1.
2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Section 2. Modified theory of protectionism as a result of historical synthesis and analysis of practice

1.
2. 3.
4.
5.

Section 1. Friedrich Liszt. National system of political economy

The theory of protectionism in its fullest form was set forth by the German economist Friedrich List in the middle of the 19th century. in the book "National System of Political Economy". This theory was based not only on the economic history of the previous centuries, analyzed in his work. Its appearance was preceded by the works of many economists who expressed similar thoughts and made similar conclusions, from the Englishman Francis Bacon (1561-1626) and the Italian Antonio Serra (1613) and ending with the Americans Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) and Harry Carrie (1793-1879) - contemporaries of Friedrich Liszt.

The main provisions of the theory of protectionism in its classical version, formulated by Friedrich List, are as follows.

1. The essence of protectionism as a system of industrial development

One of the main ideas put forward and argued by Friedrich List (and before him - a number of other economists) was that protectionism is an economic system developed by mankind for the development of industry and the growth of their well-being , and that this growth and development cannot be ensured in any other, "natural" way:

However, speaking of industrial protectionism of England, Friedrich List paid considerable attention in his book to the English navigational act (protectionism in relation to national shipping), as well as to the significance that this act had for the country's economy:

“… Davenan assures us that in the 28 years since the publication of the Navigation Act, the English merchant fleet has doubled…

... how could Adam Smith assert that the navigational act, although politically necessary and useful, was economically unprofitable and harmful. How little this division corresponds to the essence of things and is justified by experience is clear from our exposition ”(pp. 95, 98).

Consequently, List recognized the importance of not only industrial protectionism , but also protectionism in relation to other industries, in particular, in relation to national shipping. Analysis of the works of economic historians allows us to conclude that in the history of England in the XVII-XIX centuries. agricultural protection also played an important role. This was pointed out, for example, by the famous English historian Charles Wilson, who devoted special studies to the economic history of England. So, he wrote that at the end of the XVII century. a series of so-called Corn Laws in England, a system of protection and stimulation of grain production was created, which subsequently contributed to the development of English agriculture, the growth of employment in this important sector of the economy, the transformation of England in the XVIII century. a major grain exporter.

How important was it for the country's development? The findings of economic historians indicate that this was of great importance. Indeed, before the start of industrialization, agriculture employed the majority of the population of England. The stimulation of the development of agriculture led not only to an increase in the well-being of this significant part of society, but this growth itself created additional demand for products of the rapidly developing English industry. It should be noted that in general, speaking about the process of developing a protective policy in England in the second half of the 17th century. - the first half of the 18th century, historians note as the goals pursued in this case not only and not so much industrialization as the solution of more general economic and social problems.

In particular, as C. Wilson writes, not individual merchants or industrialists participated in the development of the English protectionism system, as Adam Smith, who criticized protectionism, later wrote, but a wide range of people. And this policy itself, the historian notes, consisted not so much in meeting the wishes of merchants and industrialists as in the desire to solve the general problems of the country: to increase employment of the population, eliminate food shortages, etc. Without protectionism, writes Charles Wilson, English industry simply would not have been able to develop, since at that moment Holland had the best technology and more qualified personnel in comparison with England and could easily crush British industry. Without protectionism, the historian points out, the further rise of English agriculture would have been impossible.

As already mentioned, the creation of an integral protectionist system in England took place after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Before that, there were separate scattered actions: the introduction of the Navigation Act of 1651, which meant the beginning of a protective policy in the field of maritime transport (the advantage of national ships over foreign ones), and the introduction of increased import duties and export premiums on grain in the 1670s. But on the whole, writes the English historian R. Davis, at the end of the Stuart restoration, protectionism as a policy in England was basically absent. All of this changed dramatically, beginning in 1690, when special import duties of 20% were introduced on a long list of goods that covered about 2/3 of all British imports. In the future, the level of duties gradually increased, and in the middle of the XVIII century. accounted for various types of imports from 20-25% to 40-50%. In addition, a ban was introduced on the import of some products that competed with the developing British industry, as well as bans or high duties on the export of raw materials. A system of export premiums was also introduced, paid by the government depending on the prices prevailing in the domestic and foreign markets for the export of grain and some industrial goods. That is, for the first time, a system of state support for national production and exports was developed and applied.

It is sometimes believed that similar systems were introduced at that time in most of Western Europe. In fact, this is not the case. According to authoritative economic historians, only a few European states during this period pursued a comprehensive protectionist policy, that is, a policy that completely protects the domestic market from external competition, and these countries included England and most of the states of Germany and Scandinavia. The situation in France was quite different. As I. Wallerstein notes, in France, protectionism covered only a small sector of the economy - industrial enterprises that worked for export; while in England the system of customs regulation also protected any import-substituting industries, as well as agriculture, with import duties. As for other countries, for example, Italy and Spain, there never, until the end of the 19th century, had even such a limited system of protectionism as there was in France.

Thus, the history of the countries that have achieved the greatest success in the implementation of protective policies shows that the secret of this success lies not in protecting and stimulating industry alone, and even more so not individual industries or segments of industry, but in the comprehensive protection and promotion of all important sectors of the economy: industry, agriculture, national shipping and others. So, the policy or system of protectionism should be considered not only as a system of industrial development, but as a system for the development of the country's economy as a whole, and in order to achieve the best result, this policy / system should be universal, not selective.

2. Principles of building a system of customs protectionism

The basic principles and recipes for building a system of protectionism were formulated by Friedrich List (see paragraphs 6 and 7 of Section 1 of the Theory of Protectionism), and there is no need to repeat them here. But it is necessary to dwell on those new points that have been introduced into the theory and practice of protectionism in the last century and a half that have passed since the publication of List's work.

2.1. What types of imports should be taxed

Earlier it was said that the system of protectionism should serve to protect not only industry, but also other sectors of the economy: agriculture, shipping (fishing, construction, etc.). Therefore, not only industry, but all other sectors of the economy must be protected by customs duties or other measures of customs protection. At the same time, among the industries subject to customs protection, Friedrich List made two exceptions. The first exception was made by him in relation to the production of luxury goods, which is too "inconvenient" industry for the organization of customs protectionism. This conclusion, apparently, retains its relevance today: indeed, trying to control and impose duties on the import of luxury goods is difficult and ineffective, because this import can be carried out by individuals hiding the objects of import among their personal belongings.

The second exception concerns the extractive industries. According to the recommendations of the List, import duties should not be levied at all when importing raw materials , since the main goal of the protectionism system is to stimulate not the extraction of raw materials (i.e., the country's non-renewable resources, products of its subsoil), but the development of the production of goods and services that are the result of man-made human activities - industrial products, food, transport services, etc. Therefore, this conclusion of the German economist remains fully relevant.

Moreover, in some countries with valuable raw materials (for example, in Russia), it is advisable to go much further - impose export duties on the export of important raw materials or impose a complete ban on their export , in order to stimulate their own processing and prevent predatory prey and export. It is these methods of protectionism that have been used by many Western European countries for many centuries. For example, in England for several centuries, starting with the reign of Henry VII (1485-1509), the export of wool from the country was prohibited (while before Henry VII, wool was the main item of English export), which contributed to the beginning of its own wool processing and development English industry.

The system of import customs duties should apply not only to those goods and products that are already produced in the country, but - and this is the most important thing - for any products that, in principle, can be produced ... For example, the introduction by Russia in the 2000s of 25% customs duties on imported passenger cars of a new generation, which were not yet produced domestically (where only Lada and Volga of the old generation were produced), led to the beginning of their own production and the massive construction of new modern car assembly plants in the country. As of 2012, about 15 global manufacturers have already decided to build car production facilities in Russia. Of course, in most cases, so far it has only been about assembly plants, but some of these companies have already begun to establish production of components in Russia. These car assembly plants may in the future give a powerful impetus to the development of a wide variety of related industries that are involved in the automotive industry.

This is just one example. But as already mentioned, all successful systems of protectionism (in England, the USA and other countries) were characterized by the fact that they stimulated the development of not only the "traditional", already existing industry, but also the development of new industries and new industries that do not yet exist in this country. , and not even existing anywhere else in the world, through a comprehensive system of customs duties.

Thus, we are talking about a system in which high import duties (about 40-50%) apply to any finished products and semi-finished products that the country not only produces, but also plans to produce itself in the future, rather than import. And for any large country, such a task must be set in relation to the overwhelming majority of finished products and in relation to all processed products of domestic raw materials.

And, conversely, with regard to the import of those goods that are impractical to produce in a given country, such as the production of wine in England (the example given by F. List), as well as the production of bananas, coffee, tea, etc. in European countries, there should be no duties or restrictions at all - of course, if we are talking about a system of stimulating national production, and not about a fiscal customs system aimed at increasing the collection of taxes from the population.

2.2. Rule of differentiation of the level of customs protection

The practice of protectionism in the last century and a half has developed a rule, according to which the level of customs protection should increase as the depth of processing of raw materials increases (or as the added value in the price of the product increases) ... Thus, the import duty on high quality paper should be higher than the duty on low quality paper, and the import duty on furniture must be higher than the duty on sawlogs (sawn boards), etc. This rule, which can be called the rule for differentiating the level of customs protection complies with the general recommendations of Liszt (who wrote that import duties on raw materials should be low or not at all), but goes much further, establishing a certain system in determining the required level of duties.

Although today, in the conditions of the dominance of the liberal economic school everywhere in the world (which anathematized the theory and practice of protectionism and withdrew from circulation the works on the theory of protectionism), it is difficult to find an authoritative universal source that would confirm and describe the above rule, but the analysis of the works of Western economic historians allows us to conclude that it is generally accepted, or at least was so until recently. For example, one of the shortcomings of the protectionism system introduced in Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, according to economic historians, was precisely that this rule was not taken into account or was poorly taken into account when developing the Russian customs tariff:

It has already been said above that protectionism played a large role in the industrial breakthrough that Russia made at the end of the 19th century. However, the patronizing policy pursued at that time was very far from perfect. Customs duties were set not so much as a result of the use of some logical and well-thought-out system, but as a result of lobbying for certain industries: which of the entrepreneurs or the syndicates created by them was more influential, or who paid more to officials, they were provided with higher protective tariffs. As a result, it turned out that instead of stimulating new types of production, tariffs only protected traditional industries, and instead of encouraging complex science-intensive products (for example, building ships or manufacturing machine tools), the production of basic raw materials (cast iron, steel, oil, coal, etc.) was encouraged. ...

In general, in an effective system of protectionism, the import tariff should increase as the degree of processing of products increases. In Russia, everything turned out the opposite. As calculated, for example, by the director of the German concern Siemens in 1899, the company's S-50 electric motor was more profitable to import from Germany (the duty in this case was 386 rubles) than to try to produce in Russia from imported spare parts (in this case, the import duty was already 514 rubles), which did not create any incentives to create this and other similar industries in Russia. The German economic historian W. Kirchner, who cites this example in his article, draws attention to the indicated drawback of the Russian customs tariff. But this disadvantage (inconsistent level of import duties on different types of goods and products) concerned not only equipment or other complex products, but also a wide range of food and raw materials, in respect of which the level of import duties was clearly overstated. Thus, the average level of duties on imported food was about 70-75%, while many of its types (coffee, tea and others) were not produced domestically. And, for example, the excise tax on sugar was 40%.

The economic historian A. Kagan wrote in more detail about these shortcomings of the Russian customs tariff, who pointed out that:

High duties on imported food (70-75%) in pre-revolutionary Russia undermined the purchasing power of the population (which is an important factor in industrialization and economic growth);

High duties on imported raw materials (cotton, timber, cast iron, etc.) increased the cost of these materials in Russia, hindering the development of its own manufacturing industry.

Thus, the historian concluded, purely fiscal aspirations when developing customs tariffs or incorrect postulates when setting the level of customs duties greatly reduced the effectiveness of the protectionist policy pursued in order to industrialize the country.

As you know, any theory is worth something only when it has been tested by practice. In this case, it can be argued that the rule for differentiating the level of customs protection has passed such a check. Russia introduced at the end of the 19th century. its system of protectionism, contrary to this rule - and received a one-sided industrialization, which, having begun rapidly in the basic industries (production of semi-finished products - iron, steel, oil, sugar, fabrics, etc.) and certain already established branches of the final product (production of steam locomotives, clothing ), later, at the beginning of the 20th century, began to decline, when the growth opportunities for these industries were exhausted. For example, the production of steel and iron from 1900 to 1913. grew by only 51% (while the country's population grew by 27% - from 135 to 171 million people); while in the previous 13 years, with the same population growth rates, the production of steel and iron increased by 4.6 times.

At the same time, there were huge reserves for import substitution. As the English economist M. Miller pointed out, during this period there was a rapid increase in the import of machinery and equipment from Germany, and therefore only for the period from 1902-1906. by 1913, imports from Germany doubled. But importing more and more machinery and equipment from Germany, Russia did not stimulate their own production in any way; As a result, as the economic historian N.A. Rozhkov pointed out, its own industrial engineering and production of means of production (machine tools and equipment) in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century did not actually exist. The shipbuilding industry was also poorly developed: about 80% of all ships were purchased abroad. On the whole, in terms of industrial production, Russia in 1913 per capita, according to Harvard University professor Grossman, lagged 10 times behind the United States; although in terms of GDP the lag was not so significant. Thus, the volume of Russia's GDP per capita in 1913, according to the American economic historian P. Gregory, was 50% of the corresponding German and French, 1/5 of the English and 15% of the American indicator.

Of course, incongruous customs duties were not the only reason for the "sad state" of Russian industry at the beginning of the 20th century. Other reasons include the high monopolization of industry, corruption of the state apparatus, etc .; but the opinions of economic historians indicate that incongruous tariffs also played a role in this. At the same time, in other countries (USA, Germany), in which the rule of differentiation of the level of customs protection was applied more consistently than in Russia, in the same period (late 19th - early 20th centuries) much greater results were achieved in the field of industrialization ...

2.3. Universal and uniform nature of customs protection

This principle of protectionism deserves a special mention. Liszt only mentions it in passing, and yet it is very important in practice. Consider the application of this principle again using the example of the shortcomings of the Russian protectionist system of the late 19th century:

The fact is that the territorial system of levying customs duties in the Russian Empire was as eclectic as the sectoral one. High import duties were levied only in the western (European) part of the country, while the Asian border almost along its entire length - in the south of Central Asia, Siberia and the Far East - was virtually free of any duties and taxes. As a result, it turned out that, for example, imports from China and the United States in the 1890s were 10-15 times higher than exports to these countries - although there was no such bias before. From this it can be seen that a significant part of Western European goods, in order to avoid paying duties, were imported by traders through Siberia and the Far East under the guise of Chinese and American imports. This drastically reduced the effectiveness of the protectionist system. The usual smuggling through the western border also flourished, which officials turned a blind eye to, or even participated in it themselves. As a result, speculators and corrupt officials profited, and the effect of the use of protective measures - as measures to stimulate production - was greatly reduced.

As you can see, the shortcomings were very significant: after all, the customs system existed only in the European part of the country, and it practically did not exist in the Asian part, which was a huge space free for duty-free import of any goods. These shortcomings called into question all the efforts undertaken to organize a protectionist system in the country and significantly reduced its impact on the economic development of Russia.

It should be noted that similar problems can also be caused by privileges in relation to the customs regime provided to any territories, legal entities or individuals. Many examples can be cited even from the Russian practice of the 1990s and 2000s, when such privileges or a special customs regime granted to any territory became a real "black hole" through which a significant part of Russian imports went - completely duty-free. while other ("honest") importers had to pay the duty in the prescribed manner. Of course, the result of the existence of such a customs system can only be negative - an increase in corruption and evasion of laws and regulations; Such a system cannot have any positive impact on the development of the country's industry or economy, especially in modern conditions, when the mobility of import flows is much higher than that which existed a hundred years ago.

Therefore, when creating a system of protectionism, the following rule should be adhered to, which should become a law that must be applied (and deviations from this law should be severely punished):

O Customs duties must be levied uniformly and in the same amount on any person who brings the goods into the country and at any border crossing point, without any exceptions. The ban on the import or export of certain goods should also be in effect without exception, at any point where the country's border crosses. It is not allowed to introduce customs privileges in relation to any persons or in relation to any territories (free economic zones, etc.), as well as any other derogations or exceptions from the rule of general and uniform nature of customs protection.

Of course, the problem of smuggling and corruption of the customs administration is also connected with this rule. Significant efforts of the state and law enforcement agencies should be devoted to combating these phenomena, which can significantly reduce or even nullify the effectiveness of the customs protectionist system.

2.4. Tariff and non-tariff protectionism

In this matter, Friedrich List formulated a clear rule: tariff protectionism is better than non-tariff protection:

“Premiums (or subsidies) should not be allowed as a permanent means of patronizing and supporting one's own industry ... Still less should they be allowed as a means to seize [foreign] markets…. Sometimes, however, they can be justified in the form of temporary encouragement, for example, when the spirit of entrepreneurship that has fallen asleep in a nation requires only a push and support at first, so that a powerful and strong industry emerges ... But this is still a question: is it not better for the state, even in such cases, provide the entrepreneur with an interest-free loan and grant them certain benefits, or create companies, supplying them with some of the share capital they need and leaving private shareholders with an advantage in receiving interest on their capital "(p. 353)

In other words, List allows state bonuses and subsidies to domestic producers only as a kind of temporary or one-time measure, as an exception, but not as a rule in pursuing a protectionist policy. And even in such special cases, he considers that it is not subsidies, but loans and direct participation of the state in the establishment of certain enterprises, he considers more effective measure.

Theoretically and practically, this approach to tariff and non-tariff protectionism (the latter includes premiums, subsidies, and government participation) is quite justified. List himself explains well the benefits of tariff protectionism:

“The accusation of the liberal school that duties are a 'monopoly on local industrialists to the detriment of consumers' is idle talk. Since, under conditions of protectionism, any person, both national and foreign, can import goods on equal terms, this means the absence of anyone's monopoly ”(p. 218) (emphasis added - Yu.K.).

This is a very important point: tariff protectionism, if organized correctly, does not create any privileges for anyone (everyone pays the same fee), and does not allow anyone to use privileges or privileges to create a monopoly. but if non-tariff protectionism is used instead of tariff protectionism, for example, the same subsidies, then there is already a risk of providing unreasonable benefits to some manufacturers and unjustified discrimination against others that turned out to be less successful in "knocking out" subsidies from the state.

Secondly, it was already mentioned above about the rule of differentiation of the level of customs protection. This rule can be relatively easily achieved within the framework of the development of a single customs tariff. But it is extremely difficult, almost impossible to comply with in the case of non-tariff protectionism. Consequently, in this respect, tariff protectionism is clearly preferable to non-tariff protection.

Finally, thirdly, it is not too difficult to understand that benefits, subsidies and bonuses can become a breeding ground or a convenient tool for the development of corruption - because there is always a risk that they will be provided primarily to those manufacturers or foreign trade companies that bribed or otherwise. lobbied for their interests among officials. Unlike benefits and subsidies set individually, the country's customs tariff acts uniformly in relation to all subjects and is law. If the rules of this law are clearly spelled out, then no official is able to change the import duty on an individual basis for a particular person, therefore, such an order sharply narrows the field for corruption and abuse.

Unfortunately, in recent decades around the world there has been a trend that contradicts these simple and logical rules formulated by the theory of protectionism and giving preference to tariff protectionism. Namely, ubiquitous growth of non-tariff protectionism , and in the most diverse and non-traditional forms and varieties: anti-dumping processes against foreign exporters, strict sanitary control over foreign products, the application of strict national technical standards against them, market protection through exclusive patents for inventions, forcing foreign exporters to "voluntary" quantitative restrictions export, etc. All these forms of non-tariff protectionism, along with premiums and subsidies, are widely used in modern practice.

At the same time, such a wide spread of non-tariff protectionist measures is happening, as they say, “not from a good life” and is a consequence of the total ban on tariff protectionism that has existed in recent decades ... It is the prohibition of conventional (tariff) protectionism, which is universally prohibited by the WTO system and has become almost a dirty word today - a word used exclusively in a negative sense - that forces states to look for other, albeit less perfect, means that would provide some protection. their national production from foreign competition. These means and methods are not "usual" methods of protectionism and therefore are not directly prohibited by the WTO. However, the effectiveness of these funds in terms of organizing the system of stimulating the national industry and economy cannot be compared with traditional customs protection.

