338 entries categorized "Economics: International Trade"

May 14, 2008

DeLong Smackdown Watch: John Yoo's Torture Memo and Academic Freedom

David Levine writes:

The Torture Memo: The Torture Memo and Academic Freedom: Consider Professor Left, on leave at CEA, who went on national TV to argue that a rise in the minimum wage would not reduce employment, increase prices, or harm small business's profits. Professor Left knew that at least one of these effects was essentially certain to occur, but had a political job to do.

Consider Professor Right who, a few years later, went on national TV to argue that a cut in capital gains tax rates would raise tax revenues. He knew full well that the short-term boost in tax revenue will be overwhelmed by revenue cuts in later years. He hid that fact on TV, in Congressional testimony, and in memos to executive branch decision-makers.

Professor Center is more mainstream than his colleagues on the left and right. He goes on national TV to argue that a free trade pact will increase U.S. employment. In fact, Professor Center believes unemployment will be roughly unchanged as it is largely determined by the Federal Reserve. Employment will probably be lower, Prof. Center believes, because the free trade pact might increase employment with the trading partners and reduce immigration to the United States.

Assume that each policy in fact had (somewhat predictable) harmful consequences: job loss for minority teens, massive budget deficits, and a financial crisis in the southern trading partners that reduced their ability to purchase U.S. exports. Was it professional misconduct to push these policies while declining to mention (and sometimes implictly denying) the downsides? Do those recommendations disqualify the professors from teaching? Would it matter if the economists had line authority and made policy decisions, or were trusted advisors who were very influential with both parties, not just standard wonk advisors?

I mention these cases not to defend Professor Yoo or the despicable U.S. policy of torture. I mention these cases to suggest the issues of academics acting as political advisors and decision-makers are tough.

I agree that the questions are tough. I do think that:

  • Left-wing economists should not say that minimum-wage increases would neither (a) decrease employment, (b) rise prices, nor (c) diminish profits.
  • Right-wing economists should not say that capital gains tax rates would raise tax revenues--unless they in fact do believe that the short-term boost in tax revenues outweighs properly-discounted revenue losses in the out-years.
  • Centrist economists should not say that free trade will boost U.S. employment--unless they believe that free trade will make the country richer and so actually boost labor supply and demand.

But neither left-wing, right-wing, nor centrist economists say such things in the classroom: in the classroom we all teach what we believe. At what point do violations of intellectual integrity by economists under message discipline become grave enough to warrant some kind of sanctions--that is not a question I know the answer to. I think that there is a line that should not be crossed, and that some form of responsibility for line-crossing would be a good thing, but I am not at all sure where the line is or what the sanctions should be.

Barack Obama and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement

A highly-respected John McCain-supporting economist encountered on the north side of Evans Hall suggests that Obama's position on the Colombia free trade agreement is worse than McCain's position on the gas tax holiday. He has a point. Here is Don Pedro from the Economists for Obama weblog:

Economists for Obama: The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, Again: Although I can't vouch for the specific figures cited, I think this NY Times article has it generally right. Obama, Hillary, and leading Congressional Democrats all say that their single objection to the Colombia trade pact is that Colombia needs to do more to prevent killings of union members. But as the article notes, Colombia has been a violent place all around--murder rates of union members in 2007 were actually way below the murder rate for the population at large. And the murders of union members were only related to union activity in a minority of cases. On top of that, the murder rate has declined dramatially in recent years, and the government has convicted many of the killers of union members.

As I noted in an earlier post, polls show that the trade agreement is overwhelmingly popular in Colombia. I think this is because Colombians recognize that the accord will help lift many of the country's people out of poverty. I think it's almost impossible to imagine that the agreement passes during this election year, but I hope President Obama pushes for its approval.

By the way, as someone with professional and personal connections to Colombia, I often wish I had a good reference to point people to in order to explain what the FARC guerrilla group there is about. I still don't have any suggestions in English, but today Spain's El Pais had this very good article in Spanish, which gives a good description of the FARC, emphasizing the key point, which is that while decades ago the group had populist/leftist ideals, it is now basically a criminal enterprise that funds itself through drug trafficking and kidnapping.

I think Don Pedro has it right. The Colombian government should be under severe pressure to punish murderers of union activists, yes, but blocking a FTA that Colombia seems to want relatively badly seems to me to be the wrong sort of pressure to apply.

May 09, 2008

Menzie Chinn Watches the Turnaround of the U.S. Current Account

The U.S. current account turns around:

Econbrowser: Current Account Balances, Again

How far does it have to turn around? One unresolved issue is how much of the oil trade deficit will ever have to be repaid--if oil wealth is going to be invested in the U.S. in dollars in order to give princelings and dictators a political-risk insurance policy, the oil part never has to be "paid back" in a foreign-exchange sense. If foreign oil wealth is going to be used to buy imports of capital goods and raw materials from the U.S., to fuel industrialization, the answer is quite different...

May 05, 2008

Paul Collier Wants More and Bigger Agribusinesses

He writes, over at Martin Wolf's place at the Financial Times:

FT.com | The Economists’ Forum | Food crisis is a chance to reform global agriculture: Paul Collier: The sharp increase in the world price of staple foods is an inconvenience for consumers in the rich world, but for consumers in the poorest countries, especially in Africa, it is a catastrophe. Despite the predominance of peasant agriculture, most African countries are net food importers and food accounts for over half of the budget of low-income households. This is the result of decades of agricultural stagnation combined with growing populations. Although many of the net purchasers are rural, evidently the problem is at its most intense in the urban slums. These slums are political powder kegs and so rising food prices have already triggered riots. Indeed, they sow the seeds of an ugly and destructive populist politics.

Why have food prices rocketed? Paradoxically, this squeeze on the poorest has come about as a result of the success of globalization in reducing world poverty. As China develops, helped by its massive exports to our markets, millions of Chinese households have started to eat better. Better means not just more food but more meat, the new luxury. But to produce a kilo of meat takes six kilos of grain. Livestock reared for meat to be consumed in Asia are now eating the grain that would previously have been eaten by the African poor. So what is the remedy?

The best solution to a problem is often not closely related to its cause (a proposition that that might be recognized in the climate change debate). China’s long march to prosperity is something to celebrate. The remedy to high food prices is to increase food supply, something that is entirely feasible. The most realistic way to raise global supply is to replicate the Brazilian model of large, technologically sophisticated agro-companies supplying for the world market. To give one remarkable example, the time between harvesting one crop and planting the next, in effect the downtime for land, has been reduced an astounding thirty minutes. There are still many areas of the world that have good land which could be used far more productively if it was properly managed by large companies. For example, almost 90% of Mozambique’s land, an enormous area, is idle.

Unfortunately, large-scale commercial agriculture is unromantic. We laud the production style of the peasant: environmentally sustainable and human in scale. In respect of manufacturing and services we grew out of this fantasy years ago, but in agriculture it continues to contaminate our policies. In Europe and Japan huge public resources have been devoted to propping up small farms. The best that can be said for these policies is that we can afford them. In Africa, which cannot afford them, development agencies have oriented their entire efforts on agricultural development to peasant style production. As a result, Africa has less large-scale commercial agriculture than it had fifty years ago. Unfortunately, peasant farming is generally not well-suited to innovation and investment: the result has been that African agriculture has fallen further and further behind the advancing productivity frontier of the globalized commercial model. Indeed, during the present phase of high prices the FAO is worried that African peasants are likely to reduce their production because they cannot finance the increased cost of fertilizer inputs. While there are partial solutions to this problem through subsidies and credit schemes, large scale commercial agriculture simply does not face this problem: if output prices rise by more than input prices, production will be expanded because credit lines are well-established.

Our longstanding agricultural romanticism has been compounded by our new-found environmental romanticism. In the United States fears of climate change have been manipulated by shrewd interests to produce grotesquely inefficient subsidies for bio-fuel. Around a third of American grain production has rapidly been diverted into energy production. This switch demonstrates both the superb responsiveness of the market to price signals, and the shameful power of subsidy-hunting lobby groups. Given the depth of anti-Americanism in Europe it is, of course, fashionable to criticize the American folly with bio-fuels. But Europe has its equivalent follies.

