The MFA Paradox: More Protection and More Trade?
The textile industry's political power stemmed from its importance in southern states plus the power of the Southern delegation in the U.S. Congress in the 1960s. The strongest resistance to the industry's pressure for protection came from the foreign policy interests of the Executive branch. A constellation of influences explains why negotiated, or voluntary export restraints (VERs), sanctioned by international agreements (the Multi-Fiber Arrangement) was the form protection took. First, the Japanese industry, at the time the world's leading textile exporter, already in the 1930s had exhibited a willingness to accept negotiated agreements to trade disputes. Second, the U.S. Executive, having been a leader in establishing the GATT system to control the sort of unilateral restrictive actions that contributed to the 1930s depression, was reluctant to take unilateral action. Third, the arrangement was acceptable to the U.S. industry because, through their particular power over agricultural legislation, the Southern delegation won passage, as amendments to agriculture bills, of legislation to enforce these 'voluntary' restraints at the U.S. border. But because enforcement remained with the Executive branch, it tended to follow the letter of the agreements, hence exports could continue to expand by shifting to new product varieties and to new supplier countries.
|Date of creation:||May 1994|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published as The Political Economy of American Trade Policy, Anne O. Krueger ed.pp. 197-254, (University of Chicago Press, 1996).|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
- G. K. Helleiner, 1977. "The Political Economy of Canada's Tariff Structure: An Alternative Model," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 318-26, May.
- John M. Abowd, 1991. "Appendix: The NBER Immigration, Trade, and Labor Markets Data Files," NBER Chapters, in: Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market, pages 407-421 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- M.L. Varma, 1984. "World Economy," Foreign Trade Review, , vol. 19(2), pages 347-353, July.
- Richard E. Caves, 1976. "Economic Models of Political Choice: Canada's Tariff Structure," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 9(2), pages 278-300, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:4751. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.