European trade policy, 1815–1914

Bairoch, Paul; Burke, S.

doi:10.1017/chol9780521225045.002

Cited by 91 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 218 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The almostempty set consists of all statistical studies showing that protection has helped Third World economic growth, or that liberalization has harmed it. The set would have been completely empty had not Paul Bairoch (1972Bairoch ( , 1989 and Kevin O'Rourke (2000) both found that protectionist countries grew faster before 1914. True, they were not assessing Third World countries, but rather members of the Atlantic economy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?

Lindert

Williamson

2001

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?

Lindert

Williamson

2001

180

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…15 In some cases it is possible to find one description that was quoted over the whole period considered here, but often it is the 12 Webb (1982). For a comparative tariff history of European countries see Bairoch (1989). 13 Elster et al (192613 Elster et al ( -1927 state explicitly that these measures were openly used as 'indirektes Schutzmittel'.…”

Section: The Price Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Commodity market integration 1850-1913: Evidence from Britain and Germany

Klovland

2005

European Review of Economic History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sample that contains annual prices of 39 selected commodities in Britain and Germany in the period 1850 to 1913 substantial evidence of well integrated commodity markets is found. The degree of integration is not universal across markets and varies over time, however. Absolute price variability was in general decresing over the period, indicating more closely integrated markets. But the reintroduction of tariffs in Germany beginning in 1879 implied that this trend was broken for a number of commodities. Nevertheless, once the impact of tariffs is accounted for, grain market prices are well synchronized. In contrast, markets for animal foodstuffs appear not to be integrated, which is to be expected given the existence of non-tariff barriers affecting meat and livestock markets. The price movements of non-ferrous metals, many textiles and some other raw materials are in accordance with the law of one price. The speed of adjustments of prices, measured by estimates of the half-life of LOP deviations, is a little more than one year, which is substantially lower than what is found in many other studies of market integration.

show abstract

“…In the same year, tariffs in Brazil and Colombia (the most protectionist Latin American countries) were almost ten times those in China and India (the least protectionist in Asia). Furthermore, the rise in Latin American tariffs from the late 1860s to the turn of the century was much steeper than was true of Europe, including France and Germany about which so much tariff history has been written by scholars like Gerschenkron (1943), Kindleberger (1951), Bairoch (1989) and, more recently, O'Rourke (2000). For example, the rise in the average tariff rate between the 1870s and the 1890s was 5.7 percentage points in France, up from 4.4 per cent to still only 10.1 per cent, and 5.3 percentage points in Germany, up from 3.8 to still only 9.1 per cent.…”

Section: Some Latin American Belle é Poque Surprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why were Latin America's tariffs so much higher than Asia's before 1950?

Clemens¹,

Williamson²

2011

RHE / JILAEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Latin America had the highest tariffs in the world before 1914; Asia had the lowest. Heavily protected Latin America also boasted some of the most explosive belle époque growth, while open Asia registered some of the least. What brought the two regions to the opposite ends of the tariff policy spectrum? We find that limits to Asian tariff policy autonomy may have lowered tariffs substantially there, but by themselves they cannot explain why Asian tariffs were so much lower than the Latin American tariffs before 1914; that natural barriers, domestic political economy and strategic tariff policy seems to have contributed much to the difference and that the origins of Asian post-World War 2 import-substitution policies seem to lie in the interwar years when Asian tariff levels caught up with those of Latin America. 11 ofreció uno de los crecimientos má s explosivos de la belle époque mientras Asia mostraba uno de los menores. +Fue el diferente espectro de la política arancelaria lo que llevó a estas dos regiones a destinos tan opuestos? Nosotros encontramos: que los límites a la autonomía de la política arancelaria en Asia habrían contribuido considerablemente a reducir los aranceles, pero no pueden explicar por sí mismos por qué los aranceles fueron mucho más bajos que en América Latina antes de 1914; las barreras naturales, la economía política nacional y las políticas arancelarias estratégicas parecen haber contribuido mucho a la diferencia en el comportamiento del crecimiento de estas dos zonas y los orígenes de la política de sustitució n de importaciones asiática posterior a la II Guerra Mundial parecen extenderse al periodo de entreguerras cuando los niveles arancelarios asiáticos convergieron con los de América Latina.

show abstract

European trade policy, 1815–1914

Cited by 91 publications

References 218 publications

Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?

Does Globalization Make the World More Unequal?

Commodity market integration 1850-1913: Evidence from Britain and Germany

Why were Latin America's tariffs so much higher than Asia's before 1950?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About