Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:03:04.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bilateral Treaties and The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: The Myth of Trade Liberalization in the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Olivier Accominotti  and
Marc Flandreau
Olivier Accominotti
Affiliation:
Paris, [email protected]
Marc Flandreau
Affiliation:
Paris, [email protected] Paris, [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Textbook accounts of the Anglo-French trade agreement of 1860 argue that it heralded the beginning of a liberal trading order. This alleged success holds much interest from a modern policy point of view, for it rested on bilateral negotiations and most-favored-nation clauses. With the help of new data on international trade (the RICardo database), the authors provide empirical evidence and find that the treaty and subsequent network of MFN trade agreements coincided with the end of a period of unilateral liberalization across the world. They also find that it did not contribute to expanding trade at all. This is contrary to a deeply rooted belief among economists, economic historians, and political scientists. The authors draw a number of policy lessons that run counter to the conventional wisdom and raise skepticism toward the ability of bilateralism and MFN arrangements to promote trade liberalization.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , January 2008 , pp. 147 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2008

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

1 Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W., “Economic Theory and the Interpretation of GATT/WTO,” American Economist 46, no. 2 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Jock A. Finlayson and Mark W. Zacher, write that “Reciprocity (...) does work to constrain progress toward liberalization by ensuring that concessions requested by state A will only be offered by state B to the extent that B can in turn obtain concessions from A”; see , Finlayson and Zacher, , “The GATT and the Regulation ofTrade Barriers: Regime Dynamics and Functions,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), 306)Google Scholar; and Bhagwati, Jagdish N., The World Trading System at Risk (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

3 See Bailey, Michael A., Goldstein, Judith, and Weingast, Barry R., “The Institutional Roots of American Trade Policy: Politics, Coalitions, and International Trade,” World Politics 49 (April 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Staiger, Robert W. and Tabellini, Guido, “Discretionary Trade Policy and Excessive Trade Protection,” American Economic Review 77, no. 5 (1987), 825Google Scholar.

5 Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W., “An Economic Theory of GATT,” American Economic Review 89, no. 1 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “GATT-Think,” NBER Working Paper, no. 8005 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000); Bagwell and Staiger (fn. 1).

6 Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

7 Dornbusch, Rudiger, “Policy Options for Freer Trade: The Case for Bilateralism,” in Lawrence, Robert Z. and Schultze, Charles L., eds., American Trade Strategy: Options for the 1990s (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990)Google Scholar.

8 Viner, Jacob, “The Most Favored Nation Clause in American Commercial Treaties,” Journal of Political Economy 32, no. 1 (1924), 105Google Scholar; Johnson, Harry G., “An Economic Theory of Protectionism, Tariff Bargaining and the Formation of Customs Unions,” Journal of Political Economy 73, no. 3 (1965)Google Scholar; Pahre, Robert, “Most-Favoured Nations Clauses and Clustered Negotiations,” International Organization 55, no. 4 (2001)Google Scholar.

9 Caplin, Andrew and Krishna, Kala, “Tariffs and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: A Game Theoretic Approach,” Seoul Journal of Economics 1Google Scholar (Fall).

10 Viner (fn. 8).

11 Viner, Jacob, International Economics (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1951)Google Scholar; see also Pahre, Robert, Politics and Trade Cooperation in the Nineteenth Century: The Agreeable Customs of 1815-1913 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 293Google Scholar.

12 Pahre, Robert, “Multilateral Cooperation in an Iterated Prisoner'sDilemma.,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38, no. 2 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Ludema, Rodney D., “International Bargaining and the Most-Favored Nation Clause,” Economics and Politics 3, no. 1 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Rodney D. Ludema and Anna M. Mayda, “Do Countries Free Ride on MFN?” CEPR Discussion Paper, no. 5160 (London: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2005).

15 Bairoch, Paul, “European Trade Policy, 1815-1914,” in Mathias, Peter and Pollard, Sidney, eds., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. 8, The Industrial Economies: The Development of Economic and Social Policies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 36Google Scholar.

16 Irwin, Douglas A., “Multilateral and Bilateral Trade Policies in the World Trading System: An Historical Perspective,” in de Melo, Jaime and Panagariya, Arvind, eds., New Dimensions in Regional Integration (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 95Google Scholar.

17 O'Rourke, Kevin H. and Williamson, Jeffrey G., Globalization and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38Google Scholar. Even Robert Pahre's (fn. 11) more critical account that emphasizes earlier episodes of cooperation does recognize that the 1860 treaty did “spur [cooperation] in the 1860s” (p. 321).