First, the European Commission is now imitating the American bio-fuels policy. At present the programme is small enough to be unimportant, but we need to pull it back before it does real damage. We have surely learnt enough about European agriculture to realize how important it is to kill this incipient scam before we are engulfed by it. But the true European equivalent of America’s folly with bio-fuels is the ban on GM. Europe’s distinctive and deep-seated fears of science have been manipulated by the agricultural lobby into yet another form of protectionism. The ban on both the production and import of genetically modified crops has obviously retarded productivity growth in European agriculture: again, the best that can be said of it is that we are rich enough to afford such folly. But Europe is a major agricultural producer, so the cumulative consequence of this reduction in the growth of productivity has most surely rebounded onto world food markets. Further, and most cruelly, as an unintended side-effect the ban has terrified African governments into themselves banning genetic modification in case by growing modified crops they would permanently be shut out of selling to European markets. Africa definitely cannot afford this self-denial. It needs all the help it can possibly get from genetic modification. Not only is Africa currently being hit by rising food prices, over the longer term it will face climatic deterioration in the context of a rapidly growing population.

While the policies needed for the long term have been befuddled by romanticism, the short term global response has been pure beggar-thy-neighbour. It is easier for urban slum dwellers to riot than for farmers: riots need streets, not fields. And so, in the internal tussles between the interests of poor consumers and poor producers, the interests of consumers have prevailed. Governments in grain-exporting countries have swung prices in favour of their consumers and against their farmers by banning exports. These responses further politicize and fragment an already confused global food market. They increase the risks of investing in commercial-scale food production and drive up prices further in the food-importing countries. Unfortunately, trade in agriculture has been the main economic activity to have resisted being subject to global rules. We need stronger and fairer globalization, not less of it.

May 02, 2008

Globalization 1.0

Paul Krugman reads books on his Kindle:

Fruits of globalization: [A] book recommendation: I’m reading Dan Koeppel’s Banana at Bedtime (yes, on my Kindle), and it’s great. Right now I’m in the midst of the rise of the modern banana trade, and of United Fruit.

One message from this story is that globalization as a profound source of change is nothing new. In fact, the combination of things that made the widespread consumption of bananas in America possible — railroads, steamships, refrigeration, and, not least, regime change often backed by American military might — where do you think banana republics came from? — makes containerization and the Washington Consensus look low-key by comparison...

May 01, 2008

Eichengreen (1997): The Baring Crisis in a Mexican Mirror

Barry Eichengreen (1997), "The Baring Crisis in a Mexican Mirror" http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=iber/cider:

Conventional wisdom has it that the Mexican crisis of 1994-5 was "the first financial crisis of the 21st century." In this paper I argue that it may be better understood as the last financial crisis of the 19th. The crisis in Mexico exhibits striking similarities to the Baring Crisis of 1890, an event that did much to shape modern opinion about the causes and consequences of financial crises and the role for official management.

Parallels between the two episodes are extensive.... Mexico was the benchmark for investors in emerging markets in the 1990s (it was the single largest borrower, and the spreads it commanded set the floor for other borrowers), Argentina, the country whose financial difficulties ignited the Baring Crisis, was commended to investors as "The United States of South America"... the single most important destination for British capital outside the United States and the British Empire... the wheels of international finance were greased by declining interest rates worldwide, associated with Goschen's debt conversion in the 1880s and recession- induced cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve in the 1990s. In both cases investors who had been slow to join the bandwagon climbed on board in the final stages of the boom.

While foreign borrowing was portrayed as financing investment in productive capacity, in both cases capital inflows fueled rising levels of consumption. Foreign capital flowed through the banking system, and bank lending financed purchases of luxury imports as well as capital goods. Governments failed to boost their savings to offset dissaving by the private sector. In both cases powerful opposition existed to the government in power, leaving officials reluctant to tighten monetary and fiscal policy for fear of alienating their core constituencies. Hence, they did little to damp down the impact on the economy of international capital flows.

But increased demand did not automatically elicit increased supply. Investment in capacity took time to translate into improved export performance.... Political shocks (strikes and an incipient coup in Buenos Aires in 1889-90, the Chiapas revolt and Colosio assassination in 1994) then raised doubts about the ability of the government to carry out adjustment. Better-informed investors grew wary significantly in advance of the crisis.

The crisis itself drove the Argentine government, like the Mexican government after it, to the brink of default. The fallout destabilized the banking system. It provoked a major recession. And it spilled over to other countries. In 1995 the Tequila Effect was felt in Argentina, Brazil, Thailand and Hong Kong. In the wake of the Baring Crisis, interest rates rose in Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela and Turkey. Countries as far afield as Australia and New Zealand found it difficult to access external finance....

At the same time there are important differences.... Monetary and fiscal excesses were more clearly evident in Argentina in the 1880s than in Mexico in the 1990s.... In 1995 the Clinton Administration and the IMF saw the need to help Mexico avert a suspension of debt-service... in 1994 there was no single financial institution as exposed as Baring Brothers. In 1890 the fear was for the stability of financial markets in the First World, not the Third. Where the U.S. government's first reaction in 1994 was to assemble financial aid for Mexico, in 1890 the Bank of England and the British Government arranged a rescue fund for Baring Brothers, not for Argentina....

Where the Bank of England could make arrangements with other financial institutions before news of Baring's difficulties became public, the 1995 crisis was a very public affair....

In a sense, then, the Mexican crisis is both the last financial crisis of the 19th century and the first financial crisis of the 21st. Its implications resemble those of the Baring Crisis.... But today's international financial today being even more nimble and decentralized than that of the 1880s, it anticipates the kind of crises that will become increasingly prevalent in the 21st century....

Information on the recent Mexican episode is abundant, and interpretations abound. Hence, I assume that the reader is familiar with the outlines of the Mexican crisis. I concentrate mainly on Argentina in the 1880s, providing just as much information on the Mexican crisis as is needed to place the comparison in relief...

April 23, 2008

Econ 101b: April 23: The Chinese Economy

April 23: The Chinese Economy

Notes: Slides: http://delong.typepad.com/delongslides/2008/04/econ-101b-april.html; Lecture Audio: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/20080423_091349.mp3

Readings:

April 21, 2008

April 21: Econ 101b: Why Is Asia Gambling on Bretton Woods II?

April 21: Why Is Asia Gambling on Bretton Woods II?

Notes: Slides: http://delong.typepad.com/delongslides/2008/04/econ-101b-april.html; Lecture Audio: http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/20080421_091146.mp3

Readings:

April 16: Econ 101b: Risks of International Financial Crisis II

April 16: Risks of International Financial Crisis II

April 20, 2008

Argentina: We Have Seen This Movie Before

Dani Rodrik says that Argentina's future is bright--if only they could get their fiscal balance in order. Strangely, he doesn't seem to recognize that he is echoing every single Argentina-optimist for more than a century:

Dani Rodrik's weblog: Will Argentina waste a historic opportunity? Rarely do you see a country where the mood among business people tells such a different story than the statistics. Now, in Argentina there are statistics are then there are damn lies--inflation figures are made up--but the broad contours of the economic performance of the last few years are not in dispute. Argentina has been growing at Asian rates, its investment rate has risen to levels not seen in decades, national saving is at record levels, and TFP growth has been stellar. By their own admission, Argentine businessmen are making more money now than they ever have in recent memory.

Yet business people are somber, bitter, and angry at the government. The general sense, even among those that supported Nestor Kirchner's policies, is that the government is frittering away a golden opportunity. Worse, the government has authoritarian--some would say thuggish--tendencies that portend ill for the future of Argentina's democracy.

What is going on?

First, the good news. Recent economic growth, unlike that of the 1990s, is of the good kind and it not just the result of high commodity prices. The investment boom of the last few years is supported by high saving.... [R]ecent growth has been fueled by a competitive currency, which increased the relative profitability and output of a wide range of tradables.... Unemployment and poverty rates have come down.... The weak currency has stimulated the right kind of structural change--from lower productivity activities to higher-productivity tradables--which is the source of the economy-wide increases in TFP we have seen. This is a textbook illustration of the magic of sustained currency undervaluation....

