Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:28:12.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The political economy of agricultural protection: Sweden 1887

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2010

SIBYLLE LEHMANN  and
OLIVER VOLCKART
SIBYLLE LEHMANN
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, [email protected]
OLIVER VOLCKART
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

We analyse the Swedish general elections that took place in spring and autumn 1887. Our aim is to discover which groups of voters supported free trade and which protectionism. We find that while capital owners and wage earners consistently favoured free trade, in the spring election only the largest farmers supported protectionism. By autumn, political preferences among smallholders and middling farmers had shifted in favour of protectionism too. As these groups were not specialised in the production of import-competing goods, we assume that the political landslide in the autumn elections can be attributed to a loss of trust in the government.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review of Economic History , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , April 2011 , pp. 29 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © European Historical Economics Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, A. I., Cover, A. D. and Norpoth, H. (1986). The President's Party in midterm elections: going from bad to worse. American Journal of Political Science 30, pp. 562–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, L. J. and Gallo, A. A. (2010). Electoral fraud, the rise of Peron and demise of checks and balances in Argentina. Explorations in Economic History 47, pp. 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. J. and Ward, D. S. (1996). Barometer elections in comparative perspective. Electoral Studies 15, pp. 447–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, I. (1955/70). A History of Sweden. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and King, G. (2003). A program for ecological inference. Published as part of the Gauss Package by Aptech Systems and as a stand-alone program called EzI: A(n Easy) Program for Ecological Inference.Google Scholar
BISOS (1885). Bidrag till Sveriges officiela Statistik, vol. R: Valstatistik, VII.3. Stockholm: Kungl. Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar
BISOS (1887). Bidrag till Sveriges officiela statistik, vol. R: Valstatistik, VII.1. Stockholm: Kungl. Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar
BISOS (1888). Bidrag till Sveriges officiela statistik, vol. R: Valstatistik, VIII. Stockholm: Kungl. Boktryckeriet.Google Scholar
BISOS (1890). Bidrag till Sveriges officiela statistik, vol. N: Jordbruk och boskapsskötsel, XXIV. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & söner.Google Scholar
Bohlin, J. (2005). Tariff protection in Sweden 1885–1914. Scandinavian Economic History Review 53, pp. 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohlin, J. (2007). Structural change in the Swedish economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century – the role of import substitution and export demand. Göteborg: Göteborg University, School of Economics and Commercial Law.Google Scholar
Bohlin, J. (2009). The income distributional consequences of agrarian tariffs in Sweden on the eve of World War I. European Review of Economic History 13, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
Caramani, D. (2000). Elections in Western Europe since 1815. In The Societies of Europe. New York: Grove.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, P. (1990). Svenska Valkampanjer 1866–1988. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (1986). Incumbent performance and electoral control. Public Choice 50, pp. 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreman-Peck, J. (ed.) (1998). Historical Foundations of Globalization. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Gerschenkron, A. (1943). Bread and Democracy in Germany. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1953). Ecological regressions and behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review 18, pp. 663–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håstad, E. (1941). Tullstridens val och folkmenigen. In Festskrift till professor skytteanus Axel Brusewitz. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wicksell, pp. 105–53.Google Scholar
Höijer, E. (1921). Tabeller till belysning av det Svenska jordbrukets utveckling 1871–1919. Stockholm: Isaac Marcus’ Boktryckeri-Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
Jörberg, L. (1972). A History of Prices in Sweden 1732–1914, vol. 1: Sources, Methods, Tables. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
King, G. (1997). A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, G., Rosen, O., Tanner, M. and Wagner, A. F. (2008). Ordinary economic voting behavior in the extraordinary election of Adolf Hitler. Journal of Economic History 68, pp. 951–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klug, A. (2001). Why Chamberlain failed and Bismarck succeeded: the political economy of trade tariffs in British and German elections. European Review of Economic History 5 (2), pp. 219–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, S. H. (2010). The German elections in the 1870s: why Germany turned from liberalism to protectionism. Journal of Economic History 70, pp. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, L. (1988). Ideology and Strategy: A Century of Swedish Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, L., Jansson, B. and Soerbom, D. (1976). The Swedish Electorate 1887–1968. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell.Google Scholar
Lindahl, E., Dahlgren, E. and Kock, K. (1937). Wages, Cost of Living and National Income in Sweden 1860–1930, vol. 3: National Income of Sweden 1861–1930, part two. London: P. S. King & Son.Google Scholar
Montgomery, A. (1921). Svensk tullpolitik, 1816–1911. Stockholm: Isaac Marcus’ Boktryckeri-Aktiebolag.Google Scholar
National Central Bureau of Statistics (1972). Historical Statistics of Sweden, vol. 3: Foreign Trade 1732–1970. Stockholm: Allmanna Forlaget.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, K. (1997). The European grain invasion. The Journal of Economic History 57, pp. 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogburn, W. F. and Goltra, I. (1919). How women vote: a study on an election in Portland, Oregon. Political Science Quarterly 34, pp. 414–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Retallack, J. (2009). Obrigkeitsstaat und politischer Massenmarkt. In Müller, S. O. and Torp, C. (eds.), Das Deutsche Kaiserreich in der Kontroverse. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 121–35.Google Scholar
Särlvik, B. (2002). Party and electoral systems in Sweden. In Grofman, B. and Lijphart, A. (eds.), The Evolution of Electoral and Party Systems in the Nordic Countries. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 225–69.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (1998). Parties and interests in the ‘marriage of iron and rye’. British Journal of Political Science 28, pp. 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, P. (1990). Die Zähmung des politischen Massenmarktes: Wahlen und Wahlkämpfe im Bismarckreich im Spiegel der Hauptstadt- und Gesinnungspresse. Passau: Wissenschaftsverlag Richard Rothe.Google Scholar
Van Dijck, M. and Truyts, T. (2010). Ideas, interests and politics in the case of Belgian Corn Law repeal, 1834–1873. Forthcoming in Journal of Economic History.Google Scholar
Verney, D. V. (1957). Parliamentary Reform in Sweden 1866–1921. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Webb, S. B. (1982). Agricultural protection in Wilhelmine Germany: forging an empire with pork and rye. Journal of Economic History 42, pp. 309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar