Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T17:53:47.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The French (Trade) Revolution of 1860: Intra-Industry Trade and Smooth Adjustment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2021

Stéphane Becuwe ,
Bertrand Blancheton  and
Christopher M. Meissner
Stéphane Becuwe
Affiliation:
Stéphane Becuwe is Research Director, Bordeaux School of Economics - UMR CNRS, University of Bordeaux, Avenue Duguit, Pessac, France 33608. E-mail: stephane.becuwe@u-bordeaux.fr.
Bertrand Blancheton
Affiliation:
Bertrand Blancheton is Professor, Bordeaux School of Economics - UMR CNRS, University of Bordeaux, Avenue Duguit, Pessac, France 33608. E-mail: bertrand.blancheton@u-bordeaux.fr.
Christopher M. Meissner*
Affiliation:
Christopher M. Meissner is Professor, Department of Economics, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 and NBER.
*
E-mail: cmmeissner@ucdavis.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Cobden-Chevalier treaty of 1860 eliminated French import prohibitions and lowered tariffs between France and Great Britain. The policy change was largely unexpected and unusually free from direct lobbying. A series of commercial treaties with other nations followed. Post-1860, we find a significant rise in French intra-industry trade. Sectors that liberalized more experienced higher two-way trade. Our findings are consistent with the idea that trade liberalization led to “smooth adjustment” that avoided costly inter-sectoral re-allocations of factors.

Type
Article
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 688 - 722
Copyright
© The Economic History Association 2021

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.)

Footnotes

Helpful comments from seminar participants at UC Davis, Brian Varian, three anonymous referees, and the editor, Dan Bogart, are gratefully acknowledged. Yang Gao provided excellent research assistance.

References

Accominotti, Olivier, and Marc, Flandreau. “Bilateral Treaties and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: The Myth of Trade Liberalization in the Nineteenth Century.” World Politics 60, no. 2 (2008): 147–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnauné, Auguste. Le commerce extérieur et les tarifs de douane. Paris: Alcan, 1911.Google Scholar
Autor, David H., David, Dorn, and Hanson, Gordon H.. “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States.” American Economic Review 103, no. 6 (2013): 2121–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bairoch, Paul. “European Trade Policy, 1815–1914.” In The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol. VIII: The Industrial Economies: The Development of Economic and Social Policies, edited by Mathias, Peter and Pollard, Sidney, 1–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Balassa, Bela. “Tariff Reductions and Trade in Manufacturing among the Industrial Countries.” American Economic Review 56, no. 3 (1966): 466–73.Google Scholar
Bastos, Paulo, and Manuel, Cabral. “The Dynamics of International Trade Patterns.” Review of World Economics 143, no. 3 (2007): 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becuwe, Stéphane, Blancheton, Bertrand, and Meissner, Christopher M.. “Stages of Diversification: France, 1836–1938.” European Review of Economic History 22, no. 4 (2018): 430–61.Google Scholar
Becuwe, Stéphane. “The French (Trade) Revolution of 1860: Intra-Industry Trade and Smooth Adjustment.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2021-07-09. https://doi.org/10.3886/E144781V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becuwe, Stéphane, and Messerlin, Patrick A.. “Intra-Industry Trade in the Long Run: The French Case, 1850–1913.” In Imperfect Competition and International Trade, edited by David Greenaway and P.K.M. Tharakan, 191–215. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1986.Google Scholar
Brown, John C. “Imperfect Competition and Anglo-German Trade Rivalry: Markets for Cotton Textiles before 1914.” Journal of Economic History 55, no. 3 (1995): 494–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brülhart, Marius. “Marginal Intra-Industry Trade: Measurement and Relevance for the Pattern of Industrial Adjustment.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 130, no. 3 (1994): 600–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brülhart, Marius, and Elliott, Robert J.R.. “Adjustment to the European Single Market: Inferences from Intra-Industry Trade Patterns.” Journal of Economic Studies 25, no. 3 (1998): 225–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brülhart, Marius, and Elliott, Robert J.R.. “Labour-Market Effects of Intra-Industry Trade: Evidence for the United Kingdom.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 138, no. 2 (2002): 207–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadier-Rey, Gabrielle. “Les conséquences du traité de 1860 sur le commerce franco-britannique.” Histoire, Economie & Société 7, no. 3 (1988): 279–98.Google Scholar
Coutain, Bryan. “The Unconditional Most-Favored-Nation Clause and the Maintenance of the Liberal Trade Regime in the Postwar 1870s.” International Organization 63, no. 1 (2009): 139–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deiss, France. La politique commerciale sous le Second Empire. Ph.D. diss., University of Bordeaux, 2018.Google Scholar
Dormois, Jean-Pierre. La défense du travail national? L’incidence du protectionnisme sur l’industrie en Europe (1870–1914). Paris: PUPS, 2009.Google Scholar
Dornbusch, Rüdiger, Fischer, Stanley, and Samuelson, Paul A.. “Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods.” American Economic Review 67, no. 5 (1977): 823–39.Google Scholar
Dunham, Arthur Louis. The Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce of1860 and the Progress of the Industrial Revolution in France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1930.Google Scholar
Eaton, Jonathan, and Samuel, Kortum. “Technology, Geography and Trade.” Econometrica 70, no. 5 (2002): 1741–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feenstra, Robert C., and Akira Sasahara. “The ‘China Shock’, Exports and U.S. Employment: A Global Input-Output Analysis.” Review of International Economics 26, no. 5 (2018): 1053–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter A. “International Trade, Domestic Coalitions, and Liberty: Comparative Responses to the Crisis of 1873–1896.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8, no. 2 (1977): 281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenaway, David, Hine, Robert C., Milner, Chris, and Elliott, Robert. “Adjustment and the Measurement of Marginal Intra-Industry Trade.” Review of World Economics 130, no. 2 (1994): 418–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenaway, David, and Chris, Milner. The Economics of Intra-Industry Trade. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Clive, and Paul, Kniest. “Trade Liberalisation, Structural Adjustment and Intra-Industry Trade: A Note.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 127, no. 2 (1991): 356–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Douglas A. “Free Trade and Protection in the Nineteenth-Century Britain and France Revisited. A Comment on Nye.” Journal of Economic History 53, no. 1 (1993): 153–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacks, David S., Meissner, Christopher M., and Dennis, Novy. “Trade Costs in the First Wave of Globalization.” Explorations in Economic History 47, no. 2 (2010): 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juhász, Réka. “Temporary Protection and Technology Adoption: Evidence from the Napoleonic Blockade.” American Economic Review 108, no. 11 (2018): 333976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jouannet, Gérard. “L’affirmation progressive des rapports homonymiques entre un produit et une ville: Cognac et le cognac.” Annales du Groupe de recherches et d’études historiques de la Charente Saintongeaise, no. 5 (1983): 13–39.Google Scholar
Krugman, Paul R. “Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade.” Journal ofInternational Economics 9, no. 4 (1979): 469–79.Google Scholar
Lack, Henry Reader. The French Treaty and Tariff of1860. New York: Cassell, Petter and Galpin, 1861.Google Scholar
Lampe, Markus. “Effects of Bilateralism and the MFN Clause on International Trade: Evidence for the Cobden-Chevalier Network, 1860–1875.” Journal of Economic History 69, no. 4 (2009): 1012–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampe, Markus. “Explaining Nineteenth-Century Bilateralism: Economic and Political Determinants of the Cobden-Chevalier Network.” Economic History Review 64, no. 2 (2011): 644–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Kelvin. “Intra-Industry Trade under Perfect Monopolistic Competition.” Journal ofInternational Economics 10, no. 2 (1980): 151–75.Google Scholar
Lazer, David. “The Free Trade Epidemic of the 1860s and Other Outbreaks of Economic Discrimination.” World Politics 51, no. 4 (1999): 447–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy-Leboyer, Maurice, and François, Bourguignon. L’économie française au XIXè siècle. Analyse macroéconomique. Paris: Economica, 1985.Google Scholar
Levy-Leboyer, Maurice, and François, Bourguignon. The French Economy in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Econometric Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Kevin H. “The European Grain Invasion, 1870–1913.” Journal of Economic History 57, no. 4 (1997): 775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, Kevin H., and Williamson, Jeffrey G.. Globalization and History: The Evolution of a Nineteenth-Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahre, Robert. Politics and Trade Cooperation in the Nineteenth Century: The “Agreeable Customs” of 1815–1914. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Sharp, Paul. “1846 and All That: The Rise and Fall of British Wheat Protection in the Nineteenth Century.” Agricultural History Review 58, no. 1 (2010): 76–94.Google Scholar
Smits, Jan-Pieter, Woltjer, Pieter, and Ma, Debin. “A Dataset on Comparative Historical National Accounts, ca. 1870–1950: A Time-Series Perspective.” Groningen Growth and Development Centre Research Memorandum GD-107, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands, 2009.Google Scholar
Tableau général du commerce de la France avec ses colonies et les puissances étrangères. Direction Générale des douanes et des Contributions Indirectes. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, various years.Google Scholar
Tableau général du commerce et de la navigation. Direction Générale des douanes et droit indirects. Paris: Imprimerie Royale, various years.Google Scholar
Tena-Junguito, Antonio, Lampe, Markus, and Tâmega-Fernandes, Felipe. “How Much Trade Liberalization Was There in the World before and after Cobden-Chevalier?” Journal of Economic History 72, no. 3 (2012): 708–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toutain, Jean Claude. Le produit intérieur brut de la France de 1789 á 1982. Économies et Société, Série AF, no. 15, 1-237. Grenoble, France: Presses universitaires de Grenoble, 1987.Google Scholar
Verdoorn, Petrus Johannes. “The Intra-Bloc Trade of Benelux.” In Economic Consequences of the Size of Nations, edited by E.A.G. Robinson, 291–318. London: Proceedings of Conference held by the International Economic Association, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vona, Stefano. “On the Measurement of Intra-Industry Trade: Some Further Thoughts.” Weltwirtschaftlichesarchiv 127, no. 4 (1991): 678–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Becuwe et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Becuwe et al. supplementary material(File)
File 30.1 KB