The principles of protectionism. Protectionism policy. What belongs to the measures of state protectionism? A factor-driven economy
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
federal state budgetary educational institution of higher professional education
"Moscow State Industrial University"
(FSBEI HPE "MGIU")
by discipline: "World Economy"
on the topic: "Modern protectionism"
ACCEPTED FOR PROTECTION
Head of the Department, Candidate of Economic Sciences Ilya Ivanovich Marushchak
Moscow 2011
Introduction
Protectionism: basic concepts
The emergence of protectionism abroad
Arguments for and against protectionism
Forms of protectionism
Protectionism in Russia
Conclusion
Introduction
The central issue of foreign trade policy today is the question: "what to choose to ensure the economic development of the country?"
This issue has been studied by many historians and public figures, but the discussion "protectionism: arguments for and against" is far from over.
Although it has been established that the development of foreign trade accelerates the country's economic growth and is beneficial for us, dependence on the world market gives rise to serious socio-economic problems.
Competition of foreign goods can worsen the economic situation of sectors of the economy, cause them to ruin and increase unemployment.
Dependence on imports can lead to unwanted dependence on the exporter (including political dependence).
Dependence on foreign trade in modern conditions increases the risks of economic losses of trading partners from fluctuations in exchange rates and prices on the world market.
The purpose of the work is to study the issue of modern protectionism.
In accordance with the set goal, the following tasks were identified:
Explore the basic concepts of protectionism;
Describe the origins of protectionism abroad;
Explore the pros and cons of protectionism;
Describe forms of protectionism;
Investigate whether protectionism is needed in Russia.
To carry out the work, textbooks and monographs on the world economy by Russian and foreign authors, materials from periodicals were used.
1. Protectionism: basic concepts
Protectionism is the deliberate policy of some governments to raise barriers to trade, such as tariffs and quotas, in order to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.
Protectionism (French protectionnisme, from Latin protectio - protection, patronage) is the economic policy of the state aimed at protecting the national economy.
Within the framework of the policy of protectionism, it is assumed that the protection of certain sectors of the domestic economy is necessary for a certain period in order to facilitate the organized restructuring of production. However, there is a danger that such protection will become permanent if it serves the interests of the business or political community.
Protectionism involves any government measures to protect the industry of your country from foreign competition. It is carried out through direct or indirect restrictions on the import of foreign goods, which reduce their competitiveness in comparison with goods of national production. Protectionism is characterized by financial encouragement of the national economy, stimulation of the export of goods. Protectionism protects mainly the development of industry, sometimes agriculture.
Protectionism arose during the period of initial capital accumulation (XVI-XVIII centuries). The theoretical basis of protectionism was the doctrine of mercantilists, according to which the source of the country's wealth is the active trade balance, which ensures the flow of gold and silver into the country. Protectionism was widespread in France. In Russia, it first became widespread under Peter I. The idea of an active trade balance was put forward by I. T. Pososhkov.
The system of protectionism was defended by many major Western economists, among whom was, for example, the German economist F. List.
The economic usefulness of protectionism was defended by J. St. Mill, he advocated protective duties, especially in countries that have only recently embarked on the path of industrial development. JM Keynes, in his Treatise on Money, formulated the idea of protecting protectionist measures and their importance in increasing employment.
Thus, F. List, J. St. Mill and J.M. Keynes approached the problem of protectionism based on the patterns of development of countries in different historical periods.
2. The emergence of protectionism abroad
All developed countries have passed through the protectionist stage as an instrument of their development.
Despite the fact that England is considered to be a bastion of "free trade" and economic liberalism. However, the facts show that in the early stages of development in England there was a powerful system of protectionism and protectionism weakened as England acquired the status of an economic leader.
At a certain period, England tried to provide patronage to foreign shipowners and merchants. But this led to the fact that in the 17th century the Dutch took full control of the sea, and the products of the French industry rushed in a stream to England, which began to export almost exclusively one raw material, and mainly on foreign ships.
A turn for the better in foreign trade and industry began in England with the adoption in 1651 of Cromwell's radical protectionist law, which shielded British shipbuilding and other industries from foreign competition. Later, throughout the second half of the 17th and the entire 18th century, during the period of rivalry with the Netherlands, England was a country with a highly developed system of protectionism.
Under the protection of high customs duties on imports and administrative bans on the import into the country of fabrics, ships, etc. the industrial revolution was prepared and then carried out in England, and it turned from a secondary power in the commercial and political sense into an economic and political leader.
As England developed and strengthened its position in world trade, many restrictive laws and barriers were lifted. By the middle of the 19th century, England's economy had become the most open in the world. The implementation of the principle of "free trade" actually became for England during this period the exercise of the "right of the strong". This is evidenced by the then policy of encouraging the use of dumping prices. Factory dumping served the purpose of strengthening England's economic leadership by suppressing the development of national industries in other countries.
Protectionism has also played a major role in the economic history of the United States.
It is widely known that T. Jefferson's expression "The State is the Night Watchman" in a figurative form reflected the fundamental features of the US social structure and traditional American values, such as the principle of "aissez faire" - minimizing state intervention in the economy - and the free trade system. T. Jefferson's supporters argued that the best government is the one that controls the least.
However, at the same time as the "Jefferson Line" in American politics and social thought, there was the "Hamilton Line". Unlike T. Jefferson, A. Hamilton did not recognize personal interest as the organizing principle of society and consistently advocated an active role of the state in the economy. He wrote: "An unrestricted entrepreneurial spirit leads to violation of laws and arbitrariness, and ultimately to violence and war." In his Great program of the 90s of the eighteenth century. A. Hamilton called on the state "to provide funds only to those who are ready to use them under the control of society for the development of national production," thereby placing national interests above private interests. A. Hamilton's supporters saw in the national government effective tool to transform an agrarian country into a rapidly developing industrial power.
While at the level of public ideology and widely declared principles, the "Jefferson line" won, in the practice of political realities, in the organization of national statehood and economic life, as history shows, the "Hamilton line" won.
The United States has been a protectionist country with high customs barriers for nearly three-quarters of its history. The only periods of relatively low protectionist barriers were before the Civil War and after each of the world wars.
Even after the United States overtook England in labor productivity, new tariffs were introduced in 1890, raising the price of imported goods by an average of 50%, and in 1897 - up to 57%. These measures put a barrier in the way of many goods from England and other countries. British manufacturers then accused the United States of creating a "closed market" and "unfair" competition.
In the midst of the Great Depression in 1930, the Smoot-Hewley Act was passed in the name of protecting American producers, raising import tariffs by an average of 53%.
In general, for the period 1820-1940. the average level of import duties in the United States was about 40% of the customs value of goods.
It was only at the end of World War II that the United States changed its protectionist policy to a free trade policy and in 1947 began an active struggle to reduce tariff and non-tariff restrictions on trade through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It was at a time when the economy of its main competitors was destroyed by the war that the United States became the country with the lowest trade barriers and, wanting to consolidate its position as the sole economic leader (in the early 1950s, the United States accounted for 40% of world production), advocated the creation of a free world market.
In France, the pursuit of an active protectionist policy is associated with the name of J. Colbert, who in the 1660s-1680s. actually controlled the entire internal politics of the country. The economic policy he pursued, which later received the name "colbertism", was a kind of mercantilism and consisted in ensuring an active trade balance by encouraging industry, creating manufactories, increasing the export of industrial products and the import of raw materials, and reducing the import of foreign-made finished products. In 1667, Colbert introduced a new customs tariff that sharply increased duties on the import of foreign goods. On his initiative, monopoly companies for foreign trade were created. Colbert authorized large-scale government funding for the construction and improvement of roads, canals, and a manifold increase in the number of ships of the merchant and navy. All these measures proved to be an effective means of accelerating economic development and strengthening the economic power of France.
Protectionism was central to Bismarck's policy in Germany. In the 20th century after World War II, protectionism was productively used for industrialization by Japan, South Korea and many other countries.
3. Arguments for and against protectionism
The principle of protectionism has a number of advantages that make the policy of government control over foreign trade attractive to many countries. The most common reason for the restriction of foreign trade is the fact that the governments of individual countries think in terms of national interests, and not the interests of humanity as a whole. The following arguments are usually put forward in favor of protectionism.
First, protection is necessary to prevent the disappearance of newly emerging industries that are unable to withstand the reality of international competition. Markets thus fenced off can attract capital that will participate in the development of the national industry;
Second, protectionism is useful in that it can increase employment by enabling development programs. But on condition that the measures of protectionism do not provoke a response from foreign partners. In the short term, it can improve the terms of trade, forcing foreign producers to bear protectionist costs;
Third, the protectionist policy of the state protects industry during the period of its emergence and development.
Fourth, protectionism increases the level of use of national resources.
Fifth, protectionism, by applying import duties, thereby improves the terms of trade and increases economic benefits.
Sixth, protectionism helps alleviate the crisis in those industries that are experiencing negative problems in their economic development.
Seventh, protectionism is applied in emergency conditions (in case of a balance of payments crisis; when it is necessary to introduce tariffs for the restrictions of another country; when there is a need to protect the national economy from unfair competition of foreign economic entities, etc.).
Eighth, in general, protectionism can be viewed as a way to protect national independence in sectors that are most important from the point of view of security (steel production, chemical industry), a way to protect certain social strata (farmers) or some depressed regions (there is a lag in industrial sectors), as a way to protect the standard of living (fight against competition from NIS with cheap labor).
Also, the most popular argument in favor of pursuing a protectionist policy is that of a young industry. Protectionism can be an effective means of stimulating the development of a new industry that can significantly increase a country's welfare, but which cannot begin to develop if it is not protected from import competition. Over time, given adequate security, such an industry can achieve internal economies of scale (that is, lower costs due to the exploitation of a large internal market) and benefit from various positive externalities (well-trained workforce or learning-in-production effects).
Ultimately, the new industry may become equal or even more efficient than its foreign competitors. Once the industry has become competitive, protectionist measures in relation to it can be canceled.
The downside to protecting new industries with protectionist measures is the fact that industries in need of trusteeship are often chosen not on the basis of comparative advantage, but for political reasons. However, the protection provided may be excessive and last longer than necessary.
Criticism of protectionism was conducted mainly to identify the negative aspects of the policy of protecting the national economy from foreign competition. The consequences of such a policy are clear, and they testify to the costs of protectionism.
First, protectionism undermines the foundations of national production in the long run, as it weakens the pressure from the world market for the development of entrepreneurial initiative. Routine, unwillingness to part with acquired privileges and received incomes according to the position take the upper hand over the desire for progress, innovations. The determination to surround oneself with protectionist barriers is often determined by non-national economic interests, but is the result of the pressure of powerful private interests, which enjoy the lobbying support of political and parliamentary circles.
Secondly, protectionism is harmful from the point of view of the consumer, which it forces to overpay for the goods and services he needs, and not only for imported goods subject to customs duties, but also for nationally produced goods, the release and sale of which is associated with a non-competitive pricing system.
Third, protectionism raises the risk of a chain reaction, because after protecting some industries, sooner or later, others will need to be protected.
Fourth, the fencing of national industries from foreign competition drives them ultimately into a protectionist trap, because if crutches were issued to strengthen such industries, then it is quite difficult to remove them without the risk of collapse. Thus, protectionism introduced as a temporary measure can become an integral attribute of long-term national economic policy.
Fifth, the policy of protectionism intensifies interstate rivalry and poses a potential threat to international stability and security. It weakens the bonds of interdependence between countries, restrains the development and deepening of the international division of labor, specialization and cooperation of production, generating at the same time enmity and mistrust towards each other.
4. Forms of protectionism
protectionism foreign trade competition
Modern protectionism of the developed capitalist states expresses primarily the interests of large national and international monopolies. The seizure, division and redistribution of markets for goods and capital are its main content. It is carried out with the help of a complex system of state-monopoly measures that control and regulate foreign trade. The strengthening of the internationalization of capitalist production and the further development of state-monopoly capitalism lead to the fact that, along with the traditional methods of border regulation, the use of domestic economic and administrative levers for protectionist purposes, as well as monetary and financial and monetary funds that restrict the use of foreign goods, is growing.
An integral part of modern protectionism is agrarian protectionism, which arose during the global agrarian crisis of the late 19th century, protecting the interests of national monopolies. Agrarian protectionism is a system of financial and legal measures of the state aimed at maintaining or increasing the income of entrepreneurs in agriculture and some other sectors of the agro-industrial complex.
The development of the processes of capitalist integration led to the emergence of a kind of "collective" protectionism, which is carried out with the help of concerted actions of groups of developed capitalist countries. An example is the foreign trade policy of the Common Market countries. A feature of modern protectionism is the adaptation of the trade policy of the capitalist states to the new situation in the world. The protectionism of developing countries is fundamentally different. Their foreign economic policy is aimed at protecting the emerging sectors of the national economy from expansion by the imperialist powers. This protectionism contributes to the achievement of economic independence of young sovereign states.
Let's highlight several forms of protectionism:
selective protectionism - directed against individual countries or individual goods;
sectoral protectionism - protects certain sectors (primarily agriculture, within the framework of agrarian protectionism);
collective protectionism - carried out by associations of countries in relation to countries that are not part of them;
hidden protectionism - carried out by methods of domestic economic policy.
Now, in the era of globalization and customs disarmament, protectionism as a general and predominant direction of foreign economic policy of certain countries, it would seem, is a thing of the past. But in fact, it has not completely disappeared, but only passed into another form - selective protectionism in relation to certain types and categories of goods.
Protectionism in Russia
Every time we talk about the ways out of the crisis for the country, one cannot fail to note the policy of protectionism, which in different periods of history and with varying degrees of effectiveness was used by states as one of the ways to protect national interests. There are cases when, at the stage of formation of the industry, its products are simply not able to compete with products from abroad. It is in this situation that protectionism is designed to support the most vulnerable sectors of the country, which may simply not survive without state support in difficult economic conditions. In addition, duties and taxes imposed by the state on the import of imported products are one of the sources of the country's budget revenues. Many economists believe that import restrictions are necessary to ensure national security.
However, excessive protectionism, on the one hand, assisting the development of domestic production, on the other, can lead to stagnation in the economy, increased monopoly and reduced competitiveness of national goods. The flip side of protectionism is the overpricing of products protected by high tariffs. The incentives for technological progress are weakened in industries that are protected from foreign competition. In addition, the retaliatory measures of the trading partner countries can cause damage to the national economy that exceeds its gain from customs protection measures.
Vasily Koltashov is the head of the Center for Economic Research of the IGSO, the author of a number of studies on economic and social issues, political science, psychology, history and culture. Journalist and analyst. In 2009 he released a book on the global economic crisis.
The writer, long before the global economic crisis was recognized as a fait accompli, predicted its course and far-reaching consequences. He revealed the deep causes of the crisis, its cyclical and at the same time systemic origin. The book provides answers to numerous relevant to modern society questions.
Vasily Koltashov's book also speaks of the protectionist policy of the Russian authorities in 2008-2009, as an insufficiently effective anti-crisis tool. The reason for the low efficiency of protective customs measures was their combination with a course to reduce the real incomes of the population, basic consumers in the economy.
According to him: “In 2009, Russia was increasingly called one of the world leaders in the application of protectionist measures. At the same time, the development of the crisis in the Russian Federation proceeded faster than in many other countries. The low utility of protective customs measures was explained by rapidly weakening domestic demand. The government increasingly protected domestic producers from external competitors, but did not care at all about supporting consumers. The collapse of the automotive industry created a threat of a new large wave of cuts in Russia, they were also likely in other economic sectors, the salaries of public sector employees were not planned to increase in 2010, and pensions were to increase slightly. Consumer inflation threatened to continue to devour the real income of the population. All this promised to result in a new contraction of the market, despite the growing protectionism. "
Over the two years of the crisis, protectionist policy in Russia has not become systemic. To a large extent, it was determined by the lobbying capabilities of companies, and not the desire of the authorities to support and expand the domestic market of the country. There was a contradiction between the interests of commodity exporters and enterprises working for domestic sales. In the interests of the former, the state devalued the ruble at the turn of 2008 and 2009 and sought to maintain a low level of wages. The latter were tried to calm down with protectionist concessions, while destroying their sales market. As oil prices rose in 2009, Russia’s transition to a “strong ruble policy” did not inspire comfort. The state reduced its investment activity (in 2010 capital investments were supposed to decrease by $ 4 billion), while in order to revive the economy, it needed to be increased.
The CER IGSO were convinced that Russia should continue to strengthen protectionism. The global crisis canceled the prospect of the country's accession to the WTO, which could only result in the collapse of its economy. In order to overcome the crisis, the priority for the state should have been the development of national production and the expansion of the domestic market, and not the maintenance of export-raw material monopolies. It was required to re-create the destroyed industries and to establish new technologically advanced industries with state participation. At the same time, the Russian market had to have reliable protection.
In the interests of supporting domestic producers, the Russian government in 2009 raised import duties on a number of goods. Duties on televisions were increased from 10% to 15%, on certain types of rolled metal - from 5% to 15%, unalloyed steel - from 5% to 20%, on pipes made of ferrous metals - from 5% to 15% and 20%. To support car manufacturers, protective duties were imposed on foreign cars. The duty rate for new or three-year vehicles was set at 30%. Vehicles those who served from three to five years were subject to a 35% customs duty. For older cars, the duty was even higher. The authorities vowed that such measures would be temporary. Foreign competitors were practically ousted from the Russian automotive market. However, the collapse of the industry was not stopped.
Dmitry A. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation believes that "protectionism in the global economy drives problems inward."
“The arrival of state property in most sectors of the economy should be seen as an inevitable, but short-term solution to the issue. At the same time, it is wrong to consider the decisions made at the end of last year as harmful. The measures taken during the development of the economic crisis were only a small addition to the huge array of protectionism that had accumulated in the previous period, ”the president said.
In 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said that the authorities would not allow "regional protectionism" in solving food problems.
Based on the above, the Russian government does not support the policy of protectionism.
Conclusion
Based on the results of the written work, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Protectionism is the economic policy of the state to protect the internal market. It consists in a system of measures to restrict and control foreign trade, to stimulate exports.
Protectionism undoubtedly remains a common phenomenon in the modern world and will remain so, despite the decline in level and scope. Moreover, in recent decades, the tools of modern economic theory have been actively used to search for new arguments in favor of protectionism, which to a certain extent "feeds" the anti-globalization movement.
The competitiveness of the Russian economy at this stage is lower than that of the economies of developed and even a number of developing countries. In this regard, there is a danger that Russia may take a place in the global world economy that does not reflect its true potential. This process can be influenced by protecting domestic production and the competitive environment through a policy of protectionism.
The most important area of protectionism at the present time should be an increase in the role of non-tariff restrictions and the selective nature of protectionist measures: it is not domestic production as a whole that is protected, but individual industries. Protectionist measures are increasingly being introduced as an element of structural policies aimed at adapting national producers to the ongoing changes in the global economy.
The role and significance of protectionism in today's economic environment continues to be significant. The state protective policy will allow the national economy to adapt faster and more efficiently to the conditions of the global economy.
List of used literature
1.Vechkanov G.S., Vechkanova G.R., Macroeconomics. - SPb .: Peter. 2008 .-- 240 p .: ill.
2.Ivashkovsky S.N. Macroeconomics. - M .: Delo, 2002 .-- 472 p.
.The crisis of the global economy. Koltashov V. - M: IGSO, 2009 .-- 448 p.
.The course of economic theory, ed. Chepurina M.N., Kiselevoy E.A. - ASA (Kirov), 2006 .-- 832 p.
.World Economy in the Age of Globalization: Textbook / O.T. Bogomolov. - M .: ZAO Publishing House "Economics", 2007. - 359 p.
6.World economy: textbook. / LS Padalkina, VV Klochkov, SV Tarasova [and others]; ed. I.P. Nikolaeva. - M.: TK Welby, Prospect Publishing House, 2007 .-- 240 p.
7.Smirnov P.Yu. World economy. Cribs - M: AST, 2009 .-- 64 p.
.Khmelev I.B. World economy: Educational-methodical complex. - M .: Ed. Center EAOI, 2009 .-- 360 p.
9.Cheat sheet on the world economy Tatarnikov E.A., Maksimchuk L.V. - M .: publishing house "Allel-2000", 2005. - 64 p.
Http://www.rusdoctrina.ru/page95676.html - Russian doctrine
Analytical online magazine "RPMonitor"
Tutoring
Need help exploring a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
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 for 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?
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 ones. 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 from that moment on, 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 are the goals of various states as a goal, turning towards protectionism? The features can be judged by the types of protection. There are two of them:
- 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).
- Temporary protection. It is 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:
- Selective protectionism. It implies protection from a specific product / state.
- Industry protectionism. This includes the protection of a specific area. economic life(for example, agriculture).
- Collective protectionism. This is understood as the mutual protection of several countries that have united in an alliance.
- 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 a non-tariff restriction. It means quotas, licensing, state procurements, various requirements for the presence of local components, technical charges, taxes and charges 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 is also one of 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 monitoring 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, it is important innovative development... Especially its importance grows with the gradual exhaustion of the potential for the effectiveness of other factors. should presuppose the creation of conditions under which the 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.
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 most complete 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 such a 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 research to the economic history of England. So, he wrote that at the end of the 17th 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. in a major exporter of grain.
How important was it for the development of the country? The findings of economic historians indicate that this was of immense 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 an 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 the implementation of industrialization, but the solution of more general economic and social problems.
In particular, as Charles 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 better technologies and more qualified personnel than 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, starting as early as 1690, when special import duties of 20% were introduced on a long list of goods, covering 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 countries 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 working 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, did not even have 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 these imports can be carried out by individuals hiding the objects of import among their personal belongings.
The second exception concerns the extractive industries. In accordance with 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., non-renewable resources of the country, 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 at that time was not 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 automotive production facilities in Russia. Of course, in most cases, so far it was only about assembly plants, but some of these companies have already begun to establish the production of components in Russia. These automobile 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 products of processing 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 should be higher than the duty on sawlogs, 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 should not be 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 the works on the theory of protectionism from circulation), 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 established 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 industries, 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. ...
Generally in effective system protectionism, the import tariff should increase as the degree of processing of products increases. In Russia, however, everything turned out the other way around. 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 for the creation of this and other similar industries in Russia. German economic historian W. Kirchner, who cites this example in his article, just draws attention to the indicated drawback of the Russian customs tariff. But this drawback (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%, despite the fact that 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 a customs tariff 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 ), subsequently, 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 by 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 mechanical 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, was 10 times lagging 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. General and uniform nature of customs protection
This principle of protectionism deserves a special mention. Liszt only mentions it in passing, and yet it is of great importance 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 the same eclecticism 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 is clear that in order to avoid paying duties, traders imported a significant part of Western European goods 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 across 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 privileges in relation to the customs regime provided to any territories, legal entities or individuals can lead to similar problems. 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 subject to severe punishment):
O Customs duties must be levied uniformly and in the same amount from any person who brings the goods into the country and at any point of border crossing, 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 border of the country is crossed. The introduction of 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 the general and uniform nature of customs protection, is not allowed.
Of course, this rule is also related to the problem of smuggling and corruption of the customs administration. 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 our own industry ... Even less should they be allowed as a means of seizing [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 ... 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 that are more effective measure, but loans and direct participation of the state in the establishment of certain enterprises.
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 their interests among officials. Unlike benefits and subsidies set individually, the country's customs tariff acts uniformly in relation to all subjects and is a 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, a trend has been observed around the world 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 of 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 compels 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 English factory owners suffer a temporary loss, but they are saved and compensate for their losses later in best 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 industry and economy of the country , 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 above disadvantages, is not able to provide such remarkable results. Modern experience can also testify to this. So, despite the wide 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 protection has always been 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 receive government subsidies or other privileges, which are an important element of the non-tariff system. The only "privilege" that any entrepreneur will receive under 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 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, with 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 poor 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. Establishment of the general level of fees
The theory and practice of protectionism has developed a fairly clear idea of what 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, a general import tariff of 50% was applied. In the United States, for almost 100 years, from 1865 to the early 1940s, the average level of import duties on taxable goods fluctuated in the range of 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 (the second half of the 17th century - the beginning of the 19th century), tariffs were at a very high, as a rule, 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 the level of import duties adopted by them (40-60%), undoubtedly, were 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 those cases when 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 imposed 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 unprecedented rapid industrial and economic growth in Western Europe and China, respectively.
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 = (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. Calculation 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 "screwdriver assembly" process 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 of 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 gains 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, in the course of 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 relevant studies show, in some cases it can be up to 75% of the retail price). The lack of competition for imports from domestic products of similar quality can contribute to the monopoly of trade intermediaries (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 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 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 the 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 obtained 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 ever greater 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 jump at the initial stage of the patronage 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 results 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, compared 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. Thus, according to K. Clarke, the population of Germany and Austria increased 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 XX 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 in 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 a free trade policy, 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 decline 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 time (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, presented in Section 3, confirm the existence of an interdependence between the government's 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 territories 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, on demographic growth and fertility is also influenced by immigration protectionism. 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.
Hence, protectionist system should not be limited only to customs regulation and only to the sphere of the economy. She should 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 past in the United States and Western Europe 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, combating various types of ethnic corruption and crime, including special departments for combating ethnic crime, etc.
4. The role of protectionism in state and nation-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 the 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 state 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 public 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 ineffectiveness.
At the same time, despite all this 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 needed - 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, no longer needed 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 managed 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 USA, 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 writes, “firms did not want take the risk and cost of innovation. "
Meanwhile, the crisis struck not only British industry, but also agriculture. Thus, grain production in Great Britain from 1865/74 to 1905/14. declined by 26%, despite population growth, and the country has become a major importer of this staple food. At the same time, Germany, in spite of approximately the same natural and climatic conditions as in England, but thanks to a patronizing policy during the same period, increased grain production by 2.2 times and in terms of its production in 1905/14. exceeded the UK by almost 9 times.
Something similar has been happening 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 de-industrialization 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 for the protection of the country's economy, 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 F. 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 industries, 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 a variety of 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 firms 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 non-trade remittances - 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 becoming increasingly important and makes it necessary to introduce appropriate measures of currency protectionism (restrictions on large non-commercial money transfers abroad), which serve 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 Necessary ").
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 for 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, and 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 USA 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 an excuse and an 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 protective 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 the 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. Moreover, the 5 most large 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" by various subsidiaries, which were often created precisely in order, under the guise of providing certain services, to transfer the profit of the holding company into the pockets of a narrow group of persons controlling it ... As a result of all these machinations, both 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.
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 each time was justified 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. A tremendous amount of work was done in relation to the construction industry, where the local monopoly was identified and eliminated. construction companies and suppliers of building materials, similar work was carried out in the housing and utilities sector. The activities of various industry associations were subjected to analysis and regulation 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 patent 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 monopoly structures, they had nothing like this. 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
(Protectionism)
Protectionism is a policy of protecting the domestic market from foreign competition
Protectionism, how the policy of protectionism is implemented, what are the methods and consequences of protectionism, non-tariff and trade protection
, definition
Protectionism is protection of the internal market from competing countries by regulating customs and tax barriers, reducing the competition of others countries in comparison with goods of national production. This policy was for the Russian Federation in the XIX-XX centuries. state it was forced to impose large taxes and customs taxes on foreign-made goods, thereby giving the opportunity to develop the national industry.
Protectionism is protection policy domestic market from foreign competition through a system of certain restrictions. On the one hand, such a policy contributes to the development of national production. On the other hand, it can lead to the strengthening of monopolies, stagnation and a decrease in the competitiveness of the economy.
Protectionism- this is of the state, consisting in the purposeful fencing domestic market from the receipt of foreign-made goods.
Protectionism (from Lat. protectio - cover, patronage) is state policy aimed at protecting the domestic market, on the one hand, and actively encouraging the entry of national companies into foreign markets, on the other.
Protectionism (French protectionnisme, from Latin ptotectio - protection, patronage) - this iseconomic policy state aimed at supporting the national economy.
Selective protectionism is protection against specific product, or against a specific state.
Industry protectionism is protection of a specific industry.
Collective protectionism is mutual protection of several countries united in a union.
Hidden protectionism is protectionism through non-customs methods.
Local protectionism is protectionism of products and services of local companies.
Green protectionism is protectionism through environmental law.
Corrupt protectionism is when statesmen act in the interests not of the mass voter, but of organized bureaucratic and financial groups.
Implementation of protectionism
Protectionism is carried out with the help of trade and political barriers that protect against the import of foreign goods, reduce their competitiveness in comparison with goods national production. For patronage characterized by financial incentives for the national economy, stimulation of the export of goods. V.I. businessmen different countries, sometimes between different factions businessmen country) "
The nature of the patronage and, accordingly, the means of trade politicians(prohibition of import, rates duties and structure duties s, quantitative restrictions, etc.) varied depending on the total economic policy held in a particular era. In the initial accumulation of capital and the emergence of capitalist relations, theorists and practitioners of patronage became mercantilists (see Mercantilism), who demanded that the state authorities protect domestic industry from foreign competition... protectionism was widespread in France (the protectionist tariffs of 1664 and 1667 by Colbert), the Austrian monarchy, many German states, Russian Federation- for the first time under Peter I. Customs protection played an important role in the development of manufactory and factory industry... Under the sign of Napoleonic patronage France led an economic struggle with England (see Continental Blockade, 1806-14). The era of pre-monopoly capitalism is characterized by "defensive" protectionism in most countries of Western Europe and the United States, aimed at protecting the national industry from a more developed industry. England, which carried out (from the 40s of the 19th century) politics"freedom trade"(see Free Trading). An in-depth analysis of patronage and free trade were given in their works by K. Marx and F. Engels. For period outgrowth capitalism the monopolistic stage is characterized by "offensive" protectionism, which protects not weak industries industry, and the most developed, highly monopolized. Its goal is to conquer the outside markets... Obtaining monopoly profits within the country makes it possible to sell goods on external markets at low, dumping prices.
Modern protectionism of the developed capitalist states expresses primarily the interests of large national and international monopolies. Capture, division and redistribution of markets for goods and capital constitute its main content. It is carried out with the help of a complex system of state-monopoly measures that control and regulate foreign trade. Strengthening the internationalization of capitalist production and the further development of state-monopoly capitalism lead to the fact that, along with the traditional methods of border regulation, the use of internal economic and administrative levers for protectionist purposes, as well as monetary and financial and monetary funds that restrict the use of foreign goods, is growing. An integral part of modern patronage is agrarian protectionism (arose during the global agrarian crisis of the late 19th century), which protects the interests of national monopolies.
Src = "/ pictures / investments / img1939774_Ryinok-protektsionizm.jpg" style = "width: 800px; height: 586px;" title = "(! LANG: Market, protectionism">!}
The development of the processes of capitalist integration has led to the emergence of a kind of "collective" patronage, which is carried out with the help of concerted actions of groups of developed capitalist countries. An example is the foreign trade policy of the Common Market countries (see European Economic Community). A feature of modern patronage is the adaptation of the trade policy of the capitalist states to the new situation in the world. The protectionism of developing countries is fundamentally different. Their foreign economic policy is aimed at protecting the emerging industries national economy from expansion by the imperialist powers. This protectionism contributes to the achievement of economic independence of young sovereign states.
Src = "/ pictures / investments / img1939751_Vneshnyaya_torgovlya_protektsionizm.jpg" style = "width: 800px; height: 659px;" title = "(! LANG: Foreign trade, protectionism" />!}
Protectionist measures
It is carried out through the introduction of a set of direct and indirect import restrictions - customs tariffs, contingency, non-tariff barriers, currency restrictions, compensation duties, internal taxes duties s, special regime of public procurement, "voluntary" restrictions exporting etc. The most important features of the import patronage of developed capitalist countries at the present time are the increasing role of non-tariff restrictions and the selective nature of protectionist measures - not domestic production as a whole is protected, but individual industries. Protectionist measures are increasingly being introduced as an element of structural policy aimed at adapting national producers to the changes taking place in the global economy. Development of integration processes led to the emergence of "collective patronage" - the formation of closed groupings, practicing protection of their markets from the goods of countries that are not part of this integration association of enterprises.
In economic theory, one of the main arguments of patronage is the criticism of the theory of foreign trade from the standpoint of protecting national welfare, which follows directly from the analysis of gains and losses. Profit from the application of export and import duties can be counter-duty to production and consumer losses arising from the distortion of the motives of behavior of both producers and consumers. However, such a case is also possible when profit 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 a market authorities, i.e. the ability of one or a group of sellers (buyers) in a country to influence prices exporting and / or prices import.
Pressure or policies and / or administrative restrictions imposed by government or political circles aimed at strengthening the position of domestic producers in comparison with foreign ones (as opposed to a free trade policy). Typical areas of protectionist activity include raising market prices for foreign goods, reducing costs for domestic producers, or restricting foreign producers' access to domestic goods. market of goods. Protectionism is driven by considerations of national security, the need for redistribution income in favor of disadvantaged groups of the population, dependence of tariffs on econ. potential; preservation of jobs, protection of new sectors of the economy, side effects on other sectors of the economy, maintenance of long-term trade policy, mutual income and alignment of "starting positions" and trade interests. The main means of patronage include duties, quotas, restrictions on duties of an administrative nature, subsidies and foreign exchange. Tariffs are imposed on goods imported into a country from abroad. Highest value customs tariffs USA reached in the XX century. after the adoption of the Smoot-Holi tariffs in 1930.
Quotas - quantitative restrictions on sales for importers in the domestic market for a certain period time. Recently, it has become common practice to conclude trade agreements or voluntary export restrictions. An example is the 1980 Agreement between USA and Japan on automobiles. Administrative restrictions are often included in the Customs Code. One form of such restrictions is the introduction of product standards. The provision of subsidies is sometimes associated with the industry or the export activity of the industry. These subsidies were received by the US shipbuilding industry and included credit programs, special tax incentives, and direct subsidies. Currency control restricts access to foreign currency required to purchase foreign goods. may be regulated by a central bank that purchases foreign currency in the national currency.
Haufbauer, Berliner and old man Elliot (in 1986) conducted research related to costs policy of protectionism in the United States in 31 cases, when the turnover exceeded 100 million dollars. and the US applied protectionist restrictions. Based on the results, annual losses consumers exceeded $ 100 million in all cases except six. Largest losses - $ 27 billion per year - were associated with patronage. in relation to the textile industry. Considerable losses suffered consumers also in connection with the protectionist measures against carbon steel (6.8 billion dollars), car(0.8 billion dollars) and dairy products (5.5 billion dollars). First of all, domestic producers were the winners, although foreigners also received significant profits. The cumulative losses to consumers are enormous. In 1982, the Company econ. Cooperation and Development Study analyzed the pros and cons of protectionist policies in OECD countries. The results show that expenses far outweigh the winnings.
History of protectionism
Originated in the era of primitive accumulation capital v Europe(XVI-XVIII centuries). The theoretical foundations were developed by mercantilists who associate the well-being of the state exclusively with the active balance of foreign trade. Subsequently, it began to give way to the principle of free trade. Justification is given in the works of the classics of political economy A. Smith and D. Ricardo. In modern conditions, the dominant trend is the liberalization of foreign trade, although some elements of patronage, especially in the field of protecting agriculture, are still preserved.
It is carried out with the help of trade and political barriers that protect the domestic market from the import of foreign goods, reduce their competitiveness in comparison with nationally produced goods. The patronage is characterized by financial encouragement of the national economy, stimulation of the export of goods. V. I. Lenin emphasized the connection between patronage and a certain historical structure of the social economy, with the interests of the dominant class in this system, based on the support of the government: “... the question of patronage and freedom of trade is a question between businessmen (sometimes between businessmen from different countries, sometimes between various fractions of businessmen of a given country) "
Protectionism is
The nature of patronage and, accordingly, the means of trade policy (prohibition of imports, duty rates and tariff structure, the number of duty restrictions, etc.) changed depending on the general economic policy pursued in a particular era. V the period of the initial accumulation of capital and the emergence of capitalist relations, theorists and practitioners of protectionism were mercantilists who demanded that the state authorities protecting the domestic industry from foreign competition. Protectionism was widespread during France(protectionist tariffs of 1664 and 1667 by Colbert), the Austrian monarchy, many German states, in Russian Federation- for the first time under Peter I. Customs protection played an important role in the development of the manufacturing and factory industries. Under the sign of Protectionism, Napoleonic waged an economic struggle against Britain
The era of pre-monopoly capitalism is characterized by "defensive" protectionism in most Western countries. Europe and the United States, aimed at protecting the national industry from the more developed industry of Britain, which (from the 40s of the 19th century) pursued a policy of "free trade". K. Marx and F. Engels gave a deep analysis of patronage and free trade in their works. The period of capitalism growing into the monopoly stage is characterized by "offensive" protectionism, which protects not weak industries from foreign competition, but the most developed, highly monopolized ones. Its goal is to conquer foreign markets. Obtaining monopoly profits inside the country makes it possible to sell goods in foreign markets at low, dumping prices
Modern protectionism of the developed capitalist states expresses primarily the interests of large national and international monopolies. The seizure, division and redistribution of markets for goods and capital are its main content. It is carried out with the help of a complex system of state-monopoly measures that control and regulate foreign trade. The strengthening of the internationalization of capitalist production and the further development of state-monopoly capitalism lead to the fact that, along with the traditional methods of border regulation, the use of domestic economic and administrative levers for protectionist purposes, as well as monetary and financial and monetary funds that restrict the use of foreign goods, is growing. An integral part of modern protectionism is agrarian protectionism (arose during the world agrarian crisis late 19th century), defending the interests of national monopolies.
Development processes capitalist integration led to the emergence of a kind of "collective" protectionism, which is carried out through the concerted actions of groups of developed capitalist countries. An example is the foreign trade policy of the Common Market countries. A feature of modern patronage is the adaptation of the trade policy of the capitalist states to the new situation in the world.
The protectionism of developing countries is fundamentally different. Their foreign economic policy is aimed at protecting the emerging sectors of the national economy from expansion by the imperialist powers. This Protectionism contributes to the achievement of economic independence of young sovereign states.
Disadvantages of protectionist policies
The disadvantages of protectionist policies are as follows.
Protectionism undermines the foundations of national production in the long term, as it eases the pressure from the world market to develop entrepreneurial initiative. Routine, unwillingness to part with the acquired privileges and the received benefits of the position take the upper hand over the striving for progress, innovations. The determination to surround oneself with protectionist barriers is often determined not by national economic interests, but is the result of the pressure of powerful private interests lobbied by political and parliamentary circles.
Protectionism is harmful from the point of view of the consumer, whom it makes to overpay for the goods and services he needs, and not only for imported goods that are subject to customs tax, but also for the subject of trade with the national customs tax, the release and sale of which are associated with a non-competitive pricing system.
Protectionism creates a chain reaction, because after protecting some industries, sooner or later, others will need to be protected.
The protection of national industries from foreign competition drives them ultimately into a protectionist trap, because if crutches were issued to strengthen such industries, then it is quite difficult to remove them without risk collapse. Thus, protectionism introduced as a temporary measure can become an integral attribute of long-term national economic policy.
Patronage policies intensify interstate rivalry and pose a potential threat to international stability and security. It weakens the bonds of interdependence between countries, restrains the development and deepening of the international division of labor, specialization and cooperation of production, generating at the same time enmity and mistrust towards each other.
Protectionism is
Benefits of protectionist policies
The socio-political advantages of patronage are as follows.
In maintaining the state security of the country, which in case of abandoning protectionist measures will be threatened by the narrow specialization of the economy. The latter exposes countries to high risk not only in the event of war, but also in periods of aggravation of international relations. Therefore, the country should develop its strategic types of production, primarily agriculture and the food industry, as well as industries necessary for national defense (some types of chemical industry, etc.). This is a compelling argument, especially when it comes to agriculture.
In defending higher living standards and higher wages in richer countries in their competition with countries where living standards are significantly lower.
In the possibility of preserving with its help some social classes and types of activity (for example, the peasantry, traditional national crafts), to prevent depression and recession (for example, in the coal industry, etc.).
In the possibility of achieving certain political goals in relations with other states. International economic sanctions against the USSR, which followed after the introduction of troops into Afghanistan, pursued the goal of ending military action and non-interference in the internal affairs of this country; sanctions against Serbia were one of the instruments of pressure on it to change its course towards Bosnia.
The economic arguments in defense of protectionist measures, which have a rational kernel, boil down mainly to considerations of maximizing the real income achieved through their application.
The first argument is that with the help of import duties the country can improve the terms of trade and increase the economic gain in terms of duties. However, this is possible only in a situation where the demand for a product is more elastic than it is, and then the price increase will fall mainly on the manufacturer, and the profit from the duty will replenish the state budget. In addition, the duty of this measure is necessary in order to:
The exporting country did not have the opportunity to enter other markets for its product;
Its factors of production could not be used to money issue alternative goods;
The decline in export earnings in exporting countries did not have an impact on demand on these goods in the importing country, which introduces a new tariff.
The second argument is that protectionist measures protect industry at the stage of its inception and growth. The third economic argument in defense of patronage is its role in raising the level of employment national resources.
However, the success of such a policy is unlikely if it is used not by one country, but by several. Stimulating own exporting by reducing import from other countries would sooner or later create a deadlock, since it would mean the termination of all trade.
The fourth argument in favor of patronage concerns an attempt to mitigate a crisis in industries experiencing economic difficulties. Significant changes in supply and demand in both the domestic and foreign markets can deliver a tangible blow to a number of industries.
National protectionism
The existence of states opposing each other puts before national governments the task of ensuring national interests, including through protectionist measures.
The main task of the state in the field of international trade is to help exporters export as much of their products as possible, making their goods more competitive in the world market and limiting imports, making foreign goods less competitive in the domestic market. Therefore, some of the methods state regulation is aimed at protecting the domestic market from foreign competitors and therefore refers primarily to imports. Another part of the methods has as its task the formation of the export.
Means for regulating foreign trade can take various forms, including both directly affecting the price of a product (tariffs, taxes, excise and other taxes, etc.), and limiting the value or quantity of an incoming product (quantitative restrictions, licenses, “voluntary »Export restrictions, etc.).
The most common means are customs tariffs, the purposes of which are to obtain additional funds (usually for developing countries), regulate foreign trade flows (more typical for developed countries), or protect national producers (mainly in labor-intensive industries).
That is why it is important to assess the efficiency of customs taxation, to give a general description of customs taxes, and also to analyze customs tariffs and customs taxable product items.
Among the numerous arguments in favor of imposing restrictions in general and customs and tariff protection in particular, the provision on the need to protect the emerging national industry is used. The meaning of the protection of the created industry comes down to the following. It is argued that the country has a comparative advantage in the production of a product, however, due to a lack of knowledge and a small initial volume of production, the industry cannot start it. release... Therefore, temporary protection is needed, as the industry is in its infancy. It is difficult to assume that the newly created industry can withstand the competition on an equal footing with the developed production of another country. Once the industry is able to reach a "mature" or "developed" level, to ensure mass production, protection can be lifted.
The challenge, however, is to select an industry that truly needs protection and has a comparative advantage. In the opposite case, the wrong development of certain industries and significant losses for society caused by the support of ineffective industries are possible. The protected industry usually retains the backwardness of production for a long time, its development is delayed, it becomes a burden for society, and production efficiency decreases. In fact, very often tariffs do not protect “young” industries, but, on the contrary, just old ones that are losing their competitiveness. Whether or not protection is introduced depends on the importance of the industry for the country's economy and on the political strength of the stakeholders. In the conditions of the modern Russian Federation, most of the old operating industries turn out to be uncompetitive in comparison with foreign manufacturers. They are protected. The main argument here is the threat of a decline in production. This, for example, explained the increase in duties on imports to the Russian Federation of foreign car at the second half duty 1993
In accordance with the definitions that exist in customs practice, patronage is understood as a given country that seeks to protect its internal market from the penetration of imports in the interests of developing domestic production and protecting domestic businessmen from foreign competition. Protectionism is carried out both by increasing the rates of import customs duties and by means of non-tariff measures of foreign economic customs duties.
The renowned economist Edwin J. Dolan understands patronage as any government measure aimed at protecting the country's industry from competition. Over the past four decades, the volume of world trade has increased dramatically. However, in addition to traditional tariffs, the so-called "neo-protectionism" arose, which led to the introduction of additional restrictions on world trade. Neoprotectionism employs such diverse economic mechanisms as “orderly trade contract”And“ voluntary export restrictions ”. The conclusion of such agreements often occurs under direct “forceful pressure”, backed up by the threat of imposing high tariffs or import quotas.
Modern protectionism is concentrated in relatively narrow areas. In the relations of developed countries with each other, these are the fields of agriculture, textiles, clothing and steel. In the trade of developed countries with developing countries - these are manufactured goods to developing countries. In the trade of developing countries among themselves, these are traditional export goods.
In the Russian Federation, discussions about the advantages and disadvantages of patronage and free trade began in the early 1990s. The international experience speaks in favor of opening the domestic market for foreign goods, which shows that protection from competition in itself often leads to the development of industries that are unable to compete on the world market. However, in the current situation in the national economy, this thesis is only partly true. Another statement can be opposed to it: the purposeful industrial policy of the state has taken on such proportions that it is impossible to give examples that would confirm that competitive industries arise exclusively according to the laws of the market.
The idea of free trade is based on the need to eliminate customs and other barriers to the movement of goods between countries. The case for free trade is based on economic analysis showing the gains from trade liberalization both for individual countries and for the entire world economy.
However, Professor N.N. Back in 1924, Shaposhnikov wrote that "free trade is the ideal of the future, but at present it is beneficial only for the country that has managed to outstrip other countries in its economic development." The essence of this statement is fully consistent with the current state of the economy of the Russian Federation. Currently, it is not possible to remove any protectionist barriers to the development of foreign trade, otherwise the country has the prospect of becoming a colony of countries with a developed market economy.
Therefore, arguments in favor of free trade are not always justified and even less applicable to our economic situation. In favor of maintaining protectionist measures in the near future, the following arguments can be made:
The need to ensure the economic security of the country;
The specifics of individual regions and the need for their support of protectionist measures by the state;
In the context of a decline in production - maintaining the necessary work places;
In conditions of economic collapse, protectionist customs measures will prevent the country from becoming an economic appendage of the developed countries of the world;
control src = "/ pictures / investments / img1939745_Protektsionizm_tamozhennyiy_kontrol.jpg" style = "width: 800px; height: 586px;" title = "(! LANG: Protectionism, customs control" />!}
Naturally, the listed arguments in defense of patronage are more related to the current economic situation in our country.
The customs tariff is a fundamental instrument of protectionist policy. Customs and tariff regulation - a set of customs and tariff measures used as a national trade and political toolkit for the regulation of foreign trade.
Interaction of protectionism and free trade in public policy
Free trade (English free trade) is direction in economic theory, politics and economic practice, proclaiming freedom of trade and non-interference of the state in the private sector of society.
Foreign trade of any state, as a rule, is based on mutual benefit. However, mutual benefit in foreign trade is not only a balance of export and import operations, but also a much broader problem of implementing a certain strategy of foreign economic relations of a particular country, which is always in unity with other economic relations. Although there are cases when foreign economic relations develop spontaneously, taking shape "de facto" as a result of spontaneous, poorly coordinated actions. A more preferable situation is considered in which foreign trade activities carry out this or that strategy deliberately.
The choice of a national foreign economic strategy is significantly influenced by both the general economic situation in the country and trends in the world economy, given the modern rapid internationalization of world economic relations, the expansion of world trade in goods and services, the development of international entrepreneurship, the growth in the number and increase in the scope of TNCs. Under these circumstances, the macroeconomic growth strategy of the nation state experiences strong influence an external factor determined by the role of foreign economic relations in the economic policy of the state. It is quite obvious that national foreign economic regulation cannot but experience, for example, the impact of such problems of modern world economy as aggravation of competition in the world market, growing imbalance of the balance of payments, huge external debt of many countries, economic and political instability in the countries of Eastern Europe, and above all in the countries of the former USSR.
The action of these factors gives rise to constant interaction in the foreign trade policy of national states of two trends: liberalism and patronage. Protectionism is a government policy aimed at protecting the domestic market from competitors, and often at capturing foreign markets. In contrast to this, the policy of liberalization (free trade) aims to open the domestic market to foreign goods, capital, labor, thereby increasing competition in the domestic market. And protectionism and reflect primarily the reaction of certain states to changes in the international division of labor, to events taking place in international economic relations. The history of international economic relations since the 19th century. indicates that for international trade was characterized by the alternation of periods of liberalism and patronage. So, the period from the second half of the XIX century. before wars 1914-1918 characterized by the dominance of free-trade policy and determined by the dominance of England as a great industrial and trading nation in the world market. It was during this period that the Navigation Acts were canceled and law on cereals (1866), concluded trade and diplomatic agreements between Napoleon and England, which included the article "On the most favored nation" (1860). The interwar period (1920-1939) was characterized by increased patronage throughout the world. So, in 1921, Britain adopted a customs law"On the protection of industry" and are signed with the countries of the British Commonwealth of the so-called Ottawa agreements establishing imperial preferences. The United States raised customs tariffs in 1922 and then in 1930. France has adhered to a contingent policy since 1931. The Republic of Germany began to pursue a policy of turning to autarky more and more definitely.
After the end of World War II world economy gradually embarked on a path leading to greater freedom of trade. In 1948, under the auspices of the United Nations, company GATT, serving as a discussion institution international trade and contributed to the reduction and consolidation of customs taxes. The solution of these tasks was facilitated by the creation of a customs tax community in the West and the emergence of the Customs Union within its framework, as well as the creation of the European Free Trade Association (1960). The adoption by the US Congress, at Kennedy's request, of the Trade Development Act (1962) gave the US President the right to negotiate with foreign states on the conclusion of agreements on significant tariff reductions. The Kennedy Round has become one of the most comprehensive multilateral trade treaties internationally. It ended in 1967 with the conclusion of important agreements providing for the reduction of customs duties by 35-40% within 5 years. Subsequent Tokyo customs duties also contributed to trade liberalization.
Protectionism is
In the 80s and 90s. In the general course of the liberalization of world trade in the foreign trade policy of the leading Western countries, the elements of patronage associated with the aggravation of international competition began to appear again. Despite the accomplishment of the GATT work on the liberalization of world trade, international trade remains one of the main directions of state regulation of the national economy.
The forms and methods of state regulation of foreign trade of individual states are largely the same, they have been worked out by long-term world practice, however, there are significant differences in the mechanisms of their use, depending on the prevalence of free trade, liberal, or protectionist orientation.
The free-trade model is inherently close to the policy of monetarism within a particular national economic system. It assumes that the market (world market) itself will be much better than any other regulator in dealing with the problems of balancing and mutually beneficial trade operations. For countries with economies in transition, the world market will ensure the integration of their national economies into the world economy and ensure the use of world scientific and technological achievements for the effective development of their national economy. State regulation in this case is carried out by methods of predominantly tariff regulation and measures that encourage the flow of goods and capital into the country.
Indeed, free trade fosters competition in domestic markets, forces enterprises to innovate by providing a wider choice of goods for consumers, and enables firms to fully exploit comparative advantages and achieve economies of scale. Moreover, free trade unleashes dynamic forces that seek to sustain economic growth by encouraging improvement and innovation, while protectionism increasingly inhibits these forces over time.
Free trade policy benefits every country, although not every country to the same extent and not all population groups. In the importing country, the gain arises due to the fact that the gains of consumers exceed the losses of producers, and in the exporting country the general increase in welfare is due to the gains of the producers, while the consumers bear the losses. In the case of trade liberalization in the short term, a decrease in employment may occur due to a decrease in incentives for the development of both import-substituting industries and, possibly, industries that are not directly involved in foreign trade, but which will be affected by the liberalization process. And even a sharp increase in employment in the export sector will not be able to immediately compensate for its decline in other sectors. Enterprises export sectors may not keep pace with absorbing labor released from other sectors, for example, due to delays in new investment or slow professional reorientation and limited labor mobility.
The implementation of the free-trade model in its pure form for transition economies is difficult due to a number of circumstances. First of all, because the post-socialist countries enter into competition in the world market in conditions that are obviously unequal in relation to developed countries, most sectors of the transition economies to one degree or another lag behind the level of development of the corresponding sectors in highly developed countries. The most primitive sectors - agriculture, mining and primary processing of raw materials and energy carriers - may be able to survive here. Developed countries could "strangle" these industries too, but they either do not have adequate natural resources and are interested in using them, or they prefer not to use "dirty technologies" on their territories. The experience of implementing this model in some developing countries has shown that the result of such a strategy is the preservation of the dependent position of national economies, the outflow of investments and qualified personnel.
Of course, there is an opportunity to first strengthen at least some branches of production, bringing them up to the level of the requirements of the world market. But in the process of pulling up, it would be necessary to protect them from more powerful rivals at the moment, and this is already an attempt on the sacred and unshakable principles of free competition and free trade. The experience of the "Asian tigers" and the Chilean economy of the Pinochet era does not confirm the implementation of the free-trade model in its purest form. For example, the formal free-trade of the Pinochet economy actually implied support from the state, primarily investments related to scientific and technological progress, as well as a policy of endless loans from Western creditors. As a result, the economy of the Republic of Chile made a step forward in technical re-equipment, but received a huge external one. As for the countries of the Pacific Rim, which managed to make a breakthrough in their economic development, here the free trade model existed rather as an ideological sign. In fact, a purposeful development of the economy was carried out under the protection of protectionist measures. Support measures extended to the creation of their own industry and post-industrial areas, such as education, capable of competing on equal terms in the world market. At the same time, the weakening of patronage, which was expressed in these countries in the creation of equal conditions for importers and exporters, in the reduction of restrictions on foreign trade and the use of the price mechanism instead of arbitrary decisions of the bureaucratic apparatus, inevitably led to an increase in GDP growth rates, which was the result of a reallocation of resources in favor of more efficient types of production. Growth size Gdp in this case, it depends both on the very nature of the reforms being carried out and on the scale of the redistribution of resources. So, in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, the growth Gdp amounted to 5-6%, and the growth of foreign trade 9-10% per year. At the same time, these indicators were achieved after the start of economic reforms in the countries of this region, and one of the reforms was the liberalization of foreign trade.
Protectionism in Russia
Already in the 17th century, when private manufactories had just appeared and the all-Russian market began to take shape, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich began to protect Russian merchants from external competition. His Trade Regulations (1653) imposed a higher tax on foreign business activities than those charged to Russians. In 1667, at the petition of the "Moscow state of merchants" who complained of insults from "visiting foreigners", the "Novotorgovy Charter" was published. He did not allow foreigners to trade everywhere, not at all times and not all types of goods.
During the reign of Peter I in 1719, Russia completely abandoned the state monopoly on all goods. A few years later, a customs tariff was adopted. It had a protective character. Low export tariffs were set. The amount of the duty on goods imported into the Russian Federation directly depended on the level of development of the issue of securities of additional duty in the state. If the ability to satisfy the demand for this product due to domestic production was high, then the duties were set high. In 1726, the volume of Russian exports was two times the duty, which was higher than the volume of merchandise imports. This was the policy of patronage in the Russian Federation.
This policy was continued by Peter, who helped the domestic industry as best he could. The Petrovsky customs tariff of 1724 significantly limited imports. On the other hand, Russian manufacturers could bring the tools and materials they needed from abroad duty-free. Moreover, the treasury provided subsidies to breeders, helped with raw materials and labor, finally, just built enterprises"Turnkey", and then transferred (did not sell, namely transferred, and free of charge) to private individuals.
Peter's successors acted in the same spirit. If some ruler weakened the patronage of businessmen and lowered duties on the import of foreign goods, then life sooner or later forced him to change duties. Or he left an unkind memory in his descendants. For example, like Anna Ioannovna, whose customs tariff of 1731 significantly relaxed the conditions for the import of foreign products. But Elizabeth and Catherine II supported Russian industry. The customs tariffs issued under these empresses in 1757, 1766 and 1782 set high duties on foreign goods, the analogues of which were produced in the Russian Federation. And the import of taxes from them (, linen, leather) was not allowed at all.
Protectionism is
Alexander I went even further. The "Regulations on natural trade for 1811 in the ports of the White, Baltic, Black and Azov seas and along the entire western land border" (1810), published under him, prohibited the import of all (yes, yes, exactly all!) Finished industrial products into the Russian Federation ... But it was allowed to import duty-free. True, in the tariff of 1819, Alexander removed all these restrictions and established low customs taxes. However, already in 1822, he was supposed to return to the policy of protectionism, which was continued by his brother, Nicholas I. Both brothers, Alexander and Nikolai, surrounded industrial activity with extraordinary honor. For the development and improvement of production, they awarded merchants with orders and medals. The prestigious titles of Manufactures and Commerce Advisers were introduced. Since 1829, All-Russian industrial and art exhibitions have been regularly held. The best domestic goods were presented there. Nikolai personally met with the participants in these events, trying to take their opinion into account when developing domestic and foreign policies.
A small example. 1833, May. The emperor invites the participants of the III industrial exhibition not just anywhere, but to his place, to the Winter Palace. There are tables for five hundred people. The king did not disdain to seat one of the merchants next to him. It was a manufactory advisor, a cloth manufacturer Ivan Nazarovich Rybnikov. Throughout lunch, Nikolai enthusiastically discussed the needs of Russian industry with him. Tellingly, Rybnikov first of all started talking about import duties. The tsar and the merchant quickly agreed that they needed to be further increased, which would be beneficial "for the fatherland and all estates in the state." An effective measure to encourage domestic production, used by all emperors- from Alexander I to Nicholas II - there were government orders. Back in 1811, Alexander I ordered to use in public places only those sealing wax and paper that were made in the Russian Federation. And in the future, purchases of any products for state needs were primarily carried out from Russian businessmen.
