Mercantilism – Rejected by both Left & Right: Part II of Mercantilism and the Rise of the West

Mercantilism – Rejected by both the Left and the Right

Mercantilism has received very little attention in the twentieth century,[1] and much of the attention it has received has often used mercantilism as a straw-man against which to present other theories in a good light, with numerous misrepresentations often intentionally introduced. This has led to widespread acceptance of simplistic and erroneous views of mercantilism which in turn still further decreases attention to the subject. Paul Rich states that ‘There are few better examples of trying to lend misleading coherence to complex matters than the way in which mercantilism has been dismissed as a spent philosophy’ (Rich 2006, 183).[2]

Mercantilism seems to have been ignored and even disparaged by both the right and the left, accounting for the scant attention paid to the historical impact of these policies in the twentieth century. The left, while embracing the state’s role in development, rejects the capitalist and ‘internalist’ (and often, viewed as triumphalist) view of Europe as a region developing economically largely due to internal institutional development stimulated by its own internal dynamics of intra-state competition and commerce.[3] Conversely, the right, while embracing the emphasis of mercantilism on a ‘fragmented and thus competitive’ internalist model of European expansion, cannot embrace mercantilism because of its emphasis on the role of the state in development. Thus mercantilism has found little support or attention in the twentieth century from any side.[4]

Consequently, there are a number of widespread misunderstandings concerning mercantilist policies. One is that mercantilism is simply a naïve focus on the balance of trade (or worse still, as an even more simplistic focus on the stock of precious metals, properly called ‘bullionism’). The mercantilist approach to trade and development was in practice much more nuanced, based on views of ‘good’ trade and ‘bad’ trade. Good trade is trade that increases the amount of increasing returns activities (in that time especially, essentially manufacturing) within a country’s borders; bad trade is trade that increases a reliance on raw materials exports (see Reinert 1998). Crucially, much confusion also arises because of the difference in the significance of arguments concerning trade originating in the context of the country by far more industrialized (Great Britain, and later, also the US) and the significance of those arguments for everyone else: In the real world, the implications of ‘free’ trade turned out to be very different for the world leaders in industrial production than for less industrialized nations. It has seldom been grasped how fundamentally this influenced the interpretation of economic theory in different countries, especially in the English speaking countries vis-à-vis the rest of the world (Reinert 1998).

Mercantilism and the Zero Sum game fallacy

Another misunderstanding concerning mercantilist policies is that they are frequently portrayed as attempting to capture trade and industry due to a naïve belief that these are a ‘zero sum game’ when in reality trade and industrial growth are very much a non-zero sum game, with cooperative free trade increasing the total amount of goods for all. Mercantilists are portrayed, in effect, as believing (in their ignorance of the non-zero sum nature of development) that if considering two countries starting on equal terms, taking one country’s ten percent meant the winner would have sixty percent and the loser be left with forty percent of the pre-existing trade or industry levels, and ignorant of the possibility that with increased trade there may be 500 percent more goods and industry in the future for all to share.

However, in a non-zero sum world strongly marked by agglomerative forces (whatever these may be), mercantilist strategies make more, not less sense than non-competitive policies: that is, taking a rival’s ten percent now might leave the ‘winner’ with the lion’s share of the 500 percent more trade/industry in the future, and the loser with almost none, a more likely outcome in the real world of agglomeration than each ending up with greater equal amounts of growth. Crucially, in a non-zero sum world of increasing returns and agglomeration, mercantilist strategies were especially astute and beneficial, although only, of course, for the ‘winners’.

Based on these observations this work might be described as a ‘geography of mercantilism’ that seeks to understand how mercantilist policies, so intricately associated with both the military and commercial expansion of Europe that subsequently shaped global patterns of development, became spatially ‘centered’, as writers such as Blaut and A.G. Frank often characterize the process, on Europe.

