We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Meissner, Christopher M. 2014.
Chilosi, David Murphy, Tommy E. Studer, Roman and Tunçer, A. Coşkun 2013. Europe's many integrations: Geography and grain markets, 1620–1913. Explorations in Economic History, Vol. 50, Issue. 1, p. 46.
Feuerstein, Switgard 2013. From the Zollverein to the Economics of Regionalism. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Vol. 233, Issue. 3,
Flandreau, M. 2013. Sovereign states, bondholders committees, and the London Stock Exchange in the nineteenth century (1827-68): new facts and old fictions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 29, Issue. 4, p. 668.
Federico, G. 2012. The Corn Laws in continental perspective. European Review of Economic History, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 166.
Federico, G. 2011. When did European markets integrate?. European Review of Economic History, Vol. 15, Issue. 1, p. 93.
Jacks, David S. Meissner, Christopher M. and Novy, Dennis 2011. Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs. Journal of International Economics, Vol. 83, Issue. 2, p. 185.
LAMPE, MARKUS 2011. Explaining nineteenth-century bilateralism: economic and political determinants of the Cobden-Chevalier network1. The Economic History Review, Vol. 64, Issue. 2, p. 644.
Lampe, Markus 2009. Effects of Bilateralism and the MFN Clause on International Trade: Evidence for the Cobden-Chevalier Network, 1860-1875. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 69, Issue. 04, p. 1012.
Lampe, Markus 2008.
Textbook accounts of the Anglo-French trade agreement of 1860 argue that it heralded the beginning of a liberal trading order. This alleged success holds much interest from a modern policy point of view, for it rested on bilateral negotiations and most-favored-nation clauses. With the help of new data on international trade (the RICardo database), the authors provide empirical evidence and find that the treaty and subsequent network of MFN trade agreements coincided with the end of a period of unilateral liberalization across the world. They also find that it did not contribute to expanding trade at all. This is contrary to a deeply rooted belief among economists, economic historians, and political scientists. The authors draw a number of policy lessons that run counter to the conventional wisdom and raise skepticism toward the ability of bilateralism and MFN arrangements to promote trade liberalization.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
