-Caveat Lector-

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Mercantilism.html
Mercantilism

by Laura LaHaye

Mercantilism is economic nationalism for the purpose of building a wealthy
and powerful state. Adam Smith coined the term "mercantile system" to
describe the system of political economy that sought to enrich the
country by restraining imports and encouraging exports. This system
dominated western European economic thought and policies from the
sixteenth to the late eighteenth century. The goal of these policies was,
supposedly, to achieve a "favorable" balance of trade that would bring gold
and silver into the country. In contrast to the agricultural system of the
physiocrats, or the laissez-faire of the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, the mercantile system served the interests of merchants and
producers such as the British East India Company, whose activities were
protected or encouraged by the state.

The most important economic rationale for mercantilism in the sixteenth
century was the consolidation of the regional power centers of the feudal
era by large competitive nation- states. Other contributing factors were
the establishment of colonies outside Europe, the growth of European
commerce and industry relative to agriculture, the increase in the volume
and breadth of trade, and the increase in the use of metallic monetary
systems, particularly gold and silver, relative to barter transactions.

During the mercantilist period, military conflict between nation-states was
both more frequent and more extensive than at any time in history. The
armies and navies of the main protagonists were no longer temporary
forces raised to address a specific threat or objective, but were full-time
professional forces. Each government's primary economic objective was to
command a sufficient quantity of hard currency to support a military that
would deter attacks by other countries and aid its own territorial
expansion.

Most of the mercantilist policies were the outgrowth of the relationship
between the governments of the nation-states and their mercantile
classes. In exchange for paying levies and taxes to support the armies of
the nation-states, the mercantile classes induced governments to enact
policies that would protect their business interests against foreign
competition.

These policies took many forms. Domestically, governments would provide
capital to new industries, exempt new industries from guild rules and
taxes, establish monopolies over local and colonial markets, and grant titles
and pensions to successful producers. In trade policy the government
assisted local industry by imposing tariffs, quotas, and prohibitions on
imports of goods that competed with local manufacturers. Governments
also prohibited the export of tools and capital equipment and the
emigration of skilled labor that would allow foreign countries, and even the
colonies of the home country, to compete in the production of
manufactured goods. At the same time, diplomats encouraged foreign
manufacturers to move to the diplomats' own countries.

Shipping was particularly important during the mercantile period. With the
growth of colonies and the shipment of gold from the New World into
Spain and Portugal, control of the oceans was considered vitally important
to national power. Because ships could be used for merchant or military
purposes, the governments of the era developed strong merchant marines.
In France Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the minister of finance under Louis XIV
from 1661 to 1683, increased port duties on foreign vessels entering
French ports and provided bounties to French shipbuilders.

In England the Navigation Laws of 1650 and 1651 prohibited foreign vessels
from engaging in coastal trade in England and required that all goods
imported from the continent of Europe be carried on either an English
vessel or a vessel registered in the country of origin of the goods. Finally,
all trade between England and her colonies had to be carried in either
English or colonial vessels. The Staple Act of 1663 extended the Navigation
Act by requiring that all colonial exports to Europe be landed through an
English port before being reexported to Europe. Navigation policies by
France, England, and other powers were directed primarily against the
Dutch, who dominated commercial marine activity in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.

During the mercantilist era it was often suggested, if not actually believed,
that the principal benefit of foreign trade was the importation of gold and
silver. According to this view the benefits to one nation were matched by
costs to the other nations that exported gold and silver, and there were
no net gains from trade. For nations almost constantly on the verge of war,
draining one another of valuable gold and silver was thought to be almost
as desirable as the direct benefits of trade.

Adam Smith refuted the idea that the wealth of a nation is measured by
the size of the treasury in his famous treatise, The Wealth of Nations, a
book rightly considered to be the foundation of modern economic theory.
Smith made a number of important criticisms of mercantilist doctrine. First,
he demonstrated that trade, when freely initiated, benefits both parties.
In modern jargon it is a positive-sum game. Second, he argued that
specialization in production allows for economies of scale, which improves
efficiency and growth. Finally, Smith argued that the collusive relationship
between government and industry was harmful to the general population.
While the mercantilist policies were designed to benefit the government
and the commercial class, the doctrines of laissez-faire, or free markets,
which originated with Smith, interpreted economic welfare in a far wider
sense of encompassing the entire population.

While The Wealth of Nations is generally considered to mark the end of
the mercantilist era, the laissez-faire doctrines of free-market economics
also reflect a general disenchantment with the imperialist policies of
nation states. The Napoleonic Wars in Europe and the Revolutionary War in
the United States heralded the end of the period of military confrontation
in Europe and the mercantilist policies that supported it.

Despite these policies and the wars that they are associated with, the
mercantilist period was one of generally rapid growth, particularly in
England. This is partly because the governments were not very effective in
enforcing the policies that they espoused. While the government could
prohibit imports, for example, it lacked the resources to stop the
smuggling that the prohibition would create. In addition, the variety of
new products that were created during the industrial revolution made it
difficult to enforce the industrial policies that were associated with
mercantilist doctrine.

By 1860 England had removed the last vestiges of the mercantile era.
Industrial regulations, monopolies, and tariffs were abolished, and
emigration and machinery exports were freed. In large part because of her
free trade policies, England became the dominant economic power in
Europe. England's success as a manufacturing and financial power, coupled
with the United States as an emerging agricultural powerhouse, led to the
resumption of protectionist pressures in Europe and the arms race
between Germany, France, and England, which ultimately resulted in World
War I.

Protectionism remained important in the interwar period. World War I had
destroyed the international monetary system based upon the gold
standard. After the war manipulation of the exchange rate was added to
the government's list of trade weapons. A country could simultaneously
lower the international prices of its exports and increase the local
currency price of its imports by devaluing its currency against the
currencies of its trading partners. This "competitive devaluation" was
practiced by many countries during the Great Depression of the thirties
and led to a sharp reduction in world trade.

A number of factors led to the reemergence of mercantilist policies after
World War II. The Great Depression created doubts about the efficacy and
stability of free-market economies, and an emerging body of economic
thought ranging from Keynesian countercyclical policies to Marxist
centrally planned systems created a new role for governments in the
control of economic affairs. In addition, the wartime partnership between
government and industry in the United States created a relationship—the
military-industrial complex, in Eisenhower's words—that also encouraged
activist government policies. In Europe the shortage of dollars after the
war induced governments to restrict imports and negotiate bilateral
trading agreements to economize on scarce foreign exchange resources.
These policies severely restricted the volume of intra- Europe trade and
impeded the recovery process in Europe in the immediate postwar period.

The economic strength of the United States, however, provided the
stability that permitted the world to emerge out of the postwar chaos into
a new era of prosperity and growth. The Marshall Plan provided American
resources that overcame the most acute dollar shortages. The Bretton
Woods agreement established a new system of relatively stable exchange
rates that encouraged the free flow of goods and capital. Finally, the
signing of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) in 1947 marked
the official recognition of the need to establish an international order of
multilateral free trade.

The mercantilist era has passed. Modern economists accept Adam Smith's
insight that free trade leads to international specialization of labor and,
usually, to greater economic well- being for all nations. But some
mercantilist policies continue to exist. Indeed, the surge of protectionist
sentiment that began with the oil crisis in the midseventies and expanded
with the global recession of the early eighties has led some economists to
label the modern pro- export, anti-import attitude as "neomercantilism."

Although several rounds of multilateral trade negotiations have succeeded
in reducing tariffs on most industrial goods to less than 5 percent, trade in
agricultural goods remains heavily protected though tariffs or subsidies in
Europe, Japan, and the United States. Countries have also responded to
GATT by erecting various nontariff barriers to trade. The Long Term
Arrangement on Cotton Textiles (1962) was the first major departure from
the key GATT rule of nondiscrimination. Discriminatory nontariff barriers
are typically used by industrialized countries to protect mature industries
from competition from Japan and newly industrialized countries like Brazil,
Korea, and Taiwan. These nontariff barriers include voluntary export
restraints, orderly marketing arrangements, health and safety codes, and
licensing requirements. And the U.S. Jones Act, which prohibits shipment
of goods between U.S. ports on foreign ships, is the modern counterpart
of England's Navigation Laws.

Modern mercantilist practices arise from the same source as the
mercantilist policies in the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. Groups
with political power use that power to secure government intervention to
protect their interests, while claiming to seek benefits for the nation as a
whole.

Of the false tenants of mercantilism that remain today, the most
pernicious is the idea that imports reduce domestic employment. This
argument is most often made by American automobile manufacturers in
their claim for protection against Japanese imports. But the revenue that
the exporter receives must be ultimately spent on American exports,
either immediately or subsequently when American investments are
liquidated. Another mercantilist view that persists today is that a current
account deficit is bad. When a country runs a current account deficit, it
is borrowing capital from the rest of the world in order to purchase more
goods and services than it sells. But this policy promotes economic wealth
if the return on the capital borrowed exceeds the cost of borrowing.
Many developing countries with high internal returns on capital have run
current account deficits for extremely long periods, while enjoying rapid
growth and solvency.



About the Author

Laura LaHaye is an adjunct professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology.
She was an economics professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago from
1981 to 1989 and was previously a research economist with the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1981.



Further Reading

Salvatore, Dominick, ed. The New Protectionist Threat to World Welfare.
1987.

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations, Edwin Cannan edition. 1937.
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to