Proponents of protectionism argue that. International trade and international trade policy

Why do governments resort to protectionist measures, impose tariffs, quotas, or other instruments that restrict foreign trade? This is explained by the fact that for certain groups of the population the policy of protecting the national market from foreign competition is beneficial. These groups are adept at defending their positions and pressuring politicians to take protectionist measures. Proponents of protectionism use the following series of arguments.

First, protectionist measures are carried out to maintain and strengthen industries that produce strategic goods important for economic security, national defense, or warfare. The country's excessive dependence on the import of strategic goods, they say, can put it in a difficult position in the event of emergency situations. This argument is not economic, but rather military-political in nature. Protectionists argue that in an unstable world, military-political goals (self-sufficiency) take precedence over economic goals (efficiency in the use of resources). Undoubtedly, this argument is very powerful. However, in practice, serious difficulties arise in determining which industries produce strategic goods on which the country’s national security depends. These include the production of weapons, food, energy, vehicles, high-tech products and many others. There are few industries that do not contribute to strengthening the country's defense capabilities. Now many economists believe that it is more expedient to protect strategic industries not with instruments of trade protectionism, but, for example, with subsidies.

Second, proponents of protectionism argue that restricting imports supports domestic producers, increases domestic aggregate demand, and stimulates growth in output and employment levels. For example, imposing a tariff reduces imports, which increases net exports. Larger net exports produce a multiplier effect on the production of goods and services, much like investment. An increase in aggregate demand encourages firms to hire more workers and reduces the unemployment rate. This policy is often called a beggar-thy-neighbor policy because it increases aggregate demand by reducing production and employment in other countries.

Economists believe that protectionist measures can increase a country's output and employment, but they are not an effective program for ensuring high employment. Economic analysis shows that there are better ways to reduce unemployment than import protectionism. With well-thought-out fiscal and monetary policies, it is possible to protect national producers, increase national production and reduce unemployment. Protectionist measures, by limiting competition in the national market, create conditions for ensuring the activities of ineffective domestic firms. In addition, although imports reduce employment in some industries, they also create new jobs related to the purchase, sale and after-sales service of imported products.

Thirdly, another argument in favor of protectionism is the protection of young sectors of the domestic economy. Young firms, according to proponents of this method, require temporary protection from fierce competition from more efficient and experienced foreign firms. If they are protected in time, they can develop into mass production industries, attracting skilled workers and technologies that are well adapted to local conditions and characteristic of mature sectors of the economy. Once a young industry matures, the level of protection can be reduced.

Economic history provides us with various examples of the transformation of young industries into mature ones. In some countries, young branches rose to their feet on their own, without government support. Other countries, including newly industrialized ones (Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.), protected their manufacturing industries from imported goods in the initial stages of their development. At the same time, there are numerous facts where, after many years of protection, firms in young eyes have not turned into effective producers.

IN last years The argument for protecting young industries has been slightly modified. Now it is often argued that the government should protect high-tech industries that use advanced technologies from foreign competitors. According to protectionists, if the risk of introducing new products to the market is reduced, domestic firms are protected from growing faster and reducing costs due to large scale production, and as a result, such firms will be able to dominate world markets, bringing high profits to their country. These gains will exceed the losses caused by the installation of trade barriers. In addition, the accelerated development of high-tech industries is very beneficial, since their advanced technologies can be used in other parts of the national economy. However, protection of high-tech industries by all countries would result in the loss of benefits from international specialization and exchange.

Fourthly, the introduction of customs barriers, especially in developed countries, is now often justified by the need to protect domestic firms from foreign manufacturers, which push goods onto world markets at reduced prices.

Foreign firms can use dumping to eliminate their competitors and then raise prices, which will ensure high profits. These profits offset the losses their applied during dumping. Developed countries, according to this view, should apply so-called anti-dumping duties to protect themselves from unfair competition. For their part, exporters from less developed countries believe that dumping charges and anti-dumping duties are methods of restricting legitimate trade using developed market economies.

Finally, the need for protectionism is justified by the need to increase state budget revenues in order to mobilize funds to cover its deficit.

However, most economists now believe that the arguments in favor of protectionism are not compelling. The exception is the idea of ​​​​protecting young industries, which has an economic rationale. In addition, considerations regarding protectionist measures based on military-political positions are also important. True, both arguments can serve as a basis for serious abuses. Therefore, today more and more people are inclined to think that instead of protectionist measures, it is more advisable for the country to use other ways to promote economic development and national security.

The country's protectionist policies provoke retaliatory measures from its trading partners. This means that a country’s reduction in imports due to the use of customs and security barriers is accompanied by a decrease in that country’s exports. Therefore, net exports will not change, which means aggregate demand and employment will increase. Protectionist measures can also lead to trade wars, which have very serious consequences for the parties involved. There is overwhelming evidence that free trade leads to economic growth, while protectionism does the opposite. Research on the development of transition economies shows that countries that pursue open economic policies experience higher rates of economic growth than those that rely on import restrictions to protect the national economy.

In the second half of the 20th century. There has been a positive trend in trade liberalization in the world, that is, a reduction in trade barriers. Ukraine takes an active part in international trade, the level of openness of its economy ranges from 35 to 40%. The lack of systemic regulation and conceptually erroneous approaches to economic relations with other countries and the general transformational decline in Ukraine led to a balance of payments deficit and the emergence of massive abuses and corruption in the field of foreign economic relations.

Among economists, there are two polar points of view on how the foreign trade regime influences the development of a country's industry. Supporters of the liberal economic school that currently dominates the West argue that a free trade regime promotes industrial development, while supporters of protectionism argue the opposite.

It is necessary, however, to make a reservation. In fact, the views of Adam Smith, the founder of the liberal school, on this issue were not quite what they are portrayed to be today. In fact, he recognized that protectionism promotes the development of at least those industries that are protected by import tariffs. Thus, he wrote in “The Wealth of Nations” (Book 4, Chapter 2): “the prohibition of the import of live cattle or corned beef from abroad provides the British cattle breeders with a monopoly on the domestic meat market. High duties on imported bread... give the same advantage to the producers of this product. The ban on the import of foreign woolen products is equally beneficial to woolen manufacturers. The silk industry... has recently achieved the same advantage... It cannot be doubted that such a monopoly of the domestic market is often a great encouragement to the branch of industry that enjoys it, and often attracts to it a larger share of the labor and capital of the society than would otherwise be the case. True, thanks to such measures, a separate branch of industry can arise in the country sooner than would otherwise be the case, and after some time its products will be manufactured domestically cheaper than abroad.”

His main argument against protectionism was that such an industry, created under customs protection, does not contribute to the increase of wealth (capital accumulation) and therefore there is no point in creating such an industry. Smith's argument was made back in the mid-19th century. criticized by Friedrich List, the main author of the theory of protectionism - an economic doctrine alternative to the liberal economic school. Today, modern supporters of protectionism criticize this position of Adam Smith. They write that, contrary to Smith's assertions, only the development of industry, leading to an increase in the added value produced in the country, contributes to the growth of its wealth and well-being; without industry, the nation is doomed to poverty and mass unemployment. In addition, they prove that a developed industry can be created only if the state carries out an appropriate protectionist policy, and the free trade regime not only does not contribute to its creation, but, on the contrary, leads to the destruction of existing industry.

In turn, modern followers of the liberal economic school go much further in their arguments than Adam Smith, and argue that it is the free trade policy that contributes not only to increasing the country’s wealth, but also to the development of its industry and economic growth, while protectionism, on the contrary, has negative influence on them.

It seems that only specific research based on real facts and examples of economic life can resolve this dispute between two opposing trends in economic science. Neither the logical arguments presented in abundance by both sides, nor references to scientific authorities like Smith and Ricardo, can constitute indisputable evidence. Below are the results of such a study, conducted on the basis of a synthesis of economic history and modern trends in economics in the books of the trilogy “The Unknown History” (Kuzovkov Yu.V. Globalization and the spiral of history. M., 2010; Kuzovkov Yu.V. World history of corruption. M ., 2010; Kuzovkov Yu.V. History of corruption in Russia. M., 2010).

1. Examples of protectionist policies

England since the end of the 17th century. to the middle of the 19th century Customs protection of industry began to be applied in England starting in 1690, when special import duties of 20% were introduced on a long list of goods, covering approximately 2/3 of all English imports. Subsequently, the level of duties gradually increased, and reached its maximum level in the period from the middle of the 18th century. until the 1820s, when general duties were 25% (later - 50%), protective duties for a number of goods were at least 40-50%, and the import of some products that competed with the developing English industry was generally prohibited. It was during this period, from the middle of the 18th century. to the middle of the 19th century, the first industrial revolution in world history took place in England, which was accompanied by high-quality technological innovations introduced in a number of industries - textiles, metallurgy, etc.

Along with the technical re-equipment of industry, during the 18th century. England's prosperity also increased. The growth of wages (which can be used as one of the indicators of the growth of the nation’s well-being) began in the first half of the 18th century, when average wages increased by 20-25%, and subsequently continued, unemployment practically disappeared. (For comparison: in the previous era, before the introduction of the protectionist system, the average wage in England did not grow, but decreased: for example, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th century, it fell by 2 times). The industry created over a century and a half became the main source of employment for the population: if in the 17th century. Since the overwhelming majority of the UK population was employed in agriculture, by 1841 already 40% of the country’s working population was employed in industry, and only 22% in agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Prussia, Austria, Sweden from the second half of the 17th century. to the middle of the 19th century In all these countries, a system of protectionism was introduced soon after the end of the Thirty Years' War (1648), when high, in some cases prohibitive, import duties were introduced. The entire subsequent period (the second half of the 17th - early 19th centuries) was marked by the gradual development of industry in these countries and the growth of their prosperity.

According to economic historians: Immanuel Wallerstein, Charles Wilson and others, it was the system of protectionism that played a key role in the sharp acceleration of industrial growth in England in the 18th - early 19th centuries, and in the development of industry in Prussia, Austria and Sweden during this period.

USA in the 19th century – early 20th century As economic historian D. North points out, the USA in the first half of the 19th century. did not have any competitive advantages that could contribute to the development of industry. The extremely low population density predetermined the narrowness of the market and made the existence of large-scale industries impossible. Wages were higher than in the UK. The third factor that hampered the development of industry was high bank interest rates. Finally, the country did not have any industrial or transport infrastructure. Due to these circumstances, the cost of producing industrial products in the United States was significantly higher than in England. Economists of that era were well aware that the United States did not have the conditions for the development of industry: for example, Adam Smith and his followers, who lived in the first half of the 19th century, wrote that the United States was “destined for agriculture” and called on them to abandon the development of their own industry. However, despite these unfavorable starting conditions and the advice of liberal economists, the United States succeeded during the 19th century. build a powerful competitive industry.

During the first half of the century, US economic policy was inconsistent; they switched several times from a policy of protectionism to a policy of free trade. And this coincided with periods of acceleration and slowdown in industrial development:

1808-1816 The United States has introduced an embargo on the import of industrial goods due to the escalation of hostilities in Europe, which subsequently spread to North America. In conditions of import restrictions and a sharp rise in prices for industrial goods, our own industry began to develop rapidly. So, only during 1808-1809. 87 cotton factories were built in the United States, while before 1808 there were only 15. This unprecedented industrial growth continued in subsequent years - for example, from 1808 to 1811, production capacity in the cotton industry increased 10 times . However, after the end of hostilities in Europe and North America, the embargo was lifted and in 1816 a 25% import tariff was introduced, which, according to D. North, was too low and therefore unable to protect the inefficient American industry from British competition. In subsequent years, most of the previously built textile enterprises went bankrupt and ceased to exist, only a few large and most competitive ones remained. As someone who lived in that era wrote: American economist G. C. Carey, "Free Trade found the country in 1816 in the highest degree of prosperity and left it ruined."

1824-1833 Higher import duties were introduced to protect industry, and a new industrial boom followed. This coincided with the growth of prosperity, which economists of that era wrote about: for example, G. K. Carey wrote about the prosperity of the country that began in those years, and the German economist Friedrich List, who lived in the United States at that time, cited statistics demonstrating a sharp increase in wages and employment and savings of the population. D. North points out that it was during this period that there was an extremely powerful increase industrial production in a number of states in the Northwestern United States. However, after 1834, due to opposition from the southern states, a “compromise” tariff was introduced, reducing import duties, which was followed by a period of stagnation.

1842-1949. The new increase in tariffs led to a new powerful industrial boom. Industrial production in the country increased by almost 70% during this period. However, after 1846, the winding down of protectionist policies and the transition to a liberal tariff began again, which was followed by a new stagnation that lasted until the Civil War of 1861-1865. As G.K. Carey wrote, this stagnation, like the previous ones, was accompanied by sharp price fluctuations, the ruin of enterprises, rising unemployment, falling state budget revenues and a flood of monetary circulation with paper money issued by the government to cover the budget deficit.

After the Civil War of 1861-1865. It is a well-known fact, at least among historians, that one of the main causes of the Civil War of 1861-1865. There were disagreements between North and South on the issue of protectionism. These divisions had existed for several decades leading up to the Civil War, and had become extremely acute by the time it began. After the victory of the northerners in the war, a single customs regime was introduced throughout the United States, which established import duties at a very high level. So, if in 1857-1861. the average level of American import duties was 16%, then in 1867-1871. – 44%. Until 1914, the average level of import duties on dutiable goods did not fall below 41-42%, and was reduced below this level only between 1914 and 1928. Accordingly, during this entire period, the United States experienced an unusually rapid industrial growth. The number of people employed in the country's industry grew from 1.3 million people in 1859 to 6.7 million in 1914, i.e. 5 times. During the same time, the number of residents in the United States increased only 3 times (from 31 million in 1860 to 91 million in 1910) - thus, the growth in the number of people employed in industry significantly outpaced the growth of the country's population. By 1914, the United States had become a major industrial power, significantly ahead of all other countries. This was accompanied by an increase in the well-being and wealth of the country throughout the entire period. Thus, the economic historian P. Bairoch points out that even in 1870-1890, when all of Europe was struck by a protracted depression, in the United States, after the transition to a policy of protectionism, along with the growth of industrial production, GNP and the well-being of the population grew rapidly. Historian Niall Ferguson writes that in 1820, per capita GDP in the United States was twice that of China; in 1870 this gap was already almost 5 times; and in 1914 – almost 10 times. At the same time, China throughout this time pursued a policy of free trade imposed by Great Britain (see below) and remained an agricultural country, while the United States pursued a policy of protectionism and developed its industry.

The extremely important role of protectionism in the emergence of the United States as the world's leading industrial power and the richest country in the world is recognized not only by economists of the 19th century. (Carey, List), but also by modern economic historians and economists (D. North, P. Bairoch and others). Thus, M. Beals, who analyzed the development of the American textile industry in the 19th century, came to the conclusion that “without protectionism, industrial production in the United States would have been practically destroyed.” E. Reinert writes that the United States became a powerful industrial power due to the fact that for 150 years it pursued a policy of protectionism, which became the basis of its industrial policy.

Russia in the 19th century Russia introduced a protectionist regime in 1822, which was preceded by a serious economic and financial crisis caused by a sharp increase in imports of British goods. As Friedrich List, a contemporary of these events, wrote, by 1821 there was a decline in factories in Russia, the industry and agriculture of the country were close to bankruptcy, which prompted the government to realize the harmfulness of the previously pursued liberal economic policy and in 1822 introduce a prohibitive tariff. Starting this year, high duties were levied on imports of about 1,200 various types goods, and the import of some goods (cotton and linen fabrics and products, sugar, a number of metal products, etc.) was actually prohibited.

The regime of protectionism was maintained in the country throughout the entire period from 1822 to 1856. During this period, practically from scratch, a modern textile, sugar and engineering (“mechanical”) industry was created in the country. Thus, the volume of textile production from 1819 to 1859 increased approximately 30 times. The volume of production of mechanical engineering products from 1830 to 1860 increased 33 times, with an increase in the number of “mechanical” factories during this period from 7 to 99. According to academician S.G. Strumilin, it was in the period from 1830 to 1860. An industrial revolution took place in Russia, similar to what took place in England in the second half of the 18th century. Thus, at the beginning of this period in Russia there were only single copies of mechanical looms and steam engines, and by the end of the period only in the cotton industry there were almost 16 thousand mechanical looms, on which about 3/5 of the total products of this industry were produced, and there were steam machines (steam locomotives, steamships, stationary installations) with a total power of about 200 thousand hp. As a result of intensive mechanization of production, labor productivity has sharply increased, which previously either did not change or even decreased. Thus, if from 1804 to 1825 the annual output of industrial products per worker decreased from 264 to 223 silver rubles, then in 1863 it was already 663 silver rubles, that is, it increased 3 times.

According to a number of economists and economic historians, it was the policy of protectionism that played a key role in the rapid industrialization that began in Russia during that period. As I. Wallerstein wrote, it was precisely as a result of the protectionist industrial policy, carried out mainly under Nicholas I, that the further development of Russia did not follow the path that most countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America followed at that time (becoming colonies or economic colonies of the West ), and along a different path - the path of industrial development.

The rapid development of industry led to a sharp increase in the urban population - for the first time in many centuries of Russian history, when it did not exceed a few percent. The share of the urban population during the reign of Nicholas I more than doubled - from 4.5% in 1825 to 9.2% in 1858. A number of facts indicate an increase in the well-being and wealth of Russia during that period: a solid ruble, based on a fixed exchange rate to silver and gold (introduced in the 1830s and lasted until 1858), absence of inflation (which became the “scourge” of the economy in the previous period), reduction of arrears in tax collection, absence of any significant external loans Russia, etc.

Under Alexander II. After defeat in the Crimean War, Russia abandoned the policy of protectionism and in 1857 introduced a liberal tariff, which reduced the previous level of import duties by an average of 30%. In subsequent years, Russian industry experienced a serious crisis and, in general, in the 1860-1880s. its development slowed down sharply. So, from 1860 to 1862. Iron smelting fell from 20.5 to 15.3 million poods, cotton processing - from 2.8 to 0.8 million poods, and the number of workers in the manufacturing industry from 1858 to 1863. decreased by almost 1.5 times.

Liberal economic policies continued to be pursued by the government until the early to mid-1880s. Although in general during this period, production volumes in the textile industry, mechanical engineering and other industries increased, but to a much smaller extent than in the previous 30 years, and on a per capita basis they remained almost unchanged, due to the rapid demographic growth in the country. Thus, pig iron production (in the European part of the country) increased from 20.5 million poods in 1860 to 23.9 million poods in 1882 (by only 16%), i.e. per capita even decreased.

Industrial stagnation coincided with a sharp deterioration financial situation the country and the emergence of large foreign trade and budget deficits, to cover which they resorted to excessive issuance of paper money and external borrowing. As a result, a huge external debt of the state was formed (6 billion rubles), which became a problem for all subsequent reigns until 1917, and the exchange rate of the paper ruble to gold fell by 40%.

Under Alexander III. Beginning in the mid-1880s, the government of Alexander III returned to the protectionist policies pursued under Nicholas I. During the 1880s. there were several increases in import duties, and from 1891 the country began to operate new system customs tariffs, the highest in the previous 35-40 years. According to a number of economists and economic historians, the implementation of a policy of protectionism played an important role in the sharp acceleration of industrial growth in Russia at the end of the 19th century. In just 10 years (1887-1897) after the start of its implementation, industrial production in the country doubled, and a real technical revolution took place in metallurgy. For 13 years - from 1887 to 1900 - iron production in Russia increased almost 5 times, steel - also almost 5 times, oil - 4 times, coal - 3.5 times, sugar - 2 times .

Western Europe at the end of the 19th century. In the middle of the 19th century. In terms of industrial development, the continental countries of Western Europe, as well as the United States, lagged far behind Great Britain. Thus, the total capacity of the cotton industry of the three largest Western countries: the USA, France and Germany, amounted to only 45% of the capacity of Great Britain in 1834 and 50% in 1867. The ratio between Great Britain and the United Kingdom was approximately the same - 2 to 1. and three named countries for the production of cast iron. Thus, in the mid-19th century, British industry was approximately twice as powerful as that of the other three leading Western countries combined.

During this period, the countries of continental Western Europe, under the influence of Great Britain, pursued a free trade policy. However, after a protracted economic depression in the mid-second half of the 19th century. in these states the transition to protectionist policies began: in Austria-Hungary - in 1874/75, in Germany - in 1879, in Spain - in 1886, in Italy - in 1887, in Sweden - in 1888 g., in France - in 1892. After the introduction of protectionist measures, industrial growth in these countries accelerated sharply, as a result, by the beginning of the 20th century. Germany and the USA have overtaken the UK in terms of manufacturing output, and France has almost caught up with the latter. Moreover, Great Britain was the only one of these countries that pursued a free trade policy during this period. Its competitors have especially far outstripped the UK in terms of production volumes of modern and high-tech products. Thus, on the eve of the First World War, Germany exceeded Great Britain in steel production by 2.3 times, and in electricity production by 3.2 times. In terms of chemical industry production in 1914, the United States surpassed Great Britain by 3.1 times, Germany by 2.2 times, and France almost caught up with Great Britain. At the same time, in the "old" cotton industry, Great Britain still remained the world leader, producing 5 times more cotton fabrics than Germany and 7 times more than France.

According to a number of economic historians, the main reason for the rapid industrialization of the countries of continental Europe, which allowed them to catch up and overtake the former leader - Great Britain - was the policy of protectionism. Economic historians are unable to give any other satisfactory explanation, despite the fact that such attempts have been made. For example, P. Bayrokh states that European countries that switched to protectionism in 1892-1914. grew much faster than Britain, and provides a table showing how economic growth in European countries accelerated sharply after their transition to protectionism. L. Kafagna points out the obvious role of protectionism in the industrialization of Italy during this period, V. Cole and P. Dean - in the industrialization of Germany.

USA and Western Europe in the middle of the 20th century. Just before World War I, Western Europe and, to a lesser extent, the United States reduced import tariffs, and this liberalization trend continued until the late 1920s. Against this background, in 1929-1930. There was a sharp decline in industrial production, which developed into the Great Depression. As a protective measure, all of these countries began a sharp increase in duties: their average level in Western Europe by 1931 increased to 40% (compared to 25% in 1929), and in the USA - to 55% (compared to 37% in 1927). .) However, this did not stop production from falling further and the Great Depression from continuing until the late 1930s.

At the same time, the subsequent sharp rise in industry, which began in the United States already in 1940, and in Western European countries in the second half of the 1940s, again occurred under conditions of protectionism. And if in the United States, whose economy after World War II was unparalleled and therefore not in great need of protection, the average level of import duties by that time had been reduced to approximately 30%, then in Western Europe, which had to restore its destroyed industry, extremely strict protectionist measures were introduced. The import of a number of industrial products was prohibited or limited, and a system of subsidies for industry was introduced. So, in 1949-1950. Quantitative restrictions applied to 50% of all German imports. Protectionist measures in the form of quantitative restrictions on imports, high import duties and subsidies were carried out by Western European countries until the end of the 1960s.

