IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/exehis/v56y2015icp15-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting infant industries: Canadian manufacturing and the national policy, 1870–1913

Author

Listed:
  • Harris, Richard
  • Keay, Ian
  • Lewis, Frank

Abstract

Infant industry protection has been the cornerstone of a debate on tariff policy that extends at least from the eighteenth century to the current day. In contrast to traditional neo-classical models of international trade that imply net negative effects, industrial organization and learning-by-doing trade models describe how protective tariffs can encourage output expansion, productivity improvement, and price reductions. Taking Canada's 1879 National Policy as a natural experiment, we explore the effect of a policy that substantially increased tariff protection to some, but not all, Canadian manufacturing industries. Using treatment intensity and difference-in-differences approaches, we find strong support for the predictions of the new trade models. After 1879, industries that received greater protection experienced faster growth in output and productivity, as well as larger price reductions. The industries targeted by the National Policy also exhibited greater returns to scale and faster learning rates. These results have important implications for the infant-industry debate in addition to addressing a central theme in Canadian economic history,

Suggested Citation

  • Harris, Richard & Keay, Ian & Lewis, Frank, 2015. "Protecting infant industries: Canadian manufacturing and the national policy, 1870–1913," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 15-31.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:15-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eeh.2015.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014498315000133
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Head, Keith, 1994. "Infant industry protection in the steel rail industry," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 141-165, November.
    2. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1994. "Protection for Sale," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 833-850, September.
    3. Marc J. Melitz & Daniel Trefler, 2012. "Gains from Trade When Firms Matter," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 91-118, Spring.
    4. Duncan M. McDougall, 1971. "Canadian Manufactured Commodity Output, 1870-1915," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 4(1), pages 21-36, February.
    5. David, Paul A., 1970. "Learning By Doing and Tariff Protection: A Reconsideration of the Case of the Ante-Bellum United States Cotton Textile Industry," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 521-601, September.
    6. Harris, Richard, 1984. "Applied General Equilibrium Analysis of Small Open Economies with Scale Economies and Imperfect Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1016-1032, December.
    7. Eugene Beaulieu & Jevan Cherniwchan, 2014. "Tariff Structure, Trade Expansion, and Canadian Protectionism, 1870-1910," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 47(1), pages 144-172, February.
    8. Hartland, Penelope, 1955. "Factors in Economic Growth in Canada," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 13-22, March.
    9. Irwin, Douglas A., 2000. "Did Late-Nineteenth-Century U.S. Tariffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence from the Tinplate Industry," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 60(2), pages 335-360, June.
    10. Williamson, Jeffrey G., 1972. "Embodiment, Disembodiment, Learning by Doing, and Returns to Scale in Nineteenth-Century Cotton Textiles," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 691-705, September.
    11. Krueger, Anne O & Tuncer, Baran, 1982. "An Empirical Test of the Infant Industry Argument," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1142-1152, December.
    12. Baybars Karacaovali, 2011. "Productivity Matters For Trade Policy: Theory And Evidence," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(1), pages 33-62, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Green, Alan G. & Sparks, Gordon R., 1999. "Population Growth and the Dynamics of Canadian Development: A Multivariate Time Series Approach," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 56-71, January.
    15. Peter Thompson, 2001. "How Much Did the Liberty Shipbuilders Learn? New Evidence for an Old Case Study," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(1), pages 103-137, February.
    16. Robert C. Feenstra & Tracy R. Lewis, 1991. "Negotiated Trade Restrictions with Private Political Pressure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1287-1307.
    17. Schor, Adriana, 2004. "Heterogeneous productivity response to tariff reduction. Evidence from Brazilian manufacturing firms," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 373-396, December.
    18. Adriana Schor, 2004. "Heterogeneous Productivity Response to Tariff Reduction: Evidence from Brazilian Manufacturing Firms," NBER Working Papers 10544, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Melitz, Marc J., 2005. "When and how should infant industries be protected?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 177-196, May.
    20. Inwood, Kris & Stengos, Thanasis, 1991. "Discontinuities in Canadian economic growth, 1870-1985," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 274-286, July.
    21. Tybout, James R. & Westbrook, M. Daniel, 1995. "Trade liberalization and the dimensions of efficiency change in Mexican manufacturing industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1-2), pages 53-78, August.
    22. Mary Amiti & Jozef Konings, 2007. "Trade Liberalization, Intermediate Inputs, and Productivity: Evidence from Indonesia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1611-1638, December.
    23. Beaulieu, Eugene & Emery, J. C. Herbert, 2001. "Pork Packers, Reciprocity, And Laurier'S Defeat In The 1911 Canadian General Election," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(4), pages 1083-1101, December.
    24. Goodrich, Carter, 1970. "Internal Improvements Reconsidered," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 289-311, June.
    25. Irwin, Douglas A. & Temin, Peter, 2001. "The Antebellum Tariff On Cotton Textiles Revisited," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(3), pages 777-798, September.
    26. Horstmann, Ignatius J. & Markusen, James R., 1986. "Up the average cost curve: Inefficient entry and the new protectionism," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3-4), pages 225-247, May.
    27. Easton, Stephen T. & Gibson, William A. & Reed, Clyde G., 1988. "Tariffs and growth: The dales hypothesis," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 147-163, April.
    28. Lively, Robert A., 1955. "The American System: A Review Article," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 81-96, March.
    29. Paul S. Adler, 1990. "Shared Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(8), pages 938-957, August.
    30. Dutton, John M. & Thomas, Annie & Butler, John E., 1984. "The History of Progress Functions as a Managerial Technology," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 204-233, July.
    31. Kris Inwood & Ian Keay, 2012. "Diverse paths to industrial development: evidence from late-nineteenth-century Canada," European Review of Economic History, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 311-333, August.
    32. O. J. Firestone, 1960. "Development of Canada's Economy, 1850-1900," NBER Chapters, in: Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, pages 217-252, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    33. Kris Inwood & Ian Keay, 2013. "Trade policy and industrial development: iron and steel in a small open economy, 18701913," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 46(4), pages 1265-1294, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Patrick Alexander & Ian Keay, 2018. "Responding to the First Era of Globalization: Canadian Trade Policy, 1870–1913," Staff Working Papers 18-42, Bank of Canada.
    2. Patrick Alexander & Ian Keay, 2017. "The Welfare Effects of Protection: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Canada’s National Policy," Staff Working Papers 17-18, Bank of Canada.
    3. Alexander, Patrick D. & Keay, Ian, 2018. "A general equilibrium analysis of Canada’s national policy," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-15.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Infant industries; Tariffs and industrial development; Canadian development;

    JEL classification:

    • N71 - Economic History - - Economic History: Transport, International and Domestic Trade, Energy, and Other Services - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
    • N61 - Economic History - - Manufacturing and Construction - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:56:y:2015:i:c:p:15-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622830 .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.