Mill and Infant Industry

  • Takashi Negishi
  • Takashi Negishi
Part of the Advances in Japanese Business and Economics book series (AJBE, volume 2)


Starting with Adam Smith’s criticism against mercantilism, economists of the classical school generally advocated the free trade and were critical to the protection of domestic industries. J. S. Mill admitted, however, the protection of the so-called infant industry, though he imposes a condition which an industry must satisfy to be protected. Then, it was Bastable who followed Mill to add another necessary condition for protection. This Mill–Bastable infant industry dogma was discussed critically by some modern economists from the point of view of the dynamic theory of the gains from trade.


Mill-Bastable Infant Industry dogma Consumers’ and Producers’ Surplus Dynamic internal economies Dynamic external economies 


  1. Bastable, C. F. (1892). The commerce of nations. London; Methuen.Google Scholar
  2. Corden, W. M. (1974). Trade policy and economic welfare. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Hicks, J. R. (1946). Value and capital. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kemp, M. C. (1960). The Mill–Bastable infant industry dogma. Journal of Political Economy, LXVIII, 65–67.Google Scholar
  5. Kemp, M. C. (1964). The pure theory of international trade. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Mill, J. S. (1909). Principles of political economy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  7. Mundell, R. A. (1957). International trade and factor mobility. American Economic Review, 47, 321–335.Google Scholar
  8. Negishi, T. (1968). Protection of infant industry and dynamic internal economies. Economic Record, 44, 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Negishi
    • 1
  • Takashi Negishi
    • 2
  1. 1.The Japan AcademyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations