Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:34:05.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Economic Consequences of the Peace: Trade and Borders After Versailles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2011

NIKOLAUS WOLF ,
MAX-STEPHAN SCHULZE  and
HANS-CHRISTIAN HEINEMEYER
NIKOLAUS WOLF*
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Humboldt University, Berlin, D-10178 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
MAX-STEPHAN SCHULZE*
Affiliation:
Reader in Economic History, Department of Economic History, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected].
HANS-CHRISTIAN HEINEMEYER*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Humboldt University Berlin, D-10178 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The First World War radically altered the political landscape of Central Europe. The new borders after 1918 are typically viewed as detrimental to the region's economic integration and development. We argue that this view lacks historical perspective. It fails to take into account that the new borders followed a pattern of economic fragmentation that had emerged during the late nineteenth century. We estimate the effects of the new borders on trade and find that the “treatment effects” of these borders were quite limited. There is strong evidence that border changes occurred systematically along barriers which existed already before 1914.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 915 - 949
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2011

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

Ádám, Magda. “Woodrow Wilson and the Successor States: An American Plan for a New Central Europe.” In The Versailles System and Central Europe, edited by Ádám, M., 3–27. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. (originally published in Danubian Historical Studies 1, no. 4 (1987): 19–56).Google Scholar
Aldcroft, Derek H. and Morewood, Steven. Economic Change in Eastern Europe. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1995.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto and Spolaore, Enrico. The Size of Nations.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James, and van Wincoop, Eric. “Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle.” American Economic Review 93, no. 1 (2003): 170–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, James, and van Wincoop, Eric. “Trade Costs.” Journal of Economic Literature 42, no. 3 (2004): 691–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashenfelter, Orley. “Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings.” Review of Economics and Statistics 6, no. 1 (1978): 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashenfelter, Orley and Card, David. “Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs.” Review of Economics and Statistics 64, no. 4 (1985): 648–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Boris. “Economic Integration in Central Europe Between the Two Wars: The Czecheslovak Perspective.” In National Borders and Economic Disintegration in Modern East Central Europe, edited by Müller, Uwe and Schultz, Helga, 155–68. Frankfurter Studien zur Grenzregion, Vol. 8. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
Bertrand, Marianne, Duflo, Esther and Mullainathan, Sendhil. “How Much Should We Trust Difference in Difference Estimates?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 119, no. 1 (2004): 249–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, Timothy and Case, Anne. “Unnatural Experiments? Estimating the Incidence of Endogenous Policies.” Economic Journal 110, no. 467 (2000): 672–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bideleux, Robert and Jeffries, Ian. A History of Eastern Europe. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
Boemeke, Manfred F., Feldman, Gerald D., and Gläser, Elisabeth, eds. The Treaty of Versaille: A Reassessment After 75 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broda, Christian, and David, E. Weinstein. “Globalization and the Gains from Variety.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 121, no. 2 (2006): 541–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruckmüller, Ernst and Sandgruber, Roman. “Concepts of Economic Integration in Austria During the Twentieth Century.” In Nation, State, and the Economy in History, edited by Teichova, Alice and Matis, Herbert, 159–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaney, Thomas. “Distorted Gravity: Heterogeneous Firms, Market Structure, and the Geography of International Trade.” Unpublished Manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005.Google Scholar
Engel, Charles and Rogers, John. “How Wide is the Border?” American Economic Review 86, no. 5 (1996): 1112–25.Google Scholar
Evans, Caroline. “The Economic Significance of National Border Effects.” American Economic Review 93, no. 4 (2003): 1291–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Caroline. “Border Effects and the Availability of Domestic Products Abroad.” Canadian Journal of Economics 39, no. 1 (2006): 211–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, Charles H., Temin, Peter and Toniolo, Gianni. The European Economy Between the Wars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Fidrmuc, Jan and Fidrmuc, Jarko. “Disintegration and Trade.” Review of International Economics 11, no. 5 (2003): 811–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fremdling, Rainer. Eisenbahnen und deutsches Wirtschaftswachstum, 1840–1879. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungstheorie und zur Theorie der Infrastruktur. Dortmund: Gesellschaft für Westfälische Wirtschafts-geschichte, 1975.Google Scholar
Gaedicke, Herbert, and von Eynern, Gert. Die produktionswirtschaftliche Integration Europas: Eine Untersuchung über die Aussenhandels-verflechtung der europäischen Länder. Berlin: Junker u. Dünnhaupt, 1933.Google Scholar
Gerschenkron, Alexander. Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Greif, Avner. “Contract Enforceability and Economic Institution in Early Trade: The Maghribi Traders Coalition.” American Economic Review 83, no. 3 (1993): 525–48.Google Scholar
Haver, Eva. Die Zerreissung der Kreise Gross-Wartenberg und Namslau durch den Vertrag von Versailles. Breslau: Verein für Geschichte Schlesiens, 1933.Google Scholar
Heater, Derek. National Self-Determination: Woodrow Wilson and His Legacy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinemeyer, Hans-Christian. “The Effect of Borders on Trade: The Great War and the Disintegration of Central Europe.” Cliometrica 1, no. 3 (2007): 177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillberry, Russell H. and Hummels, David. “Trade Responses to Geographic Frictions: A Decomposition Using Micro-Data.” NBER Working Paper No. 11339, Cambridge, MA, May 2005.Google Scholar
Howkins, Trevor J. “The Adjustment of International Rail Passenger Services to New State Boundaries—The Eastern Marchlands of Europe, 1918–39.” Journal of Transport Geography 7, no. 2 (1999): 147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Rudolf. “Zwischen ökonomischer Interessenvertretung und national-kultureller Selbstbehauptung. Zum Wirtschaftsnationalismus in Ostmitteleuropa vor 1914.” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 53, no. 2 (2004): 257–68.Google Scholar
Jeszensky, Géza. “The Idea of a Danubian Federation in British and American Thought During World War I.” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 1988, no. 2–3 (1989): 1–12 [as reproduced on http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/ jeszenszky/jesz16.doc, accessed 20/02/11].Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. Statistik der Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1910. Berlin, 1911.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. Statistik der Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1913. Berlin, 1914.Google Scholar
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt. Verkehr und Wasserstände der Deutschen Binnenwasserstrassen im Jahre 1913. Berlin 1914. Reedition as Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Volume 274. Osnabrück, 1977.Google Scholar
Keylor, William R. “The Principle of National Self-Determination as a Factor in the Creation of Postwar Frontiers in Europe, 1919 and 1945.” In The Establishment of European Frontiers After the Two World Wars, edited by Baechler, Christian and Fink, Carole, 37–54. Bern/Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920.Google Scholar
K.k. Handelsministerium, Statistisches Departement. Statistik des auswärtigen Handels des Vertragszollgebiets der beiden Staaten der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie im Jahre 1910(–1913). Vienna, 1911, 1914.Google Scholar
K.k. Statistische Central-Commission. Waren-Ausfuhr aus dem Allgemeinen Österreichisch-Ungarischen Zollgebiete im Jahre 1885. Vienna, 1886.Google Scholar
Komlos, John. The Habsburg Monarchy as a Customs Union: Economic Development in Austria-Hungary in the Nineteenth Century.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Königlich-Preußisches Ministerium der Öffentlichen Arbeiten. Statistik der Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1885. Berlin, 1886.Google Scholar
Liepmann, Heinrich. Tariff Levels and the Economic Unity of Europe. New York: MacMillan, 1938.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Torsten, ed. Cooperatives in Ethnic Conflicts: Eastern Europe in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century. Berlin: Arno Spitz, 2006.Google Scholar
Luschin von Ebengreuth, Arnold. Die Zerreissung der Steiermark. Graz: Moser, 1921.Google Scholar
MacMillan, Margaret. Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War. London: John Murray Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
Magyar Kir. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal. “A Magyar Szent Korona Országainak 1882–1913. Évi Külkereskedelmi Forgalma.” Magyar Statisztikai Közlemények 63. Budapest, 1923.Google Scholar
McCallum, John. “National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns.” American Economic Review 85, no. 3 (1995): 615–23.Google Scholar
Meyer, Bruce. “Natural and Quasi-Natural Experiments in Economics.” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 13, no. 2 (1995): 151–61.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Paul. Um die Nordmark: die drohende Zerreissung Schleswig-Holsteins. Berlin: Moeser, 1919.Google Scholar
Mick, Christoph. “Die ‘Ukrainermacher’ und ihre Konkurrenten. Strategien der nationalen Vereinnahmung des Landes in Ostgalizien.” Comparativ 15 (2005): 60 76.Google Scholar
Müller, Uwe. “Die sozialoekonomische Situation in den ostdeutschen Grenzregionen und die Beziehungne zu Polen im 20. Jahrhundert.” In Interesse und Konflikt. Zur politischen Oekonomie der deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen, 1900–2007, edited by Bingen, Dieter et al., 58–77. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008.Google Scholar
Nautz, Jürgen, Die österreichische Handelspolitik der Nachkriegszeit, 1918–1923. Die Neuordnung der Handelsvertragsbeziehungen zu den Nachfolgestaaten. Wien: Böhlau, 1994.Google Scholar
Nitsch, Volker and Wolf, Nikolaus. “Tear Down This Wall: On the Persistence of Borders in Trade.” CEPR Discussion Paper 7545, London, 2009.Google Scholar
Rauch, James. “Business and Social Networks in International Trade.” Journal of Economic Literature 39, no. 4 (2001): 1177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, James and Trindade, Victor. “Ethnic Chinese Networks in International Trade.” Review of Economics and Statistics 84, no. 1 (2002): 116–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regul, Rudolf. “Die Wettbewerbslage der Steinkohle.” Vierteljahreshefte zur Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft 34. Berlin, 1933.Google Scholar
Ritschl, Albrecht and Wolf, Nikolaus. “The Endogeneity of Currency Areas and Trade Blocs: Evidence from the Interwar Period.” Kyklos 64, no. 2 (2011): 291–312.Google Scholar
Rossi-Hansberg, Esteban. “A Spatial Theory of Trade.” American Economic Review 95, no. 5 (2005): 1464–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Helga. “Self-Determination and Economic Interest: Border Drawing After the World Wars.” In National Borders and Economic Disintegration in Modern East Central Europe, edited by Müller, Uwe and Schultz, Helga, 109–24. Frankfurter Studien zur Grenzregion, Vol. 8. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts Verlag, 2002.Google Scholar
Schulze, Max-Stephan and Wolf, Nikolaus. “On the Origins of Border Effects: Evidence from the Habsburg Empire.” Journal of Economic Geography 9, no. 1 (2009): 117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, Alan. The Versailles Settlement: Peacemaking in Paris, 1919. London: MacMillan, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smitha, Frank E. Maps from http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/2004, copyright granted via personal correspondence on 13 June 2011.Google Scholar
Stäehler, H. Die Zerreissung von Oberschlesien. Berlin: Stilke, 1929.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Die Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1925. Berlin, 1926.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Die Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1926. Berlin, 1927.Google Scholar
Statistisches Reichsamt. Die Güterbewegung auf Deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1933. Berlin, 1934.Google Scholar
Steiner, Zara. The Lights That Failed – European International History, 1919–1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Joao Santos and Tenreyro, Silvana. “The Log of Gravity.” Review of Economics and Statistics 88, no. 4 (2006): 641–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennenbaum, Henryk. Bilans handlowy Królestwa Polskiego opracowany przez wydzial statystyczny Towarzystwa przemyslowców pod kierunkiem Henryka Tennenbauma. Warsaw: E. Wende, 1916.Google Scholar
Wolf, Nikolaus. “Path Dependent Border Effects: The Case of Poland's Reunification (1918–1939).” Explorations in Economic History 42, no. 3 (2005): 414–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Nikolaus. “Was Germany Ever United? Evidence from Intra- and International Trade, 1885–1933.” The Journal of Economic History 69, no. 3 (2009): 846–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar