Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tariffs and income: a time series analysis for 24 countries

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cliometrica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We argue for a new approach to examining the relationship between tariffs and growth. We demonstrate that more can be learned from time series analyses of the experience of individual countries rather than the usual panel data approach, which imposes a causal relation and presents an average coefficient for all countries. Tentative initial results using simple two-variable cointegrated VAR models suggest considerable heterogeneity in the experiences of the countries we look at. For most, however, there was a negative relationship between tariffs and levels of income for both the pre- and post-Second World War periods. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, the causality ran from income to tariffs: that is, countries simply liberalized as they got richer. Policy decisions based on the usual panel approach might thus be very inappropriate for individual countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Recent work has applied a similar approach to the aid–growth relationship (Juselius et al. 2011).

  2. Warcziag and Welch actually use a version of the Sachs–Warner dummy, not tariff rates, so they can only distinguish between economies defined as ‘open’ or ‘closed.’

  3. Actually, the common knowledge that Japan effectively used trade protection to promote growth has been called into question recently (compare Lawrence 1993 to Beason and Weinstein 1996).

  4. See Clemens and Williamson (2004) and O’Rourke (2000), but also Schularick and Solomou (2011) who question the existence of a ‘paradox.’ The next section gives a more comprehensive literature review.

  5. This result is of course again subject to qualifications. See Rodríguez and Rodrik (2000) and Bhagwati and Srinivasan (2001), among others. For a short and balanced update of the discussions on trade policy, growth and poverty, see the review article by Athukorala (2011) on the book Trade Liberalization and The Poverty of Nations by Thirlwall and Pacheco-Lopez.

  6. Rodríguez and Rodrik (2000), p. 316.

  7. Results from Irwin (2002a) and Clemens and Williamson (2004) suggest that the coefficient varies for different samples.

  8. This finding confirms a new kind of ‘tariff–growth paradox,’ since the results are more or less diametrically opposed to those of Estevardeordal and Taylor, who find for the period since the 1970s that liberalizing tariffs on imported capital goods and intermediate inputs increased growth rates significantly.

  9. Including the papers by Foreman-Peck (1995) and Jones (2000) who estimate the relationship in for income levels.

  10. This is reportedly done to avoid ‘business cycle contamination’ in the assessment of steady-state outcomes.

  11. This, of course, has not always led to coherent free trade policy, as examples like quotas for agricultural products, voluntary export restraints and the multi-fiber agreement demonstrate.

  12. These 24 countries are not randomly drawn, but determined by data availability: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Canada, USA, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, Australia, India and Japan.

  13. AVE also does not take into account the structure of protection as ‘effective tariffs’ would do (Corden 1966), by which it likely understates true protection. A measure that takes these points into account is the TRI, whose calculation for a fairly extensive sample of countries over a large time-span is unfeasible at the present state.

  14. We are very grateful to Jeffrey G. Williamson for supplying these data.

  15. For the UK, we have been able to trace the source of the considerable difference between both series: Excises on a number of goods were included in the collected duties and cannot be separated from them, since the rates also included a protective element in some cases [see e.g., Customs and Excise (1949)]. See also Lloyd (2008), app. III, who discusses the problem in detail for the Australian beer excises.

  16. The idea for ‘the world’ was inspired by the work of Nenci (2011).

  17. The results were obtained using OxMetrics 6.20.

  18. See, for example, Ahmed (2003) for Bangladesh, Ahmed and Dutta (2004) for Pakistan, Sharma and Panagiotidis (2005) for India. See also Ghatak et al. (1995) for Turkey, who use proxies similar to Sachs and Warner. To our knowledge, the only study that uses tariff rates to explain income growth is a working paper by Athukorala and Chand (2007) for Australia (1870–2000). They use Hendry’s ‘general to specific’ method which is different from our approach.

  19. It might have been interesting to estimate the interwar period separately, but unfortunately this would provide us with too few data points for a useful estimation.

  20. Note that causality can be in both directions, even with only one cointegrating relationship. This implies that both variables adjust in order to reestablish equilibrium in the event of a change to one of them.

  21. Even more detailed results, including standard errors and the results of the various specification tests described above, are available on request.

  22. This might be the case for Australia and its insignificant Latin American counterparts in the second period, where we see that they put up tariffs as they get richer, but do not seem to reap any fruits from this.

