Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T20:00:45.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Late-Nineteenth-Century U.S. Tariffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence from the Tinplate Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2012

Douglas A. Irwin
Douglas A. Irwin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, e-mail: [email protected]; and Research Associate, NBER.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Did late-nineteenth-century U.S. tariffs promote infant industries? After earlier failures, the tinplate industry became established and flourished after receiving protection with the 1890 McKinley tariff. Treating producers' entry and exit decisions as endogenous, a probability model is estimated to determine the conditions under which domestic tinplate production will occur. Counterfactual simulations indicate that, without the McKinley duties, domestic tinplate production would have arisen about a decade later as U.S. iron and steel input prices converged with those in Britain. Although the traiff accelerated the industry's development, welfare calculations suggest that protection does not pass a cost-benefit test.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 335 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2000

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

Ayers, Ian. “The Tin Plate Industry in the United States.” Journal of the Franklin Institute 143 (06 1897): 424–46.Google Scholar
Berglund, Abraham, and Wright, Philip G.. The Tariff on Iron and Steel. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1929.Google Scholar
Berthoff, Rowland T.British Immigrants to Industrial America, 1750–1950. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.Google Scholar
Bhagwati, Jagdish. “The Generalized Theory of Distortions and Welfare.” In Trade, Balance of Payments and Growth, edited by Bhagwati, J., Mundell, R., Jones, R., and Vanek, J., 69–90. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
Clark, Victor S.History of Manufactures in the United States. 3 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill for the Carnegie Institute, 1929.Google Scholar
Corden, W. M.The Theory of Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Corden, W. M.Trade Policy and Economic Welfare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Cronemeyer, W. C. “The Development of the Tin-Plate Industry.” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 13 (1931): 23–54, 123–35.Google Scholar
David, Paul'. “Learning by Doing and Tariff Protection: A Reconsideration of the Case of the Ante-Bellum United States Cotton Textile Industry.” This JOURNAL 30, no. 3 (1970): 521–601.Google Scholar
David, Paul, and Solar, Peter. “A Bicentenary Contribution to the History of the Cost of Living in America.” In Research in Economic History, edited by Uselding, Paul, 1–80. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1977.Google Scholar
De Long, J. Bradford. “Trade Policy and America's Standard of Living: A Historical Persepctive.” In Exports, Imports, and the American Worker, edited by Susan, Collins, 349–88. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1998.Google Scholar
Dunbar, D. E.The Tin-Plate Industry. Boston: Houghton Muffin Co., 1915.Google Scholar
Gray, William G. “Tin and Terne Plate.” Census Reports, Vol. 10. Manufactures. Pt. 4. Special Reports on Selected Industries. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Office, 1902.Google Scholar
Head, Keith. “Infant Industry Protection in the Steel Rail Industry.” Journal of International Economics 37 (11 1994): 141–65.Google Scholar
Hogan, William T.Economic History of the Iron and Steel Industry in the United States. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1971.Google Scholar
Hyde, Charles K. “Iron and Steel Technologies Moving Between Europe and the United States Before 1914.” In International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan, USA, 1700–1914, edited by Jeremy, David J., 51–73. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A.Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. “Did Late Nineteenth Century Tariffs Promote Infant Industries? Evidence from the Tinplate Industry.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 6835, 12 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larnoreaux, Naomi R.The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Kendrick, John. Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for the NBER, 1960.Google Scholar
Knox, Howard A.Development of the American Tin Plate Industry. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Illinois Steel Corp., n.d.Google Scholar
Krueger, Anne O., and Tuncer, Baran. “An Empirical Test of the Infant lndustiy Argument.” American Economic Review 72 (12 1982): 1142–52.Google Scholar
Minchinton, W. E.The British Tinplate Industry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. R.British Historical Statistics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Poirier, Dale J., and Ruud, Paul A.. “Probit with Dependent Observations.” Review of Economic Studies 55 (10 1988): 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanwood, Edward. American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1903.Google Scholar
Tariff Commission. Report of the Tariff Commission. 2 vols. Washington, DC: GPO, 1883.Google Scholar
Taussig, Frank W.Some Aspects of the Tariff Question. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1915.Google Scholar
Tedesco, Paul H.Patriotism, Protection, and Prosperity: James Moore Swank, the American Iron and Steel Association, and the Tariff: 1873–1913. New York: Garland Publishing, 1985.Google Scholar
Temin, Peter. Iron and Steel in Nineteenth Century America: An Economic Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Thompson, Peter. “How Much Did the Liberty Shipbuilders Learn? New Evidence for an Old Case Study.” Unpublished paper, University of Houston, 05 1999.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Statistics. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899. Washington, DC: GPO, 1900.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: GPO, various years, 1900–1916.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Revision of the Tariff. House Miscellaneous Document No. 176, 51st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1890.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. To Reduce the Revenue and Equalize Duties on Imports. House Report No. 1466, 51st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1890.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Revision of the Tariff. House Report No. 1040, 52st Congress, 1st Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1892.Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Tariff Acts Passed by the Congress of the United States from 1789 to 1909. House Document 671, 61st Congress, 2d Session. Washington, DC: GPO, 1909.Google Scholar
Webb, Steven B. “Tariffs, Cartels, Technology, and Growth in the German Steel Industry, 1879–1914.” This JOURNAL 40, no. 2 (1980): 309–29.Google Scholar
Williamson, Jeffrey G. “Embodiment, Disembodiment, Learning by Doing, and Returns to Scale in Nineteenth Century Cotton Textiles.” This JOURNAL 31, no. 3 (1972): 691–705.Google Scholar