Political Economy 16 4 829 42 doi 10 1016 S0176 2680 99 00043 9 Frankel Jeffrey A Romer David June 1999 Does Trade Cause Growth American Economic Review 89 3 379 99 doi 10 1257 aer 89 3 379 ISSN 0002 8282 Panagariya Arvind 2019 Free Trade and Prosperity How Openness Helps the Developing Countries Grow Richer and Combat Poverty Oxford New York Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 091449 3 Krugman Paul 21 March 1997 In Praise of Cheap Labor Archived 7 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine Slate Sicilia David B amp Cruikshank Jeffrey L 2000 The Greenspan Effect p 131 New York McGraw Hill ISBN 978 0 07 134919 2 The Case for Protecting Infant Industries Bloomberg com 22 December 2016 Retrieved 24 June 2017 a b Baldwin Robert E 1969 The Case against Infant Industry Tariff Protection Journal of Political Economy 77 3 295 305 doi 10 1086 259517 JSTOR 1828905 S2CID 154784307 O Krueger Anne Baran Tuncer 1982 An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument American Economic Review 72 5 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link Choudhri Ehsan U Hakura Dalia S 2000 International Trade and Productivity Growth Exploring the Sectoral Effects for Developing Countries IMF Staff Papers 47 1 30 53 JSTOR 3867624 Baldwin Richard E Krugman Paul June 1986 Market Access and International Competition A Simulation Study of 16K Random Access Memories NBER Working Paper No 1936 doi 10 3386 w1936 Luzio Eduardo Greenstein Shane 1995 Measuring the Performance of a Protected Infant Industry The Case of Brazilian Microcomputers PDF The Review of Economics and Statistics 77 4 622 633 doi 10 2307 2109811 hdl 2142 29917 JSTOR 2109811 US Tire Tariffs Saving Few Jobs at High Cost PIIE 2 March 2016 Retrieved 24 June 2017 Independent monitoring of policies that affect world trade Global Trade Alert Retrieved 16 December 2016 A French Roadblock to Free Trade The New York Times 31 August 2003 Retrieved 22 May 2010 Brussels Warns US on Protectionism Dw world de 30 January 2009 Retrieved 16 October 2017 Global Trade Alert Globaltradealert org Retrieved 16 October 2017 Trade and the Crisis Protect or Recover PDF Imf org Retrieved 16 October 2017 Baker Peter 23 January 2017 Trump Abandons Trans Pacific Partnership Obama s Signature Trade Deal The New York Times Retrieved 1 July 2018 Hayashi Yuka 28 December 2023 Biden Struggles to Push Trade Deals with Allies as Election Approaches The Wall Street Journal Economic nationalism is an ideology that prioritizes state intervention in the economy including policies like domestic control and the use of tariffs and restrictions on labor goods and capital movement Economic liberalism is a political and economic ideology that supports a market economy based on individualism and private property in the means of production France also fought on the side of the UK in the Second Opium War The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade GATT is a legal agreement between many countries whose overall purpose was to promote international trade by reducing or eliminating trade barriers such as tariffs or quotas According to its preamble its purpose was the substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers and the elimination of preferences on a reciprocal and mutually advantageous basis External links edit nbsp Media related to Protectionism at Wikimedia Commons Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Protectionism amp oldid 1194171352, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.