Now the bad news. In a growing economy, the tendency for the real exchange rate is to appreciate.... While the peso is stable against the dollar in nominal terms, the overheated economy has generated inflationary pressures (over 20% annually at present) which are being grossly mismanaged.... [T]he government has been resorting to ad hoc and temporary measures: price controls, export taxes, and intervention in currency markets. It has no coherent plan to deal with inflation and no strategy for sustaining competitiveness in the face of the real appreciation that will take place even in the best of circumstances.

Even worse is the growing disconnect between the government and the business community. In its approach to the private sector, the government is developing a reputation for being abusive, threatening, and intimidating. The Kirchners' strategy seems to be to play to their main political power base while assuming that growth will continue. But in the current environment it is difficult to imagine that the private sector will continue to invest as strongly as it has.

In the early 1990s, after years of mismanagement and hyperinflation, the binding constraint on Argentinean growth was lack of confidence in macroeconomic policies. The Convertibility Law was an ingenious short-cut for overcoming this constraint. But as circumstances changed and the binding constraint became lack of competitiveness instead, the Convertibility Law turned into a liability.... The post-2002 policies were in turn successful because they removed the competitiveness constraint. But the growing gulf between the private and public sectors has put lack of confidence and credibility once again front and center--now as the binding constraint on sustaining Argentina's growth.

And that is a pity, because there is a lot that is going right with the Argentine economy today. The underlying model is much more sound than anything in memory. There is nothing wrong with it that a larger fiscal surplus and a bit of dialog between the public and private sectors would not cure.

April 15, 2008

Menzie Chinn Is Musing About the Course of the Dollar

Over at Econbrowser: The G-7 Communique and the Dollar:

Econbrowser: The G-7 Communique and the Dollar

April 05, 2008

W. Arthur Lewis: Evolution of the International Economic Order

W. Arthur Lewis (1978), Evolution of the International Economic Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

Perenially out of print, and perhaps the finest work of economic history ever.

http://j-bradford-delong.net/2008_pdf/Lewis_Evolution_A.pdf http://j-bradford-delong.net/2008_pdf/Lewis_Evolution_B.pdf

March 23, 2008

Morning Coffee: Free vs. Fair Trade


March 07, 2008 Free Trade and Fair Trade: SIEPR 2008 Economic Summit Conference

J. Bradford DeLong

The question of "free" versus "fair" trade, has three baskets: an environmental regulation basket, a labor-standards and freedom basket, and a "wages basket."

The first two can, I think, be disposed of quickly. We don't want those able to bribe governments in other countries to poison people or the globe by turning other countries into pollution havens. We don't want environmental standards to be used to freeze the world distribution of wealth and keep people in other countries hungry, illiterate, and barefoot. The difficulties that remain are those of implementation.

Similarly, we want expanding trade to be a force for opportunity rather than for oppression: we like it when expanded trade gives ordinary people a path to a better life; we don't like it when expanded trade gives rich and powerful people in the cloud city of Stratos an incentive to round others up and put them to work in the xenite mines. As then-Principal Deputy IMF Managing Director Stanley Fischer warned the great and good at the 2000 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Jackson Hole Conference, there is nothing in the ILO's principles that we cannot and very little that we should not be eager to endorse, all of us. The difficulties that remain are, once again, those of implementation.

The question of trade and wages remains: To what extent are rich countries obligated to open their markets to poor countries when the consequence is falling wages for the poor in the rich--bearing in mind that the poor in the rich are often wealthier and have more opporunity than the rich in the poor? To what extent do rich countries do themselves well--serve their national interest--by opening their markets to poor countries even when the consequence is falling wages for the poor in the rich?

Let me make four remarks on this "trade and wages" basket:

First, between 1950 and 1997 trade and wages weren't an issue: our foreign trading partners raised their own relative wage levels at least as fast as globalization enhanced their influence, and there was no net effect of trade on wages--no link from greater openness to the global economy to greater inequality here at home.

Second, at times between 1950 and 1997 trade and wages became a political issue as a way of distracting attention from true problems. The voters of Michigan in 1985 did not want to hear that the problems of Michigan's manufacturing industries were home-grown--in the fecklessness of management and in the Reagan administration's budget deficits that pushed up interest rates which pushed up the value of the dollar and made the goods they made uncompetitive on world markets. They wanted, instead, to hear that the Japanese were doing something clever and illegitimate.

Third: since 1997 or so the link between expanded imports and wage inequality has become real, as our imports now embody a much larger amount of factors competing with our own lesser-skilled than they used to. How large? I don't think we know. Paul Krugman is now writing a paper for the Brookings Institution in which he essentially throws up his hands at the question. But there are two points worth noting: (a) the effects of trade on pre-tax wage inequality are much smaller than the effects over the past generation of changes in the tax system on after-tax income inequality; (b) the effects of trade on inequality of opportunity are much less than the effects of educational inequities on inequality of opportunity.

Fourth, to the extent that we in the United States begin thinking of trade restrictions as a way to fight inequality, we are setting ourselves up for extraordinary trouble late in this century--extraordinary damage to our long-run national security.

Think of it this way: Consider a world that contains one country that is a true superpower. It is preeminent--economically, technologically, politically, culturally, and militarily. But it lies at the east edge of a vast ocean. And across the ocean is another country--a country with more resources in the long-run, a country that looks likely to in the end supplant the current superpower. What should the superpower's long-run national security strategy be?

I think the answer is clear: if possible, the current superpower should embrace its possible successor. It should bind it as closely as possible with ties of blood, commerce, and culture--so that should the emerging superpower come to its full strength, it will to as great an extent possible share the world view of and regard itself as part of the same civilization as its predecessor: Romans to their Greeks.

In 1877, the rising superpower to the west across the ocean was the United States. The preeminent superpower was Britain. Today the preeminent superpower is the United States. The rising superpower to the west across the ocean is China. that was the rising superpower across the ocean to the west of the world's industrial and military leader. Today it is China.

Throughout the twentieth century it has been greatly to Britain's economic benefit that America has regarded it as a trading partner--a source of opportunities--rather than a politico-military-industrial competitor to be isolated and squashed. And in 1917 and again in 1941 it was to Britain's immeasurable benefit--its veruy soul was on the line--that America regarded it as a friend and an ally rather than as a competitor and an enemy. A world run by those whom de Gaulle called les Anglo-Saxons is a much more comfortable world for Britain than the other possibility--the world in which Europe were run by Adolf Hitler's Saxon-Saxons.

There is a good chance that China is now on the same path to world preeminence that America walked 130 years ago. Come 2047 and again in 2071 and in the years after 2075, America is going to need China. There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible.

And let me stop there.


2008 SIEPR Economic Summit: Critical Issue Sessions and Panelists:

March 7: 4:30-5:45pm: Session II: Is Free Trade Fair Trade? * Moderator: Dixon Doll, SIEPR Board member * Brad DeLong, Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley * Alan Taylor, Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis * David Dollar, Country Director, China and Mongolia, World Bank

Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center, 326 Galvez St., Stanford Campus

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SummitAgenda2008.pdf


http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/Free_and_Fair_Trade.Mobile.m4v

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/Free_and_Fair_Trade.Medium.m4v

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2008_mov/Free_and_Fair_Trade.Large.m4v

March 15, 2008

Paul Krugman's Weblog Is the in Place to Be...

Right now I could quote from and comment on Paul Krugman's weblog all day. It is, today, the best place to go for rapid, timely, yet economically-sophisticated analysis of the Panic of 2008:

Paul Krugman:

Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog Many people still don't quite get the Fed's problem.... One big part... is that cuts in the interest rates they can control aren't translating into reductions in the interest rates that matter for the economy... the most important channel through which monetary policy affects the economy is housing -- and the Fed's cuts have not succeeded in producing easier mortgage credit because the financial system has been falling apart. But... there is another important channel for monetary policy: low interest rates tend to cause a low dollar, which is good for net exports.... So the second panel in the graphic doesn%u2019t show a failure of policy -- it shows the one area in which monetary policy is working!... [I]f a weak dollar wasn't helping net exports, we'd be in much worse shape than we are.


Indeed. I find myself praying daily for a small run on the dollar myself...

March 09, 2008

Yet More Sunny-Afternoon-Lying-in-Bed-with-Bronchitis-Trade-and-Power Blogging

Finally digging deep into Ron Findlay and Kevin O'Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium:

Ron Findlay and Kevin O'Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press): A feature of the book that may strike some economists as odd or surprising, but will seem entirely commonplace to historians, is its sustained emphasis on conflict, violence, and geopolitics. When economics students are first exposed to the study of international trade, they are asked to contemplate two countries, A and B, who have each been endowed with a certain amount of the various factors of production—land, labor, capital, and so on—as well as with a given technology which translates those endowments into consumption goods, together with a set of preferences over these goods. The two countries then trade with each other, or not as the case may be, and the consequences of trade are derived for consumers and producers alike.... The summit of unpleasantness attainable in such models is the use of tariffs, quotas, and other trade policy instruments that will benefit some individuals or groups (and possibly nations) but lower the utility of other domestic or foreign residents.

If only life were like this. As we point out below, the greatest expansions of world trade have tended to come not from the bloodless tâtonnement of some fictional Walrasian auctioneer but from the barrel of a Maxim gun, the edge of a scimitar, or the ferocity of nomadic horsemen. When trade required more workers, parental choices regarding quality/quantity trade-offs could often safely be ignored, since workers could always be enslaved. When trade required more profits, these could be earned via plunder or violently imposed monopolies. For much of our period the pattern of trade can only be understood as being the outcome of some military or political equilibrium between contending powers. The dependence of trade on war and peace eventually became so obvious to us that it is reflected in the title of this volume.

Politics thus determined trade, but trade also helped to determine politics, by influencing the capacities and the incentives facing states. The mutual dependence of “Power” and “Plenty,” so well evoked by Jacob Viner (1948), will thus be a key feature of this book. The phrase itself comes from the first lines of Michael Drayton’s Poly-Olbion, first published in 1612... the frontispiece to that volume... Albion, or Britannia, here appears to be “prosperous and triumphant and for the only time in her long career, notably young and beautiful.” Bedecked in pearls, secure on her island stronghold, and holding both a cornucopia and a scepter, she appears to be serenely contemplating not just her enjoyment of Plenty, but her exercise of Power as well.

As we shall see, this nymph-like creature would soon become the battle-hardened ruler not just of the English Channel but of the oceans of the world, and no history of international trade can ignore the causes or the implications of military exploits such as these... the use of force involves the allocation of scarce resources as well, and imposes costs and benefits both on those who use it and on those against whom it is used, as well as on third parties....

If all this may appear to have been less true over the course of the last two centuries, this is because of the overwhelming influence of the Industrial Revolution on all subsequent economic history. The nineteenth-century globalization that followed this breakthrough was unprecedented in many ways, and as we will see perhaps its most clearly distinguishing feature was its largely technological underpinnings (although even in this period imperialism still had an important role to play, and was itself facilitated in many ways by the new technology). The new technologies not only brought markets closer together than ever before, but opened up enormous income gaps between regions that remain with us today, and produced a stark division of labor between a manufacturing core and a primary-producing periphery. The big questions ever since then have been: How can developing countries catch up with the core? Should they do so by exploiting their natural resource advantages, as was successfully tried in the nineteenth century, or does this leave them excessively vulnerable to fickle international markets, as the interwar experience might suggest? Should they decouple themselves from international markets, as many did after 1945, or reintegrate with them, as they have done over the past two decades? These questions, and related ones such as how the West should adapt to the rise of India and China, have only arisen because of the asymmetries created by the Industrial Revolution, and are thus fundamentally historical in nature...

And:

Ron Findlay and Kevin O'Rourke, Power and Plenty: Trade, War, and the World Economy in the Second Millennium (Princeton: Princeton University Press): The Industrial Revolution... can only be understood as the outcome of a historical process with multiple causes stretching well back into the medieval period, and in which international movements of commodities, warriors, microbes, and technologies all played a leading role. Purely domestic accounts of the “Rise of the West,” emphasizing Western institutions, cultural attributes, or endowments, are hopelessly inadequate, since they ignore the vast web of interrelationships between Western Europe and the rest of the world that had been spun over the course of many centuries, and was crucially important for the breakthrough to modern economic growth....

Like most mainstream economists, we view inventiveness and incentives, rather than sheer accumulation, “primitive” or otherwise, as being at the heart of growth, but this does not imply that European overseas expansion should be written off as irrelevant. Plunder may not have directly fueled the Industrial Revolution, but mercantilism and imperialism were an important part of the global context within which it originated.... Violence thus undoubtedly mattered in shaping the environment within which the conventional economic forces of supply and demand operated....

When we say geography, we mean geography: mountains, rivers, and all. If Genghis Khan had been born in New Zealand, he would have left no traces on world history. The Irish might have enjoyed holding the rest of Europe to ransom by controlling access to Southeast Asian spices, but never had the opportunities which geography afforded the rulers of Egypt. A European seeking direct access to India might well head westward and stumble across the Americas, but no Chinese sailor would have been foolish enough to seek an eastern passage to Arabia....

The three great world-historical events of the second millennium, in our account, are the Black Death of the fourteenth century and the differing responses to it, the “discovery” and incorporation of the New World into that of the Old at the turn of the sixteenth century, and the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the nineteenth... no single region was solely responsible for any one of these three transformational episodes, let alone all three. The first resulted from the Pax Mongolica, established by the nomads of Central Asia but consolidated and actively participated in by all of the other six regions. Western Europeans were the first Eurasians to sail to the New World, but it was Africans, against their will, who produced many of the commodities that it exported to the Old. The Industrial Revolution occurred within Western Europe, and more specifically in Britain, but the essential raw material that its leading sector required was produced by Africans in the Americas, and the final products were sold in markets around the entire world....

Before asking the reader to plunge into one thousand years of history, it behooves us to provide a brief guide to the terrain that lies ahead. We begin in the first chapter with a consideration of basic methodological issues, and the delineation of the seven “world regions”... Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Islamic World of the Middle East and North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.... The second chapter analyzes the trading and other relationships between these seven regions and an eighth, sub-Saharan Africa, at the turn of the second millennium... the only region in sustained direct contact with all the others at this time was the Islamic World, then undergoing its “Golden Age” under the Abbasid, Fatimid, and Umayyad caliphates based in Baghdad, Cairo, and Cordoba, while the one with the least contact with the others was Western Europe. The third chapter is a broad analytical survey of the evolution of the world economy from 1000 to 1500... the forging of the Pax Mongolica... stimulated long-distance trade from the Atlantic to the Sea of Japan; the devastating consequences of the Black Death... the subsequent expansion of population, output, and prices across the world, particularly in Western Europe and Southeast Asia.

This sets the stage for the launching of the Iberian voyages of discovery... the worldwide trade in silver... the long struggle for hegemony in the emerging world economy between the Dutch Republic, Great Britain, and France... the hardly less momentous overland expansions, from opposite ends of Central Asia, of the Czarist empire of the Romanovs and the Chinese empire of the Manchu Qing dynasty. One major theme of this chapter is the extent to which Asians were not just passive actors during this period, but adopted new military technologies, with similar political effects to those experienced in Europe; another is the mercantilist economic policies pursued by the leading states of the day.

The sixth chapter... the breakthrough to modern economic growth... Great Britain, at the turn of the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution... is the fulcrum around which the rest of the book turns.... [W]e do not see the Industrial Revolution as springing up suddenly, like “Athena fully armed from the brow of Zeus,” purely as a result of the creative imaginations of a group of inventors... we see it instead as the culmination of a long historical process involving the interaction of all the world’s regions.... This is not to deny the vital contribution of Great Britain, and more broadly Western Europe, but to provide a consistent and coherent explanation of why this event was so transformational in nature, rather than evanescent, as had been all the earlier “efflorescences” (Goldstone 2002) in the history of the world economy that we describe.

