The objective of this chapter is to show how economic policies based on completely different principles – one described as ‘emulation’ and the other as ‘comparative advantage’ – have been strategically employed in order to achieve economic development when nations have made the transition from poor to wealthy. It also briefly describes key aspects of the process by which Europe, through emulation, developed from a collection of fiefdoms ruled by warlords into city-states and later to nation-states. It is argued that the timing of the strategic shift from emulation to comparative advantage is of utmost importance to a nation. Making this policy shift too early will hamper development much as a late shift will do. It is argued that these principles, although sometimes under different names, were well known and employed by European nations from the seventeenth century onwards – in the United States all the way to the end of the nineteenth century – and that the Marshall Plan implemented in 1947, owed its success to putting the principle of emulation chronologically ahead of comparative advantage.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines emulation as ‘the endeavor to equal or surpass others in any achievement or quality’; also ‘the desire or ambition to equal or to excel.’ In eighteenth-century political and economic discourse, emulation was essentially a positive and active effort, to be contrasted with envy or jealousy (Hont, 2005). In modern terms emulation finds its approximate counterparts in the terminology of US economist Moses Abramovitz, whose ideas of ‘catching-up’, ‘forging ahead’ and ‘falling behind’ resonate with the same understanding of dynamic competition. In his 1693 work English economist Josiah Child made the emulative nature of English catching-up very clear: ‘If we intend to have the Trade of the World, we must imitate the Dutch, who make the worst as well as the best of all manufactures, that we may be in a capacity of serving all Markets, and all Humors.’

By focusing on barter alone, leaving out the dynamics of innovation and competition, Ricardian trade theory neglects a core element inherent to capitalism. There is no forging ahead, nor is there any falling behind, in Ricardian economics, nor in any other type of economics based on metaphors of equilibrium. In a Schumpeterian framework,