Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:39:51.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Bilateralism and the MFN Clause on International Trade: Evidence for the Cobden-Chevalier Network, 1860-1875

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Markus Lampe
Markus Lampe*
Affiliation:
Assistant Research Professor, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 26, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study contributes to a revised picture of nineteenth-century bilateralism. Employing a new disaggregated data set, it argues that bilateral treaties did not implement general free trade, but instead reduced tariffs unevenly through commodity-specific preferences, especially favoring manufactured goods. Gravity model estimates show that specific liberalizations increased exports of corresponding items, but not overall trade. Exporters from countries whose governments used bilateralism strategically to bring down partner tariffs benefitted most. Hence, the network in form and outcome is more properly identified with reciprocal liberalization practiced by the French than with British free-trade ideology.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 1012 - 1040
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Accominotti, Olivier and Marc, Flandreau“Bilateral Trade Treaties and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: The Myth of Trade Liberalization in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” World Politics 60 no. 2 (2008) 147–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James E. and Eric, van Wincoop“Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93 no. 1 (2003) 170–92.Google Scholar
Bairoch, Paul.“European Trade Policy, 1815-1914.” In The Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Vol. 8. The Industrial Economies: The Development of Economic and Social Policies, edited by Peter, Mathias and Sidney, Pollard1–160 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989Google Scholar
Baldwin, Richard and Daria, Taglioni “Gravity for Dummies and Dummies for Gravity Equations.” NBER Working Paper No. 12516, Cambridge, MA, September 2006.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, Jagdish N. ed. “Introduction: The Unilateral Freeing of Trade vs. Reciprocity.” In Going Alone: The Case for Relaxed Reciprocity in Freeing Trade 1–30Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2002Google Scholar
Brawley, Mark R.Power, Money, and Trade: Decisions That Shape Global Economic Relations. Second edition. Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2005.Google Scholar
Cadier, Gabrielle.“Les consequences du traité de 1860 sur le commerce franco-britannique.” Histoire, économie et société 7 no. 3 (1988) 355–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, A. Colin and Pravin, K. TrivediRegression Analysis of Count Data.Econometric Society Monographs Vol. 30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2003Google Scholar
Denzel, Markus.Währungen der Welt. Vol. 11. Dänische und nordwestdeutsche Wechselkurse 1696-1914. Stuttgart: Steiner 1999Google Scholar
Dunham, Arthur LouisThe Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce of 1860 and the Progress of the Industrial Revolution in France. History and Political Science, Vol. 10. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1930Google Scholar
The Economist, 13 February 1869.Google Scholar
Ejrnæs, MetteKarl, Gunnar Persson“Market Integration and Transport Costs in France, 1825-1903: A Threshold Error Correction Approach to the Law of One Price.” Explorations in Economic History 37 no. 2 (2000) 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glier, Lorenz.Die Meistbegünstigungs-Klausel. Eine entwickelungsgeschichtliche Studie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen Verträge mit den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Argentinien. Veröffentlichungen des Mitteleuropäischen Wirtschaftsvereins, Vol. 2. Berlin: Puttkammer & Mühlbrecht 1905.Google Scholar
Helleiner, Karl F.Free Trade and Frustration: Anglo-Austrian Negotiations, 1860-1870. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henningsen, Arne and Jeff, D. Hamann“systemfit: A Package for Estimating Systems of Simultaneous Equations in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 23, no. 4(2007): 1–40 Available at http://www.jstatsoft.org/v23/i04.Google Scholar
Horlings, Edwin.“The International Trade of a Small and Open Economy: Revised Estimates of the Imports and Exports of Belgium, 1835-1990.” NEHA-Jaarboek 65 (2002): 110–42.Google Scholar
Howe, Anthony.Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846-1946. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1997Google Scholar
Humphrey, David H.“Disaggregated Import Functions for the U.K., West Germany, and France.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics 38 no. 4 (1976) 281–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iliasu, Asaana.“The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty of 1860.” Historical Journal 14 no. 1 (1971) 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A.“Free Trade and Protection in Nineteenth-Century Britain and France Revisited: A Comment on Nye.” This JOURNAL 53 no. 1 (1993) 146–52.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A.“Multilateral and Bilateral Trade Policies in the World Trading System: An Historical Perspective.” In New Dimensions in Regional Integration edited by Jaime, de Melo and Arvind, Panagariya90–119 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacks, David.“Intra- and International Commodity Market Integration in the Atlantic Economy, 1800-1913.” Explorations in Economic History 42 no. 3 (2005) 381–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaukiainen, Yrjö“Shrinking the World: Improvements in the Speed of Information Transmission, c.1820-1870.” European Review of Economic History 5 no. 1 (2001) 1–28.Google Scholar
Keller, Wolfgang and Carol, H. Shiue“Tariffs, Trains, and Trade: The Role of Institutions versus Technology in the Expansion of Markets.” NBER Working Paper No. 13913, Cambridge, MA, April 2008.Google Scholar
Konno, Toru and Mototsugu, Fukushige“The Canada-United States Bilateral Import Demand Functions: Gradual Switching in Long-Run Relationships.” Applied Economics Letters 9 no. 9 (2002) 567–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampe, Markus.“Bilateral Trade Flows in Europe, 1857-1875: A New Dataset.“ Research in Economic History 26 (2008): 81–155.Google Scholar
Lampe, Markus.“Effects of Bilateralism and the MFN Clause on International Trade: Evidence for the Cobden-Chevalier Network (1860-1875).” Center for Quantitative Economics Working Paper No. 2, Münster/Westf., November 2009.Google Scholar
Lazer, David A.“The Free Trade Epidemic of the 1860s and Other Outbreaks of Economic Discrimination.” World Politics 51 no. 4 (1999) 447–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Leone.“Statistical Results of the Recent Treaties of Commerce Between Different States of Europe.” Journal of the Statistical Society 40 no. 1 (1877) 1–18.Google Scholar
Lindblad, J. Thomas and Jan, L. van Zanden“De buitenlandse handel van Nederland, 1872-1913.” Economisch- en Sociaal-Historisch Jaarboek 52 (1989): 231–69.Google Scholar
López-Córdova, J. Ernesto and Christopher, M. Meissner“Exchange Rate Regimes and International Trade: Evidence from the Classical Gold Standard Era.” American Economic Review 93 no. 1 (2003) 344–53.Google Scholar
Mahaim, Ernest.“La politique commerciale de la Belgique.” In Die Handelspolitik der wichtigeren Kulturstaaten in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Vol. 1. Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Vol. 49, edited by Verein fü, Socialpolitik195238Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot 1892.Google Scholar
Marsh, Peter T.Bargaining on Europe: Britain and the First Common Market, 1860-1892. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1999Google Scholar
Nye, J. Vincent.“Changing French Trade Conditions, National Welfare, and the 1860 Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce.” Explorations in Economic History 28 no. 4 (1991) 460–77.Google Scholar
Nye, J. Vincent.“The Myth of Free Trade Britain and Fortress France: Tariffs and Trade in the Nineteenth Century.” This JOURNAL 51 no. 1(1991): 23–46Google Scholar
Nye, J. Vincent.War, Wine, and Taxes: The Political Economy of Anglo-French Trade, 1689-1900. Princeton Economic History of the Western World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2007Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin H. and Jeffrey, G. WilliamsonGlobalization and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahre, Robert.Politics and Trade Cooperation in the Nineteenth Century: The “Agreeable Customs” of 1815-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2008Google Scholar
Parry, Clive ed. The Consolidated Treaty Series 231 vols. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana 1969.Google Scholar
Preußisches Handelsarchiv, various dates.Google Scholar
Ritschl, Albrecht and Nikolaus, Wolf “Endogeneity of Currency Areas and Trade Blocs: Evidence from the Interwar Period.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4112, London, November 2003.Google Scholar
Rose, Andrew K.“Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?” American Economic Review 94 no. 1 (2004) 98–114.Google Scholar
Santos Silva, J. M. C. and Silvana, Tenreyro“The Log of Gravity.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 88 no. 4 (2006): 641–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, JürgenOskar, Schwarzer and Friedrich, Zellfelder Währungen der Welt. Vol. 1. Europäische und nordamerikanische Devisenkurse 1777-1914. Stuttgart: Steiner 1991Google Scholar
Shiue, Carol H.“From Political Fragmentation Towards a Customs Union: Border Effects of the German Zollverein, 1815 to 1855.” European Review of Economic History 9 no. 2 (2005) 129–62.Google Scholar
Stein, Arthur A.“The Hegemon's Dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the International Economic Order.” International Organization 38 no. 2 (1982) 355–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subramanian, Arvind and Shang-Jin, Wei.“The WTO Promotes Trade, Strongly but Unevenly.” Journal of International Economics 72 no. 1 (2007) 151–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weesie, Jeroen.“sg121: Seemingly Unrelated Estimation and the Cluster-Adjusted Sandwich Estimator.” Stata Technical Bulletin. no. 52 (1999): 34–47. Available at http://stata-press.com/journals/stbcontents/stb52.html.Google Scholar
Wendt, Bernd-Jürgen“Freihandel und Friedenssicherung. Zur Bedeutung des Cobden-Vertrags von 1860 zwischen Frankreich und England.” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 61 no. 1 (1974) 29–64.Google Scholar