  23. However, notice that this argument cannot explain everything, since for the United States we find two-way causality, while for India, the country with the highest average tariff in the second period, we only find higher (lower) incomes causing lower (higher) tariffs.

  24. In our dataset, 4.4 % on average between 1872 and 1900, but increasing to 15 % in the early 1920s and more than 30 % in the 1930s.

References

  • Ahmed N (2003) Trade liberalization and endogenous growth of manufacturing industries in Bangladesh: an empirical investigation. Appl Econ 35(3):305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed N, Dutta D (2004) Trade liberalization and industrial growth in Pakistan: a cointegration analysis. Appl Econ 36(13):1421–1429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aidt T, Jensen PS (2009) Tax structure, size of government, and the extension of the voting franchise in Western Europe, 1860–1938. Int Tax Public Financ 16:362–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen RC (2011) Global economic history. A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford (OUP very short introductions, 282)

  • Anderson JE, Neary JP (2005) Measuring the restrictiveness of international trade policy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Athukorala P-Ch (2011) Trade liberalization and the poverty of nations: a review article. J Dev Stud 47(3):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athukorala P-Ch, Chand S (2007) Tariff-growth nexus in the australian economy, 1870–2002: is there a paradox? Working Paper in Trade and Development, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University 2007–2008

  • Bagchi AK (1976) De-industrialization in India in the nineteenth-century: some theoretical implications. J Dev Stud 12(2):135–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balachandran G (ed) (2005) India and the world economy, 1850–1950. Oxford University Press, New Delhi (Debates in Indian History and Society, 2)

  • Barro RJ, Ursúa JF (2006) Macroeconomic crises since 1870. Brook Paper Econ Activ 2008(1):255–350. Online Appendix, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/data_sets_barro

  • Baunsgaard Th, Keen M (2010) Tax revenue and (or?) trade liberalization. J Public Econ 94:563–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beason R, Weinstein DE (1996) Growth, economies of scale, and targeting in Japan (1955–1990). Rev Econ Stat 78(2):286–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagwati J, Srinivasan TN (2001) Outward-orientation and development: are revisionists right? Outward-orientation and development: are revisionists right? In: Lal DK, Snape R (eds) Trade, development and political economy: essays in honor of Anne Krueger. Palgrave, London, pp 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemens MA, Williamson JG (2004) Why did the tariff-growth correlation reverse after 1950? J Econ Growth 9:5–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clingingsmith D, Williamson JG (2004) India’s de-industrialization under British rule: new ideas, new evidence. NBER Working Paper 10586

  • Corden WM (1966) The structure of a tariff system and the effective protective rate. J Political Econ 74:221–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crafts N (2004) Globalisation and economic growth: a historical perspective. World Econ 27(1):45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Customs and Excise (1949) Fortieth report of the Commissioners of his majesty’s customs and excise for the year ended 31st March 1949. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJong DL, Ripoll M (2006) Tariffs and growth: an empirical exploration of contingent relationships. Rev Econ Stat 88:625–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estevadeordal A, Taylor AM (2008) Is the Washington consensus dead? Growth, openness, and the great liberalization, 1970s–2000s. NBER Working Papers 14264

  • Ferreres OJ (ed) (2005) Dos siglos de economía argentina (1810–2004). Historia argentina en cifras. El Ateneo/Fundación Norte y Sur, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Foreman-Peck J (1995) A model of later nineteenth-century European economic development. Revista de Historia Económica 13:441–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghatak S, Milner Ch, Utkulu U (1995) Trade liberalisation and endogenous growth: some evidence for Turkey. Econ Plan 28:147–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall RE, Jones ChI (1999) Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? Q J Econ 114:83–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison A, Hanson G (1999) Who gains from trade reform? Some remaining puzzles. J Dev Econ 59:125–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin DA (1993) Free trade and protection in nineteenth century Britain and France revisited: comment on Nye. J Econ Hist 53:146–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin DA (2002a) Interpreting the tariff-growth correlation of the late nineteenth century. Am Econ Rev (P&P) 91:165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin DA (2002b) Free trade under fire. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin DA (2010) Trade restrictiveness and deadweight losses from US tariffs, 1859–1961. Am Econ J Econ Policy 2:111–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacks DS (2006) New results on the tariff-growth paradox. Eur Rev Econ Hist 10:205–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansen S (1996) Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models. Advanced texts in econometrics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen S (2006) Confronting the economic model with the data. In: Colander D (ed) Post Walrasian macroeconomics: beyond the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model, chap 15, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 287–300