We must agree with Friedrich List that it is advisable to apply non-tariff methods of protectionism only as an exception, as one-time measures designed to correct the state of affairs or measures taken in response to some extraordinary circumstances. As an example, we can cite the introduced by Russia in the 2000s. a ban on the import of wine from Georgia and Moldova due to the massive spread of counterfeit Georgian and Moldovan wines. Another example is the dumping of goods - the import of goods into the country at "knock-down" prices - which can destroy or significantly complicate the development of its own production. Here is how Friedrich List described the dumping to Europe practiced by the British:

“Due to the fact that the British are monopolists of world industry and world trade, their factories from time to time find themselves in a situation that they call glut and which comes from what they call overtrading (overproduction or excess speculation). Then everyone dumps stocks of goods onto the ships. After 8 days, these products are already offered with a 50% discount on their prices in Hamburg, Berlin and Frankfurt, after three weeks in New York. The British manufacturers suffer a temporary loss, but they are saved and compensate for their losses later at better prices. " The result is the destruction of the industry of other countries (p. 197)

As for the very essence of the question raised above - as well as how well the correct system of tariff protectionism can ensure the development of the country's industry and economy , then this is evidenced by the historical experience of the countries of North America and Western Europe, which almost all went through the creation of such a system and were able to create a developed industry thanks to it. Non-tariff protectionism, due to the aforementioned shortcomings, cannot provide such remarkable results. Modern experience can also testify to this. So, despite the widespread spread of non-tariff protectionism in these countries in recent decades, in all these countries in the same decades there was a process of de-industrialization, and the maximum that all non-tariff protectionist measures were capable of doing is only to slow down the destruction of the countries' industries. which until recently were called "industrialized countries", but today this name no longer suits them.

The main reason why tariff patronage has always proved to be the most effective incentive for the development of industry was simplicity, clarity and transparency of the system of tariff protectionism ... Its meaning is simple and clear to any entrepreneur. Any entrepreneur is well aware that it would be unprofitable for him to give the state as an import duty, say, 40-50% of the value of products imported into the country; it will be much more profitable to establish its own production of these products within the country and earn much higher profits on this. Therefore, any entrepreneur, both domestic and foreign, can equally take advantage of the new opportunity and open import-substituting production within the country. And he will not need to look for any special lobbying channels in order to obtain government subsidies or other privileges, which are an important element of the non-tariff system. The only "privilege" that any entrepreneur will receive within the framework of the tariff system is the opportunity to establish his own import-substituting production, which will be protected from foreign competition, and thus, he will have at least several "quiet" years, during which strong internal competition has not yet developed for the enterprise to reach a normal level and quality of work. It is the simplicity, clarity, transparency and the absence of costs associated with lobbying and "breaking through" any special government decisions and permits (or, in any case, the minimum amount of such costs) that are the reason that the result of building an integral patronizing tariff system is always became a real production and investment boom - as we saw in a large number of examples given in paragraph 5.1.

If we compare the system of tariff protectionism with a "prohibitive system", that is, with a system based on the prohibition of imports of a number of goods, then the former also has important advantages that make it precisely tariff protection a means necessary for building a developed competitive economy and industry in the country. In particular, unlike the prohibitive system tariff protection system allows , among other things, keep in touch with the external market. Even with a high level of import duties, enterprises will still understand that they cannot lag behind the technological level of foreign competitors. Indeed, at the current pace of scientific and technological progress, prices for many products are falling very quickly, and if local producers "sleep", then the high level of import duties will not help them either. In addition, the place of imported products will very quickly be taken by similar products of domestic production. And those entrepreneurs who decide to save money on investments and the introduction of modern technologies, and will either offer products of low quality, or produce them more expensive than competitors, will very quickly be ousted from the market. But it is precisely the “head start” that national production will receive in relation to foreign production that will allow domestic or foreign entrepreneurs (or both), with minimal risk, to establish advanced technological production within the country. This means that the result of the patronage system will be growth in the respective countries of their own production and employment, and not the picture that we observe today, when domestic production in all countries of the world is washed out by imports from several countries, and in all countries, except for these latter, unemployment is growing. and poverty.

2.5. Setting the general level of fees

The theory and practice of protectionism has developed a fairly clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat should be the general or average level of import duties on goods and products that are the object of customs protection. Thus, Friedrich List wrote that at the stage of the birth and formation of the national industry the average level of duties should be about 40-60% from the cost of competing imports, and only later, when a developed competitive industry of the world level has already been created, the average level of duties can be reduced to 20-30% (p. 352).

This corresponds to the practice that developed in Western countries and in pre-revolutionary Russia during the existence of protectionist systems there. In all the examples of effective protective policies described in paragraph 5.1, import duties on the vast majority of industrial products were set at a level of 40% or more. In England, the level of protective duties from the middle of the XVIII century. was set at 40-50%, and later, until the 1820s, the general import tariff was applied, which was 50%. In the United States, for almost 100 years, from 1865 to the early 1940s, the average level of import duties on taxable goods fluctuated between 40-55%, and only for a short period during this century (1913-1927 .) dropped to 37-38%. In most German states during the period of their protectionist policy (second half of the 17th century - early 19th century), tariffs were at a very high, usually prohibitive level. In Russia during the reign of Nicholas I, import duties on taxable goods were also above 40%. During the second wave of industrialization (late 19th century), the level of import duties in most European countries and in Russia was also set at a high level - from 40% or more.

These protectionist systems did indeed lead to real economic "miracles" - the Industrial Revolution in England, the "German economic miracle", the transformation of the United States into a world industrial leader (contrary to the predictions of liberal economists, who prophesied the fate of an "agricultural nation" to the United States in the Liszt era). Therefore, these protectionist systems and their adopted level of import duties (40-60%) were undoubtedly very successful and effective. And List also made his recommendations on the basis of the experience accumulated by that time. Therefore, it can be argued that this provision, which justifies the level of duties in the amount of 40-60% at the stage of creating a competitive industry, is not just a theory, but a theory that has been repeatedly tested in practice.

As for the experience of the last decades after World War II, it is difficult to assess it in the sense that nowhere do we see any long-term and permanent patronage system, similar to those that existed in the West in the 18th-19th centuries. In addition, during this period, there is an increasingly clear trend towards the use of non-tariff methods of protectionism - in view of the growing criticism of tariff protection, initiated mainly by the United States. However, in cases where it was really necessary to give a powerful impetus to the economy and industry to accelerate their development, and when states dared to use tariff protectionism for this purpose, they set very high import duties exceeding 50%. We see similar examples in a number of Western European countries in 1945-1960. and in China, in the first phase of market reforms that began in 1978 (see the article "The Impact of Free Trade and Protectionism on Industrial Development and Welfare"). In both cases, the imposition of high import duties resulted in the unprecedented rapid growth of industry and economy, respectively, in Western Europe and China.

2.6. The level of effective customs protection

In addition to such a simple indicator of the level of customs protection as the amount of duty in relation to the value of the goods, the practice of protectionism in the West has developed a more complex indicator - level of effective customs protection ... It is calculated using the following formula:

g \u003d (t o - t i) / a, where

g - the level of effective customs protection,

t o - the size of the import duty (in monetary terms) payable per unit of a given type of product upon import (tariff on the output),

t i - the sum of duties paid on the import of raw materials and components for the production of a unit of a given type of product within the country (tariff on the input),

a - the value added during the production of a unit of a given type of product within the country (added value).

The application of this formula can be illustrated by the following example. Suppose the cost of this product within the country is 100 rubles, while the cost of raw materials and components is 60 rubles (hence the added value is 40 rubles). A customs tariff is being introduced in the country, at which the import duty on a finished product will be 20%, and the average duty on raw materials and components is 10%. Accordingly, the calculation using this formula will give the following results: t o - 20 rubles, t i - 6 rubles, a - 40 rubles, (t o - t i) - 14 rubles, g - 35%. The calculation shows that this production, that is, the production of this particular product from these imported components with the specified value of added value, has an effective customs protection in the amount of 35% in relation to similar production abroad.

The meaning of this indicator (g) is that all production is reduced to a common denominator - the amount of added value created in the production process. The calculation of g can, for example, show that in the case when duties on imports of cars are 25%, and on imports of parts and components for cars - 0%, the level of effective customs protection (g) in relation to the "screwdriver assembly" of cars can be 100 to exceed the corresponding figure for a full-profile automobile plant, which has its own production of assemblies and parts: after all, the amount of added value created in the process of "screwdriver assembly" will be 100 or more times less than the added value created by a full-profile automobile plant. This may lead to the conclusion that the level of customs protection under the existing duties on cars and components in Russia is too high to stimulate "screwdriver assembly" (i.e., a lower level of g would be sufficient to stimulate it), but too low for encouraging the creation of full-profile car factories in the country. Consequently, the use of this indicator leads to the conclusion that with such a level of customs duties on finished cars and components, which Russia has today, foreign manufacturers are unlikely to create full-profile car plants here, they will be limited to "screwdriver assembly" and the production of only individual units and parts (for example, tires) in respect of which Russia has a competitive advantage; and that a restructuring of the customs duty system is necessary to stimulate further development of the automotive industry.

This indicator (the level of effective customs protection) can be applied both in analytical work and when introducing a new protectionist customs tariff in Russia, which will require a comparative analysis of the level of customs protection of thousands of items of goods and products and building a system that will stimulate more than just modern production, and production is value added. In other words, the system should stimulate not the transfer of individual operations to the country from abroad (final assembly of products, outsourcing of 1-2 types of intermediate work, extraction and enrichment of raw materials for foreign manufacturing industry, etc.), but the creation of complete industries in the country. cycle, including deep processing of raw materials and all the main stages in the production of finished products.

2.7. Minimizing inflationary effects

The introduction of customs duties may initially lead to an increase in the prices of imported goods, since importers will have to increase them by the amount of customs duties paid. This initial inflationary effect, with the development of its own industry, should be replaced by the opposite phenomenon - goods of own production will become cheaper and cheaper than imported ones. As Friedrich List wrote:
“The loss caused to the nation by customs duties is expressed in some value, but the nation as a result acquires powers, through which it becomes forever capable of producing an incalculable amount of value ...
It is true that import duties first raise the price of manufactured goods; but it is also true ... that a nation capable of significant industrial development, over time, can produce these products itself cheaper than the price at which they can be imported from abroad ”(pp. 57, 195).

At the same time, in a country that has poorly developed its own production of consumer goods (as, for example, in modern Russia), the trade margin, even in the absence of a protectionist system, makes up a significant part of the price (as the corresponding studies show, in some cases it can be up to 75 % of retail price). The lack of competition for imports from domestic products of similar quality can contribute to the monopoly of resellers (importers, wholesalers and retailers) who have established control over the import and sale of relevant goods and seek to maximize their share of trade profits. Therefore, the creation of our own mass production, that is, the emergence of dozens of independent producers of similar goods within the country, can create a competitive environment and destroy the monopoly of trade intermediaries, and this can contribute to a significant reduction in prices already several years after the introduction of the protectionism system:

A favorite argument of liberal economists since the days of Adam Smith is the thesis that free, duty-free imports are a blessing for consumers, since they greatly reduce the cost of consumer goods, while protectionism, on the contrary, makes goods more expensive and is not profitable for consumers. However, in reality this is not the case. Only our own production, not imports, really really cheapens goods for consumers. But besides this, its own production gives work to millions of people, that is, it creates the very consumers that liberal economists care about so much, without this there are no consumers, but there are lumpen living with odd jobs.

The above can be confirmed by many examples. For example, all Russians are well aware that in Germany or Italy you can buy high-quality clothes (for example, men's or women's suits, coats, jackets, etc.) or shoes at a price twice or even 4-5 times, lower than in Moscow. Meanwhile, the import duty in Russia for these goods is very low today - 10-20%. Thus, the rest of the margin (from 100 to 300%) today is "eaten up" by a variety of resellers who are engaged in the import and subsequent sale of goods. Where is the benefit here for the Russian consumer that liberal economists love to talk about? In fact, Italian and German consumers benefit, and this is only because the local production of good quality clothing is well developed in Italy and Germany. Local manufacturers directly, bypassing all intermediaries, supply clothing to the retail trade, so it is several times cheaper than the same clothing, but already brought through a chain of intermediaries to Moscow. But beyond that, these local industries in Germany and Italy employ hundreds of thousands of people who, before becoming consumers, first participate in the production process and receive wages that make them consumers. And in Russia in the light industry there is still neither one nor the other - there is almost no own production, and therefore hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of work and the opportunity to receive a normal salary and become normal consumers. And consumers in other industries cannot find good clothes in Russia at affordable prices and go to Western Europe on shopping tours, spending their money abroad. Here is a concrete example of how the laws of liberal economics work in practice - the opposite of what liberal economists claim.

This example shows that the trade and intermediary margin in the conditions of trade or foreign trade monopoly can be 300% or more of the manufacturer's price. The same results are given by special studies carried out in Moscow in relation to retail goods. Therefore, compared to this monstrous consumer deception, which takes place in a liberal economy and which is the result of the growth of monopoly in trade, exacerbated by the destruction of domestic industry (facilitated by the liberal economic regime), this is only a small one-time price increase after the introduction of the protectionist system. which will very soon be followed by a decline or a real collapse in prices.

Besides, there are techniques to minimize or completely eliminate this initial inflationary effect ... For example, if a protective system is introduced, the increase in import duties can be extended over several years. So, instead of immediately increasing the duty by 40%, it is advisable to increase it annually by 8-10% for 4-5 years. At the same time, it is necessary to announce in advance the exact schedule of upcoming increases in duties for 4-5 years in advance, indicating the timing and amount of changes in duties. Then, entrepreneurs, without waiting for the completion of this process, will start investing in the creation of their own import-substituting industries - and instead of imported goods, a lot of domestic and cheaper ones will appear on the market.

The second mechanism is, for example, to gradually reduce and then abolish the value added tax (VAT) for domestically produced goods simultaneously with the increase in import duties. After all, the collection of customs duties under a protective system can, especially at the first stage, become a source of rather significant budgetary revenues.

In turn, the reduction of VAT or other internal taxes will create additional incentives for the creation of import-substituting industries. But it could also lead to lower prices for domestic goods amid higher prices for imported goods - which will dampen potential public discontent. At the same time, the decrease in budget revenues from the collection of VAT / domestic taxes will be at least partially offset by sharply increased revenues from customs duties.

In the future, when protectionist measures will lead to a significant increase in production, the latter will generate an increasing increase in budget revenues. In turn, this increase in revenues more than compensates for the small losses in revenues that the budget may incur at the initial stage of the introduction of the protective system due to the reduction of VAT / domestic taxes.

Of course, even with these measures, a small inflationary leap at the initial stage of introducing a protective system may not be avoided. Therefore, before introducing this system, the population needs to explain the meaning of the measures being taken, what will be their result in the first years and in subsequent years, when a radical improvement in the economic situation is expected.

3. Impact of protectionism on fertility and population growth

In the books of the "Unknown History" trilogy, it was concluded that protectionism promotes an increase in the birth rate and population growth, as evidenced by the experience of countries that introduced a system of protectionism, in comparison with those countries that did not:

First of all, this refers to the era of protectionism in England (1690-1820), where the birth rate rose from 3-4 children per woman in the middle of the 17th century. up to 6 children at the beginning of the 19th century (see Graph 3 in Chapter IX).

Secondly, this applies to Germany and Austria, where population growth after the introduction of the patronage system in the second half of the 17th century. also accelerated sharply. So, according to K. Clarke, the population of Germany and Austria grew from 12 million people in 1650 to 31 million in 1830, although until 1650 it not only did not grow, but decreased.

At the same time, in France, which did not introduce a protectionist system in the indicated centuries, the birth rate during the 18th-19th centuries. steadily declined and, as reflected in Graph 4 in Chapter IX, at the beginning of the XIX century. was only 3-4 children per woman, against 6 children in England. One of the results of this phenomenon was a change in the ratio of the number of these three nations. In the middle of the 17th century. France in terms of its population (20 million people) surpassed Great Britain, Germany and Austria combined. Subsequently, the population in France grew much slower than in these three countries, and at the beginning of the 20th century. in terms of population, both Germany and Great Britain, each separately, surpassed France.

Similarly, in Russia, shortly after the introduction of the protectionist system, in the 1830s, there was a sharp reversal of the previous trend towards relatively slow population growth, and its very rapid growth began, which continued until 1917.

It should be noted that one of the main goals of the patronage system in the countries of northern Europe (England, Prussia, Austria, Sweden) in this era was to stimulate population growth. This goal was officially proclaimed within the framework of the ongoing policy of protectionism (or, as historians call it in relation to that era, mercantilism). This approach was based on the belief that the patronage system contributes to an increase in the population, and, consequently, everything that makes up the strength of the state - its economic well-being, military power, etc. As you can see, the demographic data available today generally confirm the loyalty of this system of views.

There are several reasons (or several explanations) for why protectionism promotes fertility and natural population growth, which are discussed in more detail in Section 3 of this book. One is that protectionism protects the population from the commodity and financial speculations that inevitably arise in the era of globalization, and, in general, from the economic instability characteristic of such an era (see Chapter IV). It is through the mechanism of international speculation and through the growth of economic instability that globalization has a negative impact on demography; and the protective system, on the contrary, eliminates this negative influence.

The second reason is that protectionism contributes to the acceleration of economic growth in the country and, as a consequence, to an increase in employment and a decrease in unemployment, which leads to an increase in the birth rate and a decrease in mortality. This is also confirmed by a number of historical examples and facts, many of which have already been cited above.

A good illustration of this relationship between three groups of indicators: a) protectionism / free trade - b) economic growth / unemployment - c) fertility / population growth - can serve as trends in Western Europe during the XX century. Three periods can be clearly distinguished here. First period: 1900s - 1930s; second period: 1940s - 1960s; third period: 1970s - 1990s In the first and third periods, the birth rate was low, with a tendency to further decline, and this was in the context of a free trade policy and high unemployment. In the second period, the birth rate was high, and this was against the backdrop of protectionist policies and low unemployment.

Relevant facts for all three periods of economic growth are given in the article “Impact of free trade and protectionism on industrial development and welfare”, and data on changes in the birth rate in Western European countries during the 20th century are shown in Chart 6. In general, these data indicate the existence a very high (inverse) relationship between the unemployment rate and the birth rate - the higher the unemployment rate in the country, the lower the birth rate, and vice versa .

Thus, the unemployment rate in the early years of the Great Depression (1929-1932) in Western Europe was about 20-30%, and the average birth rate in Great Britain and France fell by the beginning of the 1930s. to a record low - 1.8-2.0 children per woman (below the natural reproduction of the population).

However, already in the early 1940s. the downward trend in fertility in the UK, France and Germany was reversed and reversed. From 1946 until the end of the 1960s. the average fertility here has been established at a high level: 2.2-2.8 children per woman. Accordingly, throughout this period, when the policy of protectionism was pursued in these countries, unemployment was very low: for example, in the 1960s, on average in Western Europe, it was 1.5%, and in Germany - only 0.8% from the working population.

After the collapse of the protectionist system in the late 1960s. and the transition to free trade policies, fertility in these countries fell, during the 1970s, to 1.2-1.8 children per woman - that is, to an even lower level than the one at which she was in the interval between two world wars. Accordingly, parallel to the fall in the birth rate in the specified period, there was an increase in unemployment. So, if the average for the period 1960-1970. the unemployment rate in France, Germany and Great Britain was 1.4%, 0.8% and 1.6%, then by 1976 it reached 4.4%, 3.7% and 5.6% in these countries, respectively, and has since held at approximately the same level, with a tendency to further increase. By the same moment (by 1976), the birth rate in these countries fell to a historical minimum, and subsequently remained at the same or even lower level (see graph).

A number of other data and facts cited in Section 3 confirm the existence of an interdependence between government economic policies (protectionism / free trade) and fertility. All this allows us to conclude that the decline in the birth rate in Western Europe, which began in the late 1960s - early 1970s, is not an accidental, but a natural phenomenon, and the transition in these countries from patronizing to liberal policies that occurred in the second half of 1960 -x years, is one of the main reasons for this phenomenon.

The second reason for the rise in unemployment (and, as a result, the fall in the birth rate) in European countries in recent decades can be seen in mass immigration, which has acquired gigantic proportions in the context of modern globalization. Undoubtedly, the influx of immigrants increases tensions in the labor market and contributes to the growth of unemployment among the indigenous population of Europe. And although mass immigration did not arise by itself, but is a direct consequence of globalization (for more details, see The Theory of Globalization), we note that the emergence of the phenomenon of mass immigration in Western Europe and the United States was undoubtedly facilitated by the weakening of the previous severe restrictions that impeded entry. immigrants.

So, the German authorities in the 1960s. gave the green light to Turkish immigration to Germany. The American authorities in the same years canceled the old rigid system of quotas for immigrants. England and France at about the same period allowed unhindered entry into their territory for the inhabitants of their former colonies in Africa and Asia. The consequence was an unprecedented increase in the flow of immigration to these countries, which, in turn, led to an even greater increase in the problem of unemployment and to the excesses and growth of social tensions in connection with immigration that have been observed in Western countries in recent decades.

The following conclusions follow from this. Firstly, if customs protectionism had not been abolished in the countries of Western Europe and North America at the end of the 1960s, and if the system that protected these countries from excessive immigration had not been curtailed at about the same time, then these countries would not have those acute problems that they have today: economic instability, high unemployment, low birth rates, an aging population and massive illegal immigration against the background of the gradual destruction of the national industry.

The second conclusion is that in addition to the system of customs protectionism, immigration protectionism also affects demographic growth and birth rate. An immigration system that discourages excessive and illegal immigration protects the country not only from the influx of immigrants, but also from the high unemployment that will be the inevitable consequence of such an influx. And the absence of high unemployment is a factor that favorably affects the birth rate.

Consequently, protectionist system should not be limited only to customs regulation and only to the sphere of the economy. She should also include protection against illegal and excessive immigration , adversely affecting the economic and demographic situation in the country. The patterns described above apply to any country, including Russia, where the number of immigrants is estimated at 10 million.

The system of immigration protectionism has existed in the United States and Western Europe in the past and has proven to be effective. Therefore, when building such a system in any country, it is best to use the existing experience. This system should include quotas for the entry of immigrants, control over them, the fight against various types of ethnic corruption and crime, including special departments for combating ethnic crime, etc.

4. The role of protectionism in state and national building

Friedrich List wrote in his work about the important role of nations and nation-building in the development of human civilization:

“Just as an individual, only thanks to the nation and in the depths of the nation, achieves mental education, productive power, security and well-being, so human civilization as a whole is unthinkable and impossible otherwise than through the development of nations” (p. 223)

This opinion of List is shared by many historians who argue that it was the construction of nation states in Europe in the second millennium AD. was that decisive difference between the modern era and the ancient and ancient eras, thanks to which modern European civilization was able to reach extraordinary heights in the development of culture, science and technology, in the development of the economy and industry - heights that allowed the whole world to join the achievements of modern civilization. Great states existed in antiquity - the Roman Empire, Babylon, Byzantium, etc., but they were all loose multinational empires; great nation states - This is an achievement of modern European civilization (see "The theory of the nation state" in the section "Socio-historical concept"). It is about the protection of large nation-states (which he calls "great nations") through the policy of protectionism that Friedrich List writes. It is no coincidence that his book itself and the economic system described by him are called national political economy - in contrast to the "cosmopolitan (world) political economy" of Adam Smith and his followers (F. List, p. 174)

In particular, List writes that only large nations with significant population and territory are viable; access to the sea and the presence of natural borders are of great importance for the nation - this is of great importance for the organization of effective customs protection (p. 224-225). , in his opinion, it is important not only for the development of industry, but also for the industrial education of the nation; the intellectual development of the nation also plays an important role in the development of the country's economy (pp. 54, 209). He points to the important role of protectionism in the development of the productive forces of the nation, formed from the development of industry, agriculture, education, culture, science and government institutions, and emphasizes the role of these institutions in the development of the well-being of all individual members of society:

"Nowhere did labor and frugality, the spirit of inventiveness and enterprise of individuals create anything great where they did not find support in civil liberty, institutions and laws, in state administration and foreign policy, but mainly in national unity and power" (p. 162)

All these basic provisions of the theory of protectionism have not lost their meaning at all today. Rather, on the contrary, in modern conditions the role of nations and, in particular, the role of large national states is increasing immeasurably. Only such states have sufficient political independence and economic self-sufficiency (a capacious internal market, raw materials, the ability to create a diversified economy) - the necessary elements, without which it is impossible to count on building a national economic model, an alternative to the current global model, which has proven its inefficiency.

At the same time, despite this whole rather holistic concept of nation-building, List limits his system of protectionism only to the task of building industry. In his opinion, if a nation has already built a competitive industry that has gained superiority over other countries (like England by the middle of the 19th century), then the policy of protectionism is no longer necessary for it - after all, such a nation is no longer threatened by foreign competition (p. 57). There is a certain contradiction here between the role that List assigns to protectionism in nation-building in some sections of the book and the limited role (in creating a competitive industry) that he assigns to this policy in other sections. Perhaps this self-restraint was caused by the author's fears of entering into too strong a contradiction to the liberal school of Adam Smith that reigned supreme at that time and was gaining strength (something for which Friedrich List himself reproached the French economist Chaptal and other supporters of protectionism).

Subsequent events showed the fallacy of the point of view, according to which England, having gained superiority over other countries in the development of its economy and industry, allegedly did not need protectionism.

Britain's opening of its economy to external competition during the 19th century ultimately did it a disservice. Of course, thanks to this, she was able at some point to force many countries to also open their economies to English goods, which contributed to the growth of British exports and the prosperity of England in the middle of the century. But many states - the United States, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, etc. - eventually got the gist of what was happening, and they imposed high customs duties, protecting their domestic markets. This protectionist defense reduced the risk of investment and led to the rapid construction of new enterprises and whole new industries in these countries, while in the UK itself, which is open to external competition, these incentives were absent, therefore, as D. Belchem \u200b\u200bwrites, “firms did not want take the risk and cost of innovation. "

Meanwhile, the crisis hit not only English industry, but also agriculture. Thus, grain production in Great Britain from 1865/74 to 1905/14. decreased by 26% despite population growth, and the country has become a major importer of this staple food. At the same time, Germany, despite approximately the same natural and climatic conditions as in England, but thanks to a patronizing policy, increased grain production by 2.2 times during the same period and in terms of its production in 1905/14. exceeded the UK by almost 9 times.

Something similar has happened in recent decades with the United States. Rejection of the policy of protectionism since the late 1960s. (previously, the United States has continuously followed this policy for 100 years) led to the deindustrialization of America, once the most powerful industrial power in the world, observed in recent decades, and to the beginning of the erosion of the middle class, that is, to a whole range of economic and social problems.

It follows from the above that the system of protectionism must be seen as a permanent system vital to protect the economy of the country, its population, as well as the entire state and nation, formed within the framework of this state. It is a mistake to consider it only as a temporary system serving some narrow goals for a limited period of time, be it the creation of a competitive industry or a way out of the economic crisis. Here it is necessary to develop further the idea of \u200b\u200bF. Liszt, who criticized the views of the liberal school, which recognized the permissibility of protectionism only for a short period of time:

"... it is really ridiculous to give nations only a few years for the improvement of any important branch of industry or a whole group of branches, like some boy who is given for several years to study with a shoemaker ..." (p. 357)

Developing this idea, one should write: it’s ridiculous, in fact, to give the state only a few decades for its crisis-free development, and for this to make a whole economic (as well as social and ideological) revolution, which brings with it the introduction of a system of protectionism - and after these decades again to dismantle the latter and observe the destruction of everything previously created (which previously happened in the UK, and now is happening in the USA). Wouldn't it be better to immediately think about create a system of protectionism that will last for several centuries and will provide the state and the nation with steady economic and intellectual development, bring it to the ranks of the most advanced nations in the world and ensure its prosperity throughout this long time?

The importance and necessity of such a constant policy or system of protectionism for the prosperity of the state and its economy in the books of the trilogy were proved not only by historical examples, but also theoretically substantiated. In particular, it was shown that the inevitable consequence of globalization (which occurs not only today, but took place in various historical epochs) is economic instability, the growth of speculation and financial fraud, an increase in population migration and other negative changes in the socio-economic sphere, which , as a rule, are accompanied by negative trends in the spiritual and cultural sphere: the decline in morality and the cultural level of the population, the spread of ignorance, mysticism, false teachings and mass delusions. However, their influence on the country can be eliminated or significantly reduced as a result of the correct system of protectionism - customs, immigration, monetary and financial, cultural, ideological and other types.

So, monetary and financial protectionism was applied by many countries in the past for a long time, and even today some of its elements remain. For example, some types of bank transfers in the West are closely monitored by central banks; commercial banks are regularly sent a "black list" of companies that have come under suspicion in connection with criminal "money laundering", corruption, etc. In the past, measures of monetary and financial protectionism in these countries also included foreign exchange restrictions on large remittances of a non-trade nature - speculative financial capital (the so-called "hot money"), which can have a negative impact on the economy, financial position of the country and the exchange rate of the national currency. Today, this problem is gaining increasing urgency and necessitates the introduction of appropriate measures of currency protectionism (restrictions on large non-commercial money transfers abroad), serving to combat international speculation, as well as financial protectionism, the purpose of which is to combat not only external speculative and fraudulent transactions. in the financial sector, initiated from abroad, but also with domestic ones. Today, the scale of financial speculation and financial fraud is such that it becomes an obstacle to economic growth and development, so these measures are necessary. But, like all other protectionist measures, they should not be temporary, but a permanent system of these measures and control over their implementation should be created.

In a number of Western European countries cultural protectionism - for example, in some countries, the use of foreign words in the media is prohibited without the need for foreign words - if there is a corresponding word in the native language (for more information on protectionism in relation to the media, national culture, state ideology, education, science, as well as financial speculation (see the section “Program We should ").

As you can see, over the past centuries, Western countries have accumulated a large experience of protectionism, which allowed them to build a successful society and a developed economy. The fact that today this experience is denied by most of these countries does not mean that other countries should not use it. In general, the role that protectionism played in the history of the formation and development of the nation-states of the West and the successful development that it provided them during the periods of its existence, together with the theoretical arguments set out above, allow us to draw the following conclusion. The system of protectionism is an important, and in the modern era - a necessary element of state and nation-building. Only a system of protectionism can provide the state with long-term sustainable development and prosperity, and the nation - stability and social peace. The efforts of people with state thinking, economists, sociologists, political scientists should be aimed at developing the most perfect system of protectionism for their state, moreover, not limited only to the sphere of trade and industry, but covering all the areas mentioned above.

5. The system of protectionism and the regime of national democracy in the economy

It would be naive to believe that the protectionist system is a panacea for any problems that the country's economy may face. This system is important, but not the only condition for successful economic development. Thus, the economic history shows that the countries pursuing protectionist policies could not avoid such a problem as the monopolization of the economy:

So, the rapid industrialization of Germany and economic growth in the late XIX - early XX century. accompanied by a sharp concentration of capital. The number of cartels and other monopoly associations in German industry increased from 210 in 1890 to 600 in 1911, and some of them became large monopolies. For example, the Rhine-Westphalian Coal Syndicate controlled about 98% of coal production in the area and 50% in the rest of Germany. All of the country's steel mills merged into a giant Steel Trust, the electrical industry was dominated by two large monopolies (Siemens and AEG), in the chemical industry - three concerns (Bayer, Agfa, BASF), which accounted for two-thirds of the world production of aniline dyes. In 1909, nine Berlin banks controlled 83% of the total banking capital of Germany.

The United States faced the same problems during this period. For example, in the period from January 1, 1899 to September 1, 1902 alone, 82 trusts were formed in the United States, and the total number of trusts in the country increased from 60 in the 1890s to 250 in the 1900s. It was with large industrial trusts and corporations that the most famous facts of monopoly diktat and restriction of competition were associated. According to the American economist S. Wilcox, by 1904, 26 American trusts controlled 80% or more of industrial production in their industry, and the 8 largest corporations, including Standard Oil, American Tobacco, International Harvester, American Sugar Refining, American Can and others controlled 90% or more of their industry.

After such a high level of monopolization develops in industry or other sectors of the country's economy, as in the above examples, the system of protectionism, as a rule, ceases to be effective - instead of stimulating economic growth, it begins to stimulate the growth of profits of monopolists at the expense of the mass of consumers. If 1-2 companies dominate the industry and dictate their prices to consumers in the absence of real competition from other manufacturers, then the introduction of high import duties on such products will only lead to negative consequences. The monopolies will get a pretext and the opportunity to raise prices even more - by the amount of import duties - but they will not receive any incentive to develop production: after all, this is contrary to the very nature of monopoly.

Thus, the patronage system can be effective only in conditions of economic democracy - a situation opposite to monopoly, when the economy is dominated not by monopolies, but by medium-sized enterprises that create a competitive environment conducive to rapid economic growth. That is why the economic and social model described in the "Unknown History" trilogy is called the regime of national democracy, and the corresponding theory is called theory of national democracy ... This economic and social model consists of two main elements - a system of protectionism and a system of economic democracy - the domination of medium and small businesses.

There have been eras in the history of Western countries when it was possible to reverse the trend towards monopoly and establish a regime of national democracy. One such era is the era of the end of the English Revolution, when, simultaneously with the introduction of a patronage system, the British managed to overcome the monopoly that flourished under the rule of the Stuarts.

Thus, one of the main requirements put forward by the Levellers and other revolutionary parties during the first stage of the English Revolution (1641-1660) was the elimination of monopolies and the provision of free enterprise. And this was one of the first measures taken by the Whigs after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Not only were the monopoly rights of individual private companies destroyed, but also large state monopolies: Mines Royal, Mineral and Battery Works, Merchant Adventurers, Royal African Co. other . The implementation of these measures led to the emergence of thousands of new independent enterprises in subsequent years - that is, led to economic democracy, the flourishing of small and medium-sized businesses.

A similar picture developed in the United States in the first decades of the 20th century, when signs of economic monopolization appeared. The first "round" of the fight against monopoly was conducted by the American President Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909). As a result of the measures he took, Standard Oil was split into 8 independent oil companies, which subsequently made it possible to dramatically change the structure of the industry. If earlier this giant monopoly controlled more than 90% of the country's oil refining, then 20-30 years later there were more than 1000 oil refining companies in the United States, none of which had a monopoly position in the industry. The same fate befell 7 of the 8 largest corporations that monopolized more than 90% of production in their industry, including American Tobacco, International Harvester and others named above.

An even more decisive war against monopoly unfolded in the United States during the Franklin Roosevelt era (1933-1944). Having made sure that all the means he tried did not help the economy to get out of the Great Depression, he developed and began to implement, starting from 3 years of his presidency, a new package of measures, which historians call the "second new course", in contrast to the "first new course" of the first years of his presidency. The essence of the "second new course" was that Roosevelt declared war on monopolies and large property.

The first blow was struck at energy monopolies, where the greatest number of abuses associated with monopoly was observed. In this industry, there were several dozen holding companies that controlled local distributors of electricity and gas, they also owned power plants and many companies from other industries. At the same time, the 5 largest companies controlled half of the country's electricity production. In accordance with the law passed in 1935 (Public Utilities Holding Companies Act), all these holding companies were subject to total inspection by the state over the next 4 years, after which those that did not fit into the criteria established by the law were subject to dissolution. to smaller companies.

An audit of the activities of energy holding companies carried out in accordance with this law revealed flagrant abuses in their activities. It turned out that although these companies attracted significant funds from the stock market, as a rule, the controlling stake still remained with a narrow group of people, who controlled their activities, primarily in their own interests. So, on the one hand, these companies set artificially high tariffs for electricity and gas. On the other hand, they had very low profits, since all of it was "eaten up" by various subsidiaries, which were often created precisely in order, under the guise of providing certain services, to transfer the holding company's profits into the pockets of a narrow group of persons controlling it ... Consumers who were forced to pay inflated prices and small investors who bought shares of these companies on the stock market and did not receive their share of the profits suffered as a result of all these machinations.

Official investigations showed that some of these companies had actual annual returns of 70% of their asset value and 300-400% of their investments. However, almost all of it was “hidden” and “taken away” under the guise of providing services from various construction, service, management and financial structures. This system also allowed them to easily obtain government approval for higher electricity and gas tariffs, which were justified each time by (fictitious) increases in operating costs.

As a result of the activities of the government commission, the nine largest holding companies, which owned about 60% of all assets in the industry, underwent forced fragmentation and restructuring, the rest of the companies did it on their own. As a result, the number of companies in the industry increased by an order of magnitude - by the middle of 1940, 144 new companies were registered providing electricity and gas services, with a transparent structure and clearly defined functions.

It was not the only industry that underwent restructuring and demonopolization during the Franklin Roosevelt administration. For example, monopoly companies in the chemical industry (Dupont, Viscose and a number of others) underwent the same fragmentation. An immense work was carried out in relation to the construction industry, where the monopoly of local construction companies and suppliers of building materials was identified and eliminated, and similar work was carried out in the housing and communal sector. The activities of various industry associations were analyzed and regulated by the state, many of which, instead of coordinating professional work, were engaged in coordinating prices and distributing sales markets, that is, in fact, they organized a monopoly conspiracy. The same work was done in the area of \u200b\u200bpatent monopoly - it turned out that some companies controlled entire industries thanks to the possession of important patents for inventions, which the government tried to end.

So, we see that the economic regime that was established in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was characterized by the presence of not only a patronage system, but also economic democracy. And exactly the same elements included the economic regime that existed in the United States first in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and later, after the reforms of Franklin Roosevelt, in the period from 1940 to about the mid-1960s. It was during these periods in these countries that an unprecedentedly rapid economic growth took place in the complete absence of crises and unemployment, which in England was called the "English industrial revolution", and in the USA - the "American economic miracle". In no other era, when these countries pursued a free trade policy or when their economies began to be stifled by monopolistic structures, did they have anything like it. This is the most important difference regime of national democracy from any other economic regime. The creation of such a regime should be the ultimate goal of economic reforms to build a system of protectionism, because only such a regime can provide the country and the nation with long-term sustainable development and prosperity.

F. Leaf. National system of political economy. SPb, 1891, p. 94-102. Further, all references to the Sheet contain only an indication of the pages from this book.

Wilson C. England's Apprenticeship, 1603-1763. NewYork, 1984, pp. 236-246

Ibid, pp. 165-166, 184

R. Davis, The Rise of Protection in England ... p. 308

C. Wilson, Chapter VIII: Trade, Society and the State ... p. 554 Russie a la fin du 19e siecle, sous dir. de M. Kowalevsky. Paris, 1900, p. 694 See, for example: T. Holub. Die Herzoglich-Wuerttembergische Kommerzienduputation 1755. Ein Beitrag zum landesherrlichen Merkantilismus des 18 Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1991, s. 15

B. Mitchell, Depression Decade ... p. 174

C. Wilcox, Competition and Monopoly ... pp. 94-95

B. Mitchell, Depression Decade ... pp. 175-176

C. Wilcox, Competition and Monopoly ... pp. 204-212, 291; G. Nutter and H. Einhorn, Enterprise Monopoly in the United States: 1899-1958, New York and London, 1969, p. 63; W. Leuchtenberg, Franklin Roosevelt ... pp. 258-259

Protectionism is an economic policy of the state aimed at protecting and supporting the national economy. Such a policy is carried out with the help of customs and tax barriers that protect the domestic market from the import of foreign goods, reduce their competitiveness in comparison with nationally produced goods.

Protectionism was characteristic of Russia's economic policy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to the relative weakness of domestic industry, the state was forced to impose high customs duties and impose heavy taxes on foreign-made goods in order to enable the development of Russian industry. Protectionism played a large role in the development of the manufacturing and factory industries in Russia, but at the same time, it led to a decrease in the quality of Russian goods and to a decrease in their competitiveness in foreign markets.

In the field of foreign trade, the state policy of Russia in the XIX century. characterized by an alternating change of protectionism and free trade (free trade). The course was changed every five to ten years. In general, in the middle of the century, they proceeded mainly from the principles of free trade, and at the beginning and end of the century - protectionism. The predominance of the policy of protectionism was explained not so much by the desire to protect and patronize the domestic producer, as by considerations of a fiscal nature: by setting high import tariffs, the government wanted to increase the profitability of the treasury. Accordingly to the official exchange rate, import duties varied - from 15 to 200% or more.

XIX century. was a time for Russia, albeit a slow but steady rise. The Europeanization of Russia has intensified, and the country has become an important part of the world community, both politically and economically. There were significant shifts in the life of Russian society itself - the country, almost half of the population, which was in a slave state at the beginning of this period, became free.

In the first quarter of the 19th century. the pace of industrial development was low, and the Russian government did not show much attention to these issues. Despite the beginning of the industrial revolution, in the middle of the XIX century. the country was still dominated by manual rather than machine labor. The most successfully developed branches of light industry - textile and food.

Ferrous metallurgy lagged more and more behind the world level. The development of most industries was restrained by the existence of a system of serfdom and the compulsory nature of labor in the national economy. At the end of the XIX century. Russia had high rates of industrial development, which were uneven (upsides were replaced by slow development and crises), but at the same time, in terms of its level of development, it lagged significantly behind the advanced countries of the world, which in production per capita exceeded Russia by more than ten times. Mechanical engineering in Russia was poorly developed and the industrial revolution was far from over.

The state occupies a special position in the world and performs specific functions at the national and external levels. Being the bearer of power, possessing great financial power, the state, as the owner of property and the manager of funds, acts as an ordinary and as a special "public" entrepreneur. It uses a wide range of impact on the internal and external sectors of the economy with the help of budgetary, credit, monetary, exchange rate policies. Along with short-term methods of influencing the economy, the state uses various forms of long-term regulation, pursues appropriate structural policies, stimulating production shifts, overcoming regional differences, and increasing the competitiveness of national companies. The scientific and technical policy of the state plays an important role. Each state seeks to create favorable external conditions for expanded reproduction within the country. The action of these factors generates a constant interaction of two trends: liberalization and protectionism. These trends reflect not only the interests of participants in the internal market, but also the state's reaction to events in the international division of labor.

State regulation of the external sphere is carried out using a wide range of measures. It:

* customs tariffs, which by the nature of their impact are related to foreign trade regulators;

* non-tariff regulatory measures, which include many measures of trade and economic policies, including licensing, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, import deposits, so-called voluntary restrictions, customs formalities, technical standards and regulations, sanitary and veterinary regulations, etc.

The state policy of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition through the use of tariff and non-tariff instruments of trade policy is called protectionism.

Adapting to the internationalization of economic life and the new stage of scientific and technological progress, the state is now implementing regulation on a larger scale and more efficiently. Regulation is not aimed at preventing competition, but at a more flexible impact on it. The denationalization processes that took place in many countries in the 1980s mean the search for a more acceptable balance between private and public principles, as well as the reorientation of state management directly to support private entrepreneurship.

In foreign economic relations during the 1980s, two tendencies were clearly manifested - deregulation and the rise of protectionism. At the same time, deregulation was especially active in the currency and credit spheres, and the growth of barriers clearly made itself felt in the trade sphere. As a result, duality has increased in foreign economic policy. It manifests itself in the declared goals and implemented measures. In addition, the trade policies of these countries increasingly diverged from their economic policies as a whole. During the 1980s, governments increasingly relied on price and market mechanisms.

In the second half of the 1990s, the trend towards lowering trade barriers resumed. This process was extended not only to industrial goods, but also to agricultural products and intellectual property. The average tariff for industrial products in developed countries fell at the end of the 90s to 3.9%, for goods from developing countries - remains higher, especially for textiles, clothing, fish products (the overall average tariff is 5.4% ). The scale of non-tariff barriers was reduced to about 7% of the total import volume of the leading countries.

Modern protectionism in foreign trade is concentrated in relatively narrow areas sensitive to entrepreneurship and employment in developed countries. In relations with other developed countries, it is used in trade in agricultural products, textiles, clothing, and ferrous metals. In the trade of developed with developing countries, it also covers other manufactured goods.

Every state that wants to exist must take care of the economic component of life. Protectionism is one of the most important mechanisms.

What is protectionism?

This is the name of the economic protection of the state, which is manifested in the fact that the domestic market of their country is fenced off from the import of foreign goods into it. Also, exports are encouraged by increasing the competitiveness of products in foreign markets. With a competent policy, this translates into economic growth.

But there is also a negative state protectionism. Its importance in the economy can change to the diametrically opposite, if you unceremoniously pull the blanket over yourself, as this will cause retaliatory actions from other countries.

Why is there a policy of protectionism?

Its task is to stimulate the development of the national economy, as well as to protect against foreign competition using non-tariff methods. With the strengthening of the process of world globalization, it is extremely important to develop an adequate policy of protectionism in order to increase the domestic and foreign markets. With active and rational actions, the state policy of protectionism for the enterprise will allow them to effectively and quickly adapt to the changing conditions of the world's economy.

What does history tell us?

In different periods, state formations constantly changed their directions of economic policy. They moved now and then towards protectionism. True, not a single state government has ever taken a radical form anywhere. So, for it is absolutely necessary that there is a movement of goods, technology, capital and labor without any restrictions. And this state of affairs has its own nuances, because of which nothing of the kind was organized. Therefore, absolute state protectionism is something of a fantasy. Now any government regulates the circulation of resources in its country. Despite the fact that the declaration of the openness of the economy is massive, in fact, this is how they cover up the rather cunning protectionism of state economic interests.

Dilemma

A significant theoretical challenge is the choice: which is better - protectionism or free trade. So, the advantages of the first are that it allows the development of the national industry. Freedom of trade boasts that national costs are compared with international costs. And there is no end in sight of the discussion about which is better.

If we consider the development of this dilemma, it is worth noting that until the beginning of the 70s of the last century, the countries of the world gradually switched to supporting free trade and intensified liberalization. But since that moment, the opposite trend has been recorded. Thus, states are fenced off from others with the help of sophisticated tariffs and various barriers, protecting their economies from foreign competition.

Types of protection

What is the goal of various states, turning towards protectionism? The features can be judged by the types of protection. There are two of them:

1. Constant protection. It is used to fence off foreign competition in industries that are strategically important for the domestic economy (agriculture, military industry), and is of significant importance in critical situations (for example, war).
2. Temporary protection. Used to fence off branches that have recently been created until they are so stable that they can successfully compete with similar areas in other states.

Appropriate measures can also be taken if trading partners have introduced certain protectionist restrictions on their part. Explicit government protectionism is a measure that almost always entails backlash. A kind of way out can be propaganda to buy domestic products without activating any restrictions.

Forms of protectionism

In what form can it exist? There are four forms:

1. Selective protectionism. It implies protection from a specific product / state.
2. Industry protectionism. This includes the protection of a specific area of \u200b\u200beconomic life (for example, agriculture).
3. Collective protectionism. This is understood as the mutual protection of several countries that have united in an alliance.
4. Hidden protectionism. It is understood as protection, during which non-customs methods are used, including those that stimulate domestic producers.

Modern protectionism

It means non-tariff and customs tariff restrictions. The main task of the government in the field of international trade is to help exporters in the sale of products in foreign markets by increasing their competitiveness, as well as restricting imports by using means to reduce the attractiveness of foreign goods in the country. However, most of the regulatory methods are concerned with regulating imports. The rest are boosting exports.

Speaking about tariff restrictions, it should be said that there are only quotas. This is all that belongs to the measures of state protectionism and is not hidden by anyone. All of them are focused on regulating imports. But the measures of state protectionism include the non-tariff restriction. It means quotas, licensing, government procurement, various requirements for the presence of local components, technical charges, taxes and fees for non-residents, dumping, subsidies and export crediting. This means measures of state protectionism. A number of smaller components also apply to them, but due to the rarity of their use and specificity, they will be omitted in this article. By the way, we can say that the imposition of sanctions in relation to other countries belongs to the measures of state protectionism. But this is a specific issue, on which there is no consensus yet.

State protectionism in Russia: current state of affairs and development prospects

With regard to customs and tariff regulation, it should be noted that new technologies are being introduced, which allow for improved administration and tracking of the state of affairs. In the non-tariff field, there is an increase in the use of specific methods within the framework of management. At the same time, there is an orientation towards the export of high-tech services, goods and technologies.

In the long term, innovative development is important. Especially its importance grows with the gradual exhaustion of the efficiency potential of other factors. should presuppose the creation of conditions under which developing activity and the share of investments will grow, which is aimed at introducing new quality products and technological processes. Ultimately, this will be of exceptional importance in improving the quality of life of the population.

Support for small and medium-sized businesses is essential to meet the needs of people. Here you can work to reduce the number of administrative barriers, simplify documentary processes (registration and closure of an enterprise), reduce the list of activities that require a license. Ultimately, it is necessary to strive to form an investment-attractive environment. Not least by reducing the total tax burden on business entities. In the meantime, it cannot be said that this aspect belongs to the measures of state protectionism.

Protectionism

Protectionism - the policy of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition through a system of certain restrictions: import and export duties, subsidies and other measures. This policy contributes to the development of national production.

In economic theory, protectionist doctrine is the opposite of free trade doctrine - free trade, a controversy between these two doctrines has continued since the time of Adam Smith. Protectionists criticize the doctrine of free trade in terms of increasing national production, employment and improving demographics. Opponents of protectionism criticize it in terms of free enterprise and consumer protection.

The main types of protectionism

• Selective protectionism - protection from a specific product, or against a specific state;
• Industry protectionism - protection of a specific industry;
• Collective protectionism - mutual protection of several countries united in a union;
• Hidden protectionism - protectionism using non-customs methods;
• Local protectionism - protectionism of products and services of local companies;
• Green protectionism - protectionism through the norms of environmental law;
• Corrupt protectionism - when politicians act in the interests not of the mass voter, but of organized bureaucratic and financial groups.

History of protectionism

The widespread transition to the policy of protectionism began in continental Europe at the end of the 19th century, after a protracted economic depression of the 1870s and 1880s. After that, the depression ended, and rapid industrial growth began in all countries that followed this policy. In the United States, protectionist policies were most actively pursued between the end of the Civil War (1865) and the end of World War II (1945), but implicitly continued until the late 1960s. In Western Europe, a widespread transition to a tough protectionist policy occurred at the beginning of the Great Depression (1929-1930). This policy continued until the end of the 1960s, when, in accordance with the decisions of the so-called. In the Kennedy Round, the United States and Western European countries carried out a coordinated liberalization of their foreign trade.

Views and arguments for protectionism

Protectionism is seen as a policy that stimulates economic growth in general, as well as industrial growth and growth in the welfare of the country pursuing such a policy. The theory of protectionism claims that the greatest effect is achieved: 1) with the uniform application of import and export duties, subsidies and taxes in relation to all entities, without any exceptions; 2) with an increase in the size of duties and subsidies as the depth of processing increases and with the complete abolition of duties on imported raw materials; 3) with the continuous imposition of import duties on all goods and products, either already produced in the country, or those whose production, in principle, it makes sense to develop (as a rule, in the amount of at least 25-30%, but not at a level that is prohibitive for any competing imports); 4) upon refusal from customs taxation of imports of goods, the production of which is impossible or impractical (for example, bananas in the north of Europe).

Proponents of protectionism argue that the countries of Europe and North America were able to carry out their industrialization in the 18th and 19th centuries. mainly due to protectionist policies. They point out that all periods of rapid industrial growth in these countries coincided with periods of protectionism, including a new leap in economic development that occurred in Western countries in the middle of the 20th century. (creation of "welfare states"). In addition, they argue, like the mercantilists of the 17th and 18th centuries, that protectionism promotes higher birth rates and faster natural population growth.

Criticism of protectionism

Critics of protectionism usually point out that customs duties increase the value of imported goods domestically, which could hurt consumers. In addition, the threat of monopolization is an important argument against protectionism: protection from external competition can help monopolists establish complete control over the internal market. An example is the rapid monopolization of industry in Germany and Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, which took place in the context of their protectionist policies.

Some economists are trying to develop a neutral view of protectionism, free trade, considering their impact on the growth of national welfare through the analysis of gains and losses. In their opinion, the benefits from the application of export and import duties can be opposed to production and consumer losses arising from the distortion of the motives of behavior of both producers and consumers. However, it is also possible that the benefits from improving the terms of trade after the introduction of foreign trade taxes exceeds the losses from it. The main prerequisite for improving the terms of trade from the introduction of a duty is that the country has market power, that is, the ability of one or a group of sellers (buyers) in the country to influence export prices and / or import prices.

Quotes

If England has been free-trading for 50 years in our time, then we must not forget that for 200 years there was intensified protectionism in it, the beginning of which was laid by the navigation act (1651), that it still surpasses other countries in industrial and commercial development, which grew on the basis of protectionism.

The founders of all kinds of industrial affairs receive their first goods at a higher price than enterprises that have already established themselves, gained experience and paid off the initial costs, can sell them. Such matured enterprises, owning capital and credit, easily stop the beginnings of rivalry, which is reviving in other countries, lowering prices or even selling goods temporarily at a loss. A lot of well-known data testifies to this.

Articles

• W. Stolper, P. Samuelson - "Protectionism and Real Wages"
• Vladimir Popov - "China: Technology of an Economic Miracle"
• Economic protectionist policies: pros and cons
• Arguments "for" and "against" protectionism on the example of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia

Links

Trade
Definitions	Balance of payments · Current account (country balance) · Trade balance (country balance) · Capital account · Foreign exchange reserves · Comparative advantages · Absolute advantage · International division of labor · Import substitution · International trade (export countries · import countries ) Economic integration
Organizations and politics in trade	World Trade Organization International Monetary Fund World Bank International Trade Center Trade Block Free Trade Zone Customs Union Trade Barriers Import Quota Tariff
Economics schools	Free Trading Net Balance Salamanca Mercantilism Protectionism
Related Topics	Sales Globalization Outsourcing Trade Fairness and Fair Trade

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Protectionism" is in other dictionaries:

A protective duty system designed to support domestic production. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov AN, 1910. PROTECTIONISM system of patronage. duties, i.e. high taxation by foreign ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

The economic policy of the state, which consists in the purposeful protection of the domestic market from the flow of foreign goods. It is carried out through the introduction of a set of direct and indirect restrictions on the import of customs ... ... Financial vocabulary

- (protectionism) The view that restricting international trade is a desirable policy. Its goal may be to prevent unemployment or loss of production capacity in industries threatened by imports, to promote ... Economic Dictionary

- (protectionism) Protection, patronage (patronage system in trade). The theory or practice of restricting trade between countries in favor of domestic producers by setting tariffs, quotas, or (most often used in our ... ... Political science. Dictionary.

protectionism - (socio-psychological aspect) (from Lat. protectio cover) mercenary patronage provided to someone by a person or a group of persons in power. P. leads to the emergence of a privileged circle of persons, the cultivation of conformism, ... ... Big psychological encyclopedia

1) the economic policy of the state aimed at protecting the national economy from foreign competition. It is implemented through financial incentives for domestic industry, export promotion, import restrictions. For ... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

protectionism - a, m. protectionnisme m. lat. protectio protection, cover. 1. The economic policy of the bourgeois countries, associated with the protection of domestic industry and agriculture from foreign competition and with the capture of foreign markets. System ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms

Protectionism (English protectionism from Lat. protectio - cover, protection, patronage) - the economic policy of the state to protect the internal market from foreign competition. In the narrow sense, P. is understood as a customs policy pursued in order to restrict or prevent goods of foreign origin from entering the domestic market. In a broad sense, protectionism is provided by a system of measures aimed at protecting the interests of national producers, as well as encouraging and stimulating nat. production. Customs policy is only a part of this system of protectionism is carried out by individual states or their associations (for example, the European Union in relation to third countries when importing agricultural products), i.e. so-called collective protectionism. If national production as a whole is protected from foreign competition, such a policy is called total protectionism. If it concerns individual branches of the bunkers. households, P. are called selective, or selective. A special case of the latter is the agrarian P. P. has a long historical tradition. It appeared in the 17th century. in Europe, when the nat. states, relying on the concept of mercantilism, sought to achieve a positive trade balance primarily by restricting imports. In the 1990s, the offensive against Poland intensified, connected primarily with the activities of the World Trade Organization.

PROTECTIONISM

Protectionism is a system of measures aimed at protecting the national industry from foreign rivalry.
These are considered:
1) the imposition of customs duties on foreign products, in order to reduce their import, raise the price, and thereby increase the profits of the owners of native factories producing the same products, and the earnings of workers employed in these factories;
2) the imposition of duties on the export of raw materials;
3) payment of premiums for the export of products so that the local industry can lower prices for them and withstand competition in international markets;
4) restriction or outright prohibition of the export of unknown abroad, improved machines and tools, in order to deprive foreigners of the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of new inventions;
5) the prohibition of the departure of skilled craftsmen, so that they do not spread improved techniques and methods of this or that production in foreign countries;
6) the exploitation of the colonies, in the form of obtaining cheap raw materials from them and for the profitable sale of the products of the metropolises;
7) the publication of navigational laws encouraging domestic shipbuilding and the transportation of domestic and foreign goods on ships of native construction with special privileges;
8) the issuance of monetary subsidies and monopolies to the initiators of one or another production that is useful for the country.

Protectionism is the economic policy of the state, which consists in deliberately protecting the domestic market from the flow of foreign-made goods.
As an economic concept, protectionism in an extremely generalized form means the protection of national producers and the displacement of imported products. More specifically, it means both the model of economic growth and the foreign trade policy built on this.
Protectionism remains widespread in the modern world and will remain so, despite the decline in level and scope. Moreover, the toolkit of modern economic theory in recent decades has been actively used to search for new arguments in favor of protectionism. The anti-globalization movement also contributes to this.
The rationale for protectionism boils down to the following arguments.

The first is related to the principle of suboptimality, which implies the need to take into account external effects. It is then possible that the losses that protectionism inevitably incur will be offset by the benefits of the positive externalities of the industry that protectionism has fostered. Another argument relates to the recognition that free trade, not protectionism, is beneficial. The persistence of protectionism in developed countries is associated, firstly, with the possibility of using optimal tariffs, that is, tariffs at which the losses caused by a decrease in import volumes are offset by the benefits caused by a decrease in import prices. This situation is possible for developed countries.
The second reason has to do with the existence of a political market for protectionism:
there is a demand for protectionist policies (from beneficiaries in industries that compete with imports) and supply of such policies (from elected legislators and bureaucrats). One of the manifestations of this market is lobbying, that is, the activity of pressure groups in favor of protectionism.
The third reason is related to the peculiarities of democracy. The electoral appeal of protectionism based on so-called common sense. As an example I will cite the slogan "we consume only domestic goods".
The need for protectionism for developing countries is argued as follows. First of all, the need to protect the national producer, specific enterprises and industries, especially young ones, is emphasized. At the same time, references are made to the economic history of developed countries, in which the idea of \u200b\u200b"educational protectionism" was far from the last place in the justification of the corresponding economic policy. A number of researchers believe that the process of foreign trade liberalization should be related to the level of economic development, and the lower this level, the more cautious and gradual the reduction of protectionism should be. In this line of reasoning, protectionism cannot be replaced by an open economy policy, only its measure must be determined.
In developing countries, there is also a widespread point of view that a protectionist model of economic growth is more realistic. This point of view is argued by the fact that there are more opportunities to protect the domestic market from foreign competition than the ability to force developed countries to lower their barriers to goods from developing countries. Many economists and politicians believe that protectionism makes it possible to rely on an already established market and an already formed structure of demand, as evidenced by the import of goods, which is supposed to be limited. Finally, one cannot but take into account the fact that protectionism in trade policy encourages foreign firms to create their own production facilities on the territory of a developing country, that is, engage in direct investments, the purpose of which is to overcome trade barriers.