1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Economics
  4. Volume 12, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Economics

Volume 12, 2020

Trade Policy in American Economic History

Abstract

This article reviews the broad changes in US trade policy over the course of the nation's history. Import tariffs have been the main instrument of trade policy and have had three main purposes: to raise revenue for the government, to restrict imports and protect domestic producers from foreign competition, and to reach reciprocity agreements that reduce trade barriers. Each of these three objectives—revenue, restriction, and reciprocity—was predominant in one of three consecutive periods in history. The political economy of these tariffs has been driven by the location of trade-related economic interests in different regions and the political power of those regions in Congress. The review also addresses the impact of trade policies on the US economy, such as the welfare costs of tariffs, the role of protectionism in fostering US industrialization, and the relationship between the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act and the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Keyword(s): deadweight loss, import tariff, JEL F13, JEL N41, JEL N42, political economy, protectionism, trade policy
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409
2020-08-02
2025-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/12/1/annurev-economics-070119-024409.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson JE, Neary JP. 2005. Measuring the Restrictiveness of International Trade Policy Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arkolakis C, Costinot A, Rodríguez-Clare A 2012. New trade models, same old gains. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:94–130
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Autor DH, Dorn D, Hanson GH 2016. The China shock: learning from labor market adjustment to large changes in trade. Annu. Rev. Econ. 8:205–40
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey MA. 2003. The politics of the difficult: the role of public opinion in early Cold War aid and trade policies. Legis. Stud. Q. 28:147–78
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bailey MA, Goldstein J, Weingast BR 1997. The institutional roots of American trade policy: the origin and effects of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. World Politics 49:309–38
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baldwin RE. 1984. Rent-seeking and trade policy: an industry approach. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch 120:662–77
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker WH, McClenahan WM. 2003. The Market, the State, and the Export-Import Bank of the United States, 1934–2000 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Blonigen B. 2011. Revisiting the evidence on trade policy preferences. J. Int. Econ. 85:129–35
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bond EW, Crucini M, Potter T, Rodrigue J 2013. Misallocation and productivity effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 16:120–34
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Broadberry SN. 1998. How did the United States and Germany overtake Britain? A sectoral analysis of comparative productivity levels, 1870–1990. J. Econ. Hist. 58:375–407
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Carter SB, Gartner SS, Haines MR, Olmstead AL, Sutch R, Wright G 2006. Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Crucini MJ. 1994. Sources of variation in real tariff rates: the United States, 1900–1940. Am. Econ. Rev. 84:732–43
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis JH, Irwin DA. 2008. The antebellum U.S. iron industry: domestic production and foreign competition. Explor. Econ. Hist. 45:254–69
     [Google Scholar]
  14. De Long JB. 1998. Trade policy and America's standard of living: a historical perspective. Exports, Imports, and the American Worker S Collins 349–88 Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eichengreen B. 2019. Trade policy and the macroeconomy. IMF Econ. Rev. 67:4–23
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Eichengreen B, Irwin DA. 2010. The slide to protectionism in the Great Depression: Who succumbed and why. J. Econ. Hist. 70:872–98
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fernandez R, Rodrik D. 1991. Resistance to reform: status quo bias in the presence of individual-specific uncertainty. Am. Econ. Rev. 81:1146–55
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldstein JL, Rivers D, Tomz M 2007. Institutions in international relations: understanding the effects of the GATT and WTO on world trade. Int. Organ. 61:37–67
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gowa J, Hicks R. 2018. “Big” treaties, small effects: the RTAA agreements. World Politics 70:165–93
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Grossman GM, Helpman E. 1994. Protection for sale. Am. Econ. Rev. 94:833–50
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grossman GM, Helpman E. 2005. A protectionist bias in majoritarian politics. Q. J. Econ. 120:1239–82
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Haggard S. 1988. The institutional foundations of hegemony: explaining the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Int. Organ. 42:91–119
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Harley CK. 1992a. International competitiveness of the antebellum American cotton textile industry. J. Econ. Hist. 52:559–84
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Harley CK. 1992b. The antebellum American tariff: food exports and manufacturing. Explor. Econ. Hist. 29:375–400
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Harper LA. 1939. The English Navigation Laws New York: Columbia Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Head K. 1994. Infant industry protection in the steel rail industry. J. Int. Econ. 37:141–65
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hiscox MJ. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmes TJ, Stevens JJ. 2004. Spatial distribution of economic activities in North America. Handbook of Regional and Urban EconomicsVol. 4Cities and Geography JV Henderson, JF Thisse 2797–843 Amsterdam: North Holland
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Irwin DA. 1998a. Changes in U.S. tariffs: the role of import prices and commercial policies. Am. Econ. Rev. 88:1015–26
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Irwin DA. 1998b. Higher tariffs, lower revenues? Analyzing the fiscal aspects of the “Great Tariff Debate of 1888. .” J. Econ. Hist. 58:59–72
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Irwin DA. 2000a. Could the U.S. iron industry have survived free trade after the Civil War. Explor. Econ. Hist. 37:278–99
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Irwin DA. 2000b. Did late nineteenth century U.S. tariffs promote infant industries? Evidence from the tinplate industry. J. Econ. Hist. 60:335–60
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Irwin DA. 2001. Tariffs and growth in late nineteenth century America. World Econ 24:15–30
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Irwin DA. 2003a. Explaining America's surge in manufactured exports, 1880–1913. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85:364–76
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Irwin DA. 2003b. The optimal tax on antebellum cotton exports. J. Int. Econ. 60:275–91
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Irwin DA. 2004. The aftermath of Hamilton's “Report on Manufactures. .” J. Econ. Hist. 64:800–21
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Irwin DA. 2005. The welfare costs of autarky: evidence from the Jeffersonian embargo, 1807–1809. Rev. Int. Econ. 13:631–45
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Irwin DA. 2007. Tariff incidence in America's Gilded Age. J. Econ. Hist. 67:582–607
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Irwin DA. 2008. Antebellum tariff politics: regional coalitions and shifting economic interests. J. Law Econ. 51:715–42
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Irwin DA. 2010. Trade restrictiveness and deadweight losses from U.S. tariffs. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2:111–33
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Irwin DA. 2011. Peddling Protectionism: Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Irwin DA. 2012. Trade Policy Disaster: Lessons from the 1930s Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Irwin DA. 2017. Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Irwin DA. 2019. Tariff incidence: evidence from U.S. sugar duties, 1890–1914. Natl. Tax J. 72:599–616
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Irwin DA, Davis JH. 2003. Trade disruptions and America's early industrialization NBER Work. Pap 9944
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Irwin DA, Kroszner RS. 1999. Interests, institutions, and ideology in securing policy change: the Republican conversion to trade liberalization after Smoot-Hawley. J. Law Econ. 42:643–74
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Irwin DA, Temin P. 2001. The antebellum tariff on cotton textiles revisited. J. Econ. Hist. 61:777–98
     [Google Scholar]
  48. James JA. 1981. The optimal tariff in the antebellum United States. Am. Econ. Rev. 71:726–34
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jaremski M. 2014. National banking's role in U.S. industrialization. J. Econ. Hist. 74:109–40
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kee HL, Nicita A, Olarreaga M 2008. Import demand elasticities and trade distortions. Rev. Econ. Stat. 90:666–82
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kendrick JW. 1961. Productivity Trends in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuziemko I, Washington E. 2018. Why did the Democrats lose the South? Bringing new data to an old debate. Am. Econ. Rev. 108:2830–67
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Magee SP. 1972. The welfare effects of restrictions on U.S. trade. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 3:645–707
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Mayer W. 1984. Endogenous tariff formation. Am. Econ. Rev. 74:970–85
     [Google Scholar]
  55. McDonald JA, O'Brien AP, Callahan CM 1997. Tariff wars: Canada's reaction to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. J. Econ. Hist. 57:802–26
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ransom RL. 1968. British policy and colonial growth: some implications of the burden from the Navigation Acts. J. Econ. Hist. 28:427–35
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Rosenbloom J. 2004. Path dependence and the origins of the American cotton textile industry. The Fibre That Changed the World: Cotton Industry in International Perspective D Jeremy, DA Farnie 365–91 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Rousslang DJ, Tokarick SP. 1995. Estimating the welfare cost of tariffs: the roles of leisure and domestic taxes. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 47:83–97
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sawers L. 1992. The Navigation Acts revisited. Econ. Hist. Rev. 45:262–84
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schnietz K. 2000. The institutional foundations of U.S. trade policy: revisiting explanations for the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. J. Policy Hist. 12:417–44
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Stern RM. 1964. The U.S. tariff and the efficiency of the U.S. economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 54:459–70
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Taussig F. 1931. A Tariff History of the United States New York: Putnam, 8th ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Thomas RP. 1965. A quantitative approach to the study of the effects of British imperial policy upon colonial welfare: some preliminary findings. J. Econ. Hist. 25:615–38
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Tomz M, Goldstein JL, Rivers D 2007. Do we really know that the WTO increases trade? Comment. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:2005–18
     [Google Scholar]
  65. US Census Bur 1886. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1885 Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. US Census Bur 1942. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1941 Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. US Int. Trade Comm 2017. The economic effects of significant U.S. import restraints. Investig. No. 332–325. Publ. 4726, 9th Update US Int. Trade Comm Washington, DC: http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4726.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wright G. 1990. The origins of American industrial success, 1879–1940. Am. Econ. Rev. 80:651–68
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Zevin RB. 1971. The growth of cotton textile production after 1815. The Reinterpretation of America's Past R Fogel, S Engerman 122–46 New York: Harper & Row
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409
Loading
Trade Policy in American Economic History
Annual Review of Economics 12, 23 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070119-024409
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error