Editing Protectionism (section)

===Europe===
==== Continental Europe ====
Europe became increasingly protectionist during the eighteenth century.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8493.html|title=Power and Plenty|date= 2009|publisher=Princeton University Press|access-date=16 October 2017|isbn=978-0-691-14327-9|last1=Findlay|first1=Ronald|last2=O'Rourke|first2=Kevin H.}}</ref> Economic historians Findlay and O'Rourke write that in "the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, European trade policies were almost universally protectionist", with the exceptions being smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark.<ref name=":3" />

Europe increasingly liberalized its trade during the 19th century.<ref name=":1" /> Countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland, and arguably Sweden and Belgium, had fully moved towards free trade prior to 1860.<ref name=":1" /> Economic historians see the repeal of the [[Corn Laws]] in 1846 as the decisive shift toward free trade in Britain.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{cite book| chapter-url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-cambridge-economic-history-of-modern-britain/trade-discovery-mercantilism-and-technology/A0D309440D728FC14CC299FACB7A5876 | chapter=7 – Trade: discovery, mercantilism and technology | title=The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Britain | publisher=Cambridge University | language=en | access-date=27 June 2017 | doi=10.1017/CHOL9780521820363.008 | isbn=978-1-139-05385-3 | year=2004 | last1=Harley | first1=C. Knick | pages=175–203 }}</ref> A 1990 study by the Harvard economic historian [[Jeffrey Williamson]] showed that the Corn Laws (which imposed restrictions and [[Trade barrier|tariffs]] on imported [[grain]]) substantially increased the cost of living for British workers, and hampered the British manufacturing sector by reducing the disposable incomes that British workers could have spent on manufactured goods.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Williamson|first=Jeffrey G|author-link = Jeffrey G. Williamson|date=1 April 1990|title=The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal|journal=Explorations in Economic History|volume=27|issue=2|pages=123–156|doi=10.1016/0014-4983(90)90007-L}}</ref> The shift towards liberalization in Britain occurred in part due to "the influence of economists like David Ricardo", but also due to "the growing power of urban interests".<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal| first1=Ronald | last1=Findlay| last2=O'Rourke | first2=Kevin H. |date=1 January 2003| title=Commodity Market Integration, 1500–2000 | url=https://www.nber.org/chapters/c9585 |journal=NBER| pages=13–64}}</ref>

Findlay and O'Rourke characterize 1860 [[Cobden–Chevalier Treaty|Cobden Chevalier treaty]] between France and the United Kingdom as "a decisive shift toward European free trade."<ref name=":1" /> This treaty was followed by numerous free trade agreements: "France and Belgium signed a treaty in 1861; a Franco-Prussian treaty was signed in 1862; Italy entered the "network of Cobden-Chevalier treaties" in 1863 (Bairoch 1989, 40); Switzerland in 1864; Sweden, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Hanseatic towns in 1865; and Austria in 1866. By 1877, less than two decades after the Cobden Chevalier treaty and three decades after British Repeal, Germany "had virtually become a free trade country" (Bairoch, 41). Average duties on manufactured products had declined to 9–12% on the Continent, a far cry from the 50% British tariffs, and numerous prohibitions elsewhere, of the immediate post-Waterloo era (Bairoch, table 3, p.&nbsp;6, and table 5, p.&nbsp;42)."<ref name=":1" />

Some European powers did not liberalize during the 19th century, such as the Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire which remained highly protectionist. The [[Ottoman Empire]] also became increasingly protectionist.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Daudin|first1=Guillaume|last2=O’Rourke|first2=Kevin H.|last3=Escosura|first3=Leandro Prados de la|date=2008|title=Trade and Empire, 1700–1870|journal=Documents de Travail de l'Ofce |url=https://ideas.repec.org/p/fce/doctra/0824.html}}</ref> In the Ottoman Empire's case, however, it previously had [[Economic liberalism|liberal]] [[free trade]] policies during the 18th to early 19th centuries, which [[British prime minister]] [[Benjamin Disraeli]] cited as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 [[Corn Laws]] debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufacturers of the world" in 1812.<ref name="Paradoxes"/>

The countries of Western Europe began to steadily liberalize their economies after World War II and the protectionism of the interwar period,<ref name=":3" /> but [[John Tsang]], then [[Hong Kong]]'s [[Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology]] and chair of the [[World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference of 2005|Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization]], MC6, commented in 2005 that the EU spent around €70 billion per year on "trade-distorting support".<ref>Tsang, J., "Towards a Brighter Future in Trade and World Development", ''Hong Kong Industrialist'', 2005/12, p. 28</ref>

==== United Kingdom====
{{Main article|Economic history of the United Kingdom}}
{{See also|British Empire}}
{{Conservatism UK}}
[[Great Britain]], and England in particular, became one of the most prosperous economic regions in the world between the late 17th century and the early 19th century as a result of being the birthplace of the [[Industrial Revolution]] that began in the mid-eighteenth century.<ref>{{cite book|author=Baten, Jörg |title=A History of the Global Economy. From 1500 to the Present.|date=2016|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=13|isbn=978-1-107-50718-0}}</ref> The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The [[Navigation Acts]] of the late 17th century required all trade to be carried in English ships, manned by English crews (this later encompassed all Britons after the [[Acts of Union 1707]] united Scotland with England).<ref>Darwin, 2012 pp. 21–22</ref> Colonists were required to send their produce and raw materials first of all to Britain, where the surplus was then sold-on by British merchants to other colonies in the British empire or bullion-earning external markets. The colonies were forbidden to trade directly with other nations or rival empires. The goal was to maintain the North American and Caribbean colonies as dependent agricultural economies geared towards producing raw materials for export to Britain. The growth of native industry was discouraged, in order to keep the colonies dependent on the United Kingdom for their finished goods.<ref>Darwin, 2012 p. 166</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Max Savelle|title=Seeds of Liberty: The Genesis of the American Mind|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hIgl_HNozQsC&pg=PA204|year=1948|page=204ff|publisher=Kessinger |isbn=978-1-4191-0707-8}}</ref> From 1815 to 1870, the United Kingdom reaped the benefits of being the world's first modern, industrialised nation. It described itself as "the workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in almost any other market.<ref>Harold Cox, ed., ''British industries under free trade'' (1903) pp, 17–18.</ref>

By the 1840s, the United Kingdom had adopted a free-trade policy, meaning open markets and no tariffs throughout the empire.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Lynn|first=Martin|year=1999|title=British Policy, Trade, and Informal Empire in the Mid-19th Century|editor-first=Andrew|editor-last=Porter|journal=The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century|volume=3|pages=101–121|doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205654.003.0006}}</ref> The [[Corn Laws]] were [[tariff]]s and other [[trade restriction]]s on imported food and [[grain|corn]] enforced in the [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|United Kingdom]] between 1815 and 1846, and enhanced the profits and political power associated with [[land ownership]]. The laws raised [[food prices]] and the costs of living for the British public, and hampered the growth of other British economic sectors, such as manufacturing, by reducing the disposable income of the British public.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Williamson|first=Jeffrey G|date=1990-04-01|title=The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal|journal=Explorations in Economic History|volume=27|issue=2|pages=123–156|doi=10.1016/0014-4983(90)90007-L}}</ref> The Prime Minister, [[Robert Peel|Sir Robert Peel]], a [[Tories (British political party)|Conservative]], achieved repeal in 1846 with the support of the [[Whigs (British political party)|Whigs]] in Parliament, overcoming the opposition of most of his own party.

While the United Kingdom espoused a policy of free trade in the late nineteenth century, it was hardly the case that Britain was unaffected by the tariffs imposed by its trade partners—tariffs that generally increased during the late nineteenth century.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Bairoch |first1=Paul |title=European trade policy, 1815–1914 |date=1989-06-15 |work=The Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of the Roman Empire |pages=1–160 |editor-last=Mathias |editor-first=Peter |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/CBO9781139054508A005/type/book_part |access-date=2024-11-06 |edition=1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/chol9780521225045.002 |isbn=978-1-139-05450-8 |last2=Burke |first2=Susan |editor2-last=Pollard |editor2-first=Sidney|url-access=subscription }}</ref> According to one study, Britain's exports in 1902 would have been 57% higher, if all of Britain's trade partners also embraced free trade.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Varian |first=Brian D. |date=2023 |title=British exports and foreign tariffs: Insights from the Board of Trade's foreign tariff compilation for 1902 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.13214 |journal=The Economic History Review |language=en |volume=76 |issue=3 |pages=827–843 |doi=10.1111/ehr.13214 |issn=0013-0117}}</ref> The decline in overseas demand for British exports, resulting from foreign tariffs, contributed to the so-called late-Victorian climacteric in the British economy: a decline in the growth rate, i.e. a deceleration.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Coppock |first=D. J. |date=1956 |title=The Climacteric of the 1890's: A Critical Note |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9957.1956.tb00972.x |journal=The Manchester School |language=en |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=1–31 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9957.1956.tb00972.x |issn=1463-6786|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Crafts |first1=Nicholas |last2=Mills |first2=Terence C |date=2020-11-01 |title=Sooner than you think: the Pre-1914 UK Productivity Slowdown was Victorian not Edwardian |url=https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article/24/4/736/5804838 |journal=European Review of Economic History |language=en |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=736–748 |doi=10.1093/ereh/hez022 |issn=1361-4916|hdl=10.1093/ereh/hez022 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

During the interwar era, Britain abandoned free trade. There was a limited erosion of free trade during the 1920s under a patchwork of legislation including the [[Safeguarding of Industries Act 1921|Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921]], the [[Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act 1925|Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1925]], and the [[Finance Act|Finance Act of 1925]]. The [[Reginald McKenna|McKenna Duties]], which were imposed during the First World War on motorcars; clocks and watches; musical instruments; and cinematographic film were retained.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Abel |first=Deryck |title=A History of British Tariffs, 1923-1942 |publisher=Heath, Cranton Limited |year=1945 |location=London}}</ref> Under commodities that were early to receive protection included matches, chemicals, scientific equipment, silk, rayon, embroidery, lace, cutlery, gloves, incandescent mantles, paper, pottery, enamelled holloware, and buttons.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Varian |first=Brian D. |date=2019 |title=The growth of manufacturing protection in 1920s Britain |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjpe.12223 |journal=Scottish Journal of Political Economy |language=en |volume=66 |issue=5 |pages=703–711 |doi=10.1111/sjpe.12223 |issn=0036-9292}}</ref> The duties on motorcars and rayon have been determined to have expanded output considerably.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Foreman-Peck |first=J. S. |date=1979 |title=Tariff Protection and Economies of Scale: The British Motor Industry Before 1939 |url=https://academic.oup.com/oep/article/2360834/TARIFF |journal=Oxford Economic Papers |language=en |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=237–257 |doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041444 |issn=1464-3812|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Varian |first=Brian D. |date=2022-08-18 |title=Protection and the British rayon industry during the 1920s |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00076791.2020.1753699 |journal=Business History |language=en |volume=64 |issue=6 |pages=1131–1148 |doi=10.1080/00076791.2020.1753699 |issn=0007-6791}}</ref> Amid the Depression, Britain passed the [[Import Duties Act 1932|Import Duties Act of 1932]], which imposed a general tariff of 10% on most imports and created the Import Duties Advisory Committee (IDAC), which could recommend even higher duties.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Abel |first=Deryck |title=A History of British Tariffs, 1923-1942 |publisher=Heath, Cranton Limited |year=1945 |location=London}}</ref> Britain's protectionism in the early 1930s was shown by Lloyd and Solomou to have been productivity-enhancing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lloyd |first1=Simon P. |last2=Solomou |first2=Solomos |date=2020 |title=The impact of the 1932 General Tariff: a difference-in-difference approach |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11698-019-00184-z |journal=Cliometrica |language=en |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=41–60 |doi=10.1007/s11698-019-00184-z |issn=1863-2505}}</ref>

The possessions of the [[East India Company]] in India, known as [[British India]], was the centrepiece of the British Empire, and because of an efficient taxation system it paid its own administrative expenses as well as the cost of the large [[British Indian Army]]. In terms of trade, India turned only a small profit for British business.<ref>P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, ''British Imperialism: 1688–2000'' (2nd ed. 2002) ch. 10</ref> However, transfers to the British government was massive: in 1801 unrequited (unpaid, or paid from Indian-collected revenue) was about 30% of British domestic savings available for capital formation in the United Kingdom.<ref name="jstor.org">{{cite journal |last1=Mukherjee |first1=Aditya |title=Empire: How Colonial India Made Modern Britain |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |date=2010 |volume=45 |issue=50 |pages=73–82 |jstor=25764217}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Habib |first1=Irfan |title=Essays in Indian History |date=1995 |publisher=Tulika Press |location=New Delhi |pages=304–46 |chapter=Colonisation of the Indian Economy}}</ref>