On one level, the economic history of the past two centuries can, as already noted, be viewed as the working out of the consequences of the Industrial Revolution: a “Great Divergence” in income levels between regions, as the new technologies diffused only gradually across the globe; a “Great Specialization” between an industrial core and a primary-producing periphery; consequent pressures to protect agriculture in the core, and manufacturing in the periphery; and, finally, a gradual unwinding of these trends as the Industrial Revolution spread to encompass an ever-increasing proportion of the globe... the evolution of these trends was not smooth, but was profoundly marked by the political consequences of three major world wars: the French and Napoleonic Wars that ended the age of mercantilism, World War I, and World War II....

Chapter 7... focuses on the “nineteenth century” from 1815 to 1914... Pax Britannica and European imperialism... the railroad and the steamship... a new sort of globalization, manifested by a significant narrowing of intercontinental price gaps for bulk commodities... the “Great Specialization”... the industrialized countries of Western Europe, eventually to be joined by the United States and Japan, exported manufactured goods to Asia, Africa, Australasia, and Latin America in exchange for primary foodstuffs and raw materials, with Europe also exporting capital to all these regions, and people to the Americas and Australasia. The end of this period was marked by the beginnings of a “backlash” against globalization.... This first “golden age of globalization” was of course brought to a tragic and abrupt end by the outbreak of World War I.

The interwar years from 1918 to 1939, covered in chapter 8, were dominated politically and economically by the aftermath of this catastrophe....

World War II and its aftermath are the subject of chapter 9... the Pax Americana and the associated framework of multilateral international institutions... the spread of Communism and then by its collapse... decolonization of areas in the Third World that had become imperial possessions of the European powers. We stress that the combined effect of these trends was to further disintegrate the world economy, with OECD liberalization constituting a regional exception to this general rule, until some time in the 1970s or 1980s. It was only then that Latin America, Asia, and Africa, where the bulk of humanity reside, started to open up to trade and investment with the rest of the world.

Economically, the late twentieth century was to a large extent dominated by the attempt of newly independent countries to industrialize through policies of “import substitution.” However, the period also saw the unprecedented expansion of world output and trade as a result of trade liberalization and growth in the industrial countries, and technological diffusion to “newly industrializing countries.” This eventually led to the rapid growth of manufactured exports from these countries, particularly China and India, and to the beginnings of a narrowing of the huge per capita income gaps that have separated these once prosperous regions from Western Europe since the Industrial Revolution....

The reader will have noticed that our successive eras... have been demarcated mostly by the outbreaks of major wars or imperial expansions. Each era can be seen as one in which trade is conducted within a geopolitical framework established by the previous major war or conflict...

Next up: Woytinsky and Woytinsky...

The Battle of Diu (1509)

One of the great might-have-beens in world history concerns the 1509 Battle of Diu. What if it had gone the other way? Or what if Sultans Beyezid II, Selim the Grim, Suleiman the Lawgiver, and Selim the Sot, and Murad III had shifted a small additional part of the military effort they were making in the Balkans and the Mediterranean into the Indian Ocean?

From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Diu took place on 2-3 February, 1509 near the port town of Diu, India... between Portugal and a joint fleet of the Mamlûk Burji Sultanate of Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, the Zamorin of Calicut and the Sultan of Gujarat, with technical maritime assistance from the Republic of Venice and the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik)... marks the beginning of the dominance of the Europeans in the Asian naval theatre, and a defeat for the then dominant power -- the Ottoman Empire... set the stage for domination of trade in the Indian Ocean by the Portuguese for the next century... parallels others like Lepanto (1571), Abu Qir (1798), Trafalgar (1805) and Tsushima (1905) in terms of its impact, though not in scale....

The Portuguese followed this battle by rapidly capturing key ports/coastal areas around the Indian Ocean like Mombasa, Socotra, Muscat, Ormuz, Goa, Ceylon and Malacca....

The Samoothiri Raja (anglicised to Zamorin), was incensed at the Portuguese because of their conduct since Vasco da Gama had landed in his kingdom in 1498, and hence had joined forces with the Sultan of Gujarat. The Egyptian fleet, manned mostly by Turks, was sent by the Mamlûk Burji Sultan of Cairo, Al-Ashraf Qānsūh al-Ghauri, in 1507 to support, at his invitation, the then Muslim Sultan of Gujarat, Mahmud Begada....

The following were the important participants in this battle:

  • Dom Francisco de Almeida, first Portuguese Viceroy in India
  • Amir Husain Al-Kūrdī, Turkish Commander of the Egyptian-Gujarat naval squadron (known as Mirocem in Portuguese chronicles)
  • Selman Reis, Ottoman naval Captain
  • Malik El Hissa, Governor of Diu for the Sultan of Gujarat
  • The Zamorin of Calicut....

Since Portuguese naval patrols regularly interdicted supplies of Malabar timber for the Mamlûk Red Sea fleet, the Ottoman Sultan, Beyazid II therefore supplied Egypt with Mediterranean-type war galleys manned by Greek sailors. These vessels, which Venetian shipwrights helped disassemble in Alexandria and reassemble on the Red Sea coast... had to brave the Indian Ocean. The galley warriors could mount light guns fore and aft, but not along the gunwales because these cannon would interfere with the rowers. The native ships (dhows), with their sewn wood planks, could carry no heavy guns at all. Hence, most of the coalition's artillery was archers, whom the Portuguese could easily outshoot.

The new Mamlûk fleet set out for India in 1507, first fortifying Jeddah against a possible Portuguese attack. It then passed through Aden at the tip of the Red Sea, where it received support from the Tahirid sultan, and then, in 1508, crossed the Indian Ocean to the port of Diu....

[A]t the first battle of Chaul in March 1508... Dom Lourenço de Almeida, son of the Viceroy, [had been] killed. The Viceroy was so enraged at this death that he is supposed to have said, "He who ate the chick has also to eat the rooster, or pay for it"... the recently arrived Egyptian fleet, along with the fleet from the Sultan of Gujarat, had surprised a smaller Portuguese fleet... eight vessels... predominantly trade cargo bound for Portugal led by Lourenço....

The Portuguese [at Diu] had eighteen ships commanded by the Viceroy, with about 1,500 Portuguese soldiers and 400 natives from Cochin. The Allied side had one hundred ships, but only twelve were major vessels.... [T]he Egyptians decided to take advantage of the port of Diu and its fort, which had its own artillery... stay anchored at this port and await an attack from the Portuguese... the Egyptians/Turks... were used to the more sheltered bays in the Mediterranean... [where] they also relied upon land-based artillery reinforcements....

Portuguese ships

  • Five large naus: Flor do Mar (Viceroy's flagship), Espírito Santo (captain Nuno Vaz Pereira), Belém (Jorge de Melo Pereira), Great King (Francisco de Távora), and Great Taforea (Fernão de Magalhães)
  • Four smaller naus: Small Taforea (Garcia de Sousa), Santo António (Martim Coelho), Small King (Manuel Teles Barreto) and Andorinho (Dom António de Noronha)
  • Four caravelas redondas: (captains António do Campo, Pero Cão, Filipe Rodrigues and Rui Soares)
  • Two caravelas Latinas: (captains Álvaro Peçanha and Luís Preto)
  • Two gales: (captains Paio Rodrigues de Sousa and Diogo Pires de Miranda)
  • One bergantim: (captain Simão Martins)....

Mamluk Egyptian/Gujarat Fleet - Major vessels

  • Four naus (Gujarat)
  • Four naus (Mamluk Egyptian)
  • Two caravelas
  • Four galeotas
  • Two gales

The Viceroy extracted a payment of 300,000 gold xerafins, but rejected the offer of the city of Diu which he thought would be expensive to maintain, although he left a garrison there.... The treatment of the Egyptian/Turkish captives by the Portuguese was brutal. The Viceroy ordered most of them to be hanged, burnt alive or torn to pieces by tying them to the mouths of the cannons, in retaliation for his son's death.... Dom Francisco de Almeida left for Portugal in November, 1509, and in December, 1509 was himself killed by the Khoikhoi tribe, near the Cape of Good Hope....

This battle did not end the rivalry... a second naval battle, again at Diu, in 1538 when the Turks laid siege to the fortress built by the Portuguese in 1535 with 54 ships, but then for some reason lifted the siege... Suleiman I the Magnificent... had sent his emissary Hussein Pasha to attack Diu... another siege of the fortress at Diu in 1547 which marked the end of Ottoman attempts to expand their influence in the Indian Ocean...

The European Seaborne Empires II: Malacca and Tenochtitlan

The European Seaborne Empires II: Malacca and Tenochtitlan

From David Abernethy (2000), The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires 1415-19890 (New Haven: Yale), p. 246 ff:

Beijing... was the capital city of a powerful state lacking both an expansionist foreign policy and an expansionist religion. Mecca was the central city of an expansionist religion but not of a state. Lisbon was the capital city of a state with an expansionist foreign policy and a strong commitment to spread an expansionist religion.

As Muslim merchants predicted, the Portuguese launched a tripole assault on Malacca. The city was captured in 1511 by an armada of ships carrying fifteen hundred soldiers whose commander, Vicery Afonso d'Albuquerque, saw himself as an extension agent of the Portuguese state. That the invaders intended to assert permanent political control soon became cleear. Albuquereue allegedly cried out to his men in the heat of battle that "We [should] build fortress iin this city... and sustain it, and... this land [should] be brought under the dominion of the Portuguese, and the King D[om] Manuel be styled true king thereof." Construction of a stone fortress was begun as soon as the battle was won, and it was kept well supplied with soldiers and cannon. The city was a Portuguese possession until the Dutch took it in the seventeenth century. Once secured, Malacca became a vital outpost used to establish other Portuguese enclaves in the Moluccas and on the China coast.

The conquest of Malacca, in turn, was an integral part of a grand scheme to capture gains from Indian Ocean trade. Political control of enclaves throughout the ocean basin was considered a necesary as well as desirable mans to an economic end. Albuquerque appealed to the profit motive as explicitly as one could: "If we take this trade of Malacca out of [the Moors'] hands, Cairo and Mecca are entirely ruined, and to Venice will no spiceries go except that which her merchants go and buy in Portugal."

Portuguese actions also reveal the religious dimension of their drive for dominance. Albuquerque waited to launch his attack until the day of Saint James, the patron saint of the Iberian crusaders. That the crusading mentality was alive and well can be seen in his reference to "the gerat service which we shall perform to our Lord in casting the Moors out of the country, and quenching the fire of this sect of Mofamede so that it may never burst out again herafter." Non-Muslims were spared following the battle. But "of the Moors, [including] women and children, there died by the sword an infinite number, for no quarter was given to any of them." A church was constructed, and in 1557 it became the Cathedral of the Bishop of Malacca. Priests working among non-Muslims in the local fishing community made many converts. The famous Jesuit missionary Francis Xavier visitid the city in 1545 on his way from India to Japan.

By one estimate between half a million and a million people, from Mozambique to Japan, converted to Roman Catholicism by the end of the sixteenth century. Malacca's history and its role as missionary way station to ohter parts of Asia illustrate the strong expansionist impulses of Euro-Christianity.

By examining actions, motivations, and institutions at a critical juncture of world history when representatives of the three leading candidates for global dominance were present at the same place and time, the case study of Malacca in 1511 tests--and supports--the book's central proposition. The Portuguese were unlike the Chinese and Arabs in the number and variety of sectoral institutions at their dsposal, in the stretch of these institutions far from their home base, and in the way agents of different sectors worked together for mutually beneficial ends. The Malaccan case highlights not only the contrast between Europeans and others who might have formed equivalent empires, but also the empowering effects when cross-sectoral coalitions were assembled....

The case study also helps answer a secondary question.... why Europeans concentrated phase 1 settlement and conquest activies on the New World.... Portugal's grand strategy in the Indian Ocean was to capture gans from a lucrative seaborne trade that had functioned for a long time. Malacca was valued as an enclave... profits literally floated past in the form of ships carryhg spices, precious stones, textiles, chinaware, carvings, and so on through a narrow strait. There was no economic or strategic reason for Albuquerque to invade the Malayan interior....

In contrast, the Spaniards in the New World encountered no preexisting maritime trade. The wealth they sought would have to be captured at its source, deep in central and south American hinterlands. Vera Cruz... was seen not as an enclave facxing the sea but as the staging area for an arduous march inland.... Spain could attain wealth in the New World only by conquering and settling... revolutionize the New World economies.... Portugal, having an essentially conservative economic agenda, felt no need to send settlers to Malacca or to set up plantations or prospect for minerals.... Spain, facing both the necessity and the opportunity in the Americas to design radically new patterns of extraction, production, and trade, exported its people... fostered large-scale, labor-intensive agricultural and mining operations.... Portuguese in Malacca... could prosper without altering indigenous political structures in the city's immediate environs. Not so Cortes... who could not prosper unless state structures run by Europeans were in place to coerce indigenous peoples to labor long and hard for minimal reward.... A minimalist colonial strategy that worked well in phase 1 Malaya was not sufficient for New Spain.

Not until the nineteenth century did Europeans consider the Malayan interior worthy of their ttention. Under British direction, exports from rich tin mines were increased and rubber plantations laid out... a plant Europeans had found in the New [World]... a mode of production perfected earlier in the Americas.... Europe's concentration on transforming the New World in [European imperalism] phase 1 facilitated conquest and transformation of much of the Old World in [European imperalism] phase 3...

The European Seaborne Empires I: "To Serve God, to Win Glory for the King, and to Become Rich"

The European Seaborne Empires I: "To Serve God, to Win Glory for the King, and to Become Rich"

From David Abernethy (2000), The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires 1415-19890 (New Haven: Yale), p. 242 ff:

The multifaceted nature of Europe's assaults is highlighted when contrasted with the overseas activities of the Chinese and the Arabs. The ideal site for comparison would be a place distant from Europe, China, and Arabia, hence unlikely to be controlled by any of them, where people arriving by sea from all three areas were present at about the same time. That such stringent conditions could be met seems highly unlikely. But in fact they do apply to one case: Malacca during roughly the first century of [European imperalism] phase 1. This city, located on the Malayan side of the narrow strait named after it, was founded in the late fourteenth century and rapidly became the principal center for maritime trade among Indian Ocean emporia, the Spice Islands, and China. Malacca benefited from the weather as well as from its location. Because of monsoonal winds, vessels sailing from the Indian Ocean to China (and vice versa) had to lay over for a few months before continuing the journey. An alternative was for ships to unload their wares in Malacca, returning to their respective home ports with goods from the others' ships as well as gold, spices, and precious woods from the offshore islands.

The city and strait of Malacca were extraordinarily cosmopolitan places several centuries ago. A well-placed Portuguese observer wrote in the 1570s: "One may well and truly say that Malacca, in point of fact, and merchant trade, is the most extensive place in the world." The city was visited by Cheng Ho [pinyin Zheng He] on at least two of his voyages and thereafter by many Chinese sailors and traders. The great Arab traveler Ibn Battuta passed through the strait in 1345-6, and several thousand Muslims, including some from Arabia, resided in the city in the early 1500s. Ibn Battuta's Italian conterpart, Marco Polo, passed through the Malacca Strait in 1292 on his return to Europe from China. As noted in chaptert 3, the Portuguese captured Malacca in 1511, holding it until the Dutch replaced them in 1641. Thus people from all three regions converged around the start of [European imperalism] phase 1 on the same small area.

By studying Malacca in 1511 one comes as close as possible to a historical laboratory experiment. Are sectoral features of European countries present as well in China nad in Arab (and, more generally, Muslim) societies? If so, for reasons given in chapter 2 my argument about the importance of sectors is weakened. If not, the argument is strengthened.

The Chinese government's impact on Malacca was far more limited in scope and duration than might be expected given the country's wealth and size. Cheng Ho's armada of hugh junks, with thousands of well-armed soldiers aboard, was designed to ensure attention and respectful deference to China's rulers from elites elsewhere. Presumably Admiral Ho was instructed to urge monarchs to establish symbolic tributary relaions with the Celestial Court. But the admiral was unwilling to use the military might at his disposal to conquer Malacca, there being no plans to administer distant lands as integral parts of the emperor's domains. Moreover, as noted earlier, the impressive voyages undertaken by Cheng Ho ended abruptly in 1433. The emperor politely received the king of Malacca when the king later journeyed to Beijing, bearing tribute. But assertion of China's superior political status was made by the inferior party visiting the Celestial Court, not by the latter reaching out aggressively beyond its borders. The contrast with the European pattern is obvious.

China's private sector had a more substantial and long-lasting impact on Malacca. One indicator was the existence, as of the early 1500s, of a separate section of the city reserved for Chinese merchants. These traders were on their own when residing overseas. This was manifestly the case after 1433 when they could not count on even an intermittent visit of ships to demonstrate the home government's power. If anything, Malacca's Chinese merchants carried on their business despite the imperial court, which launched periodic efforts to restrict economic ties with the outside world. The court controlled government-to-government trade, expressed through the tributary system. Nonofficial trade, which it was unable to regulate, was perceived as an unwelcome challenge to its power and authority. That many Chinese merchants in Malacca were long-term residents did not signify that they were overseas agents of Chinese power. On the contrary, it reflected recognition of obstacles that bureaucrats would have placed in theiur way had they based their international operations on the Chinese mainland. A common pattern for th Chinese in sixteenth-century Malacca and elsewhere in southeast Asia was to conduct clandestine commerce with the home country. Alternatively, they concentrated on trade among ports scattered about the Nanyang (Southern Seas). In both cases they tried to avoid contact with Chinese officials rather than to work with them.

The imperial court disapproved of Chinese settling elsewhere because this meant abandoning the graves of their ancestors. The court took this view to its logical conclusion in 1712 with an edict forbidding its subjects to live or trade in Southeast Asia. Though poorly and inconsistently enforced, the edict nonetheless expressed an attitude toward overseas settlers diametrically opposed to that of western Europe's rulers.

China's public and private profit sectors thus had minimal contact with each other in dealing with Malacca. When cross-sectoral contact did occur it tended to be competitive and conflictual rather than cooperative. The profit-sharing and chartered-company options were ruled out. This stands in sharp contrast to the European pattern of linking the two sectors in mutually beneficial ways.

The Chinese did not carry a missionary religion to Malacca because they had none. As noted in chapter 8, the imperial court's Confucian creed was a civil religion, not available for export or readily separable institutionally from the public sector. Cheng Ho was dispatched as a diplomatic emissary of the court. But he could not have served as a Confucian missionary, had this unlikely possibility ever been considered, because he was Muslim. Chinese merchants in Malacca practiced their own religious faiths but kept to themselves when oing so. No basis existed for an outeward-looking coalition between leading practitioners of China's religions and its rulers or merchants.

Arabs visited Malacca as long-distance merchants, staying in a quarter of the town set aside for Muslims. Unlike the Chinese they did bring a missionary religion. They used their wealth and their external connections to persuade Southeast Asia's political elites to let them build mosques and invite mullahs to lead the Islamic community's religious life. In many instances Muslim merchants pressured local rulers to convert. Malacca's rulers had been Muslim for about a century before the Portuguese arrived. One may thus speak of an alliance between Arab mercantile and religious interests resembling the European pattern.

But Arabs in teh Indian Ocean basin were not like Europeans. First, they were not agents of a polity eager to assert itself overseas. Home bases for the Arab seafareres were port cities--Jiddah, Adan, Muscat--along the periphery of a vast, thinly-populated desert peninsula not effectively governed by anyone. These cities faced outward to the sea. But they were not linked to a densely-populated, economically-productive, politically-controlled hinterland in the way that western Europe's port cities were. They were urban areas on their own, not urban areas embedded in states. Their prospects for profitable trade were most favorable if none of them advanced political calims beyond its immediate domain. Traders and sailors moved on monsoonal winds from one trading center to another, intermediaries among several autonomous units rather than agents of any particular one.

Second, Arabs were not the only--or even the principal--propagators of Islam in southeast Asia. The central role they played in the religion's formation and explosive early spread into the Fertile Crescent and across North Africa was diluted in later centuries. Islam's steady advance eastward by land and sea was due mainly to initiatives by non-Arabs. Its increasingly cosmopolitan character can be seen in Malacca. The Portuguese chronicler Tome Pires reports that shortly aftert the city was founded "some rich Moorish merchants moved from Pase [in Sumatra] to Malacca, Parees, as well as Bengalese and Arabian Moors, for at that time there were a large number of merchants belonging to these three nations.

The successes of traders as proselytizers meant that diffusion of Islam in southeast Asia did not depend on soldiers and administrators brought in from outside. If public-sector support was deemed necessary it was provided on site: once Malacca's ruler converted, Islam become in effect the kingdom's official faith. Further, the spread of Islam did not depend on full-time specialists in conversion recruited, dispatched, and reporting to an institution headquartered in Arabia or any other Muslim country. Islam indigenized itself as it expanded, rather than serving the ambitious designs of a distant state or missionary agency.

To summarize, the Chinese public sector had only a fleeting interst in reaching out to Malacca, no interest in conquering the city, and competitive rather than cooperative relations between itself and private profit sectors; the religious sector had no will or autonomous institutional capacity to assert itself overseas. China's impact on Malacca as of the early sixteenth century was confined to the activities of a single sector functioning on its own. Arabs had two sectors interested in influencing the outside world, hence the potential for a sectoral coalition. But Islam's spread to Malacca and elsewhere in Southeast Asia was not essentially an Arab activity. Neither was it directed by religous agents accountable to their own sectoral institutions, as in the European pattern. Most importantly, the Arabs' mercantile and religious interests were not backed by a state able or anxious to expand overseas. What initially appears as a two-sector alliance turns out to be a phantom alliance because it lacked institutions stretching outward from a territorial base.

The limited, functionally diffuse character of Chinese and Arab/Muslim relations with Malacca posed an isoluble dilemma for the city's sultan when he encountered Europeans. Teh first ship sent out in 1509 from Goa, capital of Portugal's Estada da India, consisted of traders. But Muslim merchants resident in Malacca who came from Gujarat and other Indian ports knew from experience that the Portugese flag accompanied trade and that the Portuguese were Christians implacably hostile to Islam. Warned in effect that the Portuguese constituted a triple threat to his regime, the sultan imprisoned and mistreated serveral members of the trade mission. His actions precipitated the very attack by Portuguese soldiers two years later than he hoped to forestall. But the Muslim merchants could offer only warnings. None of the cities from which they came was in any position to supply military aid, even to coreligionists threatened by Christian infidels.

The only powerful polity to which the sultan could turn was China. But if he was able to contact the Chinese emperor his efforts were in vain. The tributary system binding Malacca to the Celestial Kingdom symbolized superior/inferior relations and did not contain a mutual defense clause. Help was not forthcoming. At a critical moment in world historoyk wehn Europeans first intervened in Southeast Asian affairs, the Chinese court was unwilling to assert its stake in a nearby region. The sultan faced toward Mecca when praying and toward Beijing when oferring tribute. But for quite different reasons he could count on neither to help counter the new foe.

Beijing, in other words, was the capital city of a powerful state lacking both an expansionist foreign policy and an expansionist religion. Mecca was the central city of an expansionist religion but not of a state. Lisbon was the capital city of a state with an expansionist foreign policy and a strong commitment to spread an expansionist religion.

As Muslim merchants predicted, the Portuguese launched a tripole assault on Malacca. The city was captured in 1511 by an armada of ships carrying fifteen hundred soldiers whose commander, Vicery Afonso d'Albuquerque, saw himself as an extension agent of the Portuguese state. That the invaders intended to assert permanent political control soon became cleear. Albuquereue allegedly cried out to his men in the heat of battle that "We [should] build fortress iin this city... and sustain it, and... this land [should] be brought udner the dominion of the Portuguese, and the King D[om] Manuel be styled true king thereof." Construction of a stone fortress was begun as soon as the battle was won, and it was kept well supplied with soldiers and cannon. The city was a Portuguese possession until the Dutch took it in the seventeenth century. Once secured, Malacca became a vital outpost used to establish other Portuguese enclaves in the Moluccas and on the China coast...

This is a sophisticated and powerful rendition of the argument that what mattered most from 1500-1850 was the triple-threat reinforcing nature of European imperialism--the importance of all three parts of the Spanish hidalgo's explanation of why they had left Iberia: "to serve God, to win glory for the king, and to become rich..."

March 07, 2008

Free Trade and Fair Trade: SIEPR 2008 Economic Summit Conference

The question of "free" versus "fair" trade, has three baskets: an environmental regulation basket, a labor-standards and freedom basket, and a "wages basket."

The first two can, I think, be disposed of quickly. We don't want those able to bribe governments in other countries to poison people or the globe by turning other countries into pollution havens. We don't want environmental standards to be used to freeze the world distribution of wealth and keep people in other countries hungry, illiterate, and barefoot. The difficulties that remain are those of implementation.

Similarly, we want expanding trade to be a force for opportunity rather than for oppression: we like it when expanded trade gives ordinary people a path to a better life; we don't like it when expanded trade gives rich and powerful people in the cloud city of Stratos an incentive to round others up and put them to work in the xenite mines. As then-Principal Deputy IMF Managing Director Stanley Fischer warned the great and good at the 2000 Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Jackson Hole Conference, there is nothing in the ILO's principles that we cannot and very little that we should not be eager to endorse, all of us. The difficulties that remain are, once again, those of implementation.

The question of trade and wages remains: To what extent are rich countries obligated to open their markets to poor countries when the consequence is falling wages for the poor in the rich--bearing in mind that the poor in the rich are often wealthier and have more opporunity than the rich in the poor? To what extent do rich countries do themselves well--serve their national interest--by opening their markets to poor countries even when the consequence is falling wages for the poor in the rich?

Let me make four remarks on this "trade and wages" basket:

First, between 1950 and 1997 trade and wages weren't an issue: our foreign trading partners raised their own relative wage levels at least as fast as globalization enhanced their influence, and there was no net effect of trade on wages--no link from greater openness to the global economy to greater inequality here at home.

Second, at times between 1950 and 1997 trade and wages became a political issue as a way of distracting attention from true problems. The voters of Michigan in 1985 did not want to hear that the problems of Michigan's manufacturing industries were home-grown--in the fecklessness of management and in the Reagan administration's budget deficits that pushed up interest rates which pushed up the value of the dollar and made the goods they made uncompetitive on world markets. They wanted, instead, to hear that the Japanese were doing something clever and illegitimate.

Third: since 1997 or so the link between expanded imports and wage inequality has become real, as our imports now embody a much larger amount of factors competing with our own lesser-skilled than they used to. How large? I don't think we know. Paul Krugman is now writing a paper for the Brookings Institution in which he essentially throws up his hands at the question. But there are two points worth noting: (a) the effects of trade on pre-tax wage inequality are much smaller than the effects over the past generation of changes in the tax system on after-tax income inequality; (b) the effects of trade on inequality of opportunity are much less than the effects of educational inequities on inequality of opportunity.

Fourth, to the extent that we in the United States begin thinking of trade restrictions as a way to fight inequality, we are setting ourselves up for extraordinary trouble late in this century--extraordinary damage to our long-run national security.

Think of it this way: Consider a world that contains one country that is a true superpower. It is preeminent--economically, technologically, politically, culturally, and militarily. But it lies at the east edge of a vast ocean. And across the ocean is another country--a country with more resources in the long-run, a country that looks likely to in the end supplant the current superpower. What should the superpower's long-run national security strategy be?

I think the answer is clear: if possible, the current superpower should embrace its possible successor. It should bind it as closely as possible with ties of blood, commerce, and culture--so that should the emerging superpower come to its full strength, it will to as great an extent possible share the world view of and regard itself as part of the same civilization as its predecessor: Romans to their Greeks.

In 1877, the rising superpower to the west across the ocean was the United States. The preeminent superpower was Britain. Today the preeminent superpower is the United States. The rising superpower to the west across the ocean is China. that was the rising superpower across the ocean to the west of the world's industrial and military leader. Today it is China.

Throughout the twentieth century it has been greatly to Britain's economic benefit that America has regarded it as a trading partner--a source of opportunities--rather than a politico-military-industrial competitor to be isolated and squashed. And in 1917 and again in 1941 it was to Britain's immeasurable benefit--its veruy soul was on the line--that America regarded it as a friend and an ally rather than as a competitor and an enemy. A world run by those whom de Gaulle called les Anglo-Saxons is a much more comfortable world for Britain than the other possibility--the world in which Europe were run by Adolf Hitler's Saxon-Saxons.

There is a good chance that China is now on the same path to world preeminence that America walked 130 years ago. Come 2047 and again in 2071 and in the years after 2075, America is going to need China. There is nothing more dangerous for America's future national security, nothing more destructive to America's future prosperity, than for Chinese schoolchildren to be taught in 2047 and 2071 and in the years after 2075 that America tried to keep the Chinese as poor as possible for as long as possible.

And let me stop there.

March 06, 2008

2008 SIEPR Economic Summit

Critical Issue Sessions and Panelists: March 7: 4:30-5:45pm....

Session II: Is Free Trade Fair Trade? * Moderator: Dixon Doll, SIEPR Board member * Brad DeLong, Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley * Alan Taylor, Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis * David Dollar, Country Director, China and Mongolia, World Bank

http://siepr.stanford.edu/SummitAgenda2008.pdf
Frances C. Arrillaga Alumni Center, 326 Galvez St., Stanford Campus

The Industrialization and Urbanization of England

Greg Clark argues that eighteenth and early nineteenth century England would have urbanized and "industrialized" even in the absence of the revolutions in spinning, weaving, and ironworking.

Clark,

From Greg Clark (2002), "The Secret History of the Industrial Revolution":

England had low transport costs to France and the Netherlands even in the middle ages... wages and output in England will be determined not by the land/labor ratio in England, but by the land/labor ratio in Europe as a whole. The English land/labor ratio will predict real wages and real output only in so far as it moves in sympathy with the European land/labor ratio. Otherwise if England ends with more labor compared to land than other European economies it will not experience a decline in output per worker with a constant technology, but will trade labor intensive products in exchange for land intensive products from elsewhere....

In the years 1300 to 1750 there is a remarkable concordance in the population movements across Western Europe, and English wages, output per head and population [appear to be] linked. But the Industrial Revolution was notable for England’s rapid population growth compared to the rest of Europe, and in particular compared to the Netherlands and France.... English population increased by 187% between 1770-9 and 1860-9 while a wide group of other European countries saw population increase by only 79%....

At the same time the addition of the acreage of North America, and improvements in the transport system that brought grain and timber from the East and South to Western Europe effectively expanded the land base of the whole continent.... The population fed and clothed by English agriculture did not expand from 7.5 million to 21 million between 1760 and 1860... but instead grew from 7.5 to 9.6 million... even this calculation does not take into account the effect of the expansion of the coal industry in substituting for the use of land to produce energy in the pre-industrial economy through growth of wood and furze. In combination imports and the coal industry effectively tripled the land area of England by the 1860s....

Thus England's economic growth looked so spectacularly different from the past after 1760 for three reasons: the demographic accident of the differential movement of population in England relative to the rest of Europe, the expansion of the land area effectively available to all of Europe through the opening up of the American Midwest and of the eastern Europe, and the expansion of the domestic coal industry...

The joker in Greg Clark's deck is the assumption that English population growth would have proceeded at the same rate in the absence of the Industrial Revolution. Without the technological revolutions, an expansion of exports to try to feed the growing population would have led to an exchange rate depreciation, a rise in the real price of food, misery, and a Malthusian "positive check."

March 03, 2008

Stagflation Watch

Tim Duy is grim, over at Mark Thoma's Economist's View:

Economist's View: Fed Watch: Inching Closer to the Reality of Stagflation: It is increasingly obvious that the Fed is in a no-win situation. The best case scenario for the Fed is t