IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/125859.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

England and Portugal, cloth and wine: evidence for comparative advantage or infant industry?

Author

Listed:
  • Ward, Charley

Abstract

In 1703, the Methuen Treaty removed duties on the exchange of English cloth for Portuguese wine, the trade later immortalised by David Ricardo’s use of it to explain his theory of comparative advantage. While Ricardo described Portugal as productively superior in both goods, he showed how specialisation and trade could still produce a higher level of output and mutual benefits. Ever since, Ricardo’s theory has been used by neoclassical economists as a theoretical tool to assert the logic of free trade. However, a subset of political economists, including Friedrich List, deny that trade liberalisation is always good for growth. These scholars have re-historicised the exchange of English cloth for Portuguese wine, finding that the Methuen Treaty ruined Portugal’s domestic textile industry and left them with a “slow-growing export market for wine.”1 This paper examines historical accounts of the Methuen Treaty and Anglo-Portuguese trade to assess the accuracy of the mainstream and heterodox characterisations of Ricardo’s classic example. It uses articles from prominent 19th and 20th century British, Portuguese, and Brazilian historians to develop a coherent narrative of the circumstances that produced the Methuen Treaty. Ultimately, this paper finds that the treaty was one event in a series that impeded the growth of Portuguese domestic industry, inflated their trade deficit, and produced wealth for the English. This reveals how Ricardo’s theory obscures a very simple insight: that some specialisations are better than others.

Suggested Citation

  • Ward, Charley, 2024. "England and Portugal, cloth and wine: evidence for comparative advantage or infant industry?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125859, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:125859
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125859/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robinson, Joan, 1977. "What Are the Questions?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 1318-1339, December.
    2. Krugman, Paul R, 1987. "Is Free Trade Passe?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 131-144, Fall.
    3. Paul A. Samuelson, 1969. "Presidential Address The Way of an Economist," International Economic Association Series, in: Paul A. Samuelson (ed.), International Economic Relations, pages 1-11, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Matthew Watson, 2017. "Historicising Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory, challenging the normative foundations of liberal International Political Economy," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 257-272, May.
    5. Prebisch, Raúl, 1950. "The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 29973, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sèna Kimm Gnangnon, 2023. "Do unilateral trade preferences help reduce poverty in beneficiary countries?," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 249-288, February.
    2. Fugarolas, Guadalupe & Mañalich, Isis & Matesanz, David, 2007. "Are Exports Causing Growth? Evidence On International Trade Expansion In Cuba, 1960-2004," MPRA Paper 6323, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Rekiso, Zinabu Samaro, 2020. "Trade deficits as development deficits: Case of Ethiopia," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 344-353.
    4. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2021. "Do Unilateral Trade Preferences Help Reduce Poverty in Beneficiary Countries?," EconStor Preprints 247346, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. Moritz Böhmecke-Schwafert & Knut Blind, 2023. "The trade effects of product market regulation in global value chains: evidence from OECD and BRICS countries between 2000 and 2015," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 441-479, May.
    6. Waterbury, John, 1999. "The Long Gestation and Brief Triumph of Import-Substituting Industrialization," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 323-341, February.
    7. Kutuk, Yasin, 2022. "Inequality convergence: A world-systems theory approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 150-165.
    8. Justin Yifu Lin, 2017. "Industrial policies for avoiding the middle-income trap: a new structural economics perspective," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 5-18, January.
    9. Weck-Hannemann, Hannelore, 1989. "Protectionism in direct democracy," Discussion Papers, Series II 79, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    10. Blanco, Luisa & Grier, Robin, 2012. "Natural resource dependence and the accumulation of physical and human capital in Latin America," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 281-295.
    11. David Colman, 2010. "Agriculture's terms of trade: issues and implications," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Justin Yifu Lin & David Rosenblatt, 2012. "Shifting patterns of economic growth and rethinking development," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 171-194, September.
    13. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee & Tsangyao Chang & Zahra (Mila) Elmi & Omid Ranjbar, 2018. "Re-testing Prebisch–Singer hypothesis: new evidence using Fourier quantile unit root test," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 441-454, January.
    14. Margaret A. Walls, 1990. "Welfare Cost Of An Oil Import Fee," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 8(2), pages 176-189, April.
    15. Nouf Alsharif & Sambit Bhattacharyya & Maurizio Intartaglia, 2016. "Economic Diversification in Resource Rich Countries: Uncovering the State of Knowledge," Working Paper Series 09816, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    16. Olle Östensson & Anton Löf, 2017. "Downstream activities: The possibilities and the realities," WIDER Working Paper Series 113, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Teixidó-Figueras, J. & Duro, J.A., 2014. "Spatial Polarization of the Ecological Footprint Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-106.
    18. Tromben, Varinia & Jiménez, Juan Pablo, 2006. "Fiscal policy and the commodities boom: the impact of higher prices for non-renewables in Latin America and the Caribbean," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), December.
    19. Andre Nassif & Carmem Aparecida Feijo & Eliane Araújo, 2016. "Structural change, catching up and falling behind in the BRICS: A comparative analysis based on trade pattern and Thirlwall’s Law," PSL Quarterly Review, Economia civile, vol. 69(279), pages 373-421.
    20. Giovanni Dosi & Andrea Roventini & Emmanuele Russo, 2020. "Public Policies And The Art Of Catching Up," Working Papers hal-03242369, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F10 - International Economics - - Trade - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:125859. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.