Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Bairoch revisited: tariff structure and growth in the late 19th century

By Antonio Tena-Junguito

Abstract

This paper revisits Bairoch’s hypothesis that in the late 19th century tariffs were positively associated with growth, as recently confirmed by a new generation of quantitative studies (see O`Rourke (2000), Jacks (2006) and Clemens-Williamson (2002, 2004)). This paper highlights the importance of the structure of protection in the relation between trade policy and its potential growth-promoting impact. Evidence is based on a new database on industrial tariffs for the 1870`s. The results show that income, factor endowment, and policy independence are important to explain regional asymmetries between tariffs and growth. At global level, increased protection, measured by total and average tariffs on manufactures, implied more un-skilled inefficient protection and less growth, and this is especially true for the poor countries in the late 19th century. Protection was only positive for a “rich club” if we include in this group New Settler countries which grew rapidly in the late 19th century and imposed high tariffs mainly for fiscal reasons

Topics: HC Economic History and Conditions
Publisher: Department of Economic History, London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:27869
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006a): “Explaining World Tariffs 1870-1938: StolperSamuelson, Strategic Tariffs and State Revenues,”
  2. (2006). (2006b): “Globalization, De-Industrialization and Underdevelopment in the Third World before the Modern Era” Revista de Historia Económica. doi
  3. (1994). A doi
  4. (2001). A (2001): “Tariffs and Growth in Late Nineteenth doi
  5. A (2002a): “Did Import substitution promote growth doi
  6. (2002). A (2002b): Interpreting the Tariff-Growth Correlation in the Late Nineteenth Century. doi
  7. (1885). A report from the US consul in Spain
  8. (2001). A Tariff Growth Paradox? Protection’s Impact the World Around 1875-1997”, NBER Working Paper Series 8459. doi
  9. (2004). Always Protectionist"? Latin American Tariffs from Independence to Great Depression,” doi
  10. (2007). and the world Economy in the second Millennium.
  11. (2006). Assessing the protectionist intensity of tariffs in nineteenth-century European Trade policy” in Classical Trade Protectionism 1815-1914: Fortress Europe. Edited by Jean-Pierre Dormois, Pedro Lains.
  12. (1989). Black hole tariffs and endogenous policy theory. Political economy in equilibrium. doi
  13. (1976). Commerce Exteriour et Development Economique de lÉurope au XIX siècle, doi
  14. (1982). Developed by Inter-University for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and the University of Colorado and is housed at the
  15. (1999). Did trade policy foster Italian industrialization. Evidences from the effective protection rates 1870-1930”.
  16. (2002). Does Trade raise Income? Evidence from the Twenty Century. doi
  17. (1996). Economics and World History. Brighton: Havester Wheat sheaf.
  18. (2002). Endogenous trade policy and lobby formation: An application to the free rider problem. doi
  19. (1989). European Trade Policy, 1815-1914”, in doi
  20. (1972). Free trade and doi
  21. (1999). Globalization and History. Cambridge doi
  22. (2006). Globalization in Latin America Before 1940," doi
  23. (1978). Growth and Fluctuations, doi
  24. Helpman Elhanan (2001): Special Interest Politics Cambridge, doi
  25. (2002). How Robust is the growth-openness connection? Historical Evidence.
  26. (2002). Increasing Returns and all that: A view from trade”. doi
  27. (2002). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development," doi
  28. (2006). New Results on the tariff-growth paradox” doi
  29. (1991). On the Accuracy of International Foreign Trade Statistics (1909-1935). Morgenstern revisited" doi
  30. (1998). Openness, Productivity and Growth: What do we really know?” doi
  31. (1994). Protection for doi
  32. (2006). Putting the Lid on Lobbying: Tariff Structure and Long-Term Growth when Protection is for Sale”, doi
  33. (1927). Tariff Levels Indices, doi
  34. (2006). Tariffs and Growth: An empirical Exploration of Contingent Relationships. doi
  35. (1999). The Big Rush, Natural Resource Booms And Growth," doi
  36. (1905). The Comparative Incidence of Foreign and Colonial Import Tariffs on the Principal Classes of Manufactures Exported from United Kingdom” British Parliamentary Papers,
  37. (1997). The European Grain Invasion, doi
  38. (2005). The good reputation of late XIX century protectionism: manufacture versus total protection in the
  39. (1974). The Political Economy of the Rent Seeking Society," doi
  40. (1999). The Returns to Skill in the United States across the Twentieth Century.” NBER Working Paper series w.7126. doi
  41. (2001). The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective. Development Centre of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. doi
  42. (1993). Trade liberalization and the theory of Endogenous protection: An econometric study of US import policy. doi
  43. (1992). Trade orientation, distortions and growth in developing countries.” doi
  44. (1995). Trade Policy and American Standard of Living. A Historical Perspective".Mimeo:
  45. (1997). Trade Policy and Economic Development: How doi
  46. (2000). Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Sceptic’s Guide to the Cross-National Evidence.” doi
  47. (2007). Wage Inequality and Globalisation: What can we learn from the Past? A General Equilibrium Approach” Documentos de Trabajo FUNCAS,
  48. (1998). Was Italy a protectionist country?” doi
  49. (2004). Why did the tariff-growth correlation reverse after doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.