Free to follow every thread. No paywall, no dead ends.
Protectionism: the story on HearLore | HearLore
Protectionism
In 1807, the United States enacted a complete embargo on maritime commerce, effectively cutting off its own trade with the rest of the world for nearly two years. This extreme policy, initiated by President Thomas Jefferson to protect American vessels from the Napoleonic Wars, resulted in a static welfare loss estimated at 5% of the nation's GDP. The embargo, which lasted from December 1807 to March 1809, stands as one of the most severe peacetime interruptions of international trade in American history. It serves as a stark early example of how protectionist measures, even when intended to shield a nation, can inflict deep economic wounds on the very population they aim to protect. The policy demonstrated that restricting imports does not merely raise prices; it can strangle the flow of goods, reduce national income, and create a self-imposed isolation that harms domestic consumers and businesses alike.
The Corn Laws And British Decline
The repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 marked a decisive turning point in global economic history, shifting the United Kingdom from a protectionist stance to one of free trade. These laws, which imposed tariffs on imported grain between 1815 and 1846, were designed to protect the profits and political power of landowners. However, they also raised food prices and the cost of living for the British public, while hampering the growth of the manufacturing sector by reducing the disposable income of workers. Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative, achieved the repeal in 1846 with the support of the Whigs, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party. The shift was driven by the influence of economists like David Ricardo and the growing power of urban interests. Yet, even as Britain embraced free trade, it was not immune to the tariffs imposed by its trade partners. By 1902, Britain's exports would have been 57% higher if all its trade partners had also embraced free trade, highlighting how protectionism abroad can undermine the benefits of domestic liberalization.
The Smoot Hawley Catastrophe
The Tariff Act of 1930, commonly known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, is considered one of the most controversial tariff laws ever enacted by the United States Congress. The act raised the average tariff on dutiable imports from approximately 40% to 47%, though price deflation during the Great Depression caused the effective rate to rise to nearly 60% by 1932. Implemented as the global economy was entering a severe downturn, the tariff provoked international retaliation and reduced global trade, contributing to the severity of the Great Depression. While the legislation was not the primary cause of the economic collapse, it exacerbated the crisis by limiting foreign access to U.S. dollars and appreciating the currency, making American goods less competitive abroad. The resentment generated by the act encouraged other countries to form discriminatory trading blocs, diverting trade away from the United States and hindering global economic recovery. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff remains a cautionary tale of how protectionist policies can spiral into a trade war, deepening economic suffering and damaging international relations.
What was the economic impact of the United States embargo enacted in 1807?
The United States embargo enacted in 1807 resulted in a static welfare loss estimated at 5% of the nation's GDP. This policy lasted from December 1807 to March 1809 and stands as one of the most severe peacetime interruptions of international trade in American history. It demonstrated that restricting imports can strangle the flow of goods and reduce national income.
When did the United Kingdom repeal the Corn Laws and who was the Prime Minister?
Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel achieved the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 with the support of the Whigs. These laws had imposed tariffs on imported grain between 1815 and 1846 to protect the profits of landowners. The repeal marked a decisive turning point in global economic history by shifting the United Kingdom from a protectionist stance to one of free trade.
How did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 affect global trade?
The Tariff Act of 1930 raised the average tariff on dutiable imports from approximately 40% to 47% and provoked international retaliation. This act reduced global trade and contributed to the severity of the Great Depression by limiting foreign access to U.S. dollars. The resentment generated by the act encouraged other countries to form discriminatory trading blocs and hindered global economic recovery.
What factors drove U.S. economic growth during the late 19th century?
U.S. economic growth during the late 19th century was driven more by abundant natural resources and openness to people and ideas than by high tariffs. The country experienced large-scale immigration, foreign capital, and imported technologies while remaining open in many respects. Economic growth occurred significantly in services such as railroads and telecommunications rather than solely in manufacturing.
What were the Opium Wars and how did they relate to trade disputes?
The Opium Wars were fought between the United Kingdom and China over the right of British merchants to engage in the free trade of opium. These conflicts illustrate how trade disputes can escalate into armed conflict when goods cannot cross borders. The wars demonstrate the volatile intersection of economic policy, addiction, and military force.
How did Argentina's protectionist policies affect its economy between the 1940s and 1954?
Beginning in the 1940s, Argentina erected a system of almost complete protectionism that created a domestically oriented industry with high production costs. By 1954, Argentina's GDP per capita had fallen to less than half of that of the United States from being 80% equivalent before the 1930s. This case demonstrates how protectionism can lead to economic stagnation and a decline in living standards.
A common myth about U.S. trade policy is that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century. 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 U.S. economic growth during its protectionist era was driven more by its abundant natural resources and openness to people and ideas, including large-scale immigration, foreign capital, and imported technologies. While tariffs on manufactured goods were high, the country remained open in other respects, and much of the economic growth occurred in services such as railroads and telecommunications rather than in manufacturing, which had already expanded significantly before the Civil War when tariffs were lower. The narrative that tariffs were the engine of American industrialization is thus a distortion of the historical record, obscuring the true drivers of prosperity.
The Opium Wars And Trade Wars
Protectionism has been attributed as a major cause of war, with the Opium Wars serving as a prime example of how trade disputes can escalate into armed conflict. The wars were fought between the United Kingdom 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, and once addicted, people would often do almost anything to continue to get access to the drug. The conflict highlights the argument that when goods cannot cross borders, armies will, a slogan attributed to Frédéric Bastiat. 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. The Opium Wars illustrate the volatile intersection of economic policy, addiction, and military force, demonstrating how protectionist or restrictive trade policies can have catastrophic human consequences.
The Latin American Protectionist Trap
Beginning in the 1940s, Argentina erected a system of almost complete protectionism against imports, largely cutting off the country from the international market. This policy 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. The IAPI, the state agency managing agricultural exports, began shortchanging growers, and when world grain prices dropped in the late 1940s, it stifled agricultural production, exports, and business sentiment in general. 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 1954, while still leading the region, Argentina's GDP per capita had fallen to less than half of that of the United States, from being 80% equivalent before the 1930s. The case of Argentina demonstrates how protectionism can lead to economic stagnation and a decline in living standards, even when a country initially appears to be thriving.
The Modern Trade War And The G20
Heads of the G20 meeting in London on the 2nd of April 2009 pledged 'We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.' Yet, adherence to this pledge proved difficult, as 17 of the 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%, amounting to about $50 billion a year. The 2010s and early 2020s have seen an increased use of protectionist economic policies across both developed countries and developing countries worldwide, with President Donald Trump announcing in January 2017 the U.S. was abandoning the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and President Joe Biden largely continuing Trump's protectionist policies. The modern era of trade policy reveals that despite repeated warnings and pledges, the allure of protectionism remains a persistent force in global economics.