18 Irwin (fn. 16).

19 Ibid., 97.

20 Lazer, David, “The Free Trade Epidemic of the 1860s and Other Outbreaks of Economic Discrimination,” World Politics 51 (July 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Howe, Anthony, Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846-1946 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 93Google Scholar.

22 Pahre (fn. 11).

23 Iliasu, A. A., “The Cobden-Chevalier Commercial Treaty of 1860,” Historical Journal 14, no. 1 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Kindleberger, Charles P., “The Rise of Free Trade in Western Europe, 1820-1875” Journal of Economic History 35, no. 1 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Verdier, Daniel, “Democratic Convergence and Free Trade,” International Studies Quarterly 42, no. 1 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Irwin (fn. 16); and Lazer (fn. 20).

27 Rose argues that trade between members of the GATT/WTO is not significantly higher, other things being equal, than trade between nonmembers or between members and nonmembers; Rose, Andrew K., “Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?” American Economic Review 94, no. 1 (2004)Google Scholar. Goldstein, Rivers, and Tomz distinguish between “formal members” of GATT/WTO, “nonmember participants,” and “nonparticipants” and find that the GATT/WTO promoted trade for both formal members and nonmember participants; Goldstein, Judith L., Rivers, Douglas, and Tomz, Michael, “Institutions in International Relations: Understanding the Effects of the GATT and the WTO on World Trade,” International Organization 61, no. 1 (2007)Google Scholar; “Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Comment,” American Economic Review 97, no. 5 (2007)Google Scholar. Subramanian and Wei show that the GATT/WTO had little effect on the imports of developing countries but that it strongly promoted imports of developed countries; Subramanian, Arvind and Wei, Shang-Jin, “The WTO Promotes Trade Strongly but Unevenly,” Journal of International Economics 72, no. 1 (2007)Google Scholar. Gowa and Kim argue that GATT had a large, positive, and significant impact on trade but only between five member states. They also report evidence that interwar trade blocs survived within the GATT era. They relate these findings to specific features of the GATT bargaining protocol; Gowa, Joanne S. and Kim, Soo Y., “An Exclusive Country Club: The Effects of the GATT on Trade, 1950-1994,” World Politics 57 (July 2005)Google Scholar. Finally, Felbermayr and Kohler and Helpman, Melitz, and Rubinstein find that the GATT/WTO contributed to the formation of new bilateral trading relationships. See Gabriel Felbermayr and Wilhelm Kohler, “Does WTO Membership Make a Difference at the Extensive Margin of World Trade?” CESifo Working Paper, no. 1898 (Munich: CESifo, 2007); and Elhanan Helpman, Marc Melitz, and Yona Rubin-stein, “Estimating Trade Flows: Trading Partners and Trading Volumes,” NBER Working Paper, no. 12927 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007).

28 Brown, Lucy, The Board of Trade and the Free Trade Movement, 1830-1842 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958)Google Scholar.

29 Irwin (fn. 16), 95; Marsh, Peter T., Bargaining on Europe: Britain and the First Common Market, 1860-1892 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

30 Kindleberger (fn. 24).

31 Iliasu (fn. 23).

32 Irwin (fn. 16), 95-96.

33 Irwin (fn. 16).

34 Lazer (fn. 20).

35 Bairoch, Paul, Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

36 Irwin (fn. 16), 95.

37 Nye, John V., “The Myth of Free Trade Britain and Fortress France: Tariffs and Trade in the Nineteenth Century,” Journal of Economic History 51, no. 1 (1991)Google Scholar; idem, “Reply to Irwin on Free Trade,” Journal of Economic History 53, no. 1 (1993)Google Scholar; idem, War, Wines and Taxes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

38 Lewis, Arthur, “The Rate of Growth of World Trade,” in Grassman, Sven and Lundberg, Erik, eds., Tie World Economic Order: Past and Prospects (London: Macmillan, 1981)Google Scholar; Bairoch, Paul, Commerce extérieur et développement économique de l'Europe au XIXe siècle [External Trade and European Economic Development in the 19th Century] (Paris: Mouton, 1976)Google Scholar; idem, “Geographical Structure and Trade Balance of European Foreign Trade from 1800 to 1970,” Journal of European Economic History 3, no. 3 (1974)Google Scholar.

39 For more details on this, see Pahre's extensive Trade Agreements Database (TAD) (fn. 11).

40 Bairoch (fn. 38,1976).

41 Ibid., 65.

42 Ibid., 67. “Of course, the liberalization policy adopted by the United Kingdom was a key factor for this strong acceleration of trade. And it was especially so because, as we have seen, following Britain's success (British trade doubled between 1846 and 1856), almost all European nations, after France, liberalized their custom policy after 1860.”

43 Bairoch gives a list of European trading powers circa 1860 (in descending order): United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden. He excludes Holland because of “uncertainty in trade statistics,” adding that in 1860 it would have occupied the ninth or tenth place; Bairoch, “European Foreign Trade in the XlXth Century: The Development of the Value and Volume of Exports (Preliminary Results),” Journal of European Economic History 2, no. 1 (1973), 3. Note also that Bairoch's definition of “Germany” is unclear. Since systematic annual aggregate data for “Germany” are not available, we have excluded them from the sample in this section (although data for bilateral trade flows relating to Bremen, Hamburg, Liibeck, and Zollverein are included in the background data set for the regressions in Section IV). Our index thus covers nine of the ten major European trading nations of the time, plus the United States.

44 Notable attempts for individual countries include McCloskey and Irwin: McCloskey, Deirdre N., “Magnanimous Albion: Free Trade and British National Income, 1841-1881,” Explorations in Economic History 17, no. 3 (1980)Google Scholar; Irwin, Douglas A., “New Estimates of the Average Tariff of the United States, 1790-1820,” Journal of Economic History 63, no. 2 (2003)Google Scholar; and idem, “Tariff Incidence in America's Gilded Age,” Journal of Economic History 67, no. 3 (2007)Google Scholar. In comparison with 1860s, the 1840s had earlier attracted greater interest. Other discussions and measurement of trade liberalization in the 1840s include Irwin, Douglas A., “Welfare Effects of British Free Trade: Debate and Evidence from the 1840's,” Journal of Political Economy 96, no. 6 (1988)Google Scholar; idem, “Political Economy and Peel Repeal of the Corn Laws,” Economics andPolitics 1, no. 1 (1989)Google Scholar; and Williamson, Jeffrey G., “The Impact of the Corn Laws Just Prior to Repeal,” Explorations in Economic History 27, no. 2 (1990)Google Scholar.

45 Nye (fn. 37,1991).

46 Irwin, Douglas A., “Free Trade and Protection in Nineteenth Century Britain and France Revisited: A Comment on Nye,” Journal of Economic History 53, no. 1 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Incidentally, Figure 3 also shows that the conventional opposition between Britain and France, as Nye had argued, is inexact. A more relevant one would be between “laissez-faire” Holland, Switzerland, or Belgium and “fortresses” U.S., Spain, or Russia. In between the two, France, Italy, or Britain are not dissimilar.

48 Levasseur, Emile, Histoire du commerce de la France, Deuxième partie: De 1789 à nos jours [History of France's Foreign Trade, Second Part: 1789 to Present Times] (Paris: A. Rousseau, 1912)Google Scholar.

49 Table 3 ignores some navigation treaties with Latin American nations and a few European ones as well. See note to Table 3.

50 To our knowledge, the only other pre-1870 bilateral trade database is the one used in Flandreau; Flandreau, Marc, “The Economics and Politics of Monetary Unions: A Reassessment of the Latin Monetary Union, 1865-1871,” Financial History Review 7, no. 1 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Its size is more limited, however, and it relies mostly on data from Brian R. Mitchell, completed by some information from Swiss and Belgian trade returns.

51 By 1865, 44.5 percent of the treaties had been signed.

52 Irwin provides an exploration of the incidence of Federation on Australian trade in 1901. He finds little change in intra-Australian trade patterns in the period immediately following the formation of the Federation; Irwin, Douglas A., “The Impact of Federation on Australia's Trade Flows,” Economic Record 82, no. 258 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Eichengreen, Barry and Irwin, Douglas A., “Trade Blocs, Currency Blocs and the Reorientation of World Trade in the 1930's,” Journal of International Economics 8, no. 1-2 (1995)Google Scholar; and Maurel, Mathilde, Regionalisme et disintegration en Europe centrale et orientale: une approche gravitationnelle [Regionalism and Disintegration in Eastern and Central Europe: A Gravity Approach] (Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1998)Google Scholar.

54 We think that this takes care of the vexatious lack of control for trade policy, which is characteristic of gravity models. This formulation is also superior to that used in Flandreau and Maurel where trade policy is proxied by possibly endogenous apparent protection; Flandreau, Marc and Maurel, Mathilde, “Monetary Integration, Trade Integration and Business Cycles in 19th Century Europe,” Open Economies Review 16, no. 2 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Cheng, I-Hui and Wall, Howard J., “Controlling for Heterogeneity in Gravity Models of Trade and Integration,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review 87, no. 1 (2005)Google Scholar.

56 With GLS, the language effect is not significant.

57 Cheng and Wall (fn. 55) note that “the literature has not tended to find a consistent sign” for the coefficient of population in the gravity equation (p. 8).

58 E.g., Invin (fn. 16).

59 It is not clear how this can be reconciled with the view that Britain was “laissez-faire.” If it was so, how could its concessions be more generous? And if Britain extended its concessions to France, why did it sign four MFN treaties (with Zollverein, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Belgium) in the following years?

60 Bairoch (fn. 38,1976); Irwin (fn. 16); O'Rourke and Williamson (fn. 17).

61 Irwin (fn. 16).

62 To be completely fair, Bairoch (fn. 38) and Lewis (fn. 38) do provide some partial aggregate numbers. As suggested, the evidence from these numbers did not quite square with the conventional view. That the conventional view failed to acknowledge the irrelevance of the 1860s in view of existing numbers only makes its enduring success more puzzling.

63 Irwin (fn. 16).

64 As The Economist reminded its readers a few weeks after the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty was signed: “We [meaning England] cannot truthfully say to them [meaning France], 'If you will take our production free of duty, we will injure ourselves by taking yours free of duty,' because we believe that, by so taking those commodities, we shall not be injuring, but benefiting ourselves”; Economist, January 28, 1860.

65 Johnson (fn. 8).

66 Pahre (fn. 11).

67 Ibid., 284.

68 Ibid., 301–4, for a test of the assumption that MFN treaties reduce cooperative activity as measured by the number of treaties in effect for each country. As Pahre concludes: “the figures suggest that MFN clause inhibits treaty formation” (p. 305).

69 Kindleberger (fn. 24).

70 Bairoch (fn. 38,1976); Irwin (fn. 16).

71 Maurois, André, La vie de Disraeli [Disraeli's Life] (Paris: Gallimard, 1927), 197Google Scholar.

72 Mitchell, Brian R., International Historical Statistics: The Americas, 1750-2000, 5th ed. (New York: Stockton Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

73 Maddison, Angus, The World Economy: Historical Statistics (Paris: OECD Development Centre Studies, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Mitchell (fn. 72).

75 Mitchell, Brian R., International Historical Statistics: Africa, Asia and Oceania, 1750-2000, 4th ed. (New York: Stockton Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

76 Mitchell, Brian R., International Historical Statistics, Europe, 1750-2000, 5th ed. (New York: Stockton Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

79 Mitchell (fn. 72).

80 Mitchell (fn. 76).

81 Statesman's Yearbook, Statistical and Historical Annual of the States of the World (London: Macmillan, various years).

82 Mitchell (fn. 72).

83 Ibid.

84 Mitchell (fn. 76).

85 Ibid.

86 Maddison (fn. 73).

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid.

90 Smits, Jan-Pieter, Horlings, Edwin, and Zanden, Jan-Luiten Van, Dutch GNP and Its Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen, Netherlands: Growth and Development Centre, 2000)Google Scholar.

91 Vamplew, Wray, Australians, Historical Statistics (Broadway, Australia: Fairfax, Syme, & Weldon, 1987)Google Scholar.

92 Mitchell (fn. 75).

93 Nunes, Ana, Mata, Eugenia, and Valerio, Nuno, “Portuguese Economic Growth,” Journal of European Economic History 18, no. 2 (1989)Google Scholar.

94 Mitchell (fn. 76).

95 Maddison (fn. 73).

96 Mitchell (fn. 76).

97 Maddison (fn. 73).

98 Ibid.

99 Vamplew (fn. 91).

100 Maddison (fn. 73).

101 Schulze, Max-Stephan, “Patterns of Growth and Stagnation in the Late Nineteenth Century Habsburg Economy,” European Review of Economic History 4, no. 3 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 Maddison (fn. 73).

103 Ibid.

104 Ibid.

105 Mitchell (fn. 76).

106 Statesman's Yearbook (fn. 81).

107 Maddison (fn. 73).

108 Ibid.

109 Mitchell (fn. 76).

110 Kostelenos, Georgios, Kounaris, Emmanouil, Petmezas, Socrates, Sfakianakis, Michael, and Vasiliou, Dimitrios, “Gross Domestic Product 1830-1939,” in Sources of Economic History of Modern Greece: Quantitative Data and Statistical Series, 1830-1939 (Athens: Historical Archives of the National Bank of Greece, 2007)Google Scholar.

111 Fratianni, Michele and Spinelli, Franco, Storia monetaria d'Italia, L'evoluzione del sistema monetario e bancario (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 1991)Google Scholar.

112 Maddison (fn. 73).

113 Mitchell (fn. 76).

114 Maddison (fn. 73).

115 Coatsworth, John H., “Mexico,” in Mokyr, Joel, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Economic History, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 501-7Google Scholar.

116 Smits, Horlings, and Van Zanden (fn. 90).

117 Vamplew(fn. 91).

118 Maddison (fn. 73).

119 Ibid.

120 Grytten, Ola H., “The Gross Domestic Product for Norway, 1830-2003,” in Historical Monetary Statistics for Norwayfrom 1819, Norges Bank Occasional Papers, no. 35 (2003)Google Scholar, chap. 6.

121 Nunes, Mata, and Valerio (fn. 93).

122 Crafts, Nicholas, “Patterns of Development in Nineteenth Century Europe,” Oxford Economic papers 36, no. 3 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 Gregory, Paul R., Russian National Income, 1885-1913 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

124 Mitchell (fn. 76).

125 Fratianni and Spine Ui(fn. 111). •> Mitchell (fh. 76).

127 Prados de la Escosura, Leandro, Elprogreso economico de Espana: 1850-2000 (Madrid: Fundacion BBVA, 2003)Google Scholar.

128 Krantz, Olle and Schon, Lennart, Swedish Historical National Accounts, 1800-2000 (Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2007)Google Scholar.

129 Siegenthaler, Hansjörg, ed., Historische Statistik der Schweiz (Zurich: Chronos Verlag, 1996)Google Scholar.

130 Carter, Susan B., Gartner, Scott S., Haines, Michael R., Olmstead, Alan L., Sutch, Richard, and Wright, Gavin, Historical Statistics of the United States: Earliest Time to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

131 Maddison (fn. 73).

132 Mitchell (fnn. 72, 75, 76).

133 Schneider, Jürgen, Schwarzer, Otto, and Zellfelder, Friedrich, Währungen der Welt, Europäische und Nordamerikanische Devisenkurse, 1777-1914 (Stuttgart: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 1991)Google Scholar.

134 Denzel, Markus A., Währungen der Welt, vol. 11, Dänische und nordwestdeutsche Wechselkurse, 1696-1914 (Stuttgart: In Kommission bei Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 1999)Google Scholar.

135 Kostelenos et al. (fn. 110).

136 Schneider, Schwarzer, and Zellfelder (fn. 133).

137 Klovland, Jan T., “Historical Exchange Rates Data, 1819-2003,” in Historical Monetary Statistics for Norwayfrom 1819, Norges Bank Occasional Papers, no. 35 (2003)Google Scholar, chap. 7.

138 Schneider, Schwarzer, and Zellfelder (fn. 133).

139 Riksbank, Sveriges, 1668-1924 Bankens Tillkomst Och Verksambet (Stockholm: Kungl Boktryckeriet PA Norstedt & Söner, 1931)Google Scholar.

140 Schneider, Schwarzer, and Zellfelder (fn. 133).

141 Carter et al. (fn. 130).

142 Mitchell (fn. 76).

143 Mitchell (fn. 76).

144 Levy-Leboyer, Maurice and Bourguignon, François, L'Economie française au XIXe siècle: analyse macroéconomique (Paris: Economica, 1985)Google Scholar.

145 Mitchell (fn. 76).

146 Mitchell, Brian R., Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

147 Siegenthaler (fn. 129).

148 Smits, Horlings, and Van Zanden (fn. 90).

149 Statistisches Jahrbuch des Deutschen Reichs (Statisches Reichsamt: Berlin).

150 Mitchell (fn. 76).

151 Mitchell (fn. 72).

152 Siegenthaler (fn. 129).

153 Smits, Horlings, and Van Zanden (fn. 90).

154 Bondi, Gerhard, Deutschlands Aussenbandel, 1815-1870 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958)Google Scholar.

155 Mitchell (fn. 76).

156 Smits, Horlings, and Van Zanden (fn. 90).

157 Mitchell (fn. 76).

158 Lewis (fn. 38).

159 Mitchell (fn. 76).

160 Lewis (fn. 38).

161 Siegenthaler (fn. 129).

162 Lewis (fn. 38).

163 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960)Google Scholar.

164 Bondi (fn. 154).

165 Lewis (fn. 38).