Could the U.S. Iron Industry Have Survived Free Trade After the Civil War?

Irwin, Douglas A.

doi:10.3386/w7640

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in the positive experiences in Chile, Canada, the United States, and the Scandinavian countries, natural resources exports could continue to play an important role for economic development. Martin and Mitra (2001) reported total factor productivity growth to be larger in agriculture than in manufactures in a large sample of advanced and developing countries, and mining has been suggested by Wright (2001) and Irwin (2000). The same argument has been proposed for forestry in Scandinavia (Lederman and Maloney, 2003;Blomström and Kokko, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Botswana: Selected Issues

Fund¹

2008

IMF Staff Country Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper on Botswana was prepared by a staff team of the International Monetary Fund as background documentation for the periodic consultation with the member country. It is based on the information available at the time it was completed on August 22, 2013. The views expressed in this document are those of the staff team and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of Botswana or the Executive Board of the IMF. The policy of publication of selected issues paper and other documents allows for the deletion of market-sensitive information.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Botswana: Selected Issues

Fund¹

2008

IMF Staff Country Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this case, however, static and dynamic scale economies were not substantial and production technology and experience was readily transferable across countries. The failure of the industry to develop 29 In the case of pig iron after the Civil War, Irwin (2000a) finds that if the tariff had been eliminated in 1869, domestic output would fall by about 15 percent and the import market share would rise from about 7 percent to nearly 30 percent. This suggests that a substantial portion of the domestic industry could have survived a significant tariff reduction.…”

Section: Economic Growth and Industrializationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of pig iron after the Civil War,Irwin (2000a) finds that if the tariff had been eliminated in 1869, domestic output would fall by about 15 percent and the import market share would rise from about 7 percent to nearly 30 percent. This suggests that a substantial portion of the domestic industry could have survived a significant tariff reduction.30 Head's simulation rules out international spillovers of learning-based knowledge, which implies that domestic firms cannot adapt or build upon the production experience of British firms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. Trade Policy in Historical Perspective

Irwin¹

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey reviews the broad changes in U.S. trade policy over the course of the nation's history. Import tariffs have been the main instrument of trade policy and have had three main purposes: 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. These three objectives -revenue, restriction, and reciprocity -accord with three consecutive periods in history when one of them was predominant. The political economy of these tariffs has been driven by the interaction between political and economic geography, namely, the location of trade-related economic interests in different regions and the political power of those regions in Congress. The paper also addresses the impact of trade policies on the U.S. economy, such as the welfare costs of tariffs, the role of protectionism in fostering American industrialization, and the relationship between the Smoot-Hawley tariff and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

show abstract

William McKinley and Us

Rauchway

2005

J. gilded age prog. era

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the presidential campaign of 2004, George W. Bush's advisor Karl Rove repeated to journalists his long-standing explanation of why he admires William McKinley and expects Bush to reproduce what Rove regards as McKinley's successes. In 2003, Kevin Phillips, a Bush critic, wrote a book explaining how much he also admires McKinley. Eric Schlosser, a muck-raking journalist, saw his play Americans debut in London in the fall of 2003 to a theater full of Britons drawn to a play about the assassination of McKinley. Schlosser explains his interest in McKinley by invoking William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. It isn't even past.” By saying so he raises anew the old question of how much our interest in present events ought to inflect our study of the past, but he also raises a question of peculiar interest to historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. The McKinley of Rove, Phillips, and Schlosser—the McKinley whom Rove wants the President to emulate—may sound dimly familiar to us. But does the work of professional historians sustain this gloss on current affairs?

show abstract

Could the U.S. Iron Industry Have Survived Free Trade After the Civil War?

Abstract: I with to thank Peter Temin and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and the National Science Foundation for financial support. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Botswana: Selected Issues

Botswana: Selected Issues

U.S. Trade Policy in Historical Perspective

William McKinley and Us

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About