Friedrich List'in Bebek Endüstriler Tezi
[Friedrich List's Infant Industry Argument]
AbstractAfter presenting a broad review of Friedrich List's infant industry argument (Erziehungszollargument) departing from collected works of List, this study aims to compare his ideas with that of Hamilton, Say, Mill, Bastable and Kemp. It underlines the restricted theoretical validity of the argument in modern terms of economics.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 2549.
Date of creation: 1996
Date of revision:
Friedrich List; infant industry argument; Hamilton; Mill; Bastable; Kemp; externalities; economies of scale;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
- F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
- O10 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lucas, Robert E B, 1984. "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1110-11, December.
- Jacobsson, Staffan, 1993. "The length of the infant industry period: Evidence from the engineering industry in South Korea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 407-419, March.
- repec:fth:michin:272 is not listed on IDEAS
- Krueger, Anne O & Tuncer, Baran, 1994.
"An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument: Reply,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1096, September.
- Krueger, Anne O & Tuncer, Baran, 1984. "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1112-13, December.
- Bell, Martin & Ross-Larson, Bruce & Westphal, Larry E., 1984. "Assessing the performance of infant industries," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1-2), pages 101-128.
- Bardhan, Pranab K, 1971.
"On Optimum Subsidy to a Learning Industry: An Aspect of the Theory of Infant-Industry Protection,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 12(1), pages 54-70, February.
- P. K. Bardhan, 1967. "On Optimum Subsidy to a Learning Industry: An Aspect of the Theory of Infant Industry Protection," Working papers 10, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Levinsohn, J., 1991.
"Testing the Imports-As-Market-Discipline Hypothesis,"
272, Research Seminar in International Economics, University of Michigan.
- Levinsohn, James, 1993. "Testing the imports-as-market-discipline hypothesis," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 1-22, August.
- James Levinsohn, 1991. "Testing the Imports-as-Market-Discipline Hypothesis," NBER Working Papers 3657, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Haddad, L., 1987. "List Revisited: Dynamic Consideration Of Trade And Protection," Working Papers 100, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
- Kirim, Arman, 1990. "Technology and exports: The case of the Turkish manufacturing industries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 18(10), pages 1351-1362, October.
- Baldwin, Robert E, 1969. "The Case against Infant-Industry Tariff Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(3), pages 295-305, May/June.
- Krueger, Anne O & Tuncer, Baran, 1982. "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1142-52, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.