During this same period, we see unprecedented industrial growth in all these countries, which was accompanied by equally unprecedented growth in GDP and wealth. US GDP from 1940 to 1969 increased by 3.7 times, which is an absolute record for the country. In Germany, from 1950 to 1955, the national income of Germany increased annually by an average of 12%, and from 1948 to 1965, the country's industrial production increased 6 times. In France and Italy, the growth rate of industrial production in the 1950s reached 8-9% per year. Average annual GDP growth rates during 1950-1970. in general for all countries of Western Europe amounted to 4.8%. By the 1960s, unemployment had dropped to an average of 1.5% in Western Europe, and in Germany it was only 0.8% of the country's working-age population. The incredible rise of industry and prosperity in the West during these decades is recognized by all economists and economic historians. For example, the famous American economist W. Rostow, in a review of post-war economic development in 1985, wrote that the post-war boom in the industry and economy of the West is a unique phenomenon of economic history and that as a result of this boom, a “welfare state” was built in these countries - the term , which became widespread during that period.

Developing countries during and after World War II. There are a number of examples of “spontaneous” industrialization carried out by developing countries, influenced by the suspension of foreign trade with the West. As E. Reinert writes, during the Second World War, industrial goods from the USA and Europe stopped flowing to Latin America, and this provoked the industrialization of the region. And in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, an international boycott of the white minority regime led to industrialization and rapid growth in real wages for the country's residents. In both cases, the effect of an embargo or temporary cessation of foreign trade was similar to the introduction of a protectionist regime and led to industrial development and increased prosperity.

As for the overall situation in the first post-war decades, since at that time there were no universal rules prescribing any specific algorithm of action (which appeared later), many developing countries, following the leading Western countries, established high import duties and applied other measures of protectionism. Only starting from the 1970-1980s. these countries began to be subject to strict requirements from the WTO and the IMF, including the abolition of import duties and other protectionist measures. Accordingly, before these requirements were introduced everywhere, developing countries experienced very high rates of economic growth and prosperity. V. Rostow noted with surprise in his review that the growth rates of industry and the economy of developing countries during the 1950-1960s. were even higher than the unprecedentedly high growth rates of developed Western countries.

2. Examples of free trade policies

Before moving on to examples of free trade policies dating back to recent centuries, it should be noted that, in essence, states have pursued this policy before, for centuries and even millennia. The first mention of the introduction of import duties and bans on imports and exports for the protection of own production belong to Byzantium of the 13th century, northern Italy and Catalonia of the 14th-15th centuries, as well as England from the end of the 15th century; nothing like this had ever been seen before. Therefore, in all countries where a market economy existed, starting from Babylon, the Athenian Republic, Ancient Rome and the Chinese Qin Empire, it developed in free conditions, i.e. unrestricted foreign trade, usually subject to only small port taxes. At the same time, there was never any talk about any development of industry - in all these states agriculture dominated, and industry and crafts played a subordinate role. Thus, for those millennia during which the world lived under conditions of free trade, before the very concept of protectionism arose and its application in practice (i.e. until the XIII-XIV centuries), there was not a single example of any significant development of industry , despite a number of technical inventions, a high level of agricultural development, high general culture and other achievements of ancient civilizations.

Italy and Spain in the XVI-XVIII centuries. As already mentioned, these countries were the first in Western Europe to begin to apply protectionism, but not on the scale of the entire country, but on the scale of an individual city-state. Thus, economic historian K. Sipolla writes that during the XIV-XV centuries. in Genoa, Pisa, Florence, Catalonia, bans and high duties were introduced on the import of foreign wool and silk fabrics, and in Venice and Barcelona local residents were even prohibited from wearing clothes made abroad. In addition, bans on the export of raw materials were introduced, and, conversely, the import of raw materials was exempted from any duties and fees to encourage its own processing. As we see, duties and bans on imports and exports, although they protected the developing industry of these trading city-states, but within the framework of only one city with the adjacent region, and due to the narrowness of the domestic market higher value for its development were not these measures, but the possibility of exporting products. And such opportunities, of course, existed. Trading cities of Northern Italy in the XIII-XV centuries. became the main trading centers of Europe, and some of them (Venice, Genoa) created real trading empires in the Mediterranean Sea. Italian merchants were at that time the main merchants of Europe - for example, they held in their hands all the trade of Byzantium, England and a number of other countries, having a network of their representative offices throughout Europe. Spain had no less opportunities, which during the XV-XVI centuries. formed a huge colonial empire, subjugating almost all of Latin America and a number of other territories around the world. Thus, it could use this huge market to create its own industry.

During the XIV-XV centuries. In Italy and Spain, an industry that was quite advanced for that time was created. Castilian armor was considered the best in Europe, and Italian textiles were exported in large quantities to other countries. However, subsequently Italy and Spain abandoned their protectionist policies. Italian cities were divided politically and economically, often fought among themselves and never even had a customs union; and protectionist measures that protected the market of only one city were ineffective, and in the 16th-18th centuries. were no longer used. As I. Wallerstein points out, in the 16th-17th centuries. all activities of the trading city-states of Northern Italy were based on the principle of freedom of trade and freedom of movement of capital.

And very soon the collapse of Italian industry followed. If in 1600 Northern Italy was still one of the developed industrial centers of Europe, writes I. Wallerstein, then by 1670 it had turned into a backward agricultural outskirts, struck by depression. The industry was almost completely destroyed, unable to withstand competition with the rapidly developing industry of Holland, England and other neighbors. So, if in Milan in 1619 there were about 60-70 manufactories producing woolen fabrics and wool products, then by 1709 only one manufactory survived, which produced 150 times less products than were produced in Milan 90 years earlier.

Spain too, after the unification of Castile and Aragon at the end of the 15th century. and the formation of a single kingdom of Spain, no longer pursued a policy of protectionism and opened its market to foreign industrial products - which continued until the end of the 19th century. The result was a complete decline of the industry, which could not withstand foreign competition. As I. Wallerstein points out, until the end of the 16th century. Spain had a fairly developed industry; however, by the middle of the 17th century. Toledo, as the main center of the Spanish textile industry, was practically destroyed; the same fate befell Segovia and Cuenca; decline also occurred in metallurgy and shipbuilding; There was a complete deindustrialization of the country. Historian E. Hamilton writes that the volume of production of the Toledo wool industry by the second half of the 17th century. decreased by 3/4; The previously thriving production of steel, copper, aluminum, etc. products has practically disappeared; the cities were empty: the number of inhabitants in the largest cities (Toledo, Valladolid, Segovia) by the end of the 17th century. decreased by more than 2 times.

They tried to explain the decline of Spain by the expulsion of the Moors and Moriscos at the beginning of the 17th century. - however, as E. Hamilton points out, most of them did not go anywhere, but remained in Spain, so this could not be the reason for its decline. Another explanation put forward by economists—that Italy and Spain had “fake” capitalism—has been criticized by historians. As economic historian D. Day writes, at one time the famous economist W. Sombart put forward the thesis about the “non-capitalist nature” of the economy of the Middle Ages and that the businessmen who lived in that era were not “real.” But two leading experts on the history of the Italian Middle Ages, R. Davidson and H. Zivking, criticized his work and stated that in the cities of northern Italy in the XIII-XVI centuries. A real capitalism developed with a real class of capitalist businessmen. After such a rebuke, Sombart backed down and admitted that he was wrong.

At the same time, during the XVII-XVIII centuries. Not only Spain and Italy fell into decline, but also Poland and Lithuania (see below), the Ottoman Empire, and partly also France. What all these countries have in common is that they pursued a free trade policy; while countries that have made a breakthrough in their industrial development During this period: England, Prussia, Austria, Sweden - and turned into great industrial powers, are united by the fact that they pursued a policy of protectionism. As I. Wallerstein points out, it was the absence of protectionism that caused the decline of industry in Spain and Italy, and it was the presence of protectionism that ensured the sharp growth of industry in England and Germany.

In turn, industrial decline led to the impoverishment of Italy and Spain, which by the 18th-19th centuries. turned into backward agricultural countries that amazed their northern neighbors with their poverty, although earlier, for many centuries (XIII-XVI centuries), they were the richest countries in Europe. Spain at the beginning of the 19th century. lost all its colonies and itself became an economic colony of the West. As the economic historian D. Nadal points out, by the 19th century. in Spain, its own metallurgy practically disappeared, so more than 90% of the iron ore mined there was exported from there and more than 2/3 of the cast iron consumed by the country was imported; many valuable metals were exported; but a huge amount of textiles, almost all machinery and equipment, locomotives, wagons, rails, etc. were imported, mainly from England; 97% of the ships in Spain were foreign, mostly British, made. The Spanish population, mainly engaged in the extraction of raw materials and agriculture, was effectively reduced to the status of serfs. The country was ruled by foreign companies that received perpetual concessions for Spanish raw materials and seized most of them into their own hands.

In 1558, when Spain was still at the height of its power and possessed a huge colonial empire that supplied it with raw materials, gold and silver, the Spanish Minister of Finance Luis Ortiz wrote with bitterness about the consequences of Spain's failure to develop its own industry. He pointed out that Europeans buy valuable raw materials from Spain at a price of 1 florin per unit and then sell them to her, but in processed form, at a price of 10 to 100 florins per unit. “Thus,” wrote Luis Ortiz, “Spain is subjected to even greater humiliations from the rest of Europe than the humiliations to which we ourselves subject the Indians.”

Poland-Lithuania in the XVI-XVIII centuries. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was a confederation of Poland and Lithuania, in the XV-XVI centuries. was the largest state in Europe in terms of territory and had a fairly developed industry. However, until the end of the 15th century. its economy developed separately from Western Europe. Only from the end of the 15th century, when Poland received direct access to the Baltic Sea, did its active participation in the global European economy begin. During all this time, until the end of the 18th century, when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist as an independent state, it pursued a policy of free trade. The result was the complete deindustrialization of Poland and a sharp reduction - by about 4 times - of its urban population. Thus, a study by the historian Surowitsky showed that the number of houses in the 11 largest cities of the Polish province of Mazovia in 1811 was only 28% of their number in the middle of the 16th century, i.e. over 250 years it has decreased by almost 4 times.

Along with a sharp reduction in the urban population, there was its impoverishment. According to the historian M. Rozman, who studied Polish cities of the 18th century, the majority of the population of these cities lived not in houses, but in “shacks”. Simultaneously with the impoverishment of the townspeople, there was an impoverishment of the peasants, who made up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. So, if in the XIII-XIV centuries. There were almost no landless peasants in Poland, then by the middle of the 17th century the number of landless peasants had already reached 2/3 of their total number, and the size of the plots of the remaining peasants had sharply decreased. Thus, under the conditions of a free trade regime in Poland during the 16th-17th centuries. deindustrialization and a sharp decline in the well-being of its citizens occurred.

As I. Wallerstein wrote, Poland, like Spain, during these centuries turned into a “peripheral” state of the European global economy, producing exclusively raw materials and grain and supplying them to the European market in exchange for finished products. So, from the end of the 15th century. to the middle of the 16th century. the volume of grain exports to Western Europe from Gdansk, the main seaport of Poland, increased 6-10 times, and from 1600-1609. to 1640-1649 wheat exports from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Western Europe increased another 3 times. Among other items of Polish export in this period, raw materials (timber, wool, hides, lead) predominated, and imports, on the contrary, were dominated by industrial products.

Holland in the XVI-XVIII centuries. The only case of industrial development under conditions of free trade dates back to Holland in the 16th-17th centuries. I. Wallerstein sees the reason for the development of Dutch industry in the fact that during this period it turned into a center of European and world trade and finance, taking over the “baton” from Northern Italy. As a result of its transformation into a world trade and financial center, Holland received enormous advantages over other European countries in the opportunities for profitable sales of their products, which Dutch entrepreneurs took advantage of. The development of industry in Holland was also facilitated by the massive immigration of artisans and merchants from Spain, Flanders, Germany, Portugal and other countries, fleeing religious persecution and wars and attracted by the new opportunities that opened up in Holland. They brought with them craft skills and know-how, which were used to develop Dutch industry. However, despite its overall commitment to the principles of free trade, the Dutch government protected its agriculture with import duties and actively provided support to domestic businesses (quality control, protection of trade interests, etc.).

