{"title":"揭穿保护主义神话:自由贸易、发展中世界与繁荣","authors":"A. Panagariya","doi":"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9985-20190014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"More than 170 years ago, Frederic Bastiat noted in his masterly work Economic Sophisms that the “opposition to free trade rests upon errors, or, if you prefer, upon half-truths.”1 Ever since Adam Smith successfully replaced mercantilist orthodoxy with free trade doctrine in his celebrated book The Wealth of Nations, free trade critics have repeatedly challenged the doctrine, offering half-truths to bolster their case. In each instance, free trade advocates have successfully exposed the falsehood of arguments made by critics. Although free trade has gained increasing acceptance among policymakers over time, challenges to it have remained omnipresent. \n \nThe latest of these challenges has manifested itself in increased tariffs on steel and aluminum in the United States and on a number of selected products in India. At the heart of these tariff hikes has been the belief that through targeted protection and industrial policy, governments can produce outcomes that are superior to those that free trade and competition would produce.2 Intellectual inspiration for this belief in recent decades has come from writings of a group of influential scholars who have interpreted the experiences of the highly successful East Asian “tiger” economies — Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan — during the early decades following the Second World War and of China during more recent decades as being the result of selective protection and industrial targeting. \n \nSystematic evidence, however, demonstrates that free trade rather than selective protection and industrial policy must be credited with propelling these economies to miracle-level growth. Just as Bastiat observed, the case made by free trade critics in favor of industrial policy and selective protection is based on half-truths. Contrary to the assertions by these critics, a logical case for infant industry protection does not exist. Moreover, compelling empirical evidence linking trade openness causally to higher per capita incomes is now available.","PeriodicalId":176096,"journal":{"name":"Economic History eJournal","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Debunking Protectionist Myths: Free Trade, the Developing World, and Prosperity\",\"authors\":\"A. Panagariya\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9985-20190014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"More than 170 years ago, Frederic Bastiat noted in his masterly work Economic Sophisms that the “opposition to free trade rests upon errors, or, if you prefer, upon half-truths.”1 Ever since Adam Smith successfully replaced mercantilist orthodoxy with free trade doctrine in his celebrated book The Wealth of Nations, free trade critics have repeatedly challenged the doctrine, offering half-truths to bolster their case. In each instance, free trade advocates have successfully exposed the falsehood of arguments made by critics. Although free trade has gained increasing acceptance among policymakers over time, challenges to it have remained omnipresent. \\n \\nThe latest of these challenges has manifested itself in increased tariffs on steel and aluminum in the United States and on a number of selected products in India. At the heart of these tariff hikes has been the belief that through targeted protection and industrial policy, governments can produce outcomes that are superior to those that free trade and competition would produce.2 Intellectual inspiration for this belief in recent decades has come from writings of a group of influential scholars who have interpreted the experiences of the highly successful East Asian “tiger” economies — Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan — during the early decades following the Second World War and of China during more recent decades as being the result of selective protection and industrial targeting. \\n \\nSystematic evidence, however, demonstrates that free trade rather than selective protection and industrial policy must be credited with propelling these economies to miracle-level growth. Just as Bastiat observed, the case made by free trade critics in favor of industrial policy and selective protection is based on half-truths. Contrary to the assertions by these critics, a logical case for infant industry protection does not exist. Moreover, compelling empirical evidence linking trade openness causally to higher per capita incomes is now available.\",\"PeriodicalId\":176096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economic History eJournal\",\"volume\":\"106 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economic History eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9985-20190014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic History eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9985-20190014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
170多年前,弗雷德里克·巴斯夏(Frederic Bastiat)在他的杰作《经济诡辩》(Economic Sophisms)中指出,“反对自由贸易是基于错误,或者,如果你愿意,是基于半真半假的事实。”自从亚当·斯密(Adam Smith)在其著名著作《国富论》(The Wealth of Nations)中成功地用自由贸易学说取代重商主义正统以来,自由贸易的批评者就不断挑战这一学说,用半真半假的说法来支持他们的观点。在每一个例子中,自由贸易倡导者都成功地揭露了批评者论点的谬误。尽管随着时间的推移,自由贸易在政策制定者中得到了越来越多的认可,但对它的挑战仍然无处不在。这些挑战的最新表现是美国对钢铁和铝的关税增加,以及印度对一些特定产品的关税增加。这些关税上调的核心是一种信念,即通过有针对性的保护和产业政策,政府可以产生比自由贸易和竞争所能产生的结果更好的结果近几十年来,这一信念的思想灵感来自一群有影响力的学者的著作,他们将二战后最初几十年非常成功的东亚“小虎”经济体——香港、新加坡、韩国和台湾——以及近几十年来中国的经验解释为选择性保护和工业目标的结果。然而,系统证据表明,推动这些经济体实现奇迹级增长的,应该归功于自由贸易,而非选择性保护主义和产业政策。正如巴斯夏所观察到的,自由贸易批评者支持产业政策和选择性保护的理由是建立在半真半假的基础上的。与这些批评者的断言相反,保护新兴产业的合理理由并不存在。此外,现在有令人信服的经验证据表明,贸易开放与较高的人均收入之间存在因果关系。
Debunking Protectionist Myths: Free Trade, the Developing World, and Prosperity
More than 170 years ago, Frederic Bastiat noted in his masterly work Economic Sophisms that the “opposition to free trade rests upon errors, or, if you prefer, upon half-truths.”1 Ever since Adam Smith successfully replaced mercantilist orthodoxy with free trade doctrine in his celebrated book The Wealth of Nations, free trade critics have repeatedly challenged the doctrine, offering half-truths to bolster their case. In each instance, free trade advocates have successfully exposed the falsehood of arguments made by critics. Although free trade has gained increasing acceptance among policymakers over time, challenges to it have remained omnipresent.
The latest of these challenges has manifested itself in increased tariffs on steel and aluminum in the United States and on a number of selected products in India. At the heart of these tariff hikes has been the belief that through targeted protection and industrial policy, governments can produce outcomes that are superior to those that free trade and competition would produce.2 Intellectual inspiration for this belief in recent decades has come from writings of a group of influential scholars who have interpreted the experiences of the highly successful East Asian “tiger” economies — Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan — during the early decades following the Second World War and of China during more recent decades as being the result of selective protection and industrial targeting.
Systematic evidence, however, demonstrates that free trade rather than selective protection and industrial policy must be credited with propelling these economies to miracle-level growth. Just as Bastiat observed, the case made by free trade critics in favor of industrial policy and selective protection is based on half-truths. Contrary to the assertions by these critics, a logical case for infant industry protection does not exist. Moreover, compelling empirical evidence linking trade openness causally to higher per capita incomes is now available.