Protectionism
Part of a series on |
World trade |
---|
Part of a series on |
Economic systems |
---|
Major types
|
|
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]
Protectionism has been advocated mainly by parties that hold
There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare,
Protectionist policies
A variety of policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. These include:
- 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.
- trade balance. However, such a policy is only effective in the short run, as it will lead to higher inflationin the country in the long run, which will, in turn, raise the real cost of exports, and reduce the relative price of imports.
- International 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
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
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 served 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
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
Europe
In the United Kingdom
By the 1840s, Britain had adopted a free-trade policy, meaning open markets and no tariffs throughout the empire.
The possessions of the
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
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.
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
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
Since 1971 Canada has protected producers of eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, and turkey with a system of
In Latin America
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
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
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. Economist Stephen P. Magee claims the benefits of free trade outweigh the losses by as much as 100 to 1.[82]
Armed conflicts
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
Positive impacts
Intellectual property
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an
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.[91] Critics argue that TRIPS limits the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic producers.[92] 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.[92]
Access to essential medicines
One of the most visible conflicts over TRIPS has been
In 2020, conflicts re-emerged over patents, copyrights and trade secrets related to
Government Revenue
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.[102]
United States
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 tariffs taxes are assigned to Trust Funds 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 and are collected for and "dedicated" to a particular Trust. Sources:
|
Tariffs were the greatest source of United States federal revenue (up to 95% at times) until the
Negative impacts
Living standards
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.[109] Other research found that China's entry to the WTO benefitted US consumers, as the price of Chinese goods were substantially reduced.[110] 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]".[111]
Growth
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
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."[115] Irwin furthermore writes that "few observers have argued outright that the high tariffs caused such growth."[115]
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."[116]
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.[117]
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][118]
Developing world
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.[119] 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."[120]
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.[121][122] 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.[122] Economists have identified a number of cases across different countries and industries where attempts to shelter infant industries failed.[123][124][125][126][127]
The United States, which today has
Current world trends
Certain policies of First World governments have been criticized as protectionist, however, such as the Common Agricultural Policy[130] in the European Union, longstanding agricultural subsidies and proposed "Buy American" provisions[131] in economic recovery packages in the United States.
Heads of the
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).[133]
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."[134] President Joe Biden has largely continued Trump's protectionist policies, and has not negotiated any new free trade agreements since assuming office in January 2021.[135]
The 2010s and early 2020s have seen an increased use of protectionist economic policies across both developed countries and developing countries worldwide.[136][137]
See also
- American 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 Consensus
Further reading
- 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
- ^ Piketty, Thomas (19 April 2022). A Brief History of Equality. Belknap Press. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
- 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.
- ISBN 978-0-230-20531-4.
Left-wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right-wing parties.
- 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.
- 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.
- S2CID 38027389.
- ^ 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.
- .
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ISBN 978-1-4008-8842-9.
- .
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.
- .
- ^ 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 & 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 & 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 & Wolf-Georg Ringe: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 44–76.
- 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 & Graf.
- ISBN 978-0-7748-0894-1.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-226-03075-3.)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ a b "A historian on the myths of American trade". The Economist. Retrieved 26 November 2017.
- ^ S2CID 241740782.
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ 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.
- 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
- S2CID 154520390.
- ISSN 0014-2921.
- ^ "Why American allies are angry". Gulfnews.com. 4 June 2018.
- ^ "Foreign Trade – U.S. Trade with China". United States Census Bureau.
- ISBN 978-1-107-50718-0.
- ^ Darwin, 2012 pp. 21–22
- ^ Darwin, 2012 p. 166
- ISBN 978-1-4191-0707-8.
- ^ Harold Cox, ed., British industries under free trade (1903) pp, 17–18.
- .
- .
- ^ P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: 1688–2000 (2nd ed. 2002) ch. 10
- JSTOR 25764217.
- ^ Habib, Irfan (1995). "Colonisation of the Indian Economy". Essays in Indian History. New Delhi: Tulika Press. pp. 304–46.
- S2CID 157711310.
- S2CID 253165902.
- S2CID 159346581.
- S2CID 219025238.
- . Retrieved 6 January 2024.
- ISSN 0002-8282.
- ISBN 978-0-415-60704-9.
- ^ 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.
- ISBN 978-1-139-05385-3. Retrieved 27 June 2017.
- .
- ^ 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". Página/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.
- ^ SSRN 3501729.
- ISBN 978-1786090034.
- 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
- ISBN 0195119126.
- ^ Canada, Asia Pacific Foundation of. "The Opium Wars in China". Asia Pacific Curriculum.
- ^ Yardley, Jonathan (16 March 2009). "Jonathan Yardley Reviews 'The Proud Tower,' by Barbara Tuchman". The Washington Post.
- ^ 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 & Maxwell. pp. Part I.
- .
- .
- ^ a b Newfarmer, Richard (2006). Trade, Doha, and Development (1st ed.). The World Bank. p. 292.
- 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.
{{cite news}}
: 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
- 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.
- S2CID 197260.
- S2CID 245356574.
- ^ S2CID 153647738.
- .
- ISSN 0002-8282.
- 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.
- ISBN 978-0-07-134919-2.
- ^ "The Case for Protecting Infant Industries". Bloomberg.com. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
- ^ S2CID 154784307.
- ^ 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) - JSTOR 3867624.
- doi:10.3386/w1936.
- JSTOR 2109811.
- ^ "US Tire Tariffs: Saving Few Jobs at High Cost". PIIE. 2 March 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2017.
- ^ Frankel, Jeffrey (15 June 2018). "The Republicans have a long history of protectionism". MarketWatch.
- ^ "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.
- ^ Intelligence, fDi. "Protectionism: trade restrictions reach an all-time high". www.fdiintelligence.com. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
- ^ Bank, European Central (24 April 2019). "The economic implications of rising protectionism: a euro area and global perspective". European Central Bank. Retrieved 11 January 2024.
- ^ 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.
- 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
- Media related to Protectionism at Wikimedia Commons