Abstract
The preceding two chapters analyzed per capita imports of manufactured goods by the 23 states without reference to domestic production. While the results clearly indicated the extent of relative openness in many areas, both for manufactures in general and for products important to the developing world, the analyses ignored the size of the potential import competing sector in these countries. Given the tenets of comparative advantage, such concerns would not be especially important for overall per capita imports of manufactured products, since, as noted earlier, every industrialized country would have advantages for some products and disadvantages for others, and mutually beneficial trade could occur as a result. By definition, industrialized states would import some industrial products from each others. For specific product categories, however, nations would have potentially different needs and import levels. Countries with sizable sectors producing particular goods could either have protected against imports or engaged in intra-industry specialization. Both of these approaches could be associated with local employment in the sector but differential openness to imports. In other cases, some countries might have lacked a domestic sector in a particular product area of manufacturing and thus would have been open to imports in this particular area. Yet other countries might have lacked a domestic industrial sector and had low import levels as well due to a lack of local demand for the products in question. In this chapter, therefore, imports in five product areas will be analyzed to determine influences on per capita import patterns among the industrialized countries.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The data was contained in United Nations Statistical Office, Growth of World Industry (New York: United Nations, various years to 1973),
continued by the Yearbook of Industrial Statistics (New York: United Nations, various years from 1974–1981),
and then continued by the Industrial Statistics Yearbook (New York: United Nations, various years).
World Bank, World Tables 1976 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976),
World Tables 1995 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995)
Mark Mason, “Elements of Consensus: Europe’s Response to the Japanese Auto Challenge,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1994), pp. 433–53.
Loukas Tsoukalis and Robert Strauss, “Crisis and Adjustment in European Steel: Beyond Laisser-Faire,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (1985), pp. 207–28, and Stephen Woolcock, “Iron and Steel,” in Susan Strange and Roger Tooze (eds.), The International Politics of Surplus Capacity (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981), pp. 69–79.
Charles P. Kindleberger, World Economic Primacy: 1500 to 1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 197.
Stephen Woolcock, “Iron and Steel,” in Louis Turner and Neil McMullen (eds.), The Newly Industrializing Countries:Trade and Adjustment (London:Allen and Unwin, 1982), pp. 94–117.
Stephen Woolcock, “The International Politics of Trade and Protection in the Steel Industry,” in John Pinder (ed.), National Industrial Strategies and the World Economy (Totowa, NJ:Allanheld Osmun, 1982), pp. 53–84.
Kent Albert Jones, Politics versus Economics in World Steel Trade (Winchester, MA: Allen and Unwin, 1986),
and Jonathan Haughton and Balu Swaminathan, “The Employment and Welfare Effects of Quantitative Restrictions on Steel Imports into the United States,” Journal of World Trade, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1992), pp. 95–118.
Neil McMullen and Laura L. Megna, “Automobiles,” in Louis Turner and Neil McMullen (eds.), The Newly Industrializing Countries: Trade and Adjustment (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982), pp. 69–93,
and James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones, “European Automotive Policy: Past, Present, and Future,” in Glennon J. Harrison (ed.), Europe and the United States: Competition and Cooperation in the 1990s, A Study Submitted to the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade and the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U. S. House of Representatives (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1994), pp. 193–213.
Cf. James M. Lutz, “Determinants of Protectionist Attitudes in the U. S. House of Representatives,” International Trade Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1991), pp. 301–28,
and Deborah L. Swenson, “Explaining Domestic Content: Evidence from Japanese and U. S. Automobile Production in the United States,” in Robert C. Feenstra (ed.), The Effects of U. S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 33–53.
James Levinsohn, “Carwars:Trying to Make Sense of U. S.-Japan Trade Frictions in the Automobile and Automobile Parts Markets,” in Robert C. Feenstra (ed.), The Effects of U. S. Trade Protection and Promotion Policies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 11–32.
Pietro Nivola, Regulating Unfair Trade (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1993), p. 30.
Susan Strange, “The Management of Surplus Capacity: Or How Does Theory Stand Up to Protectionism 1970s Style?” International Organization, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1979), pp. 303–34.
Copyright information
© 2000 James M. Lutz
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lutz, J.M. (2000). Imports and Domestic Production of Selected Manufactured Products. In: Import Propensities of Industrialized Countries. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62207-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-62207-8_7
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-62209-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-62207-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)