However, already from the beginning of the 18th century. The decline of Holland began - its industry could not compete with the English one, incentives for investment disappeared (interest on loans fell from 6.25% in the 17th century to 2.5% in the 18th century), which gave rise to the term “Dutch disease”, which is used today for designation of a country that has lost incentives to invest and develop its industry. As the economic historian W. Barbour writes, after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, i.e. after the introduction of a protectionist system there, England became the main location for Dutch capital. At the same time, she points out that Holland could not copy the experience of England and build a system of economic nationalism (protectionism) due to the too small size of its domestic market. As a result, as economic historian Charles Wilson writes, by the beginning of the 19th century. Holland has sunk to the status of a second-rate power. The industrial decline of the country was accompanied by a decline in its prosperity, which replaced the unprecedented wealth of the 17th century. So, very well known in 1815, Dutch immigrants; up to half of the English army, having defeated protectionism, is biased at the beginning of the 19th century. the Prussian ambassador to Holland wrote that half of the population of Amsterdam was below the poverty line.

“Free trade” as a weapon of British imperial policy in the 19th century. Great Britain during the 19th century. repeatedly imposed free trade agreements on the defeated countries, instead of indemnities or cession of territories. So, in the 1820-1830s. Great Britain supported the Greek uprising that broke out inside Ottoman Empire and led to Greece gaining independence (while Great Britain, along with Russia and France, fought against Turkey on the side of the Greeks). The formation of independent Greece threatened to cause in the future, like a chain reaction, the complete collapse of the Ottoman Empire, within which separatist sentiments were very strong. However, as I. Wallerstein points out, almost simultaneously with Greece gaining independence, Great Britain concluded a strategic agreement with the Ottoman Empire, according to which it took it under its protection in exchange for a free trade agreement concluded in 1838. Under this agreement, Turkey was prohibited introduce duties above 3% on any types of imports and above 12% on any types of exports. Subsequently, this strategic agreement actually slowed down the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (for example, British intervention on the side of Turkey during the Russian-Turkish wars of 1853 and 1877-1878 greatly slowed down the process of independence of the Balkan Slavs). But the free trade agreement, points out I. Wallerstein, actually led to the destruction of Turkish industry. As one English author wrote in 1862, “Turkey is no longer an industrial country.” As a result, the Ottoman Empire turned economically and politically into a state dependent on Great Britain, and a significant part of its territories (Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine) were later annexed by Great Britain and turned into British colonies.

Subsequently, the same tactics were repeated by Great Britain several times: first, with the help of cannons and first-class English rifles, a free trade agreement was imposed on the country, and then with its help, local industry was destroyed, and the country turned into a state economically and politically dependent on England and its allies. After Great Britain defeated China in the so-called Opium War (1839-1842), she imposed on him the free trade agreement of 1842, which began the transformation of China into a country dependent on Great Britain and other Western countries. Soon after this, Chinese industry ceased to exist, destroyed by the influx of foreign manufactured goods. And the population was subjected to “drug addiction” (at the end of the 19th century, every third Chinese was a drug addict, although before the arrival of the British there were no drug addicts in China at all) - since the treaty of 1842 fixed the free import into China of not only foreign goods, but also opium, imported in huge quantities by the British in exchange for Chinese tea. This entire period, while the British and their allies ruled China and while the free trade policy they imposed was carried out, was marked by a steady decline in the well-being of the Chinese. Thus, in the period from 1820 to 1950, GDP per capita in China fell on average by 0.24% annually, while in the United States, which was also previously a British colony, but pursued a policy of protectionism and developed its industry , this indicator during these 130 years it increased annually by an average of 1.57%. As a result, by the beginning of the 1970s. The US per capita GDP was 20 times that of China.

Free trade had the same effect on West Africa , which once had a fairly developed metallurgical and textile industry. As I. Wallerstein points out, at the beginning of the 19th century. this entire industry was virtually destroyed by the influx of cheap imports from Great Britain and other Western European countries. IN India Using the free trade regime, the British also destroyed the developed local textile industry, which became a real tragedy in the history of the country. The English Governor-General in India described what happened as follows: “This is an almost unprecedented tragedy in the history of trade. The valleys of India are white with the bones of weavers." After liberation from colonial rule in 1947, India placed a spinning wheel on its national flag as a symbol of its ability to once again develop its industry.

After defeat Russia in the Crimean War of 1854-1856. she abandoned the policy of protectionism and began to pursue a policy of free trade, introducing a liberal import tariff in 1857. Some historians believe that the transition to free trade policies was a direct result of Russia's defeat in the Crimean War. It is possible that this transition, as in the cases of Turkey and China, and as later in the case of Japan, was imposed by Great Britain on Russia as one of the conditions of the peace treaty. As a result of the liberalization of imports, a depression began in Russian industry and the economy, which lasted more than 20 years, financial breakdown and a sharp increase in external debt occurred (see above).

Japan Great Britain and its allies also during the 1850-1860s. imposed a free trade agreement. In order to achieve this, they first undertook political pressure, then interventions on land, during which the troops of the Western powers shot down the Japanese with their swords and pikes with rifles and cannons. Finally, the demonstrative bombings of the Japanese coastal cities of Kagoshima in 1863 and Shimonoseki and Choshu in 1864 had a great psychological effect. According to the 1868 treaty imposed by the Western powers on Japan, it had to completely open the market of its country to foreigners; At the same time, it was prohibited from introducing import and export duties of more than 5%. The introduction of free trade was followed, as in other examples, by a period of depression and high inflation, ending with the Japanese Civil War in 1877-1881.

Countries of continental Europe in the middle of the 19th century. In the mid-19th century, Great Britain managed to convince the states of continental Europe of the advisability of moving to a free trade policy. This transition began in some countries in the 1840s and was completed in the 1860s, when virtually all continental European countries sharply reduced their import duties. The result was a pan-European economic crisis 1870-1872, which affected almost all of continental Europe and developed into a protracted 20-year depression.

Propaganda of free trade and its counter-propaganda in the 19th century. As economic historians (I. Wallerstein, B. Semmel, P. Bayroch and others) point out, the promotion of free trade and its imposition on all other countries: both Asia and Africa, North America and Europe, became the main content of British policy in the 19th century . As P. Bairoch writes, Great Britain during the 1830s - 1860s. led the real " crusade"for freedom of trade. During this period, “pressure groups” and free trade societies were formed throughout Europe, usually led by the British, but consisting mainly of local personnel. As a result, the historian writes, “it was under pressure from these national pressure groups, and sometimes also under more direct influence from Great Britain, that most European states lowered customs tariffs.” In contrast to the beautiful scientific arguments that English economists and trade representatives used in negotiations with their European colleagues, persuading them to agree to reduce customs tariffs, the arguments for their own members of parliament were much simpler and more intelligible. As a result of free trade, said the representative of the Whig party in the English Parliament in 1846, England will turn into the workshop of the world, and “foreign countries will become valuable colonies for us, although we will not have to bear the responsibility of governing these countries.”

However, the United States did not succumb to the British propaganda of free trade and already in the first half of the 19th century. began to introduce protectionism, which was accompanied by counter-propaganda. Thus, the American economist G. Carey called the free trade system imposed by the British a system of “tyranny” and “slavery” as a result of mass unemployment. In the 1820s, speaking in Congress, one American congressman said that the theory of David Ricardo, like many other English products, was created solely “for export.” This is how the aphorism arose: “Follow not the advice of the British, but their example,” which became popular among Americans.

In Russia, the free trade policy was also sharply criticized after the negative experience of this policy in the 1860-1870s. The outstanding financier and statesman S.Yu. Witte, even before becoming the Minister of Finance and head of the Russian government, wrote in 1889: “We, Russians, in the field of political economy, of course, were towed by the West, and therefore under the reign In Russia, in recent decades, groundless cosmopolitanism is not surprising that in our country the meaning of the laws of political economy and their everyday understanding have taken the most absurd direction. Our economists came up with the idea of ​​fashioning the economic life of the Russian Empire according to the recipes of cosmopolitan economy. The results of this cutting are obvious. Our preachers, clothed in the toga of parrot learning, countered the individual voices that rebelled against such extravagance with theorems from political economy textbooks.” “If England has been free-trading for 50 years in our time,” wrote the Russian scientist D.I. Mendeleev, who also advocated protectionism, in those years, “then we must not forget that for 200 years, enhanced protectionism was in effect in it, which began with the Navigation Act ( 1651), that it still surpasses other countries in industrial and commercial development, which grew on the soil of protectionism.” Economist K.V. Trubnikov wrote in 1891: “During our last reign, propaganda of one-sided and false economic teachings and false philosophical doctrines went along with financial disorder, the ruin of agriculture, with periodically repeated hunger strikes, with industrial, trade and financial crises , who have completely upset the financial system... Laissez-faire and Adam Smith, Adam Smith and laisser-faire... isn’t it time for them to get out of our company?” .

Disillusionment with liberal economic policies was so strong that the list of “subversive literature” banned by Alexander III by decree of January 5, 1884, along with the works of Marx and theorists of anarchism and terrorism, included the works of Adam Smith.

Great Britain in the mid-late 19th century. Great Britain, starting in the 1820s. "crusade" for free trade, could no longer pursue a policy of protectionism, but had to set an example for other countries and demonstrate its commitment to liberal economic principles. Therefore, in this country, the transition to a free trade policy began already in 1823, when the general import tariff was reduced from 50 to 20%. This immediately led to a sharp and prolonged decline in the country's economy, which lasted almost without interruption from 1825 to 1842. In some industrial centers of England during this period, up to 60% or more of the previous number of people employed in industry were laid off or remained unemployed.

Further liberalization of foreign trade, carried out by Great Britain starting in the 1840s, simultaneously with the countries of continental Europe, did not have any impact on its industry. negative consequences– after 1842, industrial growth resumed. Having a colossal advantage over other countries in the development of its industry, Great Britain could not fear competition for some time. However, after the transition of Western European countries to protectionism at the end of the 19th century. (see above) a crisis began in British industry, which adhered to the principles of free trade, which simultaneously struck English agriculture along with industry. This led to England's rapid loss of its status as the world's leading industrial power and its displacement at the beginning of the 20th century. in 3rd place in terms of industrial output, after the USA and Germany.

Western countries since the late 1960s. Until now . After unprecedented industrial growth and growth in prosperity in the 1950s-1960s, which occurred while the United States and Western Europe were pursuing a policy of protectionism (see above), a completely different period began - a period of stagnation and crises (the recession of 1967-69). , crises of 1974-75 and 1980-82). This was preceded by a transition from a policy of protectionism to a policy of free trade, carried out following the Kennedy Round (a series of international conferences within the framework of GATT in 1964-1967), which laid the foundations of the modern WTO system. As economic historian P. Bairoch writes, “in Western Europe, real trade liberalization occurred after the Kennedy Round.”

Again, as in previous periods, we see a reversal of the trend: from steady industrial growth to crises and stagnation, which occurred immediately after the transition from a policy of protectionism to a policy of free trade. After this, the average annual GDP growth rates of developed Western countries began to decline steadily: from 5.1% in 1960-1970. to 3.1% in 1970-1980 and 2.2% in 1990-2000. This process was accompanied by the deindustrialization of the countries of Western Europe and the United States - the decline of industry in these countries or its transfer to other countries. Thus, here too there was a relationship between industrialization and welfare: the slowdown in industrial growth or its suspension in Western countries in recent decades was accompanied by a slowdown in GDP growth.

