Search

Begin New Search Topic International Trade and Finance Author Jeffrey G. Williamson

1. Ottoman De-Industrialization 1800-1913: Assessing the Shock, Its Impact and the Response

Author:
Jeffrey G. Williamson and Şevket Pamuk
Publication Date:
02-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
India and Britain were much bigger players in the 18th century world market for textiles than was Egypt, the Levant and the core of the Ottoman Empire, but these eastern Mediterranean regions did export carpets, silks and other textiles to Europe and the East. By the middle of the 19th century, they had lost most of their export market and much of their domestic market to globalization forces and rapid productivity growth in European manufacturing. Other local industries also suffered decline, and these regions underwent de-industrialization as a consequence. How different was Ottoman experience from the rest of the poor periphery? Was de-industrialization more or less pronounced? Was the terms of trade shock bigger or smaller? How much of Ottoman de-industrialization was due to falling world trade barriers—ocean transport revolutions and European liberal trade policy, how much due to factory-based productivity advance in Europe, how much to declining Ottoman competitiveness in manufacturing, how much to Ottoman railroads penetrating the interior, and how much to Ottoman policy? The paper uses a price-dual approach to seek the answers. It documents trends in export and import prices, relative to each other and to non-tradables, as well as to the unskilled wage. The impact of globalization, European productivity advance, Ottoman wage costs and policy are assessed by using a simple neo-Ricardian three sector model, and by comparison with what was taking place in the rest of the poor periphery.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, and Markets
Political Geography:
Britain, Europe, Turkey, India, and Egypt

2. Globalization and the Great Divergence: Terms of Trade Booms and Volatility in the Poor Periphery 1782-1913

Author:
Jeffrey G. Williamson
Publication Date:
02-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
W. Arthur Lewis argued that a new international economic order emerged between 1870 and 1913, and that global terms of trade forces produced rising primary product specialization and de-industrialization in the poor periphery. More recently, modern economists argue that volatility reduces growth in the poor periphery. This paper assess these de-industrialization and volatility forces between 1782 and 1913 during the Great Divergence. First, it argues that the new economic order had been firmly established by 1870, and that the transition took place in the century before, not after. Second, based on econometric evidence from 1870-1939, we know that while a terms of trade improvement raised long run growth in the rich core, it did not do so in the poor periphery. Given that the secular terms of trade boom in the poor periphery was much bigger over the century before 1870 than after, it seems plausible to infer that it might help explain the great 19th century divergence between core and periphery. Third, the boom and its de-industrialization impact was only part of the story; growth-reducing terms of trade volatility was the other. Between 1820 and 1870, terms of trade volatility was much greater in the poor periphery than the core. It was still very big after 1870, certainly far bigger than in the core. Based on econometric evidence from 1870-2000, we know that terms of trade volatility lowers long run growth in the poor periphery, and that the negative impact is big. Given that terms of trade volatility in the poor periphery was even bigger during the century before 1870, it seems plausible to infer that it also helps explain the great 19th century divergence between core and periphery.
Topic:
Economics, Globalization, International Trade and Finance, and Poverty
Political Geography:
Global Focus