{"title":"Interessekonflikter i norsk handelspolitikk","authors":"O. H. Grytten","doi":"10.1080/03585522.2021.1932570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a very interesting book on conflicting interests in Norwegian trade policy, basically from 1970 until 2015. It is definitely worth reading for economic and political historians. It was first published in 2015 and came online in 2020. The editors clearly state in their introduction that Norway historically has been a trading economy, with international trade as an important factor for the economic, regional and cultural development, as a way of living. They also stress that openness when it comes to trade is part of its national identity. Despite public announcements of a high degree of political agreement in international trade questions, the editors argue that this politics contains considerable disagreements and conflicts of interests. This, in fact, represents the red thread of the book. The book holds a successful inter-disciplinary exercise with emphasis on economics, history and political science. It discusses political conditions for trade policy and economic consequences, all in a historical perspective. WTO is central as it stresses differences between multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. It is meant as both an academic analysis of the past and an input for future debate on trade policy. The editors’ departure is that classical conflicts of interests within trade policy often exist between offensive and defensive interests. The first ones have strong competitive power, and thus, prefer a liberal trade policy with open borders, when defensive industries with weak competitive power fear competition, and thus, demand protection of domestic markets. Since the 1970s, the Norwegian both the industrial and industrial policy developments have made fish and fish farming one of the ‘offensive’ actors, when agriculture and textile industries represent ‘defensive’ actor. Other offensive industries are oil and gas and maritime and marine services, which, however, are less impacted by trade policy. Here one could have elaborated more on the development of fisheries from being a defensive to an offensive industry.","PeriodicalId":43624,"journal":{"name":"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW","volume":"70 1","pages":"108 - 109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SCANDINAVIAN ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03585522.2021.1932570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a very interesting book on conflicting interests in Norwegian trade policy, basically from 1970 until 2015. It is definitely worth reading for economic and political historians. It was first published in 2015 and came online in 2020. The editors clearly state in their introduction that Norway historically has been a trading economy, with international trade as an important factor for the economic, regional and cultural development, as a way of living. They also stress that openness when it comes to trade is part of its national identity. Despite public announcements of a high degree of political agreement in international trade questions, the editors argue that this politics contains considerable disagreements and conflicts of interests. This, in fact, represents the red thread of the book. The book holds a successful inter-disciplinary exercise with emphasis on economics, history and political science. It discusses political conditions for trade policy and economic consequences, all in a historical perspective. WTO is central as it stresses differences between multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. It is meant as both an academic analysis of the past and an input for future debate on trade policy. The editors’ departure is that classical conflicts of interests within trade policy often exist between offensive and defensive interests. The first ones have strong competitive power, and thus, prefer a liberal trade policy with open borders, when defensive industries with weak competitive power fear competition, and thus, demand protection of domestic markets. Since the 1970s, the Norwegian both the industrial and industrial policy developments have made fish and fish farming one of the ‘offensive’ actors, when agriculture and textile industries represent ‘defensive’ actor. Other offensive industries are oil and gas and maritime and marine services, which, however, are less impacted by trade policy. Here one could have elaborated more on the development of fisheries from being a defensive to an offensive industry.
期刊介绍:
Scandinavian Economic History Review publishes articles and reviews in the broad field of Nordic economic, business and social history. The journal also publishes contributions from closely related fields, such as history of technology, maritime history and history of economic thought. Articles dealing with theoretical and methodological issues are also included. The editors aim to reflect contemporary research, thinking and debate in these fields, both within Scandinavia and more widely. The journal comprises a broad variety of aspects and approaches to economic and social history, ranging from macro economic history to business history, from quantitative to qualitative studies.