¹ See Webb, Steven B., “Tariff Protection for the Iron Industry, Cotton Textiles and Agriculture in Germany, 1879–1914,” Jahrbücher für Narionalökonomie und Staristik, 192 (11 1977), 336–57;Google Scholaridem., “The Economic Effects of Tariff Protection in Imperial Germany, 1879 to 1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1978);Google Scholaridem., “Tariffs, Cartels, Technology and Growth in the German Steel Industry, 1879 to 1914,” this JOURNAL, 40 (June 1980), 309–29.Google Scholar

² Böhme, Helmut, Deurschlands Weg zur Grossmacht: Studien zum Verlzdltnis von Wirtschaft und Staat während der Reichsgrūndungszeit, 1848–1881 (Cologne, 1966);Google ScholarEich, Erich, Bismarck and the German Empire, 2nd ed. (London, 1958);Google ScholarEley, Geoff, Reshaping the German Right: Radical Nationalism and Political Change after Bismarck (New Haven, Connecticut, 1980);Google ScholarGerschenicron, Alexander, Bread and Democracy in Germany (Berkeley, California, 1943);Google ScholarHolborn, Hajo, The History of Modern Germany, vol. 3 (New York, 1969);Google ScholarPuhle, Hans-Jürgen, Agrarische Inreressenpolitik und preussischer Konservatismus im wilhelminischen Reich (1893–1914), Schriftenreihe des Forschungsinstitut der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, vol. 51, 2nd ed. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, Germany, 1975);Google ScholarRosenberg, Hans, Grosse Depression und Bismarckzeit: Wirtschafisablauf, Gesellschaft und Politik in Mitteleuropa (Berlin, 1967);CrossRefGoogle ScholarStegmann, Disk, Die Erben Bismarcks Parteien und Verbände in der Spärphase des wilhelminischen Deutschlands (Cologne, 1970);Google ScholarWehier, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Berlin, 1969).Google Scholar

³ Hardach, Karl W., Die Bedeutung wirtschaftlicher Faktoren bei der Wiedereinfuhrung der Eisen- und Getreidezölle in Deutschland 1879 (Berlin, 1967), pp. 80–123.Google Scholar See also Hentschel, Volker, Wirtsehaft und Wirgschaftspolitik im wilhelminischen Deutschland: Organisierter Kapitalismus and Interventionsstaat? (Stuttgart, 1978), pp. 196–200.Google Scholar

⁴ Gerschenkron, Bread and Democracy, pp. 26–27, 72–76.Google Scholar

⁵ Holborn, , The History of Modern Germany, vol. 3, p. 371;Google ScholarPuhle, Agrarische-Interessenpolitik, pp. 76, 1102;Google ScholarRosenberg, Grosse Depression and Bismarckzeit, p. 182;Google ScholarTipton, Frank B. Jr, Regional Variations in the Economic Development of Germany in the 19th Century (Middletown, Connecticut, 1976), p. 120.Google Scholar

⁶ Wagner, Adolf, Agrar- und Industriestaat: Die Kehrseite des Industriestaars und die Rechifertigung des agrarischen Zollschutzes mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Bevolkerungsfrage (Jena, Germany, 1902), pp. 115–26.Google Scholar For a good discussion of the economic policy writings of Wagner and other protectionist economists, see Barkin, Kenneth, The Controversy over German Industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago, 1970).Google Scholar

⁷ Lütge, Friedrich, Deutsche Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (Berlin, 1966), pp. 512–13;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchmoller, Gustav, “Analekten tind Randglossen zur Debatte ūber Erhöhung der Getreidezölle,” Schmollers Jahrbuch für Geserzgebung, 9 (1885), 559–82.Google Scholar

⁸ Hunt, James C., “Peasants, Grain Tariffs and Meat Quotas: Imperial German Protectionism Reexamined,” Central European History, 7 (1974), 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ The sums of squared errors are 7.4 for Prussian minus Rheinish wheat prices, 37.2 for Prussian minus London Gazette wheat prices, 22.1 for Prussian minus British import wheat prices, 98.4 for Prussian minus Amheim (Netherlands) wheat prices, 10.8 for Prussian minus Rheirnsh rye prices, and 91.9 for Prussian minus Arnheim rye prices. The author will provide further details of these computations upon request.Google Scholar

¹⁰ McFall, Robert J., The World's Meat (New York, 1928), pp. 269–70.Google Scholar

¹¹ Statistisches Jahrbuch für das deutsche Reich, 31 (1910), 215–17.Google Scholar

¹² Perkins, J. A., “The Agricultural Revolution in Germany, 1850–1914,” Journal of European Economic History, 10 (Spring 1981), 71–118.Google Scholar

¹³ Guyot, Yves, The Sugar Question in 1901 (London, 1901), pp. 60–61;Google ScholarBecker, Ludwig, Die Geschichre des Hamburger Zuckerhandels (Rostock, Germany, 1933), pp. 156–62.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For 1900–1902 protection on domestic sales equaled the 68 marks/ton bounty paid from the Refinery Syndicate to the Raw-Sugar Producers' Syndicate;Google ScholarRatzka-Ernst, Clara, Welthandelsartikel und ihre Preise: Eine Studie zur Preisbewegung und Preisbildung (Munich, 1912), pp. 36–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ There was also a tax on domestic sugar consumption, but its impact is already accounted for through the domestic price.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Paasche, Hermann, Zuckerindustrie und Zuckerhandel der Welt (Jena, Germany, 1891), pp. 44–45;Google ScholarStatistik des Deutschen Reichs, Vierteljahresheft (1914), p. IV 99.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Statistisches Jahrbuch, 19 (1898), 23, 94;Google Scholaribid., 30 (1909), 61, 168.

¹⁸ Corden, W. M., The Theory of Protection (Oxford, 1971), pp. 28–64;Google ScholarMichaely, Michael, The Theory of Commercial Policy (Chicago, 1977), pp. 101–54;Google ScholarGerschenkron, Bread and Democracy, pp. 72–73;Google Scholar Reichstag Enquete Kommission für die Baumwollen-und Leinen-Industrie, Bericht, Statistische Mitteilungen und Stenographische Protokolle über die mūndliche Vernehmungen der Sachvenständigen (Berlin, 1878), pp. 7–25, passim.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Mineral fertilizers were internationally traded in this period, and Germany put no tariffs on their importation.Google Scholar

²⁰ welte, Erwin, “Die Bedeutung der mineralischen Düngung und die Düngemittel-industrie in den letzten 100 Jahren,” Technik Geschichte, 35 (1968), 47–54.Google Scholar

²¹ Gerschenkron, Bread and Democracy, p. 72;Google ScholarHoffmann, M., “Ein Ausblick auf die betriebswirtschaftlichūblichen Kunstdüngeraufwendung,” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (Berlin, 1910), p. 8.Google Scholar

²² If the elasticity of substitution were one—for instance, if the production function for grain were Cobb-Douglas—then the true effective protection would be the same as the nominal tariff rate, because value added would remain a constant share of the price, which goes up by the nominal rate. Since the elasticity of substitution of fertilizer for value added was almost certainly between one and zero, the true effective rate of protection lay between the nominal rate and the effective rate calculated with input coefficients from the protected situation, as in Table I.Google Scholar

²³ Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 284–86, 302, 308.Google Scholar

²⁴ Hunt, “Peasants,” pp. 311–31;Google Scholar see also Esslen, Joseph B., Die Fleischversorgung des Deutschen Reichs. Eine Untersuchung der Ursachen und Wirkungen der Fleischteuerung und der Miuel zur Abhilfe (Stuttgart, 1912), pp. 117–42;Google ScholarDawson, William H., Protection in Germany: A History of German Fiscal Policy during the Nineteenth Century (London, 1904), p. 214.Google Scholar

²⁵ Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Vierteljahresheft (1894), pp. 111–16;Google Scholaribid., (1914), pp. 80–85, 102, 115; Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, , Agricultural Statistics, 49 (1914), 219. One referee pointed out that Britain also had “such health restrictions.” A crucial difference was, however, that the British restrictions did not prevent Britain from importing a substantial fraction of its meat needs and from enjoying meat prices that were after the mid-1980s a fifth or more below those in Germany.Google Scholar

²⁶ See previous footnote.Google Scholar

²⁷ Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Auswärtiger Handel (1880–1913);Google ScholarHoffmann, Wachstum, p. 308;Google ScholarWulfert, M. A., International Trade in Butter and Cheese, Trade Promotion Series, No. 31 (Washington, D.C., 1926), p. 2.Google Scholar

²⁸ walker-Tisdale, C. W. and Jones, Jean, Butter and Cheese (London, 1925), pp. 45, 138–39.Google Scholar

²⁹ Jacobs, Alfred and Richter, Hans, Die Grosshandelspreise in Deutschland von 1792 bis 1934, Sonderhefte des Instituts für Konjunkturforschung, vol. 37 (Berlin, 1935), p. 59.Google Scholar

³⁰ Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 302, 308; Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Auswärriger Handel (1880–1913).Google Scholar

³¹ Deutschlands Versorgung mit Nahrungs-und Futtermitteln, vol. 2, Pflanzliche Nahrungsund Futtermitteln (Berlin, 1926), pp. 100, 156, 228, 325.Google ScholarHoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 288–94, gave similar estimates of total fodder inputs, based in part on Kuczynski's results.Google Scholar

³² Kellner, Oskar, Untersuchungen ūber die Verdaulichkeit getrochneter Kartoffeln (Berlin, 1908).Google Scholar See also Weber, Hermann, Schweinzücht und -haltung und Schweinhandel (Dessau, Germany, 1909);Google ScholarMcFall, The World's Meat, pp. 268–71;Google ScholarHansen, Johannes, Aereboe, Friedrich, and Roemer, Theodor, eds., Handbuch der Landwirschaft, vol. 5, Besondere Tierzüchtlehre, (Berlin, 1929–1930), pp. 261–63;Google ScholarKoenig, Rudolf, Statistische Mitteilungen aus 62 kleinbauerlichen Betrieben über die Erzeugung von Getreide (Jena, Germany, 1901), pp. 32–34.Google Scholar Wilken reports a study where traded fodder amounted to about half of the value of all fodder, Volkswirtschafthiche Theorie der landwirtschaftlichen Preissteigerungen in Deurschland von 1895–1913 (Berlin, 1925), p. 248.Google Scholar

³³ Eltzbacher, Paul, ed., Germany's Food: Can it Last? (London, 1915), p. 135.Google Scholar

³⁴ Hoffmann, Wachstum, p. 302; Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Auswärtiger Handel (1880–1913).Google Scholar

³⁵ If the elasticity of demand for meat with respect to the price of grain were at least one- twentieth of the income elasticity of demand for meat, the substitution effect would have exceeded the income effect, because about 5 percent of national income was spent on wheat and rye in 1907. Hoffmann, Wachstum, pp. 293, 455, 554;Google ScholarStatistisches Jahrbuch, 30 (1909), 162. Studies of actual household budgets in the period also support the contention that grain tariffs had a minimal impact on consumers' real income;Google ScholarHentschel, Wirtschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik, pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

³⁶ Statistisches Jahrbuch, 31 (1910), 28–29;Google ScholarPetruschow, A., Agrarverhältnisse in Deutschland und die Agrarreform (Berlin, 1948), pp. 37, 157, 159.Google Scholar

³⁷ A description of these calculations is available from the author upon request.Google Scholar

³⁸ Petruschow, Agrarverhältnisse, pp. 115, 159;Google ScholarHoffmann, Wachsrum, pp. 272–73.Google Scholar

³⁹ National product estimates from Hoffmann, Wachstum, p. 826.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Wagner, Agrar- und Industriestaat, pp. 113–15; Bismarck quoted in Dawson, Protection in Germany, pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Moeller, Robert G., “Peasants and Tariffs in the Kaiserreich: How Backward Were the Bauern?” Agricultural History, 55 (10 1981), 370–84;Google ScholarSchremmer, Eckert, “Wie Gross war der ‘technische Fortschritt’ während der Industriellen Revolution in Deutschland, 1850–1913,” Vierteljahrsschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 60 (1973), 433–58.Google Scholar

⁴² Eley, Reshaping the German Right, pp. 23–26.Google Scholar