Smoke in the (Tariff) Water

Although more of a "globalisation" that "globalisation and the environment" blog post the question has to be asked - did these authors mean to title this paper after the well known British hard rock group Deep Purple's track that goes my the name "smoke on the water". The introduction to this song is prety much the first thing anyone every learns on the guitar.

If so, calling a recent World Economy paper "Smoke IN the water" represents a fundamental mistake.

However, they almost make up for it with a footnote that says "Nevertheless, the views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Deep Purple."

Other than that it reprents a good effort although still not close to a recent paper in the AER called "Panic on the Streets of London" by Steve Machin and co-authors named after the well known Smiths track of exactly the SAME name.

Smoke in the (Tariff) Water

Liliana Foletti1, Marco Fugazza2, Alessandro Nicita2
and Marcelo Olarreaga3

1. INTRODUCTION

DURING the Great Depression, protectionism spread rapidly. By 1933,
world trade was only a third of what it was in 1929. Part of this slump had
to do with the decline in economic activity, but several studies estimate the contributionof protectionist forces somewhere between 25 and 50 per cent of the
total decline in world trade.1 The protectionist response started in the United
States with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act passed in June 1930, which raised
tariffs by 23 per cent according to Irwin (1998). Many countries retaliated.
According to Madsen (2001), the world average effective tariff (the ratio of the
value of import duties and import value) increased from 9 per cent in 1929 to 20
per cent by 1933, with values as high as 30 per cent in Germany and the UK

.

Man Friday post - The First Globalization Debate

Any academic paper that can link globalisation and a riveting read is good by me. Having read the first book last year sometime I admit to not putting the book in the context of globalisation and cannot recall how the book links to the gains from international trade even though I teach this stuff. I now feel that I must reread the book with this new found knowledge.

A great idea for a paper. See what I did with the title of this post?

"The First Globalization Debate"

Economic Research Initiatives at Duke (ERID) Working Paper No. 88

CRAUFURD GOODWIN, Duke University - Department of Economics

Email: GOODWIN@ECON.DUKE.EDU

Early in the 18th century, before the birth of political economy as a discipline, two of the earliest novels in the English language were published: Robinson Crusoe (1719) by writer and economic entrepreneur Daniel Defoe, and Gulliver’s Travels (1726) by the cleric and political adviser Jonathan Swift. The first was widely perceived as an entertaining adventure story, the latter as a pioneering work of science fiction. Both contain indirect comment on the foreign policy of Britain at the time. When viewed from the perspective of the modern economist, however, the works appear to be expressions of opposing positions on the desirability of a nation pursuing integration within a world economy. Crusoe demonstrated the gains from international trade and colonization and even the attendant social and political benefits. He explores the instinct to trade overseas, stages of growth, and the need for careful cost-benefit calculations. By contrast Swift warned of the complex entanglements that would arise from globalization, especially with foreign leaders who operated from theory and models rather than common sense. He makes a case for economic autarky.

.