Next Post – An Empirical Approach to the Geography of Mercantilism: Part III of Mercantilism and the Rise of the West

Bibliography 

NOTES

[1] Mokyr, for example, in discussing Heckscher’s (1931) extensive treatment of mercantilism, observes ‘the book seems to have been strangely neglected by economic historians in recent decades. Mercantilism as a major topic in the institutional development of Europe has not yet been taken up by the New Institutional Economics.’ (Mokyr 2003, 1). In a footnote Mokyr notes: ‘Of the forty five references to Heckscher’s work on Mercantilism in the two leading Economic History journals, thirty five were made before 1971, and only four since 1980. Of the thirteen citations in the entire economics and history sections of JSTOR to Heckscher’s work on Mercantilism, only five papers qualify as economic history proper. A recent well-reviewed book (Epstein, 2000), clearly concerned with similar issues, does not even refer to it. (Mokyr 2003, 1). McCusker writes ‘Indeed, by mid-century, some were prepared to deny that mercantilism as an economic doctrine had ever existed’ (McCusker 2000, para. 1) and that after World War II ‘mercantilism was irrelevant. After the demise of the world of nation states, it seemed to some best forgotten and, with it, the doctrine that had served to underpin its foundation. By the middle of the twentieth century more than one writer on the early modern period of Western European history was prepared to deny mercantilism’s very existence. … The most extreme of these writers, D. C. Coleman (1980, p. 791), classed mercantilism with other “non-existent entities.”’. (McCusker 2000, para. 10).

More generally, if all of the JSTOR articles from history, political science, and economics from the entire twentieth century and to the present with any of the words ‘mercantilism’, ‘colbertism’, or ‘cameralism’ in the title are considered, there are only 46 articles, of which only 12 have been published after 1980 (the date of Coleman’s ‘Mercantilism Revisited’), and these are mostly either narrowly focused responses to Ekelund and Tollison’s (1982) public choice interpretation of mercantilism or discussions of modern trade theory as ‘neo mercantilism’.

[2] McCusker, for example, in discussing one of the few modern widely read discussions of mercantilism notes: ‘Unfortunately in their exploration of the subject Ekelund and Tollison offer little more than “poor history,” “circular arguments,” and a disinterest “in what the mercantilist writer actually wrote,” according to Magnusson (p. 50), an evaluation with which I can only agree, sadly’ (McCusker, note 8).

[3] Even in its ‘neo’ form mercantilism is criticized for its association with capitalism from the left. Lovering 1999 sees ‘new-regionalism’ as a form of neo-mercantilism and criticizes it accordingly as ‘instrumentalist’ ‘Hayekian rhetoric’. Simply (mis)applying the word to a description of policy automatically paints the policy in a bad light; e.g. ‘[Texas Governor] Perry’s economic vision is the kind of race-to-the-bottom mercantilism we’ve come to expect from developing nations in the globalized economy…’ (Meyerson 2011. The term is misapplied because capturing particular sectors of increasing returns industry and thus raising the wealth of a region or state was traditionally the goal of mercantilist policies, not reducing living standards to indiscriminately attract sectors that enrich a minority capitalist class).

[4] McCusker makes a similar argument in discussing the reception of Heckscher’s (1931) book on mercantilism:  ‘The book and its subject had less play in the second half of the twentieth century when the worries of the world shifted from a fear of totalitarianism of the right to a fear of totalitarianism of the left. Indeed, by mid-century, some were prepared to deny that mercantilism as an economic doctrine had ever existed’ (McCusker 2000, para. 1)

and

As World War II came and passed, many thought they saw the future in an even newer and now victorious doctrine, socialism. For them Heckscher was even less relevant – or, better put, mercantilism was irrelevant. After the demise of the world of nation states, it seemed to some best forgotten and, with it, the doctrine that had served to underpin its foundation. By the middle of the twentieth century more than one writer on the early modern period of Western European history was prepared to deny mercantilism’s very existence. … The most extreme of these writers, D. C. Coleman (1980, p. 791), classed mercantilism with other “non-existent entities.” It was an invention, conjured up “to prevent the study of history from falling into the abyss of antiquarianism” (7). With hated capitalism under attack from the bastions of academe, mercantilism suffered the even worse fate of being ignored. (McCusker 2000, para. 10).

Bibliography, Mercantilism and the Rise of the West

Acemoglu, Daron, Simon Johnson, and James A. Robinson. 2003. Disease and Development in Historical Perspective. Journal of the European Economic Association 1(2-3): 397-405.

Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James. 2005. The Rise of Europe: Atlantic Trade, Institutional Change, and Economic Growth. The American Economic Review 95(3): 546-579. (Previously available as 2002, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 02-43; MIT Sloan Working Paper No. 4269-02).

Alam, M. Shahid. 2000. Poverty from the Wealth of Nations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Amin, Samir. 1976. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Arrighi, Giovanni. 1994 . The long twentieth century. London and New York: Routledge.

Baechler, Jean, John A. Hall, and Michael Mann, eds. 1988 . Europe and the rise of capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Baechler, Jean. 1995 . Le capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.

Bairoch, Paul. 1993. Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Ballinger, Clint. 2008b. Initial conditions as exogenous actors in spatial explanation, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Geography, Univ. of Cambridge. Available online, http://philpapers.org/rec/BALICA-2

Ballinger, Clint, 2011a, Why inferential statistics are inappropriate for development studies and how the same data can be better used. Working paper, Munich RePEc Archive  http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29780/

Ballinger, Clint, 2011b, Why geographic factors are necessary in development studies, Working paper, Social Science Research Network SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1791127

Blaut, James M. 1993. The Colonizer’s Model of the World.  New York: Guilford Press.

Blaut, James M. 2000. Eight Eurocentric Historians. New York: Guilford Press.

Bockstette, Valerie, Areendam Chanda and Louis Putterman. 2002. States and Markets: The Advantage of an Early Start. Journal of Economic Growth 7(4): 347-69.

Braudel, Fernand. 1979. Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme XVe-XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Armand Colin.

Coleman, D.C., 1980. “Mercantilism Revisited”, The Historical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4. (Dec., 1980), pp. 773-791.

Cosandey, David. 1997. Le secret de l’Occident. Du miracle passé au marasme présent. Paris: Arléa.

Crone, Patricia. 1989. Pre-industrial societies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Crosby, Alfred. 1972. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Connecticut: Greenwood Press 1972,

Crosby, Alfred. 1986. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Curtin, Philip D. 1989. Death by Migration: Europe’s Encounter with the Tropical World in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Curtin, Philip D. 2000. The World and the West: The European Challenge and the Overseas Response in the Age of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dahl, Robert and Edward Tufte. 1971. Size and Democracy. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Davis, Mike. 2002. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World. London: Verso.

Doll, Christopher N.H., Jan-Peter Muller and Christopher D. Elvidge. 2000. Night-time imagery as a tool for global mapping of socio-economic parameters and greenhouse gas emissions. Ambio 29(3): 159–164.

Forbes D.K. and P. J. Rimmer (eds). 1984. Uneven Development and the Geographic Transfer of Value. Canberra: Australia National University Press.

Fox, Edward Whiting. 1971. History in Geographic Perspective: The Other France. New York: Norton.

Fox, Edward Whiting. 1989. ‘The Argument: Some Reinforcements and Projections’, pp. 331-342 in Eugene D. Genovese and Leonard Hochberg, eds. Geographic Perspectives in History. London: Blackwell.

Fox, Edward Whiting. 1991. The Emergence of the Modern European World. Cambridge, Mass. and Oxford: Blackwell.

Frank, Andre Gunder. 1998. ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fujita, Masahisa and Jacques-François Thisse. 2002. Economics of Agglomeration: Cities, Industrial Location, and Regional Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gallup, J.L., Sachs, J.D., and Mellinger, A.D. 1999. Geography and economic development. International Regional Science Review 22: 179-232. (Also published as 1998 NBER Working Paper No. W6849 and again as Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University, Working Paper no. 1, March.)

Gellner, Ernest. 1988. Plough, Sword and Book: The Structure of Human History. London: Collins Harvill.

Gellner, Ernest. 1997. Nationalism. New York: New York University Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, Vol. I: Power, Property, and the State. London: Macmillan.

Goldstone, Jack A. 1992. Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goudsblom, Johan. 1996. ‘The Formation of Military-Agrarian Regimes’, pp. 49-62  in Johan Goudsblom, Eric Jones and Stephen Mennell, The Course of Human History: Economic Growth, Social Process, and Civilization. Armonk, NY and London: M.E. Sharpe.

Hall, John A. 1985. Powers and liberties: The causes and consequences of the rise of the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

Heckscher, Eli, 1936. “Revisions in Economic History: V. Mercantilism”, The Economic History Review, Vol. 7, No. 1. (Nov., 1936), pp. 44-54.

Hoeschele, Wolfgang. 2002. The Wealth of Nations at the Turn of the Millennium: A Classification System Based on the International Division of Labor. Economic Geography 78(2): 221-244.

Huang, Ray. 1999. Broadening the horizons of Chinese history. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Jacobs, Jane. 1969 (1970). The Economy of Cities. New York: Vintage.

Jacobs, Jane. 1984. Cities and the Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House.

Jones, E.L. 1981. The European Miracle. Environments, Economies, and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, E.L. 1988. Growth Recurring: Economic Change in World History. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Knack, S. and Keefer, P. 1995. Institutions and economic performance: Cross-country test using alternative measures. Economics and Politics 7: 207–227.

Krugman, Paul. 1999. ‘Was it all in Ohlin?’

Krugman, Paul and Anthony J. Venables. 1995. Globalization and the Inequality of Nations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(4): 857-880.

Kuttner, Robert. 1996. ‘Peddling Krugman’. The American Prospect 7(28) September 1-October 1.

Landes, David S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. New York: Norton.

Lewis, Martin W., and Kären E. Wigen. 1997. The Myth of Continents, A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lovering, John. 1999. Theory Led by Policy: The Inadequacies of the ‘New Regionalism’ (Illustrated from the Case of Wales). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2): 379-395.

Maddison, Angus. 1995.  Monitoring the World Economy: 1820-1992. Paris: OECD.

Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. Paris: OECD.  

Magnusson, Lars. 1994. Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language. Routledge.

Mann, Michael. 1986a. The sources of social power. Vol. I. A history of power from the beginning to 1760 A.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mann, Michael. 1986b. The autonomous power of the state; its origins, mechanisms, and results. In States in history, ed. John A. Hall, 109-136 . Oxford; New York, Basil Blackwell.

Masters, William and Jeffrey Sachs, 2001. “Climate and Development.” Presented at the annual meetings of the AEA, New Orleans LA, 7 January 2001.

Masters, Bruce. 1988. The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East: Mercantilism and the Islamic Economy in Aleppo, 1600-1750. New York: New York University Press.

Masters, William A. and Margaret S. McMillan. 2000. ‘Climate and Scale in Economic Growth’, Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University Working Paper no. 48, June.

Masters, William and Keith Wiebe. 2000. ‘Climate and Agricultural Productivity’. Paper presented at the conference Raising Agricultural Productivity in the Tropics: Biophysical Challenges for Technology and Policy, Center for International Development, HarvardUniversity, October 17.

McCusker, John J. 2000. ‘Review of Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism’. EH.Net Economic History Services, Dec 4 2000. URL: http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/mccusker

McNeill, William H. 1982. The Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force and Society Since AD 1000. Oxford: Blackwell.

Mellinger, Andrew D., Jeffrey D. Sachs and John L. Gallup. 1999. Climate, Water Navigability, and Economic Development, Center for International Development CID at Harvard University Working Paper no. 24, September.

Meyerson, Harold. 2011. ‘The sad facts behind Rick Perry’s Texas miracle’, The Washington Post. August 17.

Midlarsky Manus I. 1995. Environmental Influences on Democracy: Aridity, Warfare, and a Reversal of the Causal Arrow. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 39(2):  224-262.

Mokyr, Joel. 2003. ‘Mercantilism, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution’. Paper presented to the conference in honor of Eli F. Heckscher, Stockholm, May 2003.

NASA . 2001. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg accessed November, 2007.

Pomeranz, Kenneth. 2000. The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Powelson, John P. 1994. Centuries of economic endeavor: Parallel paths in Japan and Europe and their contrast with the third world. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Rappaport, Jordan and Jeffrey D. Sachs. 2001. ‘The U.S. as a Coastal Nation’, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and Center for International Development (CID) at HarvardUniversity, Working Paper, July.

Reinert, Eric S. 1994. ‘Catching-up from way behind – A Third World perspective on First World history’ in Fagerberg, Jan, Bart Verspagen and Nick von Tunzelmann (eds.) The Dynamics of Technology, Trade, and Growth, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 168-197.

Reinert, Eric S. 2004. How Rich Nations got Rich: Essays in the History of Economic Policy. Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Working Paper no. 2004/01.

Reinert, Erik S. 1995. Competitiveness and its Predecessors – a 500 year Cross-National Perspective. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 6: 23-42.

Reinert, Erik S. 1996. ‘The Role of Technology in the Creation of Rich Nations and Poor Nations: Underdevelopment in a Schumpeterian System’, in Rich Nations-Poor Nations, The Long Run Perspective. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 161-188.

Reinert, Erik S. 1998. ‘Raw Materials in the History of Economic Policy: Or Why List (the Protectionist) and Cobden (the Free Trader) Both Agreed on Free Trade in Corn’, pp. 275-300 in Gary Cook, ed. The Economics and Politics of Free Trade; Freedom and Trade: Volume II. London: Routledge, pp. 275-300.

Rich, Paul. 2006. ‘Mercantilism and the Future: The Future Lives of an Old Philosophy’ pp. 183-194 in Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach, Thomas Dexter Lynch and Peter L. Cruise. Boca Raton, Fl.: CRC Press (Taylor and Francis).

Robbins, Paul. 2003. Networks and Knowledge Systems: An Alternative to “Race or Place”. Antipode 35(4): 818-822.

Romer, Paul M. 1986. Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth. The Journal of Political Economy 94(5):1002-1037

Rosenberg, Nathan, and Luther E. Birdzell. 1986. How the West grew rich: the economic transformation of the industrial world. New York: Basic Books.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. 1997. ‘Geography and Economic Transition’, Center for International Development (CID) at Harvard University Working Paper, November.

Sanderson, Stephen K. 1995. Social transformations: A general theory of historical development. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sluyter, Andrew. 2003. Neo-environmental determinism, intellectual damage control, and nature/society science. Antipode 35(4): 813-817.

Sowell, Thomas. 1996. Migrations and Cultures: A World View. New York: Basic Books.

Sowell, Thomas. 1998. Conquests and Cultures: An International History. New York: Basic Books.

Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The sovereign state and its competitors. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stock, Robert. 1995. Africa South of the Sahara: A Geographical Interpretation.New York: Guilford.

Sutton, Paul C. and Robert Costanza. 2002. Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation. Ecological Economics 41: 509–527.

Taagepera, Rein. 1978. Size and duration of empires: Systematics of size. Social Science  Research 7: 108-127.

Tilly Charles. 1990. Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990-1992. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ekelund, Robert and Robert Tollison. 1982. Mercantilism as a Rent Seeking Society. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

Vries, P. H. H. 2002. Governing Growth: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of the State in the Rise of the West. Journal of World History 13(1): 67-138.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York/London: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1980. The Modern World-System, vol. II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600-1750. New York: Academic Press.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1989. The Modern World-System, vol. III: The Second Great Expansion of the Capitalist World-Economy, 1730-1840’s. San Diego: Academic Press.

Weiss, Linda, and John M. Hobson. 1995. States and economic development. Cambridge: Polity.

Williamson, Jeffrey G. 2002. ‘Winners and Losers over Two Centuries of Globalization’. Paper prepared for the 2002 WIDER Annual Lecture, Copenhagen, September 5.

Wright, Robert. 2000. Nonzero: The logic of human destiny. New York: Pantheon.

 

Some other works that didn’t make it into this paper but may be of interest:

State Formation, Geography, and a Gentleman’s Education, Jonathan M. Smith, Geographical Review, Vol. 86, No. 1. (Jan., 1996), pp. 91-100.

The Age of Mercantilism: An Interpretation of the American Political Economy, 1763 to 1828, William Appleman Williams, The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., Vol. 15, No. 4. (Oct., 1958), pp. 419-437.

Schachtian Mercantilist, I. Momtchiloff, The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3. (Aug., 1954), pp. 165-173.

The Other Face of Mercantilism, Charles Wilson, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Ser., Vol. 9. (1959), pp. 81-101.

The Discoveries and Mercantilism: An Essay in History and Theory, H. Dales, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science politique, Vol. 21, No. 2. (May, 1955), pp. 141-153.

**’Mercantilism’: Some Vicissitudes of an Idea, Charles Wilson, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 2. (1957), pp. 181-188.

The Political Background to English Mercantilism, 1695-1700, F. Kearney, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 3. (1959), pp. 484-496.

The Role of Merchant Wholesalers in Industrial Agglomeration Formation, Amy Glasmeier, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 80, No. 3. (Sep., 1990), pp. 394-417.

State Power and the Structure of International Trade, Stephen D. Krasner, World Politics, Vol. 28, No. 3. (Apr., 1976), pp. 317-347.

The Idea of a Mercantile State, V. Judges, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4th Ser., Vol. 21. (1939), pp. 41-69.

Power Versus Plenty as Objectives of Foreign Policy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Jacob Viner, World Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Oct., 1948), pp. 1-29.

Spanish Mercantilism: A Hardy Perennial, Robert S. Smith, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1. (Jul., 1971), pp. 1-11.

The Concept of Bureaucracy in Cameralism, Hubert C. Johnson, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 3. (Sep., 1964), pp. 378-402.

Cameralism and the Science of Government, Keith Tribe, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 56, No. 2. (Jun., 1984), pp. 263-284.

What is Dry Exchange? A Contribution to the Study of English Mercantilism, Raymond de Roover, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Sep., 1944), pp. 250-266.

Heckscher on Mercantilism, Herbert Heaton, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 45, No. 3. (Jun., 1937), pp. 370-393.

Heckscher, Mercantilism, F. Haley, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 50, No. 2. (Feb., 1936), pp. 347-354.

Economic Theory and Economic History in Great Britain, 1650-1776, Review author[s]: Mark Blaug, Past and Present, No. 28. (Jul., 1964), pp. 111-116.

La fortune du colbertisme: Etat et industrie dans la France des lumieres, Philippe Minard, Review author[s]: Michael Sonenscher, The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 3. (Jun., 2000), p. 1019.

La fortune du colbertisme: État et industrie dans la France des Lumières, Philippe Minard, Review author[s]: John Shovlin, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 72, No. 1, New Work on the Old Regime and the French Revolution: A Special Issue in Honor of Francois Furet. (Mar., 2000), pp. 223-225

Modern Monetary Theory & International Trade

A pretty old issue – Ancient silk road trade routes across Eurasia.

I had planned to do a somewhat longer Q & A type post on this topic, partly based on this exchange with Warren Mosler where Warren writes “And in any case, in general they all remain blind to the fact that imports are real benefits and exports real costs.”But really I think most of the issues are discussed so well by Sergio Cesaratto in the following links that there is  not too much to add:

NAKED KEYNESIANISM: The spurious victory of MMT

http://nakedkeynesianism.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-reply-to-wray-part-i.html

and summarized so well here

Some Serious Criticism of MMT  (this includes good stuff from Bill Mitchell, the bit on Kazakhstan)

I will still post a few thoughts later, but if anyone has not read Sergio Cesaratto’s stuff (and the comments, especially by Neil Wilson) they will find them very enlightening.

Skip to toolbar