1 / 15

Ronald Rogowski

Ronald Rogowski. Commerce and Coalitions. Rogowski I: 1840-1914. Real trade: increased 4 times 1840-1870, 2 times 1870-1900 Railroads decreased transportation costs by 85-95% Steamships decreased transportation costs by 50%. Trade and Cleavages. Land-Labor ratio. High (land). Low (labor).

maximos-zale
Download Presentation

Ronald Rogowski

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ronald Rogowski Commerce and Coalitions

  2. Rogowski I: 1840-1914 • Real trade: increased 4 times 1840-1870, 2 times 1870-1900 • Railroads decreased transportation costs by 85-95% • Steamships decreased transportation costs by 50%

  3. Trade and Cleavages Land-Labor ratio High (land) Low (labor) (urban- rural) (class conflict) High K (urban- rural) (class conflict) Low K Cleavages shift when: • Relative factor endowments change (development: K increases) • Power shifts when: • Trade increases/decreases

  4. Trade and Cleavages, 1840-1914 Land-Labor ratio High (land) Low (labor) UK, Fr Russia: High land, High labor, Low capital High K Germany Austria, Italy 1875 US grain Low K US, Canada before W W I Change occurs when: • Trade increases (transport costs decrease) • Relative factor endowments change (development: K increases)

  5. 1914-Present Land-Labor ratio High (land) Low (labor) H-H L-L US 20th century, Canada, Aus, NZ, SU 1960’s England 19th, W. Europe 20th EE 60’s, Japan 60’s NorwaySweden High K Rural green Class Conflict Urban US 19th cent. LA, Africa after W W II red Germany 19th Japan until 1960 China, Vietnam, Spain, EE, India Low K Russia & Africa until WW II

  6. Structure of an argument Research design Hypotheses Conclusions Assumptions Logic Evidence - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Confidence Scope Generality ??? How would you attack Rogowski?

  7. Objections: assumptions Assumptions of Stolper-Samuelson model violated: • Capital flows internationally • Capital, labor locked in specific sectors • Frieden: specific assets - incentives to lobby; everybody benefits from industry-specific protection • Country size (Katzenstein)

  8. Objections: assumptions • Firms vary in their international position Milner: - export- vs. import-oriented - multinational vulnerability Export dependency Low High IV III Multi -nationality H Selectiveprotection Most free trade I II L Strategic trade Global protection Compare: 1920’s & 1970’s; US & France (subsumed by Rogowski? A finer cut?)

  9. Objections: hypotheses • Not a test • What would falsify hypothesis? • Outcomes? Most interesting claims not testable • Cleavages • Right-wing authoritarianism with contracting trade. Left-wing revolution with expanding trade

  10. Objections: research design Fuzziness of key variables • Independent variables: land, labor, capital intensity • Dependent variables: • what is evidence of a cleavage? • expectations about timing of trade expanding/contracting and political shifts

  11. Objections: evidence • US New Deal(decline of trade – strong labor) • But why switch to Democrats if Republicans are protectionists? • Rogowski claims New Deal was not very free trade. • Problem: business switched to free trade after Smoot-Hawley

  12. Objections: evidence Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism in Latin America in the 1970s (trade increased; land + foreign capital ally for free trade) • But: Mexico & Brazil vs. Chile & Argentina. • Collapse of regimes after ’82 reforms, not protection

  13. Objections: treatment of exceptions Why no revolution in India? (Trade contracts – fascism; trade expands – revolution; why not in India?) Rogowski: too satisfied to revolt • Building roads relieves pressure • Congress represents a land-capital coalition, pays off peasants • protectionist Ad hoc?

  14. Objections: scope of theory Soviet Union and Eastern Europe Stolper-Samuelson does not apply to planned economies • no free markets; • no comparative advantage; • no convertible money; • no profit incentive

  15. Conclusions?

More Related