Ms. Bunting on Development.

Madeleine Bunting is at it again. Managing to completely mangle every economic thought that crosses her synapses.

Fourth, trade towers over
all other issues; it is trade not aid or debt relief that reduces
poverty. But trade might hurt our interests, it is about justice not
charity; it doesn’t generate the same feel-good factor. The west’s
record on trade is shocking; we are expecting African countries to
develop economically in a way in which no other country has ever done –
with open markets, free trade and liberalisation.

It simply is not true that free trade might damage our interests. It is the most basic point of trade theory (shared by everyone from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman …you want the one "Ricardo’s Difficult Idea" in the International Trade section) that free trade benefits us, whatever it does for other people. We could also look at Patrick Minford’s recent work, pointing out that a unilateral UK movement to free trade would benefit us by 2-3 % of GDP.

What is even more shocking is her idea that no country has ever developed with open markets, free trade and liberalisation. Two examples from the last century, Sweden and Hong Kong. First, Sweden:


A half-century ago, Sweden was a great success story. One hundred fifty
years ago, Sweden began a transformation from a poor agricultural
society to a rich industrial society. The economy was deregulated,
taxes were lowered and tariffs abolished. Modern limited liability
company laws and a patent system were adopted. The result was from 1890
to 1950, Sweden was the world’s fastest-growing economy, and developed
a number of globally known and respected companies.

Fastest growing country in the world eh? No tariffs, eh?  Well, that certainly shows that protectionism is the way to grow an economy doesn’t it?

Hong Kong in 1945 was a pile of rubble inhabited by the starving. in 1949 there was a further wave of starving and indigent refugees from the Communist takeover in China. Today, GDP per capita (at PPP rates) is
around $27,000, or number 18 in the world. Hong Kong has never had a
tariff on anything.  Further proof, as if any were needed, that tariffs
are indeed the way to grow an economy.


Please, could someone buy Ms. Bunting a basic textbook on International Trade? Chain her to her desk until she has read it? The poor and starving in this world would appreciate it, for as we know governments tremble before the might of her reasoning and it would be useful if her magisterial pronouncements were actually, you know, correct or something.

Or is that just me being shamefully patriarchal, insisting on evidence based reasoning, empiricism, facts, the whole shebang of white European male thought generally known as science? If that is so I might suggest that she contact her colleague Vic Keegan who runs the site kick-AAS, for he appears to have remarkably similar views to my own on this subject. Then again, we’re both male, probably both white and presumably both of Irish/English ancestry. On Planet Grauniad, home of groupthink, those similarities would be enough to explain our concurrence of thought.

4 responses

  1. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Firstly, the fact that you try to prove a general law regarding all developing countries using two examples is just daft.
    Secondly, there’s the example of Sweden. Whether or not it ever ‘abolished’ tariffs completely, Sweden certainly did not have zero tariffs from 1890 to 1950. Try here for some figures: http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/SRtrade2003.pdf
    The table on page 2 shows that Sweden had weighted average tariff rates on manufactured products of 3-5% in 1875, 20% in 1913, 16% in 1925, 21% in 1931 and 9% in 1950. Only in 1875 and 1950 was Sweden anywhere near the bottom of the tariff ‘league table’ among even the select group covered.
    So, you’re utterly wrong to say that Sweden had “no tariffs”. Perhaps you should actually check the facts before lecturing others on this subject again?
    But wait, there’s more. See page 3 here for average % GDP growth in industrialised countries between 1870 and 1992: http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/ok_growth.pdf
    Sweden grew at an average rate of 2% in 1870-1913, 2.3% in 1913-1950, and 3% in 1950-70. This suggests that Sweden may even have grown *faster* when it increased trade protection! It also suggests that Sweden grew faster after 1950 – if it was the ‘fastest growing country in the world’ before then it was probably due to avoiding the worst of both world wars.
    That leaves Hong Kong, which is not so much a country as a port, and hardly the basis for a general theory of trade and development.
    In summary, then, you have proved nothing but your own ignorance on the subject. It’s not the first time, either – a quick search reveals that you claimed before that Latin America “spent the 40’s to the 70’s following every fashionable prescription about import substitution and the protection of nascent industry and actually went backwards”. As I pointed out then, this was complete rubbish: Latin America’s growth collapsed in the 1980s AFTER decades of relatively strong performance under the ‘import substitution’ model you were so critical of.
    Lastly, the kick-ASS website is about removing the subsidies of *rich* countries, not (as far as I can see, I’m not a regular reader) of poor countries. Or, as Bunting put it, “Africa needs access to markets, it needs reform of agricultural subsidies and no dumping”.
    So I think you’re factually incorrect on just about every score here. Or is that just me being shamefully patriarchal, insisting on evidence based reasoning, empiricism, facts, the whole shebang of white European male thought generally known as science?
    Maybe if you didn’t expend so much effort insulting and patronising people you wouldn’t look so stupid when you get things completely wrong, which unfortunately is quite often. Just a thought.

  2. Nice to have you back Jim.
    Thanks for pointing out my error over tariffs. Your source trumps mine. I would argue a little that their tariffs, at each stage, were below average.
    As to the growth figures, you might want to think about the average growth rates in those decades. Did Sweden grow faster than others in the respective decades? Everyone grew faster after WWII….the average world growth rate was higher, and guess what, that coincides with a boom in world trade. For, if I am claiming that Sweden grew relatively faster at some period, we should look at relative growth rates, not absolute eh?
    As the very paper you quote says:
    The data reveals that there were two distinctly different periods concerning Sweden’s relative
    economic growth in the 20th century and that they coincided roughly with the first and the
    second half of the century. In the first period – actually starting c. 1890 – Sweden stands out
    as a distinct fast-grower and in the second one, there was a clear relative retardation.
    My point I think. Sweden grew faster relative to other countries when it had lower protection.

  3. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    I suppose that countries “sheltering” under tarrifs are a bit like those trades and professions that shelter under monopolies. I don’t think that many people would agree with the proposition that, say, solicitors are v efficient. Unless a country can give itself some monopoly position, how will it prosper if its industries are solicitor-like in their dash and initiative?

  4. Your point was that Sweden developed because of “open markets, free trade and liberalisation”. That’s obviously not true, so now you’re changing your point, to something like “Sweden grew faster relative to other countries when it had lower protection”.
    But the figures don’t support even that point, as (a) Sweden grew ‘relatively fastest’ in 1913-1950, and only towards the end of that period was Sweden one of the less-protected countries, and (b) Two catastrophic wars *just might* have reduced the growth of most of mainland Europe during this period, so it’s hardly a reasonable comparison.
    Anyway, you started out by attacking Bunting over her claim that no country has developed with “open markets, free trade and liberalisation”. Your sole counter-example is now Hong Kong, which as I’ve said is not really a country so much as a port. If you can’t come up with any more examples, isn’t it you who needs to (a) offer some sort of apology or at least a correction, and (b) go away and read up on the subject until your pronouncements are “actually, you know, correct or something”?

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading