Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:24:36.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Higher Tariffs, Lower Revenues? Analyzing the Fiscal Aspects of “The Great Tariff Debate of 1888”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Douglas A. Irwin
Douglas A. Irwin
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After the Civil War, Congress maintained high import tariffs to pay off the public debt. By the early 1880s the federal government was running large fiscal surpluses –revenues exceeded expenditures by over 40 percent. The Democrats proposed lower tariffs to reduce customs revenue. The Republicans proposed higher tariffs to reduce imports and customs revenues. This article attempts to determine the revenue effects of the proposed changes. Given the height of the tariff and the price elasticity of U.S. import demand, the actual tariff was below the maximum revenue rate, and therefore a tariff reduction would have reduced customs revenue.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 59 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1998

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

REFERENCES

Balke, Norman S., and Gordon, Robert J.. “The Estimation of Pre-War Gross National Product: Methodology and New Estimates”. Journal of Political Economy 97, no. 1 (1989): 38– 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinder, Alan S. “Thoughts on the Laffer Curve”. In The Supply-Side Effects of Economic Policy, edited by Meyer, Lawrence H., 81–92. St. Louis: Center for the Study of American Business, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, Edgar K. “Elasticities, Tax Rates, and Tax Revenue” National Tax Journal 42, no. 1 (1989): 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarida, Richard. “Cointegration, Aggregate Consumption, and the Demand for Imports: A Structural Econometric Investigation.” American Economic Review 84, no. 1 (1994): 298–308.Google Scholar
Engle, Robert F., and Granger, Clive W. J.. “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing.” Econometrica 55, no. 2 (1987): 251–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullerton, Don. “On the Possibility of an Inverse Relationship Between Tax Rates and Government Revenues.” Journal of Public Economics 19, no. 1 (1982): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knick, Harley C.. “The Antebellum American Tariff: Food Exports and Manufacturing.” Explorations in Economic History 29, no. 4 (1992): 375–400.Google Scholar
James, John A. “The Optimal Tariff in the Antebellum United States.” American Economic Review 71, no. 4 (1981): 726–34.Google Scholar
James, John A. “Public Debt Management Policy and Nineteenth Century American Economic Growth.” Explorations in Economic History 21, no. 2 (1984): 192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, Soren. “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregression Models.” Econometrica 59, no. 6 (1991): 551–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquez, Jaime. “Long Period Trade Elasticities for Canada, Japan, and the United States.” Review of International Economics, forthcoming 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitano, Joanne. The Tariff Question in the Gilded Age: The Great Debate of 1888. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Simon, Matthew. “The United States Balance of Payments, 1861–1900.” In Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 24, 629–714. Studies in Income and Wealth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press for the NBER, 1960.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Stanwood, Edward. American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century. 2 vols. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1903.Google Scholar
Taussig, Frank W. Selected Readings in International Trade and Tariff Problems. Boston: Ginn&Co., 1921.Google Scholar
Taussig, Frank W. A Tariff History of the United States. 8th ed. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1931.Google Scholar
U.S.Bureau of the Census. Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: GPO, 1975.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Finance. Customs Tariffs: Senate and House Reports: 1888, 1890, 1894, 1897. Senate Document No. 547. 60th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, DC: GPO, 1909.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Treasury. Annual Report and Statements of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on the Foreign Commerce and Navigation, Immigration and Tonnage of the United States for the Year Ending June 30, 1891. Washington, DC: GPO, 1892.Google Scholar
Williamson, Jeffrey. “Watersheds and Turning Points: Conjectures on the Long–Term Impact of Civil War Financing.” this JOURNAL 34, no. 3 (1974): 636–61.Google Scholar
Yuan, Mingwei, and Kochar, Kalpana. “China's Imports: An Empirical Analysis Using Johansen's Cointegration Approach.” International Monetary Fund Working Paper No. 94/145. 12 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar