[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unc/dispap/149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What Did Frederick List Actually Say? Some Clarifications On The Infant Industry Argument

Author

Listed:
  • Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify some confusion surrounding the infant industry argument presented by Frederick List. Its main contribution is to show that List recommended selective, rather than across-the-board, protection of infant industries and that he was against neither international trade nor export expansion. In fact, he emphasizes the importance of trade and envisages free trade as an ultimate aim of all nations; he regards protection as an instrument for achieving development, massive export expansion and ultimately free trade. List´s theory was a dynamic one, with dimensions of time and geography. Makinga distinction between "universal association" and national interest, he argues that infant industry protection is necessary for countries at early stages of industrialization if some countries "outdistanced others in manufactures". Nevertheless, protection should be temporary, targeted and not excessive. Domestic competition should in due course be introduced, preceded by planned, gradual and targeted trade liberalization. List guards, however, against premature liberalization. He is aware of the limitation of size for infant industry protection but claims that in most cases this obstacle could be overcome through collaboration with other countries. To List, trade policy is not a panacea; it is an element in his general theory of "productive power" (development); industrial development also requires a host of other socio-economic measures. The infant industry argument is not only still valid, if properly applied, but, in fact, it is at present ever more relevant owing to recent technological revolution and changes in the organization of production. But despite this increased need, the means to achieving it have been restricted by international trade rules. The study also refers to significant incidences of targeted protection of production and exports in advanced countries, while universal and across-the-board liberalization is recommended for developing countries. International trade rules need to be revised to aim at achieving a fair trading system, in which the differential situations of countries at various stages of development are taken into greater consideration. Universal free trade may be easier for developing countries to implement th an a dynamic and targeted trade policy; but "easiness" is not a substitute for "soundness". It is emphasized, however, that, as List maintained, after a point in time trade should be liberalized selectively and gradually, aiming at the ultimate goal of free trade when all nations have reached the same level of development.

Suggested Citation

  • Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN, 2000. "What Did Frederick List Actually Say? Some Clarifications On The Infant Industry Argument," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 149, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    • Handle: RePEc:unc:dispap:149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dp_149.en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mehdi SHAFAEDDIN, 1998. "How Did Developed Countries Industrialize? The History Of Trade And Industrial Policy: The Cases Of Great Britain And The Usa," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 139, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    2. Anne O. Krueger, 1978. "Foreign Trade Regimes and Economic Development: Liberalization Attempts and Consequences," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number krue78-1.
    3. Paul BAIROCH & Richard KOZUL-WRIGHT, 1996. "Globalization Myths: Some Historical Reflections On Integration, Industrialization And Growth In The World Economy," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 113, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shafaeddin, Mehdi, 2010. "Trade liberalization, industrialization and development; experience of recent decades," MPRA Paper 26355, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. S.M. Shafaeddin, 2004. "Who Is The Master? Who Is The Servant? Market Or Government? An Alternative Approach: Towards A Coordination System," UNCTAD Discussion Papers 175, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    3. Shafaeddin, Mehdi, 2006. "Does trade openness helps or hinders industrialization?," MPRA Paper 4371, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Schiff, Maurice & Valdes, Alberto, 1998. "Agriculture and the macroeconomy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1967, The World Bank.
    5. Gérard Grellet, 1987. "Les politiques d'ajustement orthodoxes. Un point de vue critique," Revue Tiers Monde, Programme National Persée, vol. 28(109), pages 9-23.
    6. -, 2016. "The South American input-output table: Key assumptions and methodological considerations," Documentos de Proyectos 40832, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    7. Jeffrey D. Sachs, 1989. "Introduction to "Developing Country Debt and the World Economy"," NBER Chapters, in: Developing Country Debt and the World Economy, pages 1-34, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sudip Ranjan Basu, 2005. "Correlating Growth with Well-Being during Economic Reforms Evidence from India and China," Development and Comp Systems 0509010, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. I.Igal Magendzo, 2002. "Are Devaluations Really Contractionary?," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 182, Central Bank of Chile.
    10. Irwan Shah Zainal Abidin & Nor Aznin Abu Bakar & Muhammad Haseeb, 2014. "An Empirical Analysis of Exports between Malaysia and TPP Member Countries: Evidence from a Panel Cointegration (FMOLS) Model," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(6), pages 238-238, December.
    11. David Gould & Roy Ruffin, 1995. "Human capital, trade, and economic growth," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 131(3), pages 425-445, September.
    12. Dani Rodrik, 1997. "Trade, Social Insurance, and the Limits to Globalization," NBER Working Papers 5905, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Muhammad Shahbaz & Pervaz Azim & Khalil Ahmad, 2011. "Exports-Led Growth Hypothesis in Pakistan: Further Evidence," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 1(3), pages 182-197.
    14. Kym Anderson & Johan Swinnen, 2008. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Europe's Transition Economies," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 6502.
    15. Sebastian Edwards & Sweder van Wijnbergen, 1983. "The Welfare Effects of Trade and Capital Market Liberalization: Consequences of Different Sequencing Scenarios," NBER Working Papers 1245, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Onafowora, Olugbenga A. & Owoye, Oluwole, 1998. "Can Trade Liberalization Stimulate Economic Growth in Africa?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 497-506, March.
    17. Robert C. Feenstra, 1998. "Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 31-50, Fall.
    18. Emmanouil Karakostas, 2022. "The Effects of Protectionism on the Exports of the Trade Partners: A Composite Index," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 15(1), pages 58-70, July.
    19. Khalafalla, Khalid Yousif & Webb, Alan J., 2000. "Exports And Economic Growth Under Structural Change: A Co-Integration Analysis Of Evidence From Malaysia," Working Papers 14595, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    20. Anne O. Krueger, 2019. "Increased capital mobility and policy reform in developing countries," Indian Economic Review, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 113-133, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unc:dispap:149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joerg Mayer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/unctach.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.