Skip to main content

What is Mercantilist Theory of International Political Economy?

 Mercantilists slogan was "export more, import less." During the 16th and 17th centuries, states were the main players of global economies and they encouraged exports over imports to finance their huge armies. Similar to realists, mercantilists argued that economic policies should advance state power. 

They believed accumulation of metals (gold and silver) was more important than trade as it increased the national wealth. So national economies that time were measured on how much gold one country had not how much trade they had. Spain's conquest of Latin American countries: Panama, West Indies, Venezuela and Peru, provided abundance of gold mines and Spaniards became extensively rich. Spain also put restriction on the colonial trades. colonies couldn't trade with other countries. Mercantilism thrived in Europe from the exploitation of colonies. Soon other European countries joined the loot of colonies in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. 

Mercantilists as with realists argue that economic policy of a state shouldn't be judged on absolute wealth but 'relative wealth'. If a country has more wealth than others, than it is relatively rich than others. They argue that even infant industries should be protected through tariffs and trade restrictions, although it meant higher prices for consumers. Even America's first secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, supported the mercantilist policy.  

What are the mercantilist tools?

1. Tariff: Put tariff on imports to protect the national industries and to finance the defense expenditure.

2. Government Monopolies: European monarchs often interfered in their economies and decided the economic policies. They nationalized the industries and even the colonial businesses were carried out on the name of royal families.

3. Imperial Expansion: European countries colonized Africa, America and Asia to get the raw materials and market for their products.

4. Population Growth: Mercantilist supported population growth to get laborers and armies for conquest. The European monarchs rewarded the large families.

5. Monopoly over Colonial Trade: As almost 95% global trade was conducted through sea route, it became the major source of income for European countries. For instance, England's 1651 Navigation Act required goods imported from British colonies to use only English vessels with English crews. Later, the Act was amended that required colonial exports to first reach English ports before re-exporting elsewhere. 

How England then became champion of free trade?

The Industrial Revolution in the 17th century gave way for free trade. The revolution changed the British society from agrarian  to industrial society. These industrial workers resided in urban centers and these workers needed cheap foods. England faced famines and droughts in 19th century which skyrocketed the bread prices and it became difficult to provide food at affordable prices for workers. Britain first abolished the Corn Law which restricted import of grains from other countries. By abolishing Corn Law, England imported food grains from other countries which helped in reducing the prices.  And by 1860, Britain became the advocate of free trade.

Neomercantilism

Today, a modern form mercantilism exists in the form neomercantilism. The Make in India or Make in USA are the slogans and narrative of national leaders in order to reduce the trade deficit. Leaders often use the economic nationalism to influence the citizens to buy home country products. For example, recently economic nationalism was ignited through media which demanded boycott of Chinese products in India. Even the more advanced economies like the US banned the Chinese TikTok app citing data theft. Some countries adopt non-tariff measures such as subsidies and tax benefits to local industries to make the foreign products expensive for consumers.  

Impact of Mercantilism/Neomercantilism

  • Inefficient industries may benefit from neomercantilism policies but competitive industries wouldn't benefit from it. 
  • Products may become costlier for consumers.
  • Interest in innovation can take sideline. 
  • The global trade agreements would also suffer. For example, the US president Donald Trump withdrew from Trans-Pacific Partnership. 
  • If more and more countries adopt these policies, trade war can ensue as the case with US-China Trade war. 

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Dependency Theory of International Political Economy?

Wikipedia Commons   Like Wallerstein, Dependency Theory emerged in Latin America which argued that world trading system benefited only advanced capitalists' economies. Often the Terms of Trade favored these countries over the least developing countries (LDCs).  Terms of Trade = Export Prices / Import Prices LDC economies depend upon export of raw materials and agricultural commodities. And they import finished products from developed countries.  As the commodity prices rise slowly but manufactured product prices rise sharply, the terms of trade would deteriorate for LDCs unless their exports rise faster than the imports. The global trade is done mostly by corporate subsidiaries thus commodity prices are not exposed to market. These giant corporations often secure the deal with long term agreements, thus even though commodity prices might have rose but they would pay what was agreed in the agreement. They also have sophisticated accounting devices which enable them to avoi...
Post a Comment
Read more

Indian Foreign Policy Evolution (1857-1947): Universal Brotherhood to Moral Nationalism

George Tanham (1992) famously argued that political elites in India showed "little evidence of having thought coherently or systematically about national strategy." This narrative is build upon the old idea of India under British rule but no doubt; it holds some merit in saying this. Indian foreign policy objectives were never clearly defined. It doesn't make sense advocating 'non-alignment' policy and securing a friendship treaty with one of the powers. Neither it makes sense having a closer ties with the US but expecting Russia to remain friend. India always has this contradictory foreign policy approach since late 19th century. Indian view on world politics still resembles the precedents rooted in the past. If we have a closer look between 1857 to 1947, we might get some clue on why India lacks a cohesive foreign policy outlook. The 19th Century India The Indian view on International Relations was shaped by three underpinning thoughts: 1. Universal Brotherhood ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Making sense of Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations"

 After 27 years when Samuel P Huntington's article titled "Clash of Civilizations published in the Foreign Affairs magazine, there are people (mostly liberal) who completely refute to acknowledge any cultural clashes, and conservatives who believe in everything that is argued in the article. The truth lies in between, thus I will try to answer objectively in the question-answer format. Q. What is all about Clash of Civilization? A. The crux of Huntington's article is that future conflicts will mostly occur on the line of culture and civilization. According to Huntington, "world-politics is entering a new phase" in which "the fundamental source of conflict will "occur between nations and groups of civilizations".  Q. How many civilizations did Samuel Huntington see in the world? A. Huntington identifies eight major civilizations in the world: 1. Western  2. Confucian 3. Japanese 4. Islamic  5. Hindu 6. Orthodox  7. Latin American 8. African Q. How ...
Post a Comment
Read more