Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:02:56.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Economic Structures and American Foreign Economic Policy, 1887–1934

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

David A. Lake
David A. Lake
Affiliation:
Political Science at the University of California
Get access

Abstract

American foreign economic policy between 1887 and 1934 was shaped in important ways by the international economic structure and the position of the United States as a “supporter” within it. As Britain's hegemony declined, and particularly after it joined the United States as a supporter just prior to World War I, American foreign economic policy became more liberal and active. Once Britain was transformed from a supporter into a spoiler in the late 1920s, leaving the United States as the sole supporter within the IES, both the international economy and American policy became more unstable and protectionist. During the 1970s, the United States, West Germany, and France all emerged as supporters within the IES, indicating that a moderately stable and liberal international economy may continue to exist in the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 517 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1983

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 Congressional Record, 51st Cong., 1st sess. (1890), 4250.

2 Terrill, , The Tariff, Politics, and American Foreign Policy 1874–1901 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973).Google Scholar

3 Lowi, , “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (July 1964), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For a recent reiteration of this view, see Pastor, Robert A., Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Economic Policy 1929–1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 84–93.Google Scholar

5 The phrase was coined by Keohane, Robert O. in “The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Economic Regimes, 1967–1977,” in Holsti, Ole and others, eds., Change in the International System (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1980), 131–62.Google Scholar

6 Peter Alexis Gourevitch is an exception to this general rule. See his “International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873–1896,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 8 (Autumn 1977), 281–313.

7 Kindleberger, , The World in Depression 1929–1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).Google Scholar

8 Ibid., 292.

9 Kindleberger, , “Dominance and Leadership in the International Economy: Exploitation, Public Goods, and Free Rides,” International Studies Quarterly 25 (June 1981), 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Kindleberger (fn. 7), 302, esp. n. 13.

11 Kindleberger (fn. 9), 249.

12 Ibid., 250.

13 Kindleberger (fn. 7), 305.

14 See Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation: The Political Economy of Foreign Direct Investment (New York: Basic Books, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Economic Interdependence and National Security in Historical Perspective,” in Knorr, Klaus and Trager, Frank N., eds., Economic Issues and National Security (Lawrence, Kansas: Regents Press of Kansas, 1977). 19–66.Google Scholar

15 Gilpin (fn. 14, 1975), 39–40.

16 Ibid., 84–85.

17 Gilpin (fn. 14, 1977), 22.

18 For a definition of hegemony related to issue area, see Keohane (fn. 5).

19 The following discussion is a summary of a deductive systemic-level theory put forth in Lake, David A., “Between Openness and Closure: International Economic Structures and American Trade Policy, 1887–1934,” Ph.D. diss. (Cornell University, forthcoming 1983)Google Scholar; copies available upon request.

20 For a brief discussion of the importance of agriculture before 1887, see LaFeber, Walter, The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion 1860–1898 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1963), 9–10.Google Scholar

21 Williams, William Appleman, The Roots of the Modern American Empire: A Study of the Growth and Shaping of Social Consciousness in a Marketplace Society (New York: Random House, 1969).Google Scholar

22 Terrill (fn. 2), 18; Williams (fn. 21), 106.

23 The best discussions of this reconceptualization of the tariff are contained in LaFeber (fn. 20), 1–61, and Terrill (fn. 2), 14–158.

24 See the debates over the McKinley Tariff within Congress: Congressional Record (fn. 1), 4247–10740.

25 Quoted in Campbell, Charles S. Jr, Special Business Interests and the Open Door Policy (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1968), 6.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., 7.

27 Ibid., 8; also see Novack, David E. and Simon, Matthew, “Commercial Responses to the American Export Invasion, 1871–1914: An Essay in Attitudinal History,” Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, Second Series, 3 (No. 2, 1966), 137.Google Scholar

28 Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 25–26.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., 25.

30 Ibid., 32.

31 Ibid., 34.

32 McCormick, Thomas J., China Market: America's Quest for Informal Empire 1893–1901 (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967), 127.Google Scholar

33 Congressional Record, 61st Cong., 1st sess., 1909, 285; emphasis added.

34 For the views of the Progressives, see Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Byran to F.D.R. (New York: Vintage Books, 1955)Google Scholar; for the views of the larger business interests, see Becker, William H., The Dynamics of Business-Government Relations: Industry and Exports 1893–1921 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), esp. pp. 69–90.Google Scholar

35 Baker, Richard Cleveland, The Tariff Under Roosevelt and Taft (Hastings, Nebraska: Democrat Printing, 1941), 12–44, esp. p. 39.Google Scholar

36 United States Tariff Commission, Reciprocity and Commercial Treaties (Washington: G.P.O., 1919), 270–71.Google Scholar

37 Quoted in Diamond, William, “The Economic Thought of Woodrow Wilson,” Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 61 (No. 4, 1943), 134.Google Scholar

38 Richardson, H. R., Messages and Papers of the Presidents, XVIII (New York: Bureau of National Literature), 8251–52.Google Scholar

39 One of the best discussions of the Paris Economic Conference and its aftermath is contained in Parrini, Carl P., Heir to Empire: United States Economic Diplomacy, 1916–1923 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1969), 15–39.Google Scholar

40 Ibid., 34.

41 See Culbertson, William S., Reciprocity: A National Policy for Foreign Trade (New York: McGraw Hill, 1937), esp. Appendix 6, 238–79.Google Scholar

42 See Leffler, Melvyn P., The Elusive Quest: America's Pursuit of European Stability and French Security 1919–1933 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 165–73.Google Scholar

43 Parrini (fn. 39), 270–71.

44 Leffler (fn. 42), 40–81.

45 Feis, Herbert, The Diplomacy of the Dollar: First Era 1919–1932 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1950), 11.Google Scholar

46 For instance, the United States placed an embargo on loans to France in April 1925. The House of Morgan had already refused to renew a $100 million credit until France made certain key concessions in the negotiations leading up to the Dawes Loan of October 1924. See Leffler (fn. 42), 125.

47 Ibid., 40–81.

48 The legislative history of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff is summarized in Schatt-schneider, E. E., Politics, Pressures and the Tariff (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1935).Google Scholar

49 Britain's shift to protectionism is summarized in Kottman, Richard N., Reciprocity and the North Atlantic Triangle 1932–1938 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1968), 13–38.Google Scholar

50 Of the prolific writings of Kendrick, John W., the most complete volume is Productivity Trends in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961).Google Scholar The debate over the proper definition of productivity is summarized in the exchange between Kendrick and Stanley H. Ruttenberg, Director of the National Bureau of Economic Research (which sponsored the study); see pp. 224–28.

51 See Fourastie, Jean, Productivity Prices and Wages (Paris: OEEC, 1957).Google Scholar

52 See, for instance, International Labour Office, Measuring Labour Productivity (Geneva: ILO, 1969)Google Scholar; Altmann, Franz-Lothar and others, eds., On the Measurement of Factor Productivities: Theoretical Problems and Empirical Results (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).Google Scholar

53 Maddison, Angus, “Long Run Dynamics of Productivity Growth,” Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Quarterly Review, No. 128 (March 1979), 43.Google Scholar