It should be taken into account that the dynamics of the GDP of the United States and, possibly, some other Western countries in recent decades does not fully reflect the actual change in the well-being of these countries. Thus, according to a number of economists, the “hedonic” approach to calculating GDP in the United States leads to insufficiently complete accounting of inflation, which results in an underestimation of the growth of the GDP deflator and an overestimation of the growth of real GDP.

To understand the actual situation in the United States and other Western countries, it is useful to use other data, the analysis of which shows that the welfare of these countries not only is not growing, but, on the contrary, is declining. For example, car sales in the United States have been declining steadily for nearly 30 years, despite significant population growth in the country. In 1985, 11 million cars were sold in the United States, and in 2009 - only 5.4 million. As a result, if in 1969 the average age of a car in the United States was 5.1 years, in 1990 it was 6 .5 years, then in 2009 - almost 10 years, which is not typical for a rich country. According to the calculations of the Norwegian economist E. Reinert, the average real salary in the United States reached its maximum in the 1970s. and since then it has only decreased. According to official US statistics, between 1999 and 2010 alone, the average income of an American family fell by 7.1%. The number of US residents below the poverty line, again according to official American statistics, reached 11.2% by 2000, and in 2010 it was 15.1%, while in the 1960s their number was insignificant.

Moreover, if we divide the US foreign debt by the number of US households, we get more than $100,000 in foreign debt on average per US family, and this amount continues to grow rapidly due to the large US foreign trade deficit. This fact is not taken into account by all the other indicators given above, which are already not very rosy. However, sooner or later, Americans will have to pay this foreign debt, in one form or another; and then it will become obvious to everyone in the world that the US attempt to maintain the same level of consumption through an ever-increasing increase in imports and its external debt is by no means a sign of real prosperity.

Thus, the free trade policy (late 1960s - present), which replaced the policy of protectionism, as in previous historical eras, brought even the most developed countries of the West (not to mention Greece, Spain and other middle-level countries development) not only deindustrialization, but also the beginning of a decline in the level of well-being.

Developing countries since the late 1960s. Until now . If we talk not about developed, but about developing countries, then for most of these countries the transition to a free trade policy in recent decades has had catastrophic consequences. Below are some examples:

Norwegian economist E. Reinert worked as part of the IMF-World Bank delegations to Peru and Mongolia. Here is what he writes about what the result of liberal reforms was in these countries:

In Peru, after the transition to a free trade policy during the 1970s, the country's industry was practically destroyed; by the 1990s, the average wage level in the country fell 4 times.

In Mongolia, after the country opened to free international trade in 1991, production in almost all industrial sectors fell by 90%. In just 4 years, the industry that had been created over 50 years was completely destroyed. Thus, the share of agriculture in Mongolia’s GDP from 1940 to the mid-1980s. decreased from 60 to 16%. Now agriculture: nomadic cattle breeding and gathering (in particular, the collection of bird down) has again become the dominant sector of the economy. As a result, by 2000, “bread production decreased by 71%, and books and newspapers by 79%, and this despite the fact that the country’s population did not decrease... real wages were cut by almost half, unemployment reigned everywhere. The cost of goods imported into the country was 2 times higher than the cost of goods exported, and the real interest rate, taking into account inflation, was 35%.”

The famous American economist and Nobel laureate D. Stiglitz writes that the entry of Mexico in 1994-1995. into the WTO and the free trade area with the United States led to an unprecedented drop in real incomes and average salary Mexicans and contributed to increasing poverty in this already poor country. This happened against the backdrop of deindustrialization - for example, in the first years of the 21st century, industrial employment in Mexico decreased by 200,000 people, increasing the army of unemployed and the flow of illegal emigration to the United States.

Professor D. Harvey points out that the implementation of the neoliberal concept (which is based on the same principle of free trade) in Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina and a number of other countries has led to catastrophic consequences. In Russia in the 1990s. after economic liberalization, industrial production and GDP fell by 60%, and the poverty level reached, according to various estimates, from 40 to 60%, although before 1985 there was no poverty as such, or it was insignificant.

Notable is the role played in recent decades in imposing free trade principles on developing countries by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Thus, among the principles of the “Washington Consensus”, the fulfillment of which the IMF demanded when providing its loans, included the following:

Removal of any trade barriers,

Privatization of state property,

Elimination of subsidies to support national production,

Prohibition of stimulating national production by depreciating the national currency and by lowering interest rates,

Cancellation of restrictions on the movement of capital.

In other words, the IMF “rules” prohibited any type of protectionism both in the field of protecting national production and in the field of protecting the national financial system, and also prohibited the direct participation of the state and state enterprises in economic life.

D. Stiglitz, who for 3 years (1997-2000) served as chief economist of the World Bank and personally observed the practice and results of the IMF in this area, came to the conclusion that those countries that followed the above “rules” in 1980s and 1990s: Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova - faced catastrophic crises, industrial collapse, mass unemployment and poverty, rampant crime. At the same time, those countries: China, Poland, Malaysia, South Korea, which abandoned these recipes and applied protectionist measures prohibited by the IMF and the Washington Consensus, were able to achieve much better results. And this is not an accident, but a pattern, says D. Stiglitz in his book.

3. Cases of limited application of protectionism

As many authors point out, the ideology of free trade has gained such strength in the West in recent decades that adherence to it is considered an important sign of “progress and democracy” and a guarantee of future “prosperity.” D. Harvey is surprised that a country with a favorable business climate, according to the approach of the IMF, World Bank and others international institutions, is considered to be the one that implements the principles of liberalism, and an equal sign is placed between these concepts. “Today,” writes D. Stiglitz, “unlike the 1930s, incredible pressure is being put on any country to avoid raising tariffs or other trade barriers to reduce imports, even if it is faced with an economic recession.”

It is curious that in order to “justify” and “scientifically prove” the correctness of the ideas of economic liberalism, examples of economic history and modern reality are often cited, which cannot serve as such “proof”, since they prove the exact opposite of what they are trying to prove with their help. In all cases we're talking about not about the classical system of protectionism, which was described above, but about other examples of the use of protectionism - veiled, and therefore less obvious. Below are a number of such examples:

France in the XVII-XVIII centuries. It is argued that France, starting from the era of J-B. Colbert, who headed the government of the country in 1655-1680, like the countries of the European North, pursued a policy of protectionism, but did not achieve any tangible results. This leads to the conclusion that the policy of protectionism is ineffective. At the same time, such a view does not correspond to the facts and conclusions of economic historians. As I. Wallerstein and C. Wilson point out, the peculiarity of French protectionism and its difference from English was that the customs regulation system in France protected only industrial production that was already exporting with import duties; and in England, in addition, she protected any import-substituting industries, agriculture and national shipping - i.e. all sectors of the economy that made sense to develop in a given country. Thus, French protectionism covered only a very small segment of the country's economy and industry, and such a policy can hardly be called a truly protectionist policy.

Moreover, during the second half of the 18th century. France completely liberalized its foreign trade, abolishing all previously existing restrictions (which, according to S. Kaplan and I. Wallerstein, became main reason economic crisis of 1786-1789, which led to the French Revolution). And subsequently, until the end of the 19th century, there was no permanent economic regime in France, but there were frequent transitions from a liberal regime to partial protectionism and back. Therefore, the result that took place: the very slow development of industry, stagnation and crises in agriculture, the impoverishment of large masses of the population, periodic social explosions and revolutions (1789-1815, 1830, 1848, 1871) - were fully consistent with such a policy. As a result, France, which at the end of the 17th century. in terms of industrial development it was either in first place in Europe and in the world, or shared 1-2 places with Holland, moved to the beginning of the 20th century. in terms of industrial production volume it ranks 4th.

Japan at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. As already mentioned, the trade treaty imposed on Japan in 1868 prohibited it from setting import and export duties above 5%. However, at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. Japan managed to industrialize very quickly and successfully, which began the further ascent of this country along the path of industrial development. This gave rise to the idea that Japan industrialized under a liberal regime in foreign trade.

However, this idea is not true. Firstly, already in 1899 Japan freed itself from the ban imposed by the Western powers and began to increase customs duties. Secondly, at the first stage of industrialization, the state played an active role here, which itself built the first factories in various industries, which were then transferred to private hands, and also developed the modern military industry and communications. Thirdly, Japan at that time had a kind of natural protectionist barrier - 15-20 thousand kilometers separating it from the main industrial centers of that time, located in Western Europe and the Northeast of the USA - which was not so easy to overcome at the then level development of maritime shipping.

Finally, fourthly, Japan had extremely favorable starting conditions that significantly improved its competitiveness: a very high population density and the presence of a huge mass of cheap labor concentrated in one place; proximity to the sea, i.e. transport routes relative to any point in Japan; warm climate. It is these factors that are considered in our time and have been considered since ancient times by economists as the most important natural factors of competitiveness; Japanese economists also point to them when explaining the phenomenon of Japanese industrialization.

Chile in the last quarter of the 20th century . It is widely believed that Chile under Augusto Pinochet achieved phenomenal success thanks to his liberal economic policies. At the same time, they often refer to the fact that at one time Milton Friedman himself, one of the “pillars” of Western liberal science, who came to Chile in 1975, acted as an adviser to Pinochet. The following data is provided as a result of the policies pursued by Pinochet. After 1975 (i.e. after M. Friedman arrived in Chile), the country's economy grew by an average of 3.28% per year for 15 years. Before that, for 15 years it grew by only 0.17% per year. Today, 15% of Chileans live below the poverty line, which is less than before and less than the Latin American average of about 40%.

Chile's economic development record is certainly not bad, but rather average when compared with China or South Korea, which have had growth rates of 10% per year or more for many years. However, even such an average, albeit generally successful, result is not at all the result of Pinochet’s liberal economic policies. According to E. Reinert, who for many years in the 1970s. worked in Chile, Pinochet pursued not a liberal, but, on the contrary, a protectionist policy. Firstly, writes the Norwegian economist, the state's industrial policy under Pinochet has become more aggressive than even it was under Allende's socialist regime, focused on supporting and developing exports. Thus, during Pinochet's rule, Chilean winemakers, with state support, switched from exporting wine in containers to exporting wine in bottles - which contributed to an increase in the added value produced in the industry and a significant increase in Chilean wine exports. Secondly, largest enterprise country - copper producer CODELCO - was not privatized, it remained in the hands of the state. Third, under Pinochet, restrictions were introduced on international capital flows. Thus, Pinochet violated at least three rules of the “Washington Consensus” (see above) - on the prohibition of state support for industry, on its mandatory privatization and on the liberalization of the export-import of capital.

As for the recommendations of Milton Friedman, carried out by Pinochet, they mainly boiled down to eliminating the budget deficit in order to curb inflation - i.e. to take measures that, in conditions of high inflation, any competent economist in his right mind would recommend to any sane government. Finally, another measure implemented under Pinochet was the transition from the traditional state pension system to a funded private pension system - due to which there was a reduction in the size of the state budget and the share of government spending in the country's GDP. Like the previous one, this measure has nothing to do with either free trade or industrial policy. Thus, the USA throughout almost the entire 19th century. and a significant part of the 20th century. pursued a policy of protectionism and support for their industry, contrary to the foundations of a liberal economy, while not having either a state or any developed pension system.

Thus, both elements of Pinochet's economic policies for which liberal economists praise him (a balanced budget and a funded pension system) do not belong to the list of disagreements between liberal and illiberal schools of economics. And precisely on fundamental issues that are the subject of disagreement between economists, Pinochet pursued a policy that ran counter to the recommendations of the liberal economic school and the “Washington Consensus”, and, therefore, the successes achieved under him in the economy cannot in any way be considered a “triumph of liberal economic policy”, as they try to present it today.

China, India and South Korea in the last third of the 20th century. – beginning of the 21st century.

Finally, another misconception relates to the successes achieved by China, India and South Korea. All three countries are members of the WTO, comply with the requirements of this organization, and all demonstrate high economic and industrial growth. This creates the illusion that the success of these countries over the past 40-50 years is the result of their liberal economic policies.

In reality this is not the case. As E. Reinert, who worked for a long time in various developing countries under IMF programs, writes, “Both China, India, and South Korea for 50 years followed different policy options that the World Bank and the IMF have now banned in poor countries,” and further clarifies: “China and India have practiced protectionism (perhaps too harsh) for more than 50 years to build their own industries.” The same opinion regarding China and South Korea is expressed by D. Stiglitz, who worked directly in the structure of the IMF-World Bank.

The essence of this policy pursued by these states has already been described many times in the press and economic literature: it is a policy of protectionism and support for national industry by all accessible ways- government subsidies, undervaluation of the national currency below normal levels, cheap loans, active direct participation of the state in the economy, and finally, through a sophisticated system of national standards and permits that prevent the penetration of foreign goods into the national markets of these countries. That these countries succeeded by such measures, without maintaining for 150 or 200 years a system of high protective duties and prohibitions on exports and imports, as was the case in Western Europe and the United States, seems to be explained, on the one hand , their national characteristics, and, on the other hand, the presence of high natural competitiveness in all three countries. According to all three parameters mentioned above: high population density, the presence of convenient transport communications, a warm climate, these countries have the highest level of natural competitiveness. But countries that do not have such advantages are unlikely to achieve the same results by copying their economic policies. As E. Reinert points out, with reference to the opinions of other economists, the worse the country’s competitiveness and the lower the level of its industrial development, the higher the protection through protectionism measures must be in order to achieve a positive result.

Moreover, at the initial stage of industrialization all of these countries imposed high import duties and/or import bans. Thus, in China, at the first stage of market reforms, which began in 1978, the average level of import duties was 50-60%, and only gradually, over several decades, was reduced to 15%. In South Korea, during the first decades of industrialization, there were high protectionist barriers and import bans on many products, and they continue to this day for agricultural products.

Therefore, the successes achieved by China, India and South Korea cannot in any way be considered the result of liberal economic policies.

The experience of South Korea is especially interesting. As E. Reinert points out, South Korea in the early 1960s. was poorer than Tanzania, it was a backward agricultural country that did not know the era of the steam engine and had practically no industry. In terms of GDP per capita: $100, South Korea was on a par with the poorest countries in Africa, and was far behind China, which, as part of socialist construction under Mao Zedong, before the start of market reforms in the 1970s, was able increase this figure to $500. All South Korean participation in the international division of labor was limited to the export of tungsten and ginseng; The overwhelming majority of the population was engaged in primitive agriculture - mainly growing rice for their own consumption as part of a subsistence peasant economy.

As economists H-D point out. Chang and P. Evans, only after General Park Chung Hee came to power in 1961 and became the President of South Korea, industrialization began in the country, which was the result of a targeted state industrial policy. Its main elements were as follows:

A “super-ministry” was created - the Economic Planning Board (analogous to the USSR State Planning Committee), to which all budgetary functions and economic development planning functions were transferred;

Five-year development plans began to be developed and implemented;

All banks and a number of enterprises were nationalized;

A number of state-owned companies were created in key sectors of the economy;

A network of government and semi-government business promotion agencies was created;

A radical personnel reform was carried out in the state apparatus;

Strict protectionist measures were introduced to protect agriculture, industry, the financial market and other sectors of the economy.

As a result of the implementation of state industrial policies, in just 20 years, South Korea has transformed from a backward agricultural country and exporter of raw materials into one of the world's leading producers of textiles, clothing, footwear, steel, semiconductors, and subsequently also modern ships, cars and electronics. The growth of industrial production during this period averaged about 25% per year (!), and in the mid-1970s. – 45% per year. GDP per capita increased from $104 in 1962 to $5,430 in 1989, i.e. 52 times in just 27 years. The volume of trade in consumer goods increased from $480 million in 1962 to $127.9 billion in 1990, i.e. 266 times.

After the assassination of President Park Chung-hee in 1979 and the seizure of power in the country by General Chun Doo-hwan, the economic policy of the state remained almost unchanged, only some banks were privatized and a stricter budget policy was introduced. The collapse of the previous development model and the transition to a liberal economic model began only in the 1990s, in connection with the entry of South Korea into international organizations (OECD, WTO, etc.) and the flooding of government and academic institutions with the so-called atkes (American-educated Korean economists). It was then that the state began to withdraw itself from participation in economic activity and from regulating the economy, leaving it at the mercy of the chaebols - giant Korean industrial corporations, which, like liberal economists, demanded the elimination of all government intervention in the economy. In 1993, the last South Korean five-year plan ended. In 1994, the “super-ministry” of industry and planning was liquidated and the Ministry of Economy and Finance was created on the basis of the former Ministry of Finance. By 1995, all previously existing restrictions on foreign trade were eliminated, incl. bans on the import of foreign “luxury goods” and other foreign goods, protectionist laws and regulations in industry, agriculture, and retail trade were eliminated, financial liberalization was carried out (the opening of the financial market to foreign capital). Of the once powerful system of government subsidies and support for industry, only a small part has survived - scientific research in some high-tech sectors.

The consequence was a deep economic crisis that hit South Korea in 1997-1998. By the end of 1997, the country's gold and foreign exchange reserves were almost completely depleted, and in order to prevent a complete collapse of the economy, the government was forced to make large loans from the IMF. The exchange rate of the national currency fell sharply; the fall in GDP during 1998 was 24%. Thus, Chung and Evans conclude, the 1997 crisis in South Korea was a consequence of the abandonment of the previous active role of the state in industrial development and the transition to a neoliberal economic model. In the 2000s. South Korea's average annual GDP growth was only about 3-6%. And in the year of the last financial crisis (2008), industrial production in the country decreased by 26%. Thus, taking into account two crises (1997-1998 and 2008-2009), during which South Korea lost approximately a quarter of its GDP/industrial production each time, economic growth in the country after 1996, i.e. after liberal reforms, it essentially ceased. The Korean economic miracle was replaced by stagnation.

********************************************

Above, a large number of examples of economic history and modern economic practice were considered, which, in turn, were previously studied by economic historians and economists, who presented the relevant facts and made their conclusions on all these examples. All these examples confirm the same pattern. It lies in the fact that only protectionist policies, provided they were carried out correctly, in all the examples studied, contributed to the development of industry and, as a result, to the growth of well-being. Accordingly, free trade policies, again in all the examples studied, always ultimately led to a decline in industry and prosperity. Only in very rare cases, when individual countries have great competitive advantages: in industrial development (like England in the mid-19th century or the USA in the 1970-1980s) or in the development of trade and shipping (like Holland in XVII century), - this decline could be delayed in time during the implementation of the free trade policy, and in the early years there could be an increase in prosperity and industrial production. In general, these results confirm the conclusion made at one time by I. Wallerstein that protectionism plays an important role in achieving long-term advantages for the state, and free trade can only serve to “maximize short-term profits by the class of traders and financiers.”

At the beginning of the article, quotes were already given from the main work of Adam Smith, the founder of liberal economic doctrine, indicating that he did not at all deny the important positive role of protectionism in the development of at least certain competitive industries. Below is another quote from this work, which shows that Adam Smith was equally aware of the role that industry plays in achieving wealth and prosperity for a nation. Thus, in book 4, chapter 1 of The Wealth of Nations, he argued that it is not so much money and, in particular, not so much reserves of gold and silver that constitute the main wealth of a nation, but rather its achievements in the field of the real economy. And as one of the components of the wealth of the nation, he mentioned the presence of a highly developed industry: “A country whose industry produces a significant annual surplus of such products [fine and expensive industrial products with high cost], usually exported to other countries, can wage a war involving very high costs for many years, without exporting any significant quantities of gold and silver, or even without exporting them at all... No war associated with large expenses or distinguished by its duration , cannot be carried on without inconvenience by the export of raw products. The costs would be too great... Sending any significant amount of raw materials abroad would mean in most cases sending part of the necessary means of subsistence of the population. The situation is different with the export of manufactured goods... [David] Hume often notes the inability of the former kings of England to wage any lengthy external wars without interruption.”

Thus, in these arguments, Adam Smith equated the wealth of a nation, which gave it the opportunity to wage a long war, and the presence of developed industry as the basis of this wealth. True, in some of his other arguments he did not distinguish between the production of raw materials and finished products in terms of the wealth and well-being of the nation. However, this example, as well as the example given at the beginning of the article (about the beneficial role of protectionism for the development of certain industries), shows that the attempts of modern liberal economists to prove the correctness of the total denial of protectionism and the denial of the important role of industry in the well-being of the nation by reference to Adam Smith as the highest authority for them is, to say the least, questionable. In the classics of liberal science one can find both statements confirming their correctness and statements refuting it. As for the real facts of economic life, the entire experience of industrialization of Europe, North America and Russia over the past 400 or 500 years, as well as the experience of industrialization and deindustrialization of the rest of the world in the 20th-21st centuries, proves the need for protectionism and the detrimental nature of free trade for industrial development, as well as the importance of developing one's own industry for the wealth and well-being of the nation.

I remember that earlier it was considered an indisputable truth among economists that the main criterion for the truth of scientific knowledge is practice, facts real life. In the end, the economy exists to serve real economic life and real economic entities: enterprises, entrepreneurs, etc., in their economic activities, as well as governments in organizing and encouraging these activities. And therefore, the criterion for the truth of knowledge of Russian economic science should be the facts of real economic practice: today and yesterday, and not references to the opinions of scientific luminaries and abstract reasoning that have become widespread recently to prove certain concepts.

Unfortunately, this truth has been forgotten in recent years. And the above-quoted statement by S.Yu. Witte about “preachers clothed in the toga of parrot learning” and lacking an understanding of economic reality again sounds very relevant today. In particular, as E. Reinert points out, starting from the 1980s. For economists in the West, rules were introduced and are still in effect prohibiting the use of examples of economic history and practice in their research. Thus, liberal economics in the West has finally turned its back on practice and real economic life. Well, we should expect that very soon reality, in turn, will turn its back on such economists and on those who are trying to put their advice into practice. And this reality, which began with the global financial crisis of 2008 and continued with what is now called the “Great Depression 2,” threatens with new shocks all those who are unwilling or unable to base their actions on this reality, and not on memorized theoretical ones. formulas.

As for Russia, it is generally accepted, at least among Russians, that it did not lose the Cold War with the West at the end of the 20th century. The abandonment of communist ideology and market reforms after 1985 were not initiated because of a loss in cold war, but due to society’s awareness of such a need. It is all the more surprising that Russia voluntarily took upon itself to fulfill the obligations (refusal of protectionism and strict adherence to the principles of free trade), which during the 19th century Western countries imposed on the defeated countries (Turkey, China, India, Japan, etc.) to destroy them industry and turning them into dependent, poor and economically insolvent territories (see above), and in the last half century they have been imposed on countries in dire need of financial “infusions” and assistance from international organizations. The fact that Russia, which was not defeated or conquered, which does not need financial assistance, but, on the contrary, itself lends to Western countries by placing its reserves in US and EU government bonds, has voluntarily taken on the obligations of a conquered, enslaved or of a needy country is an intractable mystery of our time.

