What do you think?
Rate this book
Report on the Subject of Manufactures
On December 5th, 1791, Alexander Hamilton, then the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, delivered to the House of Representatives a speech on the state of the economy of the young nation, and the best ways to promote it. This sixth edition, published in 1827, features two prefaces that place in context this groundbreaking treatise. Quite literally a foundational document of the United States, Hamilton's philosophy heartily endorses industrial subsidies and trade tariffs and embraces immigration and new technology. It established the underpinnings of the American economy for a century, and more. A towering figure of 18th-century history, American Founding Father ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1755-1804) was one of the new nation's first constitutional lawyers. As one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, which interprets the intent of the United States Constitution, his legal writings continue to be consulted and even revered today.
84 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1791
10 people are currently reading
157 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Hamilton
1,079 books994 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.
One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.
A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.
Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.
After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.
American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him.
One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax.
A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto.
Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death.
After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 27, 2022
ENGLISH
Alexander Hamilton’s historical 1791 “Report on the Subject of Manufactures” is considered a landmark of American developmental economic thought. It posits the importance of protecting and developing the nascent US manufacture, at a time agriculture was thriving and still had a lot of space to develop in the face of the country’s vast unexplored territory.
Theoretical and political resistance against protection of manufactures was fierce, counting on strong advocates of the preponderance of agriculture based on the natural advantage of the US at the time.
Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations” had already been written (1776), and the most modern economic thought (from British and French authors) had already pointed to free trade as the best system to overcome Mercantilism. David Ricardo's book on the theory of comparative advantages would only be written in 1817 (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) but the concept was already present in liberal authors, such as Adam Smith when he fiercely critiqued Mercantilism and extolled free international trade.
Thus, Hamilton contradicted liberal thinking, which claimed that it was more advantageous for countries to remain focused on the type of trade they specialized in; the exchange of technologically different products between more and less developed countries would be mutually beneficial. It is interesting to note that Adam Smith opens his book showing that manufactures have stronger productive potential as it implies more division of labor, yet nevertheless paradoxically defends that the US shouldn’t focus on industrialization and remain agricultural to prosper (as I stated here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In other words, only the part of his theory referring to free international trade was valid to the US — which fitted agriculture perfectly —, but not the one about the superiority of manufactures in producing wealth. Even though one could argue that Smith was actually concerned about the violent takeover of British manufactures in the US by north-Americans, he does not develop this argument, winding up contradicting his theory.
The two main ideas contained in the Report are: (i) predominance of manufactures in the US is essential for the country's development; and (ii) manufactures need protection from external competition.
Hamilton lists the arguments against protecting and developing industry and counters them in detail. He recognizes the superior capacity of manufatures to generate wealth for the country. He believes that protection of manufactures in the face of external competition through tariffs, fees, premiums, bounties, and drawbacks, although represents a cost due to the higher prices of products, would strengthen this industry and help it fight the dominant countries in the international trade.
The conflict of views between the North and South of the country appears in the text, which years later resulted in the Civil War — a watershed for the country's development. The war in fact dealt precisely with the opposition between agricultural and slavocrat interests, and industrialized ones, with the important victory of the latter.
Despite the clear predominance of liberal views on international trade in mainstream economics to date, reality seems to tell a different story. No country is known to have reached a high level of development without some protectionism or relevant interference in the economic environment. The liberal view of international trade sounds very beautiful and utopian in theory: free trade really seems very appropriate as long as countries are on equal footing in terms of development. But what would have happened if the US had strictly practiced the preachings of liberal academics at the time the Report was written, privileging agriculture and neglecting industry? Liberal thinkers defend that the US developed despite protectionist policies. Notwithstanding, at what level of development would South Korea and China be today if they had strictly obeyed an inflexible way of viewing the law of comparative advantages (as had been recommended by the World Bank to them), focusing on agricultural production (mostly rice) and low-tech products such as bicycles and hair wigs, rather than industrial policy? Brazil, which was wealthier than South Korea and China 40 years ago, despite some industrialization bursts on and off throughout its History, has remained focused on its agriculture since then and it is still underdeveloped — and yet Brazil still has to face hard protectionism from developed countries even in agriculture.
The fact is that even developed and so-called liberal countries have actually always protected and incentivized their industries. The US did and still does it. So as Europe. The budget of the US Department of Defense alone exceeds the budgets of many countries with industrial policies combined. In short, in the competitive game of foreign trade, developed countries, including several European ones, preach liberal policy to others while practice heavy protectionism in favor of their industries and technological goods (and also agricultural ones). The fact is that every developed country (and the ones investing and planning hard to become one) knows that competition in the international arena is no place for amateurs; the ones owing more and better technology (which necessarily includes patents) on a world-wide scale earn more with higher added value products and lead the game and dictate the rules.
It should be noted, however, that industrial policies are subject to high risks, as they presuppose very risky bets. Attempts at industrialization tend to be disastrous without intelligent planning, long-term government vision and commitment, which presupposes a single vision and political stability — or authoritarianism. They may mean useless spending by taxpayers, either with protections and exemptions themselves, or payment of high prices for the products — not to mention corruption. Even the former characteristics are no guarantee of success.
Politically, with the exception of the US, which adopted successful protectionist policies under democratic rule, all countries that recently achieved industrial development adopted deliberate industrial policies under dictatorial regimes; on the other hand, it is hard to think of countries which never protected their industries and achieved a high level of development.
PORTUGUÊS
O histórico relatório de Hamilton de 1791 sobre as manufaturas nos EUA é considerado um marco do pensamento desenvolvimentista Norte-Americano. Encontra-se ali a defesa da proteção e desenvolvimento das manufaturas nos EUA em um momento delicado, em que o país mostrava crescimento da industrialização, mas encontrava ainda muito espaço para exploração da agricultura — que prosperava — em vista de seu vasto território ainda pouco explorado.
Além disso, havia muita resistência teórica e política sobre a necessidade de proteção e desenvolvimento de manufaturas, havendo muitos defensores bastante aguerridos da preponderância da agricultura com base na vantagem natural que os EUA demonstravam na época.
À época, o livro de Adam Smith “A Riqueza das Nações” já tinha sido escrito (1776) e o pensamento econômico então mais moderno (proveniente de autores da Grã Bretanha e França) já era baseado no livre comércio como superação ao sistema Mercantilista. O livro de David Ricardo sobre a teoria das vantagens comparativas iria ser escrito somente em 1817 (minha revisão aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), mas o conceito já se fazia presente nos autores liberais, como Adam Smith, como decorrência da crítica ferrenha ao Mercantilismo e da exaltação do livre mercado.
Assim, Hamilton teve que contradizer a tendência de pensamento liberal, que afirmava ser mais vantajoso aos países manterem-se focados no tipo de comércio no qual eram especializados; a troca de produtos tecnologicamente diferentes entre países mais e menos desenvolvidos seria mutuamente benéfica. Ocorre que Adam Smith defendeu que a manufatura era a atividade com maior capacidade de desenvolver uma nação, por seu maior potencial de divisão de trabalho. No entanto, Smith paradoxalmente defendeu que os EUA não deveriam se focar na industrialização e permanecer agrícolas para prosperar (como analisei aqui https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Ou seja, apenas a sua teoria sobre o comércio internacional livre valeria para os EUA — o que se encaixava muito bem com a agricultura — mas não a parte sobre as manufaturas. Embora se possa defender que Smith na verdade estava preocupado com a tomada das manufaturas de britânicos nos EUA por meio do uso de violência, ele não desenvolve esse ponto, que acaba ficando contraditório com sua teoria.
As duas principais ideias contidas no Relatório são: (i) o predomínio da manufatura nos EUA é essencial para o desenvolvimento do país; e (ii) as manufaturas precisam ser protegidas da concorrência externa.
Hamilton lista os argumentos contrários à proteção e desenvolvimento da indústria e os rebate pormenorizadamente. Hamilton reconhece a capacidade de geração superior de riquezas das manufaturas para o país. Ele acredita que sua proteção em face da concorrência externa por meio de tarifas, taxas, prêmios, incentivos, drawbacks, etc., embora represente um custo em razão dos preços mais elevados dos produtos, fortaleceria essa indústria e a ajudaria a brigar no comércio internacional com países então dominantes.
Já aparece no texto o conflito de visões entre Norte e Sul do país, o que anos mais tarde veio a resultar na terrível mas tão importante Guerra de Secessão, que foi um divisor de águas para o desenvolvimento do país e tratou justamente da oposição entre os interesses agrícolas e escravocratas, e a visão industrializada, com importante vitória desta.
Apesar da predominância das visões liberais sobre comércio internacional no mainstream econômico até hoje, a realidade parece contar uma história diferente. Não se conhece país que tenha atingido nível elevado de desenvolvimento sem alguma proteção a suas indústrias. A visão liberal soa muito bonita e utópica na teoria. Um comércio livre parece realmente muito adequado desde que os países estejam em pé de igualdade em termos de desenvolvimento. Mas o que teria acontecido se os EUA praticassem estritamente o que os acadêmicos liberais pregavam na época em que o Relatório foi escrito, privilegiando a agricultura e negligenciando a indústria? Pensadores liberais defendem que na verdade os EUA se desenvolveram apesar de políticas protecionistas. Não obstante, em que nível de desenvolvimento estariam hoje Coreia do Sul e China se tivessem obedecido estritamente uma visão engessada da lei das vantagens comparativas (conforme fora recomendada a eles pelo Banco Mundial) — focando-se na produção agrícola (arroz) e de produtos de baixa tecnologia, como bicicletas e perucas de cabelo, e não em política industrial? O Brasil, que era mais rico que Coreia do Sul e a China 40 anos atrás, apesar de alguns surtos de industrialização ao longo de sua história, continua focado em sua atividade agrícola e continua subdesenvolvido — e ainda assim enfrenta protecionismo dos países desenvolvidos até em agricultura.
O fato é que mesmo países desenvolvidos e considerados liberais, na verdade, sempre protegeram e incentivaram suas indústrias. Os EUA o fizeram e ainda o fazem. Assim como a Europa. Por exemplo, apenas o orçamento do Departamento de Defesa Norte-Americano supera o orçamento com políticas industriais de muitos países juntos. Em suma, no jogo competitivo do comércio exterior, países desenvolvidos pregam política liberal para os outros enquanto praticam protecionismo pesado em favor de seus bens tecnológicos (e para produtos agrícolas também). O fato é que todo país desenvolvido (e aqueles que se planejam e investem pesado para se tornarem um) sabem que a competição na arena internacional não é lugar para amadores; aqueles que dominam mais e melhores tecnologias (o que necessariamente inclui patentes) em escala global ganham mais com produtos de maior valor agregado e lideram o jogo e ditam as regras.
Deve-se, no entanto, notar que políticas industriais estão sujeitas a riscos elevados, porque pressupõem apostas bastante arriscadas. Sem planejamento inteligente, visão governamental de longo prazo e comprometimento (o que pressupõe visão única e estabilidade política continuadas — ou autoritarismo), tentativas de industrialização tendem a ser desastrosas, porque significam gastos inúteis dos contribuintes, seja com as proteções e isenções, seja com pagamento de preços elevados dos produtos — sem mencionar corrupção. Ocorre que mesmo com a presença daquelas características não há garantia de sucesso.
Politicamente, com exceção dos EUA, que adotaram políticas protecionistas bem-sucedidas sob regime democrático, todos os países que alcançaram desenvolvimento industrial recentemente adotaram políticas industriais deliberadas sob regimes ditatoriais; por outro lado, não se conhecem países que nunca protegeram suas indústrias e alcançaram elevado nível de desenvolvimento.
Alexander Hamilton’s historical 1791 “Report on the Subject of Manufactures” is considered a landmark of American developmental economic thought. It posits the importance of protecting and developing the nascent US manufacture, at a time agriculture was thriving and still had a lot of space to develop in the face of the country’s vast unexplored territory.
Theoretical and political resistance against protection of manufactures was fierce, counting on strong advocates of the preponderance of agriculture based on the natural advantage of the US at the time.
Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations” had already been written (1776), and the most modern economic thought (from British and French authors) had already pointed to free trade as the best system to overcome Mercantilism. David Ricardo's book on the theory of comparative advantages would only be written in 1817 (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...) but the concept was already present in liberal authors, such as Adam Smith when he fiercely critiqued Mercantilism and extolled free international trade.
Thus, Hamilton contradicted liberal thinking, which claimed that it was more advantageous for countries to remain focused on the type of trade they specialized in; the exchange of technologically different products between more and less developed countries would be mutually beneficial. It is interesting to note that Adam Smith opens his book showing that manufactures have stronger productive potential as it implies more division of labor, yet nevertheless paradoxically defends that the US shouldn’t focus on industrialization and remain agricultural to prosper (as I stated here https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). In other words, only the part of his theory referring to free international trade was valid to the US — which fitted agriculture perfectly —, but not the one about the superiority of manufactures in producing wealth. Even though one could argue that Smith was actually concerned about the violent takeover of British manufactures in the US by north-Americans, he does not develop this argument, winding up contradicting his theory.
The two main ideas contained in the Report are: (i) predominance of manufactures in the US is essential for the country's development; and (ii) manufactures need protection from external competition.
Hamilton lists the arguments against protecting and developing industry and counters them in detail. He recognizes the superior capacity of manufatures to generate wealth for the country. He believes that protection of manufactures in the face of external competition through tariffs, fees, premiums, bounties, and drawbacks, although represents a cost due to the higher prices of products, would strengthen this industry and help it fight the dominant countries in the international trade.
The conflict of views between the North and South of the country appears in the text, which years later resulted in the Civil War — a watershed for the country's development. The war in fact dealt precisely with the opposition between agricultural and slavocrat interests, and industrialized ones, with the important victory of the latter.
Despite the clear predominance of liberal views on international trade in mainstream economics to date, reality seems to tell a different story. No country is known to have reached a high level of development without some protectionism or relevant interference in the economic environment. The liberal view of international trade sounds very beautiful and utopian in theory: free trade really seems very appropriate as long as countries are on equal footing in terms of development. But what would have happened if the US had strictly practiced the preachings of liberal academics at the time the Report was written, privileging agriculture and neglecting industry? Liberal thinkers defend that the US developed despite protectionist policies. Notwithstanding, at what level of development would South Korea and China be today if they had strictly obeyed an inflexible way of viewing the law of comparative advantages (as had been recommended by the World Bank to them), focusing on agricultural production (mostly rice) and low-tech products such as bicycles and hair wigs, rather than industrial policy? Brazil, which was wealthier than South Korea and China 40 years ago, despite some industrialization bursts on and off throughout its History, has remained focused on its agriculture since then and it is still underdeveloped — and yet Brazil still has to face hard protectionism from developed countries even in agriculture.
The fact is that even developed and so-called liberal countries have actually always protected and incentivized their industries. The US did and still does it. So as Europe. The budget of the US Department of Defense alone exceeds the budgets of many countries with industrial policies combined. In short, in the competitive game of foreign trade, developed countries, including several European ones, preach liberal policy to others while practice heavy protectionism in favor of their industries and technological goods (and also agricultural ones). The fact is that every developed country (and the ones investing and planning hard to become one) knows that competition in the international arena is no place for amateurs; the ones owing more and better technology (which necessarily includes patents) on a world-wide scale earn more with higher added value products and lead the game and dictate the rules.
It should be noted, however, that industrial policies are subject to high risks, as they presuppose very risky bets. Attempts at industrialization tend to be disastrous without intelligent planning, long-term government vision and commitment, which presupposes a single vision and political stability — or authoritarianism. They may mean useless spending by taxpayers, either with protections and exemptions themselves, or payment of high prices for the products — not to mention corruption. Even the former characteristics are no guarantee of success.
Politically, with the exception of the US, which adopted successful protectionist policies under democratic rule, all countries that recently achieved industrial development adopted deliberate industrial policies under dictatorial regimes; on the other hand, it is hard to think of countries which never protected their industries and achieved a high level of development.
PORTUGUÊS
O histórico relatório de Hamilton de 1791 sobre as manufaturas nos EUA é considerado um marco do pensamento desenvolvimentista Norte-Americano. Encontra-se ali a defesa da proteção e desenvolvimento das manufaturas nos EUA em um momento delicado, em que o país mostrava crescimento da industrialização, mas encontrava ainda muito espaço para exploração da agricultura — que prosperava — em vista de seu vasto território ainda pouco explorado.
Além disso, havia muita resistência teórica e política sobre a necessidade de proteção e desenvolvimento de manufaturas, havendo muitos defensores bastante aguerridos da preponderância da agricultura com base na vantagem natural que os EUA demonstravam na época.
À época, o livro de Adam Smith “A Riqueza das Nações” já tinha sido escrito (1776) e o pensamento econômico então mais moderno (proveniente de autores da Grã Bretanha e França) já era baseado no livre comércio como superação ao sistema Mercantilista. O livro de David Ricardo sobre a teoria das vantagens comparativas iria ser escrito somente em 1817 (minha revisão aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), mas o conceito já se fazia presente nos autores liberais, como Adam Smith, como decorrência da crítica ferrenha ao Mercantilismo e da exaltação do livre mercado.
Assim, Hamilton teve que contradizer a tendência de pensamento liberal, que afirmava ser mais vantajoso aos países manterem-se focados no tipo de comércio no qual eram especializados; a troca de produtos tecnologicamente diferentes entre países mais e menos desenvolvidos seria mutuamente benéfica. Ocorre que Adam Smith defendeu que a manufatura era a atividade com maior capacidade de desenvolver uma nação, por seu maior potencial de divisão de trabalho. No entanto, Smith paradoxalmente defendeu que os EUA não deveriam se focar na industrialização e permanecer agrícolas para prosperar (como analisei aqui https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Ou seja, apenas a sua teoria sobre o comércio internacional livre valeria para os EUA — o que se encaixava muito bem com a agricultura — mas não a parte sobre as manufaturas. Embora se possa defender que Smith na verdade estava preocupado com a tomada das manufaturas de britânicos nos EUA por meio do uso de violência, ele não desenvolve esse ponto, que acaba ficando contraditório com sua teoria.
As duas principais ideias contidas no Relatório são: (i) o predomínio da manufatura nos EUA é essencial para o desenvolvimento do país; e (ii) as manufaturas precisam ser protegidas da concorrência externa.
Hamilton lista os argumentos contrários à proteção e desenvolvimento da indústria e os rebate pormenorizadamente. Hamilton reconhece a capacidade de geração superior de riquezas das manufaturas para o país. Ele acredita que sua proteção em face da concorrência externa por meio de tarifas, taxas, prêmios, incentivos, drawbacks, etc., embora represente um custo em razão dos preços mais elevados dos produtos, fortaleceria essa indústria e a ajudaria a brigar no comércio internacional com países então dominantes.
Já aparece no texto o conflito de visões entre Norte e Sul do país, o que anos mais tarde veio a resultar na terrível mas tão importante Guerra de Secessão, que foi um divisor de águas para o desenvolvimento do país e tratou justamente da oposição entre os interesses agrícolas e escravocratas, e a visão industrializada, com importante vitória desta.
Apesar da predominância das visões liberais sobre comércio internacional no mainstream econômico até hoje, a realidade parece contar uma história diferente. Não se conhece país que tenha atingido nível elevado de desenvolvimento sem alguma proteção a suas indústrias. A visão liberal soa muito bonita e utópica na teoria. Um comércio livre parece realmente muito adequado desde que os países estejam em pé de igualdade em termos de desenvolvimento. Mas o que teria acontecido se os EUA praticassem estritamente o que os acadêmicos liberais pregavam na época em que o Relatório foi escrito, privilegiando a agricultura e negligenciando a indústria? Pensadores liberais defendem que na verdade os EUA se desenvolveram apesar de políticas protecionistas. Não obstante, em que nível de desenvolvimento estariam hoje Coreia do Sul e China se tivessem obedecido estritamente uma visão engessada da lei das vantagens comparativas (conforme fora recomendada a eles pelo Banco Mundial) — focando-se na produção agrícola (arroz) e de produtos de baixa tecnologia, como bicicletas e perucas de cabelo, e não em política industrial? O Brasil, que era mais rico que Coreia do Sul e a China 40 anos atrás, apesar de alguns surtos de industrialização ao longo de sua história, continua focado em sua atividade agrícola e continua subdesenvolvido — e ainda assim enfrenta protecionismo dos países desenvolvidos até em agricultura.
O fato é que mesmo países desenvolvidos e considerados liberais, na verdade, sempre protegeram e incentivaram suas indústrias. Os EUA o fizeram e ainda o fazem. Assim como a Europa. Por exemplo, apenas o orçamento do Departamento de Defesa Norte-Americano supera o orçamento com políticas industriais de muitos países juntos. Em suma, no jogo competitivo do comércio exterior, países desenvolvidos pregam política liberal para os outros enquanto praticam protecionismo pesado em favor de seus bens tecnológicos (e para produtos agrícolas também). O fato é que todo país desenvolvido (e aqueles que se planejam e investem pesado para se tornarem um) sabem que a competição na arena internacional não é lugar para amadores; aqueles que dominam mais e melhores tecnologias (o que necessariamente inclui patentes) em escala global ganham mais com produtos de maior valor agregado e lideram o jogo e ditam as regras.
Deve-se, no entanto, notar que políticas industriais estão sujeitas a riscos elevados, porque pressupõem apostas bastante arriscadas. Sem planejamento inteligente, visão governamental de longo prazo e comprometimento (o que pressupõe visão única e estabilidade política continuadas — ou autoritarismo), tentativas de industrialização tendem a ser desastrosas, porque significam gastos inúteis dos contribuintes, seja com as proteções e isenções, seja com pagamento de preços elevados dos produtos — sem mencionar corrupção. Ocorre que mesmo com a presença daquelas características não há garantia de sucesso.
Politicamente, com exceção dos EUA, que adotaram políticas protecionistas bem-sucedidas sob regime democrático, todos os países que alcançaram desenvolvimento industrial recentemente adotaram políticas industriais deliberadas sob regimes ditatoriais; por outro lado, não se conhecem países que nunca protegeram suas indústrias e alcançaram elevado nível de desenvolvimento.
June 20, 2014
The particular edition I read contained the letters addressed to Hamilton and his staff assisting him with the first study of American industry....so it gives a quite remarkable local reporting on the state of what are now considered very basic operations, but then represented the base and basis for American industrial development. Hamilton;s genius, yes he was, was in envisioning that manufacturing and not agriculture was the foundation of America's future greatness and needed to be supported....today we would call it an industrial policy, protectionist and highly illiberal. However in the 18th c. with the war for independence just won and the odds of American success still in doubt, his calling for a focus on AMerican industrial development is extraordinary. I am proud to call myself a Hamiltonian, and an American descendent of his great vision for a strong, powerful, centralized continental power. The next 200 years of American history would not have happened without Hamilton and this book establishes in sometimes quite ordinary and as well as in prescient ways the story of America's economic and social development in the 19th and 20th centuries...The great tragedy of his life was his too intense belief in his own brilliance and his at times reckless actions both personally and politically. He did , however, fit into a relatively short life a quite extraordinary list of accomplishments, this report and the research it required among the most long lasting.....
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews