| Economics |
|
Economies by region
|
| General categories |
|---|
|
History of economic thought Methodology · Mainstream & heterodox |
| Technical methods |
|
Game theory · Optimization Computational · Econometrics Experimental · National accounting |
| Fields and subfields |
|
Behavioral · Cultural · Evolutionary |
| Lists |
|
Journals · Publications |
| Business and Economics Portal |
Mercantilism is the economic doctrine in which government control of foreign trade is of paramount importance for ensuring the prosperity and security of the state. In particular, it demands a positive balance of trade. Mercantilism dominated Western European economic policy and discourse from the 16th to late-18th centuries.[1] Mercantilism was a cause of frequent European wars in that time and motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory varied in sophistication from one writer to another and evolved over time. Favors for powerful interests were often defended with mercantilist reasoning.
Mercantilist policies have included:
Jean-Baptiste Colbert's work in seventeenth century France exemplified classical mercantilism. In the English-speaking world its ideas were criticized by Adam Smith with the publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and later David Ricardo with his explanation of comparative advantage, but policy changes did not follow in either's lifetime, even in Britain. Mercantilism reached its low-water mark in the last half of the nineteenth century as the British Empire embraced free-trade and used its power as the financial center of the world to promote the same.
Neomercantilism is distinguished from traditional mercantilism by its adoption of the ideas and methods of neoclassical economics.
Mercantilism in its simplest form was naive bullionism, but mercantilist writers emphasized the circulation of money and rejected hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of a growing money supply. Specie concerns have since been rendered moot by fiat money and floating exchange rates. In time, the heavy emphasis on money was supplanted by industrial policy, accompanied by a shift in focus from the capacity to carry on wars to promoting general prosperity. Mature neomercantilist theory recommends selective high tariffs for "infant" industries or to promote the mutual growth of countries through national industrial specialization. Currently, advocacy of mercantilist methods for maintaining high wages in advanced economies are popular among workers in those economies, but such ideas are rejected by most policymakers and economists.
Contents |
Mercantilism was the dominant school of thought in Europe throughout the late Renaissance and early modern period (from the 15th-18th century). Mercantilism encouraged the many intra-European wars of the period and arguably fueled European expansion and imperialism — both in Europe and throughout the rest of the world — until the 19th century or early 20th century.
Arguments have been made for the historical promotion of mercantilism in Europe since recorded history, with authors noting the trade policies of Athens and its Delian League specifically mention control of value of trade in bullion as necessary for the promotion of the Greek polis. Additionally, the noted competition of medieval monarchs for control of the market town trade and of the spice trade, as well as the copious documentation of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa regarding control of the Mediterranean trade of bullion clearly points to an early understanding of mercantilistic principles. However, as a codified school, mercantilism's real birth is marked by the Empiricism of the Renaissance, which first began to quantify large-scale trade accurately.
England began the first large-scale and integrative approach to mercantilism during the Elizabethan Era (1558–1603). An early statement on national balance of trade appeared in Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England, 1549: "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them."[2] The period featured various but often disjointed efforts by the court of Queen Elizabeth to develop a naval and merchant fleet capable of challenging the Spanish stranglehold on trade and of expanding the growth of bullion at home. Queen Elizabeth promoted the Trade and Navigation Acts in Parliament and issued Orders in Council to her Admiralty for the protection and promotion of English shipping. A systematic and coherent explanation of balance of trade was made public through Thomas Mun's c.1630 "England's treasure by forraign trade, or, The balance of our forraign trade is the rule of our treasure"[3]
These efforts organized national resources sufficiently in the defense of England against the far larger and more powerful Spanish Empire, and in turn paved the foundation for establishing a global empire in the 19th century. The authors noted most for establishing the English mercantilist system include Gerard de Malynes and Thomas Mun, who first articulated the Elizabethan System, which in turn was then developed further by Josiah Child. Numerous French authors helped cement French policy around mercantilism in the 17th century. This French mercantilism was best articulated by Jean-Baptiste Colbert (in office, 1665–1683), though policy liberalised greatly under Napoleon.
In Europe, academic belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, especially in England, in light of the arguments of Adam Smith and the classical economists. The repeal of the Corn Laws by Robert Peel symbolised the emergence of free trade as an alternative system. Mercantilism never returned to popularity among economists as the principle Comparative Advantage shows the gains from international trade. However, during the Great Recession countries raised tariffs in an attempt to protect their industries, sharply reducing world trade.
Most of the European economists who wrote between 1500 and 1750 are today generally considered mercantilists; this term was initially used solely by critics, such as Mirabeau and Smith, but was quickly adopted by historians. Originally the standard English term was "mercantile system". The word "mercantilism" was introduced into English from German in the early 19th century.
The bulk of what is commonly called "mercantilist literature" appeared in the 1620s in Great Britain.[4] Smith saw English merchant Thomas Mun (1571–1641) as a major creator of the mercantile system, especially in his posthumously published Treasure by Foreign Trade (1664), which Smith considered the archetype or manifesto of the movement.[5] Perhaps the last major mercantilist work was James Steuart’s Principles of Political Economy published in 1767.[4]
"Mercantilist literature" also extended beyond England. For example, Italy, France, and Spain produced noted writers of mercantilist themes including Italy's Giovanni Botero (1544–1617) and Antonio Serra (1580-?); France's, Jean Bodin, Colbert and other physiocrats precursors; and the Spanish School of Salamanca writers Francisco de Vitoria (1480 or 1483–1546), Domingo de Soto (1494–1560), Martin de Azpilcueta (1491–1586), and Luis de Molina (1535–1600). Themes also existed in writers from the German historical school from List, as well as followers of the "American system" and British "free-trade imperialism," thus stretching the system into the 19th century. However, many British writers, including Mun and Misselden, were merchants, while many of the writers from other countries were public officials. Beyond mercantilism as a way of understanding the wealth and power of nations, Mun and Misselden are noted for their viewpoints on a wide range of economic matters.[6]
The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:[7]
Other than Von Hornick, there were no mercantilist writers presenting an overarching scheme for the ideal economy, as Adam Smith would later do for classical economics. Rather, each mercantilist writer tended to focus on a single area of the economy.[8] Only later did non-mercantilist scholars integrate these "diverse" ideas into what they called mercantilism. Some scholars thus reject the idea of mercantilism completely, arguing that it gives "a false unity to disparate events". Smith saw the mercantile system as an enormous conspiracy by manufacturers and merchants against consumers, a view that has led some authors, especially Robert E. Ekelund and Robert D. Tollison to call mercantilism "a rent-seeking society". To a certain extent, mercantilist doctrine itself made a general theory of economics impossible. Mercantilists viewed the economic system as a zero-sum game, in which any gain by one party required a loss by another.[9] Thus, any system of policies that benefited one group would by definition harm the other, and there was no possibility of economics being used to maximize the "commonwealth", or common good.[10] Mercantilists' writings were also generally created to rationalize particular practices rather than as investigations into the best policies.[11]
Mercantilist domestic policy was more fragmented than its trade policy. While Adam Smith portrayed mercantilism as supportive of strict controls over the economy, many mercantilists disagreed. The early modern era was one of letters patent and government-imposed monopolies; some mercantilists supported these, but others acknowledged the corruption and inefficiency of such systems. Many mercantilists also realized that the inevitable results of quotas and price ceilings were black markets. One notion mercantilists widely agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the working population; laborers and farmers were to live at the "margins of subsistence". The goal was to maximize production, with no concern for consumption. Extra money, free time, or education for the "lower classes" was seen to inevitably lead to vice and laziness, and would result in harm to the economy.[12]
The mercantilists saw a large population as a form of wealth which made possible the development of bigger markets and armies. The opposing doctrine of physiocracy predicted that mankind would outgrow its resources.
Scholars debate over why mercantilism dominated economic ideology for 250 years.[13] One group, represented by Jacob Viner, argues that mercantilism was simply a straightforward, common-sense system whose logical fallacies could not be discovered by the people of the time, as they simply lacked the required analytical tools.
The second school, supported by scholars such as Robert B. Ekelund, contends that mercantilism was not a mistake, but rather the best possible system for those who developed it. This school argues that mercantilist policies were developed and enforced by rent-seeking merchants and governments. Merchants benefited greatly from the enforced monopolies, bans on foreign competition, and poverty of the workers. Governments benefited from the high tariffs and payments from the merchants. Whereas later economic ideas were often developed by academics and philosophers, almost all mercantilist writers were merchants or government officials.[14]
Monetarism offers a third explanation for mercantilism. European trade exported bullion to pay for goods from Asia, thus reducing the money supply and putting downward pressure on prices and economic activity. The evidence for this hypothesis is the lack of inflation in the English economy until the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars when paper money was extensively used.
A fourth explanation lies in the increasing professionalisation and technification of the wars of the era, which turned the maintenance of adequate reserve funds (in the prospect of war) into a more and more expensive and eventually competitive business.
Mercantilism developed at a time when the European economy was in transition. Isolated feudal estates were being replaced by centralized nation-states as the focus of power. Technological changes in shipping and the growth of urban centers led to a rapid increase in international trade.[15] Mercantilism focused on how this trade could best aid the states. Another important change was the introduction of double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting. This accounting made extremely clear the inflow and outflow of trade, contributing to the close scrutiny given to the balance of trade.[16] Of course, the impact of the discovery of America cannot be ignored. New markets and new mines propelled foreign trade to previously inconceivable heights. The latter led to “the great upward movement in prices” and an increase in “the volume of merchant activity itself.”[17]
Prior to mercantilism, the most important economic work done in Europe was by the medieval scholastic theorists. The goal of these thinkers was to find an economic system that was compatible with Christian doctrines of piety and justice. They focused mainly on microeconomics and local exchanges between individuals. Mercantilism was closely aligned with the other theories and ideas that were replacing the medieval worldview. This period saw the adoption of the very Machiavellian realpolitik and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations. The mercantilist idea that all trade was a zero sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integrated into the works of Thomas Hobbes. The dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world, and some of the most stridently mercantilist legislation, such as the Navigation Acts, were enacted by the government of Oliver Cromwell.[18]
Mercantilist ideas were the dominant economic ideology of all of Europe in the early modern period, and most states embraced it to a certain degree. Mercantilism was centered in England and France, and it was in these states that mercantilist polices were most often enacted.
Mercantilism arose in France in the early 16th century, soon after the monarchy had become the dominant force in French politics. In 1539, an important decree banned the importation of woolen goods from Spain and some parts of Flanders. The next year, a number of restrictions were imposed on the export of bullion.[19]
Over the rest of the sixteenth century further protectionist measures were introduced. The height of French mercantilism is closely associated with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for 22 years in the 17th century, to the extent that French mercantilism is sometimes called Colbertism. Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in order to increase exports. Protectionist policies were enacted that limited imports and favored exports. Industries were organized into guilds and monopolies, and production was regulated by the state through a series of over a thousand directives outlining how different products should be produced.[20]
To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported. Colbert also worked to decrease internal barriers to trade, reducing internal tariffs and building an extensive network of roads and canals. Colbert's policies were quite successful, and France's industrial output and economy grew considerably during this period, as France became the dominant European power. He was less successful in turning France into a major trading power, and Britain and the Netherlands remained supreme in this field.[20] Due to its popularity at the time Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was banned due to its criticism of government control present in Mercantilism.[21]
In England, mercantilism reached its peak during the 1340-1789 Long Parliament government (1640–1660). Mercantilist policies were also embraced throughout much of the Tudor and Stuart periods, with Robert Walpole being another major proponent. In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament.[22] Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War, but were often controversial.[23]
With respect to its colonies, British mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other empires. The government protected its merchants—and kept others out—by trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling—which became a favorite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses, so that gold and silver would pour into London. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The government spent much of its revenue on a superb Royal Navy, which not only protected the British colonies but threatened the colonies of the other empires, and sometimes seized them. Thus the British Navy captured New Amsterdam (New York) in 1664. The colonies were captive markets for British industry, and the goal was to enrich the mother country.[24]
British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary. British mercantilism thus mainly took the form of efforts to control trade. A wide array of regulations was put in place to encourage exports and discourage imports. Tariffs were placed on imports and bounties given for exports, and the export of some raw materials was banned completely. The Navigation Acts expelled foreign merchants from England's domestic trade. The nation aggressively sought colonies and once under British control, regulations were imposed that allowed the colony to only produce raw materials and to only trade with Britain. This led to friction with the inhabitants of these colonies, and mercantilist policies (such as forbidding trade with other empires and controls over smuggling) were a major irritant leading to the American Revolution.
Over all, however, mercantilist policies had a positive impact on Britain helping turn it into the world's dominant trader, and an international superpower. One domestic policy that had a lasting impact was the conversion of "waste lands" to agricultural use. Mercantilists felt that to maximize a nation's power all land and resources had to be used to their utmost, and this era thus saw projects like the draining of The Fens.[25]
The other nations of Europe also embraced mercantilism to varying degrees. The Netherlands, which had become the financial center of Europe by being its most efficient trader, had little interest in seeing trade restricted and adopted few mercantilist policies. Mercantilism became prominent in Central Europe and Scandinavia after the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), with Christina of Sweden, Jacob Kettler of Courland, Christian IV of Denmark being notable proponents. The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors had long been interested in mercantilist policies, but the vast and decentralized nature of their empire made implementing such notions difficult.
Some constituent states of the empire did embrace Mercantilism, most notably Prussia, which under Frederick the Great had perhaps the most rigidly controlled economy in Europe. During the economic collapse of the seventeenth century Spain had little coherent economic policy, but French mercantilist policies were imported by Philip V with some success. Russia under Peter I (Peter the Great) attempted to pursue mercantilism, but had little success because of Russia's lack of a large merchant class or an industrial base.
Mercantilism was economic warfare and was well suited to an era of military warfare.[26] Since the level of world trade was viewed as fixed, it followed that the only way to increase a nation's trade was to take it from another. A number of wars, most notably the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the Franco-Dutch Wars, can be linked directly to mercantilist theories. Most wars had other causes but they reinforced mercantilism by clearly defining the enemy, and justified damage to the enemy's economy.
Mercantilism fueled the imperialism of this era, as many nations expended significant effort to build new colonies that would be sources of gold (as in Mexico) or sugar (as in the West Indies), as well as becoming exclusive markets. European power spread around the globe, often under the aegis of companies with government-guaranteed monopolies in certain defined geographical regions, such as the Dutch East India Company or the British Hudson's Bay Company (operating in present-day Canada).
Adam Smith and David Hume were the founding fathers of anti-mercantilist thought. A number of scholars found important flaws with mercantilism long before Adam Smith developed an ideology that could fully replace it. Critics like Hume, Dudley North, and John Locke undermined much of mercantilism, and it steadily lost favor during the 18th century.
In 1690, John Locke argued that prices vary in proportion to the quantity of money. Locke's Second Treatise also points towards the heart of the anti-mercantilist critique: that the wealth of the world is not fixed, but is created by human labor (represented embryonically by Locke's labor theory of value). Mercantilists failed to understand the notions of absolute advantage and comparative advantage (although this idea was only fully fleshed out in 1817 by David Ricardo) and the benefits of trade.[27]
For instance, suppose Portugal was a more efficient producer of both wine and cloth than England, yet in England it was relatively cheaper to produce cloth compared to wine. Thus if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth, both states would end up better off if they traded. This is an example of the reciprocal benefits of trade due to a comparative advantage. In modern economic theory, trade is not a zero-sum game of cutthroat competition because both sides can benefit.
Hume famously noted the impossibility of the mercantilists' goal of a constant positive balance of trade. As bullion flowed into one country, the supply would increase and the value of bullion in that state would steadily decline relative to other goods. Conversely, in the state exporting bullion, its value would slowly rise. Eventually it would no longer be cost-effective to export goods from the high-price country to the low-price country, and the balance of trade would reverse itself. Mercantilists fundamentally misunderstood this, long arguing that an increase in the money supply simply meant that everyone gets richer.[28]
The importance placed on bullion was also a central target, even if many mercantilists had themselves begun to de-emphasize the importance of gold and silver. Adam Smith noted at the core of the mercantile system was the "popular folly of confusing wealth with money," bullion was just the same as any other commodity, and there was no reason to give it special treatment.[29] More recently, scholars have discounted the accuracy of this critique. They believe Mun and Misselden were not making this mistake in the 1620s, and point to their followers Josiah Child and Charles Davenant, who, in 1699, wrote: "Gold and Silver are indeed the Measure of Trade, but that the Spring and Original of it, in all nations is the Natural or Artificial Product of the Country; that is to say, what this Land or what this Labour and Industry Produces."[30] The critique that mercantilism was a form of rent-seeking has also seen criticism, as scholars such Jacob Viner in the 1930s point out that merchant mercantilists such as Mun understood that they would not gain by higher prices for English wares abroad.[31]
The first school to completely reject mercantilism was the physiocrats, who developed their theories in France. Their theories also had several important problems, and the replacement of mercantilism did not come until Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. This book outlines the basics of what is today known as classical economics. Smith spends a considerable portion of the book rebutting the arguments of the mercantilists, though often these are simplified or exaggerated versions of mercantilist thought.[14]
Scholars are also divided over the cause of mercantilism's end. Those who believe the theory was simply an error hold that its replacement was inevitable as soon as Smith's more accurate ideas were unveiled. Those who feel that mercantilism was rent-seeking hold that it ended only when major power shifts occurred. In Britain, mercantilism faded as the Parliament gained the monarch's power to grant monopolies. While the wealthy capitalists who controlled the House of Commons benefited from these monopolies, Parliament found it difficult to implement them because of the high cost of group decision making.[32]
Mercantilist regulations were steadily removed over the course of the Eighteenth Century in Britain, and during the 19th century the British government fully embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics. On the continent, the process was somewhat different. In France economic control remained in the hands of the royal family and mercantilism continued until the French Revolution. In Germany mercantilism remained an important ideology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the historical school of economics was paramount.[33]
In spite of Adam Smith's repudiation of mercantilism, prominent figures continued to favor it: in the U.S., the likes of Alexander Hamilton,[34] Henry Clay, Henry Charles Carey, and Abraham Lincoln; and in Britain Thomas Malthus. When Britain passed its Corn Laws in 1815, Malthus thought such restrictions were a good idea, but Ricardo disagreed. Eventually Smith's view was accepted in the English-speaking world, and in 1849 the corn laws were repealed largely on "Free Market" arguments given by Sir Robert Peel.
Adam Smith rejected the mercantilist focus on production, arguing that consumption was the only way to grow an economy. John Maynard Keynes argued that encouraging production was just as important as consumption. Keynes also noted that in the early modern period the focus on the bullion supplies was reasonable. In an era before paper money, an increase for bullion was one of the few ways to increase the money supply. Keynes and other economists of the period also realized the balance of payments is an important concern. Since the 1930s, all nations have closely monitored the inflow and outflow of capital, and most economists agree that a favorable balance of trade is desirable. Keynes also supported government intervention in the economy as necessity, as did mercantilism.[35]
As of 2010[update], the word "mercantilism" remains a pejorative term, often used to attack various forms of protectionism.[36] The similarities between Keynesianism, and its successor ideas, with mercantilism have sometimes led critics to call them neo-mercantilism. Indeed, Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, defended mercantilism, writing: "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."[37]
Some other systems that do copy several mercantilist policies, such as Japan's economic system, are also sometimes called neo-mercantilist.[38] In an essay appearing in the 14 May 2007 issue of Newsweek, business columnist Robert J. Samuelson argued that China was pursuing an essentially mercantilist trade policy that threatened to undermine the post-World War II international economic structure.[39]
Murray Rothbard, representing the Austrian School of economics, describes it this way:
| “ | Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state. Thus, mercantilism held exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged.[40] | ” |
In one area economists rejected Smith well before Keynes: in the use of data. Mercantilists, who were generally merchants or government officials, gathered vast amounts of trade data and used it extensively in their research and writing. William Petty, a strong mercantilist, is generally credited with being the first to use empirical analysis to study the economy. Smith rejected this, arguing that deductive reasoning from base principles was the proper method to discover economic truths. Today, many schools of economics accept that both methods are important.
In specific instances, protectionist mercantilist policies also had an important and positive impact on the state that enacted them. Adam Smith himself, for instance, praised the Navigation Acts as they greatly expanded the British merchant fleet, and played a central role in turning Britain into the naval and economic superpower from the 18th Century onward.[41] Some economists thus feel that protecting infant industries, while causing short-term harm, can be beneficial in the long term.
Nonetheless, the publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776 had a profound impact on the end of the mercantilist era and the later adoption of free-market policy. By 1860, England removed the last vestiges of the mercantile era. Industrial regulations, monopolies and tariffs were withdrawn.
Reverse-mercantilism[42][43] is an economic system which strives to increase corporate wealth and monopoly by subsidizing some corporate entities while regulating, taxing and controlling borders (blocking outsourcing and creating tariffs) for all competitors.
|
|||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||