P. Bairoch, Chapter I: European Trade Policy, 1815-1914, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume VIII, ed. by P. Mathias and S. Pollard, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 91-92, 141

Social Market Economy. Experiences in the Federal Republic of Germany and considerations on its transferability to developing countries, by A. Borrmann, K. Fasbender, H. Hartel, M. Holthus, Hamburg, 1990, pp. 71-72

P. Bairoch, Chapter I: European Trade Policy, 1815-1914, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume VIII, ed. by P. Mathias and S. Pollard, Cambridge, 1989, p. 94

Galbraith J. The Great Crash 1929. Boston, 1979, p. 191

Kuzovkov Yu.V. World history of corruption, M., 2010, paragraph 19.2

Reinert S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 332

W.Rostow. The World Economy since 1945: A Stylized Historical Analysis. Economic History Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1985, pp. 264-274

F. Uspensky, History of the Byzantine Empire, Moscow, 2002, vol. 5, p. 259

Thus, within the Roman Empire, with the exception of several eastern provinces, trade was carried out duty-free; there were no trade restrictions; port tax was 2-2.5% of the cost of the goods.

Thus, in antiquity the following were invented: a water wheel, concrete, a water pump, as well as a steam engine (in the 1st century AD in Alexandria) and high-strength carbon iron (in Carthage), rediscovered only in the 19th-20th centuries. But most of these inventions never found application in practice.

C. Cipolla, The Italian and Iberian Peninsula, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. III, ed. by M.Postan, E.Rich and E.Miller, Cambridge, 1971, pp. 414-418

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974, p. 184

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974, p. 219

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy. New York – London, 1980 p. 199

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy. New York – London, 1980 p. 181

E.Hamilton, The Decline of Spain, in: Essays in Economic History, ed. by E.Carus-Wilson, London, 1954, p. 218

E.Hamilton, The Decline of Spain, in: Essays in Economic History, ed. by E.Carus-Wilson, London, 1954, pp. 219-220

Day J. The Medieval Market Economy. Oxford, 1987, p. 163

C. Wilson, Chapter VIII: Trade, Society and the State, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume IV, ed. by E. Rich and C. Wilson, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 548-551

I.Wallerstein, The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750, New York – London, 1980, pp. 233-234

J. Nadal, Chapter 9: The Failure of the Industrial Revolution in Spain 1830-1914, in: C. Cipolla (ed.), The Fontana Economic History, Vol. 4, Part 2, London, 1980, pp. 556, 569, 582-619

Reinert S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 117-118

This can be evidenced, for example, by the fact that grain prices in Lviv, expressed in grams of pure silver, have increased since the mid-15th century. to the middle of the 18th century. increased by more than 6 times, and “pulled up” almost to the price level of Western Europe, while previously they were almost an order of magnitude lower. F.Braudel, F.Spooner, Chapter VII: Prices in Europe from 1450 to 1750, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume IV, ed. by E. Rich and C. Wilson, Cambridge, 1967, p. 395

J. Rutkowski, Histoire economique de la Pologne avant les partages, Paris, 1927, p. 159

M.Rosman. The Lord's Jews. Magnate – Jewish Relations in the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth during the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge – Massachusets, 1990, pp. 43-48

J. Rutkowski, Histoire economique de la Pologne avant les partages, Paris, 1927, pp. 22, 112, 119

I.Wallerstein, The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750, New York – London, 1980, pp. 131-190

K. Helleiner, Chapter I: The Population of Europe from the Black Death to the Eve of the Vital Revolution, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume IV, ed. by E. Rich and C. Wilson, Cambridge, 1967, p. 77

We are talking about the volume of wheat exports from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea through the Danish Straits. But almost all the regions that exported grain through this trade route (Poland, the Baltic states, Prussia) were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at that time. F. Spooner, Chapter II: The European Economy, 1609-50, in: New Cambridge Modern History, Vol. IV, ed. by J. Cooper, Cambridge, 1971, p. 91

J. Rutkowski, Histoire economique de la Pologne avant les partages, Paris, 1927, p. 194; A. Badak, I. Voynich and others. World history in 24 volumes. Minsk, 1999, vol. 15, p. 193

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974, pp. 165-184, 205-214; Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy. New York – London, 1980 pp. 42-46

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy. New York – London, 1980 p. 60

P. Bairoch, Chapter I: European Trade Policy, 1815-1914, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume VIII, ed. by P. Mathias and S. Pollard, Cambridge, 1989, p. 32

P. Bairoch, Chapter I: European Trade Policy, 1815-1914, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume VIII, ed. by P. Mathias and S. Pollard, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 37-46

P. Bairoch, Chapter I: European Trade Policy, 1815-1914, in: Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume VIII, ed. by P. Mathias and S. Pollard, Cambridge, 1989, pp. 28-29

B. Semmel, The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism. Classical Political Economy, the Empire of Free Trade and Imperialism 1750-1850, Cambridge, 1970, p. 8

B. Semmel, The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism. Classical Political Economy, the Empire of Free Trade and Imperialism 1750-1850, Cambridge, 1970, p. 179

Reinert S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 53

J.Stiglitz. Globalization and Its Discontents. London – New York, 2002, pp. 89-127, 180-187,

J.Stiglitz. Globalization and Its Discontents. London – New York, 2002, p. 89, 126, 187

D.Harvey. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Current reading. Moscow, 2007, p. 157

J.Stiglitz. Globalization and Its Discontents. London – New York, 2002, p. 107

I.Wallerstein, The Modern World-System II. Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750, New York – London, 1980, pp. 264, 267; Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Volume IV, ed. by E. Rich and C. Wilson, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 548-551

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System III. The Second Era of Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840s. San Diego, 1989, pp. 86-93; Kaplan S. Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the reign of Louis XV. Hague, 1976, Vol. II, p. 488.

S.Tsuru. Chapter 8: The Take-off in Japan, 1868-1900, in: Economics of Take-off into Sustained Growth. Proceedings of a Conference…, ed. by W. Rostow, London – New York, 1963, p. 142

‘Japan’ in Encyclopaedia Britannics 2005

Clark C. Population Growth and Land Use. New York, 1968, p.274; Reinert E. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 267, 221

S.Tsuru. Chapter 8: The Take-off in Japan, 1868-1900, in: Economics of Take-off into Sustained Growth. Proceedings of a Conference…, ed. by W. Rostow, London – New York, 1963, p. 148

Ferguson N. The Rise of Money. M., 2010, p. 233-239

Reinert S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 306, 237

Ferguson N. The Rise of Money. M., 2010, p. 233-234

This illiberal economic school in the 17th-18th centuries. called "mercantilism" in the 19th century. was called "national political economy" by Friedrich List, and today it is called "the other canon" or "national democratic political economy".

In essence, these disagreements stem from the different views of these two schools on free trade and protectionism. As for Pinochet's measures to balance the budget and introduce a funded pension system, only left-wing populists can express dissatisfaction with these measures.

Chang, H-J. The Hazard of Moral Hazard...; Chang, H-J. Korea: The Misunderstood Crisis, in: World Development, vol. 26, 1998, no. 8.

Chang, H-J, Evans P., The Role of Institutions... § 3.2; Chang, H-J. Korea: The Misunderstood Crisis…

Wallerstein I. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York, 1974, p.213

Adam Smith. Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, M., 2009, p. 433-434

Reinert S. How rich countries became rich, and why poor countries remain poor. M., 2011, p. 246

Protectionism

Protectionism- a policy of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition through a system of certain restrictions: import and export duties, subsidies and other measures. This policy contributes to the development of national production.

In economic theory, the protectionist doctrine is the opposite of the doctrine of free trade - free trade, the dispute between these two doctrines has continued since the time of Adam Smith. Proponents of protectionism criticize the doctrine of free trade from the standpoint of increasing national production, employment and improving demographic indicators. Opponents of protectionism criticize it from the standpoint of free enterprise and consumer protection.

A widespread transition to a policy of protectionism began in continental Europe at the end of the 19th century, after the protracted economic depression of the 1870-1880s. After this, the depression ended, and rapid industrial growth began in all countries that followed this policy. In the United States, protectionist policies were most actively pursued between the end of the Civil War (1865) and the end of World War II (1945), but continued in an implicit form until the late 1960s. In Western Europe, a widespread transition to strict protectionist policies occurred at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1930). This policy continued until the end of the 1960s, when, in accordance with the decisions of the so-called. During the Kennedy Round, the United States and Western European countries carried out coordinated liberalization of their foreign trade.

Views of supporters of protectionism and arguments in its defense

Protectionism is seen as a policy that stimulates economic growth in general, as well as industrial growth and the growth of welfare of the country pursuing such a policy. The theory of protectionism states that the greatest effect is achieved: 1) with uniform application of import and export duties, subsidies and taxes in relation to all entities, without any exceptions; 2) with an increase in duties and subsidies as the depth of processing increases and with the complete abolition of duties on imported raw materials; 3) with a blanket imposition of import duties on all goods and products, either already produced in the country, or those whose production, in principle, makes sense to develop (as a rule, in the amount of at least 25-30%, but not at a level that is prohibitive for any competing import); 4) upon refusal of customs taxation on the import of goods the production of which is impossible or impractical (for example, bananas in northern Europe).

Supporters of protectionism argue that the countries of Europe and North America were able to industrialize in the 18th-19th centuries. mainly due to protectionist policies. They point out that all periods of rapid industrial growth in these countries coincided with periods of protectionism, including a new breakthrough in economic development, which occurred in Western countries in the middle of the 20th century. (creation of “welfare states”). In addition, they argue, like the mercantilists of the 17th and 18th centuries, that protectionism promotes higher birth rates and faster natural population growth.

Criticism of protectionism

Critics of protectionism typically point out that tariffs raise the cost of imported goods domestically, which can hurt consumers. In addition, an important argument against protectionism is the threat of monopolization: protection from external competition can help monopolists gain complete control over domestic market. An example is the rapid monopolization of industry in Germany and Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, which occurred under the conditions of their protectionist policies.

Some economists are trying to develop a neutral view of protectionism, free trade, considering their impact on the growth of national welfare through an analysis of gains and losses. In their opinion, the benefits from the application of export and import duties can be contrasted with production and consumer losses arising from distortion of the motives of behavior of both producers and consumers. However, a case is also possible when the benefits from improving the terms of trade after the introduction of foreign trade taxes exceed the losses from it. The main prerequisite for improving the terms of trade from the introduction of duties is the presence of market power in the country, that is, the ability of one or a group of sellers (buyers) in the country to influence export prices and/or import prices.

Quotes

If England has been free-trading for 50 years in our time, then we cannot forget that for 200 years it was subject to increased protectionism, which began with the Navigation Act (1651), and that it still surpasses other countries in industrial and commercial development, which grew on the basis of protectionism.

Beginners of all kinds of industrial affairs receive their first goods at a higher price than enterprises that have already strengthened themselves, gained experience and paid off can sell them. start-up costs. Such strengthened enterprises, owning capital and credit, easily stop the rivalry that is reviving in other countries, reducing prices or even selling goods temporarily at a loss. A lot of well-known data testifies to this.

Articles

• W. Stolper, P. Samuelson - “Protectionism and real wages”
• Vladimir Popov - “China: Technology of an Economic Miracle”
• Economic protectionism policy: pros and cons
• Arguments for and against protectionism using the example of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia

Links

Trade
Definitions	Balance of payments · Current account (balance by country) · Trade balance (balance by country) · Capital account · Gold and foreign exchange reserves · Comparative advantage · Absolute advantage · International division of labor · Import substitution · International trade (countries by export · countries by import ) Economic integration
Organizations and politics in the field of trade	World Trade Organization · International Monetary Fund · World Bank · International Trade Center · Trade Bloc · Free Trade Area · Customs Union · Trade Barriers · Import Quota · Tariff
Economic schools	Free Trade · Net Balance · Salamanca · Mercantilism · Protectionism
Related Topics	Sales · Globalization · Outsourcing · Trade Justice and Fair Trade

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Protectionism” is in other dictionaries:

A system of protective tariffs designed to support domestic production. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. PROTECTIONISM system of patronage. duties, i.e. high taxation of foreign... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

The economic policy of the state, which consists in purposefully protecting the domestic market from the flow of foreign-made goods. It is carried out through the introduction of a complex of direct and indirect restrictions on the import of customs... ... Financial Dictionary

- (protectionism) The view that restricting international trade is a desirable policy. Its purpose may be to prevent unemployment or loss of production capacity in industries threatened by imports, to promote... Economic dictionary

- (protectionism) Protection, patronage (patronage system in trade). The theory or practice of restricting trade between countries in favor of domestic producers by imposing tariffs, quotas, or (most commonly used in modern times... ... Political science. Dictionary.

protectionism- (social psychological aspect) (from lat. protectio cover) selfish protection provided to someone by a person or group of people with power. P. leads to the emergence of a privileged circle of people, the cultivation of conformism,... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

1) economic policy of the state aimed at protecting the national economy from foreign competition. Implemented through financial incentives domestic industry, export promotion, import restrictions. For… … Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

protectionism- a, m. protectionnisme m. lat. protectio protection, cover. 1. The economic policy of bourgeois countries is related to the protection of domestic industry and agriculture from foreign competition and the capture of foreign markets. System … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Keywords:international trade, trade between countries, protectionism, free trade

Historically there arevarious shapes state protection national interestsin the struggle on world markets, which determine the trade policies of individual countries. Most famous politicianprotectionism (protection) and free trade (complete freedom of trade).

WITH light hand Adam Smith protectionism of the XVI-XVIII centuries. came to be called mercantilism. And although today there are two different concepts - protectionism and mercantilism, economic historians in relation to the era of the 17th-18th centuries. put an equal sign between them. And the historian P. Bayrokh clarifies that starting from the 1840s. mercantilism became known as protectionism.

In the 18th century protectionism was the dominant doctrine, recognized by the leading states of Europe: Great Britain, Prussia, Austria, Sweden. In the 19th century protectionism was replaced by the doctrine of free trade, initiated by Great Britain.

A widespread transition to protectionist policies began in continental Europe at the end of the 19th century, after a protracted economic depression of the 1870s-1880s. After this, the depression ended, and rapid industrial growth began in all countries that followed this policy. In the United States, protectionist policies were most actively pursued between the end of the Civil War (1865) and the end of World War II (1945), but continued in an implicit form until the late 1960s.

In Western Europe, a widespread shift to strict protectionist policies occurred at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1930). This policy continued until the end of the 1960s, when, in accordance with the decisions of the so-called. "Kennedy Round" the United States and Western European countries carried out coordinated liberalization of their foreign trade

Protectionism— a policy of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition through a system of certain restrictions: import and export duties, subsidies and other measures. On the one hand, such a policy contributes to the development of national production.

Protectionism is seen as a policy that stimulates economic growth in general, as well as industrial growth and the growth of welfare of the country pursuing such a policy.

Protectionism theory states that the greatest effect is achieved:

1) with uniform application of import and export duties, subsidies and taxes in relation to all entities, without any exceptions;

2) with an increase in duties and subsidies as the depth of processing increases and with the complete abolition of duties on imported raw materials;

3) with a blanket imposition of import duties on all goods and products, either already produced in the country, or those whose production, in principle, makes sense to develop (as a rule, in the amount of at least 25-30%, but not at a level that is prohibitive for any competing import);

4) upon refusal of customs taxation on the import of goods the production of which is impossible or impractical (for example, bananas in northern Europe).

Types of protectionism:

selective protectionism - protection from a specific product, or against a specific state;

sectoral protectionism - protection of a specific industry;

collective protectionism - mutual protection of several countries united in an alliance;

hidden protectionism - protectionism using non-customs methods;

local protectionism - protectionism of products and services of local companies;

green protectionism - protectionism through environmental law.

The Challenge of Protectionist Policies- encouraging the development of the national economy and protecting it from foreign competition by establishing high duties on goods imported into the country or restricting (prohibiting) the import of products.

Supporters of protectionism argue that the countries of Europe and North America were able to industrialize in the 18th-19th centuries. mainly due to protectionist policies. They point out that all periods of rapid industrial growth in these countries coincided with periods of protectionism, including a new breakthrough in economic development that occurred in Western countries in the mid-20th century. (creation of a “welfare state”). In addition, they argue, like the mercantilists of the 17th and 18th centuries, that protectionism promotes higher birth rates and faster natural population growth.

In economic theory, the protectionist doctrine is the opposite of the doctrine of free trade - free trade, the dispute between these two doctrines has continued since the time of Adam Smith. Proponents of protectionism criticize the doctrine of free trade from the standpoint of increasing national production, employment and improving demographic indicators. Opponents of protectionism criticize it from the standpoint of free enterprise and consumer protection.

Critics of protectionism typically point out that tariffs raise the cost of imported goods domestically, which can hurt consumers. In addition, an important argument against protectionism is the threat of monopolization: protection from external competition can help monopolists establish complete control over the domestic market. An example is the rapid monopolization of industry in Germany and Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, which occurred under the conditions of their protectionist policies.

Free trade(eng. free trade - free trade) - a direction in economic theory, politics and economic practice, proclaiming freedom of trade and non-interference of the state in the private business sphere of society.

On practice free trade usually means the absence of high export and import duties, as well as non-monetary restrictions on trade, for example, quotas on the import of certain goods and subsidies for local producers of certain goods. Supporters of free trade are liberal parties and movements; Opponents include many left-wing parties and movements (socialists and communists), human rights and environmental activists, and trade unions.

The main premise for the development of “free trade” was the need that arose in the 18th century to sell excess capital imported into the economy by developed countries (England, France, then the USA) in order to avoid the depreciation of money, inflation, as well as to export manufactured goods to participating countries and colonies.

The arguments in favor of protectionism are economic(trade hurts the economy) and moral(the effects of trade may help the economy, but have other harmful effects on regions) Aspects, and the general argument against free trade is that it is colonialism and imperialism in disguise.

Moral category, in in a broad sense, includes problems of income inequality, environmental degradation, child labor and harsh working conditions, the race to the bottom, wage slavery, increasing poverty in poor countries, damage to national defense and forced cultural change. Rational choice theory suggests that people often consider only the costs they themselves incur when making decisions, rather than the costs that others may bear.

Some economists are trying to work out neutral look on protectionism and free trade, considering their impact on the growth of national welfare through an analysis of gains and losses.

In their opinion, the benefits from the application of export and import duties can be contrasted with production and consumer losses arising from distortion of the motives of behavior of both producers and consumers.

339. A policy of protectionism was first recommended by:

a) physiocrats

b) early mercantilists

c) maximalists

D) late mercantilists

e) neoclassical.

^ 340. Supporters of protectionism argue that the introduction of trade barriers (duties, quotas) leads to:

a) reduction in employment in sectors of the national economy

B) protection of sectors of the national economy

c) the formation of internal monopolies

d) weakening the country's defense capability

e) weakening competition in the world market.

^ 341. The principle of absolute advantage was first formulated:

a) K. Marx

b) J.M. Keynes

c) D. Ricardo

D) A. Smith

d) A. Marshal.

^ 342. International trade is mutually beneficial if:

a) one country has an absolute advantage in the production of one good, and the second country has an absolute advantage in the production of another good

b) the country does not have an absolute advantage in the production of any good

C) countries have a comparative advantage in the production of certain goods

d) a country has both an absolute and comparative advantage in the production of one good

e) all countries have absolute and comparative advantages in the production of goods.

^ 343. The relationship between foreign exchange receipts into a country and payments that the country makes abroad over a certain period of time is:

a) trade balance

B) balance of payments

c) state budget

d) balance of services

e) balance of transfers.

344. If the currency of a given country is exchanged without restrictions for any foreign currencies, i.e. There are no currency restrictions on either current or capital transactions in the balance of payments, this means:

a) external convertibility

b) internal convertibility

B) free convertibility

d) partial convertibility

e) non-convertibility (closedness) of the currency.

^ 345. Full control over investment objects due to full ownership of foreign capital, as well as possession of a controlling stake, ensures:

a) export of loan capital

b) import of entrepreneurial capital

c) export of capital in the form of portfolio investments

D) export of entrepreneurial capital in the form of direct investment

e) import of loan capital.

^ 346. International monopolies include:

a) transnational corporations (TNCs)

b) multinational corporations (MNCs)

c) international monopoly unions (IMU)

d) national corporations

D) TNCs, MNCs, MMCs.

^ 347. The trade surplus will increase if the country:

a) real interest rates will fall

b) the inflation rate will increase

B) the rate of economic growth will increase

d) the rate of economic growth will decrease

D) real interest rates will rise.

^ 348.V modern conditions The growth rate of trade in goods is lower only than the growth rate of trade:

a) gold

b) capital

c) labor force

d) land

D) services

^ 349. Name the main source of benefits from international trade :

A) differences in prices for goods in individual countries

b) ignorance of prices in neighboring countries

c) the principle of mercantilism: “buy cheaper, sell more expensive”

d) lower prices for goods

e) the difference in customs tariffs of different countries.

^ 350. Who, in classical economic theory, proved that international trade makes it possible to benefit from the global division of labor:

a) W. Petty

b) D. Ricardo

c) K. Marx

D) A. Smith

e) J. M. Keynes

^ 351. Which of the following problems does not relate to global socio-economic problems?

a) economic backwardness

b) demographic problem

c) food problem

d) environmental problem

D) increase in crime

^ 352. International specialization and free trade based on the principles of comparative advantage mean:

a) reduction in domestic consumption of countries

b) increase in domestic consumption of countries

C) an increase in the total production of goods, exceeding the level of consumption of countries of their production capabilities

d) increase in gross consumption

e) reduction in gross consumption

^ 353. According to the principle of comparative advantage:

a) total costs of production will be lowest when each product is produced by the country in which variable costs are lower

b) the total volume of output will be smallest when each product is produced by the country that carries out more profitable specialization

C) total output will be greatest when each good is produced by the country that has the lowest opportunity cost.

d) total output will be greatest when each product is produced by the country that is pursuing advantageous specialization

E) the country's net exports are higher than those of other countries.

^ 354. The Bretton Woods monetary system is a system :

a) the gold standard

b) gold parity

B) fixed linked exchange rates

d) “floating” exchange rates

d) exchange rate

^ 355. The sum of all expenses of the inhabitants of a country on foreign goods minus the expenses of the rest of the world on the goods of this country is:

a) national consumption

b) import

c) export

d) national savings

D) net exports

^ 356. Full convertibility of the national currency means:

a) the ability to purchase foreign currency without restrictions

b) the possibility of free export and import of national currency

c) the possibility of free export and import of foreign currency

D) the possibility of free exchange of the currency of a given country for the national currency of another country

e) the possibility of establishing a floating exchange rate of the national currency

357. ^ The firm is a monopsony in the labor market, but does not have monopoly power in the market for finished products. Compared to competitive firms, it will:

a) hire more workers and set higher wages

B) hire fewer workers and set lower wages.

c) hire fewer workers and set higher wages

d) hire more workers and set lower wages

e) hire more workers at the same wage level

^ 358. The difference between the value of national exports and imports is:

a) balance of payments

B) trade balance

c) purchasing power parity

d) trade balance parity

d) foreign exchange intervention.

^ 359. For international migration labor resources affects:

a) high level of unemployment within the country

B) differences in wage conditions

c) desire to get an education

G) low level fertility

e) low level of unemployment within the country

360. According to Okun's law, a two percent excess of the actual unemployment rate over its natural level means that the lag of the actual volume of GDP from the real one is:

e) significantly more than 5%.