PDF | This is a review of a book titled Kicking Away the Ladder, in which Ha-Joon Chang discussed how the now-developed countries became wealthy and what. How did the rich countries really become rich? In this provocative new study, Ha- Joon Chang examines the great pressure on developing countries from the. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective [Ha- Joon Chang] on ronaldweinland.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. How did the .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|ePub File Size:||26.77 MB|
|PDF File Size:||14.14 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Dr. Chang's recent book, Kicking Away the Ladder—Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (Anthem Press, ). Professor. Chang wishes to thank the. Introduction: Lessons from History, or rather the 'Secret History'. The development orthodoxy of the last quarter century has espoused a free- market policy. Ha-Joon Chang, Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical. Are the now-developed countries ‘kicking away the ladder’ by which they climbed up. only after World War II that the USA finally liberalized its trade.
Collection: Economics Abstract To most of those who govern the global economy today — the developed country policy-makers, international business leaders, and the international economic organisations the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO — the solution to the problem of economic development is obvious. Their belief in their own recommendation is so absolute that in their view it has to be imposed on the developing countries at all costs, through strong bilateral and multilateral external pressures. This chapter discusses that, by having the freedom to choose policies and institutions that are more suitable to their conditions, developing countries will be able to develop faster, benefitting the developed countries in the long run by increasing their trade and investment opportunities. You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article. Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Notes a hundred seventy five Garraty and Carnes , pp.
For additional info, see Dorwart ; Feuchtwanger ; Gothelf, Hobsbawm , p. Benson , pp. See Upham and Ohnesorge for a critic of the 'rule of legislations' rhetoric. See Upham Glasgow Blackbourn , p. Clark , p. See Aron , desk 1, for a few examples. De Soto ; Upham Penrose , p. I positioned citation marks round the time period 'deficient', simply because what's poor a minimum of in part will depend on one's perspective. Pharmaceutical items remained unpatentable until eventually in West Germany and France, in Italy, and in Spain.
Pharmaceutical items have been additionally unpatentable in Canada into the Nineteen Nineties. For information, see Patel , p. See Schiff , for additional information. The Dutch patent legislations didn't require a disclosure of the main points of patents. It allowed the patenting of imported innovations. However, the era of free trade did not last very long. It ended when Britain finally acknowledged that it had lost its manufacturing eminence and re-introduced tariffs on a large scale in Bairoch, , pp.
And it is for this reason that Friedrich List, the nineteenth-century German economist who is mistakenly see section 3.
In this lies the secret of the cosmopolitical doctrine of Adam Smith, and of the cosmopolitical tendencies of his great contemporary William Pitt, and of all his successors in the British Government administrations. United States of America As we have just seen, Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy.
However, its most ardent user was probably the U. This fact is, interestingly, rarely acknowledged in the modern literature, especially coming out of the United States.
However, the importance of infant industry protection in U. From the early days of colonization, industrial protection was a controversial policy issue. To begin with, Britain did not want to industrialize the American colonies, and duly implemented policies to that effect e.
Around the time of independence, the southern agrarian interests opposed any protection, and the northern manufacturing interests wanted it, represented by, among others, Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States — In fact, it was Alexander Hamilton in his Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of Manufactures who first systematically set out the infant industry argument, and not the German economist Friedrich List, as it is often thought Corden, , ch.
Indeed, List started out as a free trade advocate and only converted to the infant industry argument following his exile in the U. S — Henderson, , Reinert, Many U. Indeed, it was against the advice of great economists like Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say that the Americans were protecting their industries. He also believed that duties on raw materials should be generally low p.
We can see close resemblance between this view and the view espoused by Walpole see section 3. Between and the end of the Second World War, the U. Even the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of , which Bhagwati in the above quote portrays as a radical departure from a historic free-trade stance, only marginally if at all increased the degree of protectionism in the U. In this context, it is also important to note that the American Civil War was fought on the issue of tariffs as much as, if not more than, on the issue of slavery.
Of the two major issues that divided the North and the South, the South had actually more to fear on the tariff front than on the slavery front. It was only after the Second World War, with its industrial supremacy unchallenged, that the U. The following quote from Ulysses Grant, the Civil War hero and president of the United States from to clearly shows how the Americans had no illusions about ladder-kicking on the British side and their side.
There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, Gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade.
Grant, president of the United States, —, cited in A. Important as it may have been, tariff protection was not the only policy deployed by the U. At least from the s, it supported an extensive range of agricultural research through the granting of government land to agricultural colleges and the establishment of government research institutes Kozul-Wright, , p.
It also promoted the development of transportation infrastructure, especially through the granting of land and subsidies to railway companies pp.
And it is important to recognize that the role of the U. The share of the U. The critical role of the U. Even according to the U. Germany Germany is a country that is today commonly known as the home of infant industry protection, both intellectually and in terms of policies.
However, historically speaking, tariff protection actually played a much less important role in the economic development of Germany than that of Britain or the United States. The tariff protection for industry in Prussia before the German customs union under its leadership Zollverein , and that subsequently accorded to German industry in general remained mild Blackbourn, , p. As it can be seen from table 1, the level of protection in German manufacturing was one of the lowest among comparable countries throughout the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century.
The relatively low tariff protection does not, however, mean that the German state took a laissez-faire approach to economic development.
Especially under Frederick William I — and Frederick the Great — in the eighteenth century, the Prussian state pursued a range of policies to promote new industries—especially textiles linen above all , metals, armaments, porcelain, silk, and sugar refining—by providing monopoly rights, trade protection, export subsidies, capital investments, and skilled workers from abroad Trebilcock, , pp.
It also implemented educational reform, which not only involved building new schools and universities but also the re-orientation of their teaching from theology to science and technology—this at a time when science and technology was not taught in Oxford or Cambridge Kindleberger, , p.
There were some growth-retarding effects of Prussian government intervention, such as the opposition to the development of banking Kindleberger, , pp. After the s, with the growth of the private sector, the involvement of the German state in industrial development became less pronounced Trebilcock, , p.
However, this did not mean a withdrawal of the state, rather a transition from a directive to a guiding role.
During the Second Reich — , there was further erosion in state capacity and involvement in relation to industrial development, although it still played an important role through its tariff policy and cartel policy Tilly, France Similar to the case of Germany, there is an enduring myth about French economic policy.
This is the view, propagated mainly by British liberal opinion, that France has always been a state-led economy, kind of an anti-thesis to laissez-faire Britain. French economic policy in the pre-Revolutionary period—often known as Colbertism , named after Jean-Baptiste Colbert — , the famous finance minister under Louis XIV—was certainly highly interventionist.
For example, in the early eighteenth century, the French state tried to recruit skilled workers from Britain on a large scale and encouraged industrial espionage.
The Revolution, however, significantly upset this course. Especially after the fall of Napoleon, the laissez-faire policy regime got firmly established and persisted until the Second World War. Table 2 shows that, when measured by net customs revenue as a percentage of net import values which is a standard measure of protectionism, especially among the historians , France was always less protectionist than Britain between and , and especially until the early s.