Heavy industry was surrounded by special care in the Imperial Russian Federation. Private enterprises in this industry received generous loans from the state. If the owner of the plant got into a mess, the treasury did not allow the enterprise to perish and acquired it. This happened, for example, with the famous steel plant of the engineer Obukhov.
With visible support from the state, private organization in the era of Alexander II, the European Russian Federation was covered with a dense network of railways. The scale of railway construction was so great that Russian heavy industry could not satisfy all of its needs. Therefore, in 1868, duties on steam locomotives, rolling stock were abolished, duties on and duties were reduced. But as soon as the main railways entered the sling duty taxation began to rise again.
Alexander III already pursued a policy of pronounced patronage. He increased import duties in 1881, 1882, 1884, 1885, 1886. In 1889, his finance minister, Vyshnegrposti, carried out a reform of railway tariffs, which led to an even greater rise in the cost of imports. Carrying cargo from borders and ports to the center of the Russian Federation now cost significantly more than transporting goods in the opposite direction. The culmination of the protectionism policy of the domestic industry was the customs tariff of 1891. He set super-high import duties: from 33 to 100% of the product price. And for some products and that bopdutyspan>
The result was not long in coming. In the 1890s, Russian industry experienced a tremendous upsurge. Thanks to the tireless cares of the tsar-father, this frail child grew stronger and matured. But any grown-up child sooner or later begins to be burdened by parental care. The same thing happened with Russian capital. Moreover, Alexander III sometimes stroked him against the fur. What was it worth one worker of the 1880s!
A law of 1882 restricted the use of child and female labor (so beneficial to factory owners!). The law of 1886 strictly defined the procedure for issuing wages, levying fines, hiring and firing workers. To supervise the implementation of these decisions, a special "factory inspection" was established, which caused a real commotion among the capitalists.
The autocracy sought to regulate not only the relationship between businessmen and workers, but also other important areas of company activity. For example, the acquisition of real estate by them. And the very establishment of any joint-stock company (JSC), according to the law of 1836, required a special government permit (by approving the charter). Extraction of minerals ("mining industry") was especially strictly controlled. This national economy was under the jurisdiction of the Mining Department and was regulated by the Mining Regulations. The businessmen considered the specified document outdated, as did the entire mining company. They considered the preservation of the system of mountainous districts (which were under the watchful control of the state) and "possessional" (conditional) land tenure as a symbol of inertia in this area (primarily in the Urals). Lands on the ownership right could not be alienated from the plant to which they were assigned, which, of course, seriously limited the owner's freedom. As the journal "Industry and Trade" complained in 1913, "The Urals are still sealed for the application of industrial energy by their own right."
The newspaper mouthpiece of businessmen was also dissatisfied with the fact that the treasury, being the largest landowner, determined the development of its subsoil by private individuals with very strict requirements for them. "Having furnished their bosom such prohibitions, the treasury itself hardly explores them and develops very poorly, ”the magazine complained. However, when the state nevertheless developed deposits and was engaged in economic activities, this also aroused discontent among the authors of "industry and trade", and the entrepreneurial elite as a whole. Her sentiments were expressed by the chairman of the Council of Congresses of Industry and Trade Representatives N.S. Avdakov, who unequivocally spoke in favor of transferring the state-owned mining industry to private hands.
Protectionism is
In general, the mining owners have accumulated many complaints about the economic policy of the autocracy. But, of course, most of all they were irritated by the government control over entrepreneurial activities for the development of underground subsoil... In this regard, "industry and trade" wrote: "Anyone who tried to show industrial initiative knows that every case in our country is shrouded in a dense network of permissive - or, rather, prohibitive - system - a system associated with endless red tape, with going through the courts , with interdepartmental circular irresponsibility, turning, in the end, an industrialist into an ingratiating intercessor. "
Two troubles of world trade: protectionism and restrictive measures:
Protectionism is
Reasons for resentment against the state were not only among the miners, but also among businessmen belonging to the discriminated national and religious minorities. First of all, we are talking about the Jews. The Pale of Settlement limited their place of residence to the western provinces. True, since 1860 they could enroll in merchant guilds in all localities of the Russian Federation and obtain a residence permit there. However, since 1882, they were prohibited from owning land and other real estate in rural areas (i.e. outside cities), regardless of whether they were within the Pale of Settlement or not. And this greatly impeded their business activity. Moreover, these restrictions also applied to foreigners of the Jewish faith. And from 1887 this prohibition extended to all foreigners and all foreign firms. True, only in the border regions (Kingdom of Poland, Belarus, Volhynia, the Baltic States, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, Turkestan, the Far East). But it was there that foreign entrepreneurs most often aspired to. So the foreigner also had reason to wish for a regime change in the Russian Federation. Merchants-Old Believers who wanted religious freedom for their fellow believers can also be ranked among the dissatisfied. Finally, one more circumstance must be taken into account. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the first merchant generation began to enter life, graduating from gymnasiums and higher educational institutions. Oppositional sentiments prevailed among the students there. Therefore, the merchant's offspring, having received a higher education, often acquired a skeptical and hostile attitude towards the authorities, atypical for their fathers and grandfathers, and a sympathetic attitude towards the opponents of autocracy.
Protectionism is
Taking into account all of the above, we will no longer be surprised that, despite the tsarist concern for industry, some businessmen in 1901-1905. financed opposition campaigns and supported calls to curtail autocracy. True, the stormy year of 1905 nevertheless sobered the majority of business people. They appreciated the fact that the autocracy, fighting the revolution, was able to protect their property and security. This led to the loyalty of the majority of the bourgeoisie to the state in 1905-1909. However, the excesses of the revolution were gradually forgotten, and the tight control of the authorities in the economic sphere became more and more irritating. Ceased to suit the bourgeoisie and the government's financial policy. Businessmen wanted to reduce the tax burden that had increased after the Russo-Japanese War and the Revolution. To be honest, it wasn't that big. There was no mention of value added tax or tax back then. Even income tax and that was not. But even a small increase in taxes increased the initial cost of production, and in Russian conditions this was fraught with collapse. On the other hand, the business community demanded an increase in government spending on the renovation of the infrastructure necessary for business development (ports, communication lines). Indeed, for a private trader, these costs were unaffordable. And in response, Finance Minister Kokovtsov spoke about the need to live within our means and maintain a balance of the budget.
But when Count Kokovtsov lost his post (as well as the prime minister's chair) in 1914, this did not bring relief to the Russian capitalists. The "renewed course" of the next chairman of the Council of Ministers Goremykin and Minister of Finance Bark was expressed in an even greater strengthening of state intervention in the economy. The businessmen's cup of patience was filled with the publication of the Rules on April 18, 1914, which limited the rights of joint-stock companies to acquire land. On May 6, 1914, the newspaper "Morning of the Russian Federation", owned by the famous Moscow capitalist old believer Ryabushinsky, wrote: “We are at the limit of the possible. The impossible goes further. "
However, the representatives of the mining and light industry grumbled about it. The captains of heavy industry, as a rule, showed loyalty to the autocracy, including in the last years of its existence (during the First World War). Not surprising. Heavy industry has always been in a privileged position, especially during the World War. Naturally, during this period, heavy industry enterprises were loaded with government orders. In addition, they had priority access to energy resources, and their workers received armor from being drafted to the front.
The mining industry (primarily fuel producers) is a completely different matter. After the outbreak of the First World War, the sword of Damocles of government requisitions and state distribution of their products was constantly hanging over them. The light industry also found itself in an unenviable position in the first war year. Due to government opposition, businessmen working for the "civilian market" did not receive sufficient access to production resources (fuel, raw material, which went to state military needs), nor to military orders. In addition, industrialists suffered great losses because of the conscription of their workers into the army. All this contributed to the growth of opposition sentiments among the captains of the light industry (mainly the Old Believers, headed by P.P. Ryabushinsky).
At the end of May 1915, Ryabushinsky's newspaper "Morning of the Russian Federation" put forward the slogan "mobilization of industry" (in fact, the transfer of all enterprises to the category of defense enterprises). This meant that workers would be attached to their factories (in other words, they would avoid being sent to the front), and businessmen would receive military orders and favorable conditions for their implementation. At the request of the leaders of the light industry in Moscow (and in particular P.P. Ryabushinsky), the question of "mobilization" was raised bluntly at the IX Congress of Industry and Trade Representatives (May 26-29, 1915) and was supported by its participants.
The tsarist government went to meet the business community. Ryabushinsky's initiative to "mobilize industry" was embodied in the creation of "military-industrial committees." These were non-governmental companies controlled by the capitalists. They distributed orders of the military department between private enterprises. For Ryabushinsky and his associates, the military-industrial committees were important not only in terms of their economic profit, but also as a political springboard for an attack on power. The famous Old Believer capitalist dreamed of uniting all businessmen in union to fight the autocracy. However, he did not succeed. For heavy kings industry the break with the state was disastrous. Therefore, they not only did not join the enemies of the regime, but created their own firm, loyal to the government. In February 1916, they convened the I Congress of representatives of the metalworking industry, the chairman of the Council of which was the right-wing Octobrist A.D. Protopopov. Soon he was close to the royal family, and in September 1916 he was appointed head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
As for the miners, they took a neutral position in 1916. They did not make loud statements and defiantly shunned politicians. Well, Moscow captains of light industry in 1916 began to form an entrepreneurial business combination oppositional character. In the second half of March 1916, the manufacturers P.P. Ryabushinsky and A.I. Konovalov began mailing letters addressed to large capitalists from different cities with an invitation to join the "commercial and industrial the union».
It turned out, however, that even in Moscow many industrialists are very wary of attempts to draw them into opposition activities. This was shown by a preliminary meeting on the firm of the Trade and Industrial Union, held by the merchant S.N. Tretyakov. Most of the invited businessmen simply did not show up for the meeting. Those who came, according to data police, “preferred to listen, avoiding expressing their attitude to the idea business associations", And" it was quite obvious that the political motives of this trust do not cause much enthusiasm. " The general mood, according to the police agent, was expressed by the publisher I.D. Sytin, who said: "The commercial and industrial class is not averse to uniting, forming into a powerful all-Russian company, but he has not the slightest desire to go in this regard, on the aid of the intelligentsia." At the same time, Sytin expressed his fear that "the merger of enterprises will come to their own head, the amalgamation of enterprises against their own interests." Speaking about the relationship between the opposition intelligentsia and businessmen, he said: "They have one task, we have another."
Financial vocabulary
PROTECTIONISM- (protectionism) The view that restricting international trade is a desirable policy. Its purpose may be to prevent unemployment or loss of production capacity in industries threatened by imports, to promote ... Economic Dictionary
Protectionism- (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) selfish patronage provided to someone by a person or group of persons in power. P. leads to the emergence of a privileged circle of persons, the cultivation of conformism, ... ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia - (protectionism) State policy that involves the use of import duties, quotas and other restrictions in order to protect national entrepreneurs from foreign competition. Before resorting to such a policy, governments ... ... Business glossary
protectionism- patronage. Ant. obstruction Dictionary of Russian synonyms. protectionism n., number of synonyms: 1 overprotectionism (1) ... Synonym dictionary
Protectionism- - state policy aimed at supporting domestic producers by restricting imports. There are several options for pursuing protectionist policies. First, it is the introduction of import duties on goods and services. ... ... Banking Encyclopedia Read more We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this. OK
Protectionism- economic patronage of the state, manifested in the protection of the domestic market of their country from the penetration of foreign goods, as well as in the promotion of exports in foreign markets.
It aims to stimulate development and protect it from foreign competition through tariff and non-tariff regulation.
In the context of the intensifying process, the task of developing an adequate protectionist policy in order to increase the competitiveness of Russian goods on the international and national markets becomes extremely important. The intensification of state policy in certain areas will allow domestic enterprises to quickly and efficiently adapt to post-crisis conditions development of the global economy.
In different periods of history, state economic policy has been leaning in the direction of freedom of trade, then in the direction of protectionism, never, however, taking any of the extreme forms. but absolutely open economy, in the course of the functioning of which, without restrictions, the movement of goods, labor, technologies and across national borders would take place, has not had and does not have any state... In any country, the government regulates the international circulation of resources. The openness of the economy presupposes the priority consideration of national economic interests.
The dilemma of which is better - protectionism, which makes it possible to develop national industries, or freedom of trade, which allows direct comparisons of national production costs with international ones - are the subject of centuries of debate among economists and politicians. In the 1950s and 1960s, the international economy was characterized by a departure from protectionism towards increased liberalization and freedom of foreign trade. Since the early 1970s the opposite tendency appeared - countries began to fence themselves off from each other increasingly sophisticated tariff and especially non-tariff barriers, protecting your home market from foreign competition.
The protectionist policy pursues the following goals:- permanent protection from foreign competition strategic sectors of the domestic economy(for example, agriculture), in the event of damage to which the country would be vulnerable to war;
- temporary protection relatively newly established industries domestic economies until they are strong enough to compete successfully with similar industries in other countries;
- responding to protectionist policies by trading partners.
- selective protectionism - protection from a specific product, or protection from a specific state;
- sectoral protectionism - protection of a certain industry (primarily agriculture within the framework of agricultural protectionism);
- collective protectionism - mutual protection of several countries united in a union;
- hidden protectionism - protection using non-customs methods, including methods of domestic economic policy.
Contemporary protectionist policies
The states, pursuing a protectionist policy, use customs-tariff and non-tariff restrictions. The main task of the government in the field of international trade is help exporters to export as much of their products as possible by making their products more competitive in the international market, and restrict imports by lowering the competitiveness of foreign goods in the domestic market... Some of the methods of state regulation are aimed at protecting the domestic market from foreign competition and are primarily related to imports. Another group of methods, respectively, has the goal of forcing exports.
The classification of tariff and non-tariff instruments of protectionism policy is presented in Table. 1.
Table 1. Classification of trade policy instruments.|
Methods |
Trade Policy Instrument |
Regulate predominantly |
||
|
Tariff |
Customs duties |
|||
|
Tariff quota |
||||
|
quantitative |
Quotas |
|||
|
Licensing |
||||
|
Voluntary restrictions |
||||
|
State procurements |
||||
|
Content requirement |
||||
|
local components |
||||
|
Technical barriers |
||||
|
Taxes and fees |
||||
|
financial |
Export subsidies |
|||
|
Export crediting |
||||
In accordance with the decision of the Commission customs union EurAsEC from January 1, 2010 in the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation introduced a unified commodity nomenclature for foreign economic activity of the customs union (TN VED CU) and a Unified Customs Tariff.
Meanwhile, there are a number of specific problems associated with tariffs. Thus, the tariff rate may turn out to be so high that it may cut off imports altogether. From here the problem of finding the optimal tariff level ensuring the maximization of national economic welfare. The average level of tariff rates is currently 11%. Is it a little or a lot? The weighted average level of import customs tariffs fell from 40-50% in the late 1940s. up to 3-5% at present. Due to the fact that Russia is going to join the WTO, 11% is only the first step towards reducing tariff regulation.
Over the past decades the role of customs tariffs has noticeably weakened... However, the degree of state influence on international trade did not decrease, but, on the contrary, increased due to the expansion use of non-tariff restrictions... The system of non-tariff regulation, adopted in developed countries, works most effectively. According to experts, more than 50 methods of non-tariff regulation are used... These include technical norms, sanitary standards, a complex system, government procurement, etc.
The Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation until 2020 says: "The goal of state policy is to create conditions for increasing the competitiveness of the economy." Tasks solved by the government of the Russian Federation on key development issues, including increasing national competitiveness, can be supplemented and refined based on an analysis of the country's position in world rankings. Studying the opinion of international experts allows us to identify the existing opportunities and limitations for, look at the main problems of the country's development from different points of view.
low government debt (this is largely due to the favorable external economic situation in the commodity markets)
Wide range of bank loans
Higher education and training, 45
The quality of education in mathematics and science, the quality of the education system, the number of persons with additional education
Training of employees, availability of specialized research services, quality of the management school, accessibility of the Internet
Innovations, 57
The number of researchers and engineers, the quality of research and development institutes, the costs of companies for research and development (R&D)
Use of advanced technologies at the government level, cooperation between higher education and production, opportunities for the development and implementation of innovations
Healthcare and primary education, 60
Impact of HIV / AIDS and malaria on business, quality of primary education
Life expectancy, incidence of tuberculosis, primary education costs, proportion of schoolchildren among school-age children, infant mortality
Infrastructure, 65
Number of railway transport places, quality of railway infrastructure, length of telephone lines
Road quality, quality of infrastructure, quality of aviation infrastructure, quality of power supply, quality of ports
The competitiveness of the economy of the Russian Federation at this stage of development is lower than that of developed economies and even some. In this regard, there is a danger that Russia may take a place globally that does not reflect its true potential, and both, and turn into a supplier of resources for industrialized countries. Meanwhile, this process can be influenced by protecting domestic production and the competitive environment through a policy of protectionism.
So, for state policy and state support, the following areas are currently relevant:
- ... In 2009, the State Duma approved in the third reading the draft laws constituting the second antimonopoly package of laws. The amendments to the Federal Law "On Competition" are aimed at further protecting the national manufacturer and developing competition in Russia, toughening sanctions for violating antimonopoly legislation, as well as revising existing provisions. Antimonopoly regulation should be aimed at improving legislation in relation to natural monopolies, as well as increasing the efficiency of the Federal Antimonopoly Service.
- Customs tariff regulation: introduction of new technologies of customs administration within the framework of the Customs Union-2010, focus on reducing the weighted average customs tariff.
- Non-tariff regulation: expanding the use of non-tariff regulation methods that are implemented within the framework of administrative management, in particular, support for the export of high-tech products, services and technologies.
- Innovative development... In the long term, especially in the context of the depletion of the efficiency potential by other factors, innovations will acquire exceptional importance for raising the standards and quality of life of the population. The innovation policy presupposes the creation of conditions for increasing the innovative activity of Russian companies and the share of investments directed to the introduction of qualitatively new products and technological processes.
- Small and Medium Business Support... As part of the administrative reform, it is planned to reduce administrative barriers, reduce the list of licensed activities, and simplify the registration procedure.
- Formation of an investment-attractive environment, reducing the total tax burden on business entities. In the long term (2020), tax policy is aimed at reduction of Russian tax revenues to 33% of GDP.
In the context of Russia's inclusion in world economic processes, the regulatory function of the state acquires special significance for solving problems related to the formation of a competitive environment, with structural restructuring, creating conditions for economic growth and increasing the competitiveness of the national economy.
The most important areas of protectionism should now become increasing the role of non-tariff restrictions and the selective nature of protectionist measures: it is not domestic production as a whole that is protected, but individual industries. Protectionist measures are increasingly being introduced as an element of structural policies aimed at adapting national producers to the ongoing changes in the global economy.
The role and significance of protectionism in today's economic environment continues to be significant. The state protective policy will allow the national economy to adapt faster and more efficiently to the conditions of the global economy.
Related Articles