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones ChI (2000) Comment on Rodríguez and Rodrik. NBER Macroecon Annu 15:330–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Juselius K (2006) The cointegrated VAR model. Methodology and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (advanced texts in econometrics)

  • Juselius K, Møller NF, Tarp F (2011) The long-run impact of foreign aid in 36 African countries: insights from multivariate time series analysis. UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 200/51

  • Kee HL, Nicita A, Olarreaga M (2009) Estimating trade restrictiveness indices. Econ J 119:172–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubota K (2005) Fiscal constraints, collection costs, and trade policies. Econ Politics 17:129–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence RZ (1993) Japan’s different trade regime: an analysis with particular reference to Keiretsu. J Econ Perspect 7(3):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann SH, O’Rourke KH (2011) The structure of protection and growth in the late 19th century. Rev Econ Stat 93(2):617–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd P (2008) 100 Years of tariff protection in Australia. Aust Econ Hist Rev 48:99–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddison A (2006) The world economy. Historical statistics. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen JB (2009) Trade barriers, openness, and economic growth. South Econ J 76:397–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matschke X (2008) Costly revenue-raising and the case for favoring import-competing industries. J Int Econ 74:143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nenci S (2011) Tariff liberalization and the growth of world trade: a comparative historical analysis to evaluate the multilateral trading system. World Econ 34:1809–1835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunn N, Trefler D (2010) The structure of tariffs and long-term growth. Am Econ J Macroecon 2:158–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke KH (2000) Tariffs and growth in the late 19th century. Econ J 110:456–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pashourtidou N (2003) Omitted variables in cointegration analysis. Department of Economics, University of Southampton, Discussion Paper No. 0304

  • Prados de la Escosura L, Rosés JR, Sanz-Villarroya I (2012) Economic reforms and growth in Franco’s Spain. Revista de Historia Económica 30(1):45–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez F, Rodrik D (2000) Trade policy and economic growth: a sceptic’s guide to the cross-national evidence. NBER Macroecon Annu 15:261–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik D (2007) One economics, many recipes: globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy T (2009) Did globalisation aid industrial development in colonial India? A study of knowledge transfer in the iron industry. Indian Econ Soc Hist Rev 46(4):579–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs J, Warner A (1995) Economic reform and the process of global integration. Brook Paper Econ Activ 1995:1–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sala-i-Martin X (1997) I just ran two million regressions. Am Econ Rev (P&P) 87:178–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Schularick M, Solomou S (2011) Tariffs and economic growth in the first era of globalization. J Econ Growth 16(1):33–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma A, Panagiotidis Th (2005) An analysis of exports and growth in India: cointegration and causality evidence (1971–2001). Rev Dev Econ 9:232–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tena A (2006) Assessing the protectionist intensity of tariffs in nineteenth-century European trade policy. In: Dormois J-P, Lains P (eds) Classical trade protectionism, 1815–1914. Routledge, London (Routledge explorations in economic history 32), pp 99–120

  • Tena A (2010) Bairoch revisited: tariff structure and growth in the late nineteenth century. Eur Rev Econ Hist 14:111–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tena A, Lampe M, Tâmega FF (2012) How much trade liberalization was there in the world before and after Cobden–Chevalier? J Econ Hist 72:708–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly Ch (1993) Coercion, capital, and European states. AD 1990–1992. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Vamvakidis A (2002) How robust is the growth-openness connection? Historical evidence. J Econ Growth 7:57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wacziarg R, Welch KH (2008) Trade liberalization and growth: new evidence. World Bank Econ Rev 22:187–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson J (1990) Latin American adjustment: how much has happened?. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanikkaya H (2003) Trade openness and economic growth: a cross-country empirical investigation. J Dev Econ 72:57–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Carlos III Madrid, Getafe, Madrid, Spain

    Markus Lampe

  2. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Paul Sharp

Authors
  1. Markus Lampe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Sharp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Lampe.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Full results

 

Cointegrating relation

Tests

(Bold typeface indicates that the parameter is significant at the 5 % level; where there is no clear causal relation, both variables are normalized on)

(P value in square brackets. AR: PcGive/OxMetrics Vector AR 1–2 test; N: PcGive/OxMetrics Vector Normality test; J: Johansen cointegration test for r = 1, that is, one cointegrating relationship)

Averages

 

World 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.34}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.08}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + 0.57\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 0.75072 [0.6467]

N: χ2(4) = 8.4448 [0.0766]

J: [0.67]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.05}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.76}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

World 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.16}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.37}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.04\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.38455 [0.9257]

N: χ2(4) = 1.1771 [0.8818]

J: [0.83]

O’Rourke Sample 1865–1913

AR: F(8,72) = 1.9201 [0.0699]

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.36}}} \\ { - 0.04} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + 0.44\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

N: χ2(4) = 5.6201 [0.2294]

J: [0.83]

O’Rourke Sample 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.16}}} \\ {0.03} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.30}}\,y - 0.01\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.0809 [0.3856]

N: χ2(4) = 6.7707 [0.1485]

J: [0.60]

Europe

 

Belgium 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.34}}} \\ {0.01} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - 0.97\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.7994 [0.0912]

N: χ2(4) = 13.046 [0.0111]*

J: [0.31]

Belgium 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.31}}} \\ { - 1.69} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.11}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 2.7956 [0.0091]**

N: χ2(4) = 7.5584 [0.1092]

J: [0.98]

Denmark 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.51}}} \\ { - 0.32} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.26}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.1602 [0.3350]

N: χ2(4) = 8.2110 [0.0841]

J: [0.55]

Denmark 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.44}}} \\ {0.49} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.00\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.54201 [0.8212]

N: χ2(4) = 35.509 [0.0000]**

J: [0.51]

France 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.33}}} \\ { - 0.03} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{3}}{\mathbf{.45}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 0.52281 [0.8356]

N: χ2(4) = 7.0053 [0.1356]

J: [0.87]

France 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.20}}} \\ {0.03} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.36}}\,y - 0.01\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.1822 [0.3210]

N: χ2(4) = 7.8736 [0.0963]

J: [0.04]

Germany 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.53}}} \\ { - 0.01} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - 0.52\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \,\left( {{\text{beta}}\,{\text{ave}}\,{\text{sig}}\,{\text{at}}\, 10\,\% } \right) \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.1303 [0.3538]

N: χ2(4) = 6.8634 [0.1433]

J: [0.89]

Germany 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.09}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.03}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{6}}{\mathbf{.79}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 2.0031 [0.0572]

N: χ2(4) = 5.9708 [0.2013]

J: [0.03]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.59}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.15}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

Italy 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.15}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.61}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 3.2768 [0.0031]**

N: χ2(4) = 42.511 [0.0000]**

J: [0.94]

Italy 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.10}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.04}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{5}}{\mathbf{.16}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.03}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.50}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.67551 [0.7115]

N: χ2(4) = 18.240 [0.0011]**

J: [0.20]

The Netherlands 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.31}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{23}}{\mathbf{.05}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{7}}{\mathbf{.07}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.04}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 0.66028 [0.7244]

N: χ2(4) = 4.8817 [0.2996]

J: [0.84]

The Netherlands 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.13}}} \\ { - 0.46} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.18}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.5327 [0.1601]

N: χ2(4) = 4.6039 [0.3304]

J: [0.49]

Norway 1865–1913

 

1865–1938:

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ {0.09} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.61}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.0965 [0.3758]

N: χ2(4) = 4.9877 [0.2886]

J: [0.16]

Norway 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.33}}} \\ { - 0.07} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {ave + 0.04\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.98025 [0.4580]

N: χ2(4) = 65.077 [0.0000]**

J: [0.80]

Portugal 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.18}}} \\ {0.07} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - 0.16\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.6009 [0.1397]

N: χ2(4) = 2.7068 [0.6080]

J: [0.56]

Portugal 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.21}}} \\ {0.78} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.05y + 0.00t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.58981 [0.7833]

N: χ2(4) = 0.87037 [0.9288]

J: [0.74]

Spain 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.33}}} \\ {0.13} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - 0.24y + 0.00t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \,\left( {{\text{beta}}\,{\text{ave}}\,{\text{sig}}\,{\text{at}}\, 10\,\% } \right) \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.0992 [0.3740]

N: χ2(4) = 9.4897 [0.0500]*

J: [0.42]

Spain 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.09}}} \\ { - 0.01} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{8}}{\mathbf{.20}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.04}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.3708 [0.2230]

N: χ2(4) = 11.506 [0.0214]*

J: [0.16]

Sweden 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.37}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.12}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{5}}{\mathbf{.56}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.67}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{2}}{\mathbf{.08}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.18}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 0.75273 [0.6450]

N: χ2(4) = 27.422 [0.0000]**

J: [0.86]

Sweden 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.07}}} \\ { - 0.36} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.99676 [0.4456]

N: χ2(4) = 9.4344 [0.0511]

J: [0.51]

Switzerland 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.47}}} \\ { - 0.00} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - 2.77\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.6177 [0.1348]

N: χ2(4) = 12.368 [0.0148]*

J: [0.89]

Switzerland 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.15}}} \\ { - 0.02} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{3}}{\mathbf{.45}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.99249 [0.4488]

N: χ2(4) = 17.553 [0.0015]**

J: [0.15]

UK 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.44}}} \\ {0.01} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - 0.07\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 3.0289 [0.0055]**

N: χ22(4) = 9.4978 [0.0498]*

J: [0.55]

UK 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.36}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.08}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + 1.42\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.93098 [0.4962]

N: χ2(4) = 24.729 [0.0001]**

J: [0.29]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.11}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.52}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.70}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

North America

 

Canada 1870–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.21}}} \\ { - 0.03} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.95}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.03}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,62) = 1.2292 [0.2974]

N: χ2(4) = 4.9420 [0.2933]

J: [0.58]

Canada 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.38}}} \\ { - 0.46} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.03\,y + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.41928 [0.9061]

N: χ2(4) = 36.434 [0.0000]**

J: [0.86]

USA 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.17}}} \\ {0.08} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.53}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 2.0652 [0.0505]

N: χ2(4) = 16.180 [0.0028]**

J: [0.59]

USA 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.25}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.07}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + 0.90\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.1399 [0.3469]

N: χ2(4) = 16.636 [0.0023]**

J: [0.42]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.06}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.22}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.11}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

Latin America

 

Argentina 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ {0.07} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.13\,y - 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.0581 [0.4019]

N: χ2(4) = 4.9259 [0.2950]

J: [0.28]

Argentina 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.22}}} \\ {0.12} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - 0.42\,y - 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.3021 [0.2554]

N: χ2(4) = 36.801 [0.0000]**

J: [0.76]

Brazil 1870–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.19}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.21}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.92}}\,{\text{ave}} + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.40}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.36}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.52}}\,y - 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,62) = 1.1160 [0.3651]

N: χ2(4) = 26.425 [0.0000]**

J: [0.49]

Brazil 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.27}}} \\ {0.17} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - 0.01\,y - 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.61117 [0.7658]

N: χ2(4) = 9.6073 [0.0476]*

J: [0.79]

Chile 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ {0.09} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.61}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 1.0965 [0.3758]

N: χ2(4) = 4.9877 [0.2886]

J: [0.16]

Chile 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.33}}} \\ { - 0.07} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.04\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.98025 [0.4580]

N: χ2(4) = 65.077 [0.0000]**

J: [0.80]

Colombia 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.59}}} \\ {0.06} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.38}}\,y - 0.01\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.69781 [0.6924]

N: χ2(4) = 16.463 [0.0025]**

J: [0.91]

Mexico 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.25}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.09}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - 0.01\,y + 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.51552 [0.8413]

N: χ2(4) = 8.5363 [0.0738]

J: [0.76]

Peru 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.11}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.18}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.51}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.26}}} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.17}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.66}}\,y + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.9620 [0.0628]

N: χ2(4) = 8.7381 [0.0680]

J: [0.75]

Uruguay 1870–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.52}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.13}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + 0.99\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,62) = 1.5391 [0.1623]

N: χ2(4) = 18.214 [0.0011]**

J: [0.65]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.12}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.52}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

Uruguay 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.20}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.23}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.41}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.82623 [0.5821]

N: χ2(4) = 15.424 [0.0039]**

J: [0.64]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.32}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.28}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.71}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

Asia/Australia

 

Australia 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.18}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.04}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{5}}{\mathbf{.98}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,72) = 0.80695 [0.5986]

N: χ2(4) = 13.912 [0.0076]**

J: [0.86]

or

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.26}}} \\ { - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.06}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.17}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.00}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

Australia 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.77}}} \\ {0.03} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.29}}\,y + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 1.2860 [0.2635]

N: χ2(4) = 39.039 [0.0000]**

J: [0.62]

India 1872–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.22}}} \\ { - 0.08} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.66}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.01}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,58) = 1.6345 [0.1349]

N: χ2(4) = 27.104 [0.0000]**

J: [0.56]

India 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.23}}} \\ {0.00} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.44}}\,y - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.03}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.72342 [0.6703]

N: χ2(4) = 16.199 [0.0028]**

J: [0.61]

Japan 1865–1913

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.11}}} \\ {0.11} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {y + {\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{.07}}\,{\text{ave}} - {\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.02}}\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,62) = 0.85916 [0.5554]

N: χ2(4) = 0.82110 [0.9356]

J: [0.73]

Japan 1950–2000

 

\( \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\Updelta {\text{ave}}_{t} } \\ {\Updelta y_{t} } \\ \end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{cc} { - 0.07} \\ {{\mathbf{0}}{\mathbf{.73}}} \\ \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\left\{ {{\text{ave}} + 0.01\,y - 0.00\,t} \right\}_{t - 1} } \right] + \cdots \)

AR: F(8,76) = 0.92927 [0.4976] N: χ2(4) = 16.486 [0.0024]**

J: [0.09]

Appendix 2: Data sources for the calculation of AVEs

This appendix lists, country by country (in alphabetical order), the sources for Customs Revenue (‘Revenue’) and Import values (‘Imports’), both normally in current prices in local currency units (LCU), indicating in parenthesis for which years data are retrieved from this source, and giving the specific reference to a page or table number, and, if necessary to distinguish between different series in our source, the denomination of the series we choose. Where either imports or revenues were reported in a currency different from LCU, this is also noted in parentheses and an additional source for the exchange rate is given with the corresponding detail information. If we directly used a source for AVEs, this source (e.g., Clemens and Williamson 2004) is mentioned. The full bibliographic reference for each title is given in the reference list at the end. In those cases where we connect series from different sources over time, we provide a short discussion of how they connect in overlapping years. We also mention how small data gaps have been bridged by interpolation in specific cases.

  • Argentina: Revenue: Ferreres (ed., 2005), Table 6.1.1 (derechos de importación). Imports: Ferreres (2005), T. 8.1.1 (importaciones, cif, in US$). Exchange rate: Ferreres (2005), T. 7.2 (dólar de importación).

  • Australia: Revenue: Vamplew (ed., 1987), Series GF 357 (1865–1900); Mitchell (1995), Table G.6 (1901–1903). Imports: Vamplew (ed., 1987), Series ITFC 23 (Aggregate Imports, Australian Colonies, only overseas trade, not between them; –1900); Mitchell (1992), Table E.1 (1901–1903). AVE: 1904-, Lloyd (2008).

  • Belgium: Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G.6 (–1969, 1913–1919, 1956–64 geometrically interpolated), IMF (2005, 2009a) (1972–1991; 1970/1971 geometrically interpolated between Mitchell and IMF), 1992–2000 extrapolated using figures for the Netherlands; Imports: Horlings (2002) (–1990, 1914–1918 geometrically interpolated), IMF (2009b) (1991–2000).

  • Brazil: AVEs: Clemens and Williamson (2004) dataset (1870–1900); Revenue: OxLAD (1901–2000), Imports: Mitchell (1993), E1 (1901–1947, in LCU), OxLAD (1901–2000, in US$); Exchange rate: IMF (2009b).

  • Canada: Revenue: Urquhart, Buckley and Leacy (ed., 1983), Series G479 (–1975), IMF (2005, 2009a) (1976-); Imports: Urquhart, Buckley and Leacy (ed., 1983), Series G384 (–1975), IMF (2009b) (1976–).

  • Chile: AVEs: Jofré/Luders/Wagner (2000), Table 3 (–1999); IMF (2009a, 200b) (2000).

  • Colombia: AVEs: Clemens and Williamson (2004) dataset (1910–1911); Revenue: OxLAD (Mitchell 1993) (1912–2000); Imports: OxLAD (1912–2000, in USD); Exchange rate: OxLAD (1912–1949); CEPAL (2009) (1950–2000).

  • Denmark: AVEs: Clemens and Williamson (2004) dataset (1865–1896); Imports: Johansen (1985), Table 4.2 (1897–1980), Mitchell (2005), E1 (1981–1987), OECD (2012), DNK.BPDBTD01.NCCU (1988–2000); Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G9 (–1964), OECD (2009) (1965–1997), Danmarks Statistik (2012), Table 5.2 (1998–2000). Values coincide in overlapping years.

  • France: AVEs: Lévy-Leboyer and Bourgouignon (1990), T. A-VI (–1913); Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G6 (–1988; used until 1964), OECD (2009) (1965-); Imports: Mitchell (2005), E1. AVEs from Mitchell and OECD were not consistent (level in 1965: 0.23 vs. 0.61); so they were chained in 1965 forward (based on Mitchell-levels).

  • Germany: Imports: Bondi (1958), p. 124, 145 (1865–1871), Deutsche Bundesbank (1976) (1872–1913, 1925–1943, 1948–1949), 1914–1924 interpolated and converted into current prices with import price index (Statistisches Reichsamt 1926, p. 263) and exchange rate to Gold dollar (Holtfrerich 1980), Mitchell (2005), E1 (1950–1970), OECD (2012), DEU.BPDBTD01.NCCUSA (1971–2000); Revenue: Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt (1889), p. 184 (1865–1878), Caasen (1953), Table 1.a/b (1872–1944); Mitchell (1992), G6 (1920–1921, 1946–1964), OECD (2009) (1965–1997), Statistisches Bundesamt (2012), VGR-STE-22 (1998–2000); AVEs 1944–1947 linearly interpolated; for revenues 1872–1878 we used averages between both sources (which diverged by c. 10 %).

  • India: Revenue: Mitchell (1995), G.6 (1872–1988), World Bank (2008) (1989–2000); Imports: Mitchell (1995), E.1 (1872–1988), World Bank (2008) (1989–2000).

  • Italy: Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G.6 (–1942; 1947–1974), Liesner (1989), T. It.9 (1974–1985), OECD (2009) (1974–2000), IMF (2005, 2009a) (1974–1999). Imports: Mitchell (2003), E.1. Revenue data was not consistent between Mitchell, OECD and IMF until 1974, and Liesner, OECD and IMF after 1975.

  • Concerning revenue, Liesner’s and Mitchell’s figures are identical except for rounding until 1974, but a major break occurs in Liesner’s figures between 1974 and 1975. Values after 1974 are unweighted averages of those obtained from using Liesner, OECD and IMF Revenue data, which diverge considerably, with the 1974 Mitchell figures. AVE’s 1943–1946 are geometrically interpolated.

  • Japan: AVEs 1865–1867: Clemens and Williamson database (connects perfectly), Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G.6 (1868–1926), Japan Statistics Bureau (2008), Series 05–06 (Customs duties) (1927-). Imports: Mitchell (1995), E.1 (1868–1943, 1945–1976), Japan Statistics Bureau (2008), Series 18-2-a (Value of Japan Imports) (1977–). Connects perfectly. Imports in 1944 are from Ohkawa and Shinohara (1979), Table A31. Import value for 1945 is interpolated using the Barro/Ursúa (2006) GDP per capita figure.

  • Mexico: AVEs: Clemens and Williamson database (- 1948); Revenue: Mitchell (1993), G.6 (1949–1974), IMF (2005, 2009a) (1972–2000). In 1972–1974 the mean of Mitchell and IMF, which diverged very little, was used. Imports: Mitchell (1993), E.1 (1949–1978), IMF (2009b) (1979–2000). AVEs before and after 1948 connect perfectly.

  • The Netherlands: Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G.6 (–1941, 1943–1964), OECD (2009) (1965–2000); Imports: Smits, Horlings, van Zanden (2000), H.1 (–1913), Mitchell (1992), E.1 (1914–1920, chained in 1913, 1940–1943, chained in 1939), Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2009) (1921–1939, 1944–2000). AVEs in 1942, 1944, 45 have been geometrically interpolated. Mitchell and OECD revenue figures are identical for 1955 and 1960, but the 1964 figure in Mitchell is equal to the OECD’s in 1965 (no OECD values for 1964 available). We have not shifted any of the series.

  • Norway. AVEs: Clemens and Williamson (2004) database (–1995); IMF (2009a, 2009b) (1996–2000). Clemens and Williamson’s figures proved to be coherent when connected in 1950 and also were virtually identical to figures calculated from Mitchell (1993) and IMF sources.

  • Peru: Revenue: OxLAD (1900–2000); Imports: OxLAD (1900–2000, in US$); Exchange rate: OxLAD (–1949), CEPAL (2009) (1950–).

  • Portugal: AVE: Lains (2007), T. 3 (–1958), Valério (coord., 2001), Table 10.1 (1959–1998), IMF (2009a, 2009b) (1999–2000).

  • Spain: Revenue: Tena (2007), T. 7, col. 18 (–1935), Mitchell (1992), G6 (1939–1964), OECD (2009) (1965–); Imports: Tena (2007), T.3, col. 4 (1865–2000). Sources for revenue are very similar in the years when the series were connected, but diverge in later years.

  • Sweden: Revenue: Mitchell (1992) (–1972; deducting 2.7 % until 1950 for coffee tax); OECD (2009) (1972–1989); IMF (2005, 2009a) (1990–2000). In overlapping years, differences in the sources are small. Imports: Edvinsson (2005), Table F.

  • Switzerland: Revenue: Mitchell (1992), G6 (–1885), Ritzmann-Blickenstorfer (1996), L.3 (1886–1960), Imports: Ritzmann-Blickenstorfer (1996), L2, H4, L54 (mean of Bairoch and Bernegger export volume indices [L2] rebased to 1885 and multiplied with wholesale price index [H4], replicates existing single year estimates for 1875/7 [in 1876] and 1879 [L54] very closely), Ritzmann-Blickenstorfer (1996), L3 (1886–1961); the resulting AVEs figures coincide perfectly with Clemens and Williams (2004) after 1952, whose AVEs were used for 1961–1997; 1997–2000 have been calculated from IMF (2009a, 2009b).

  • United Kingdom: Revenue: Mitchell (1992), 581–584 (–1964), OECD (2009) (1965-), Imports: Mitchell (1992), pp. 451–454 (–1965), IMF (2009b) (1965-). Levels do not coincide, chained in 1964 at the OECD/IMF level (0.059 vs. 0.352 following Mitchell).

  • USA: Revenue: Sutch/Carter (general eds., 2006), Series Ea589 (–1999), Imports: Sutch/Carter (general eds., 2006), Series Ee369 (–1999). 2000: IMF (2009a, 2009b).

  • Uruguay: AVEs: Clemens and Williamson (2004) database (–1899, rebased to our 1900 figures); Revenue: OxLAD (1900–1968, 1972–2000), Mitchell (1993), G6 (assuming that customs revenues were the same share of total revenues as in previous years). Imports: OxLAD (–1931, 1937–2000, in US$), Mitchell (1993), E1 (1932–1936, in US$). Mitchell’s import values were used for 1932–1936 because OxLAD data caused implausible structural breaks in the AVE series. Exchange rates: OxLAD (1900–2000).

2.1 Data source references

  • Barro, RJ, Ursúa, JF (2006). ‘Macroeconomic Crises since 1870’. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2008 (1), 255–350. Online Appendix, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/barro/data_sets_barro.

  • Bondi, G (1958). Deutschlands Außenhandel 1815–1870. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

  • Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2009). StatLine databank, Internationale handel; in- en uitvoer historie, retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=70792NED&D1=0&D2=a&HDR=G1&STB=T&VW=T, 3 december 2009.

  • Clemens, MA, Williamson, JG (2004). Why Did the Tariff-Growth Correlation Reverse After 1950?, Journal of Economic Growth 9, 5–46.

  • CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. División de Estadística y Proyecciones Económicas) (2009). América Latina y el Caribe. Series históricas de estadísticas económicas, 1950–2008. CEPAL Cuadernos estadísticos, 37, http://www.eclac.cl/deype/cuaderno37/index.htm.

  • Caasen, HG (1953). Die Steuer- und Zolleinnahmen des Deutschen Reiches 1872–1944. Diss. jur., Univ. Bonn.; data obtained from data file ZA850 at GESIS, http://www.histat.gesis.org/ (last accessed August 2012).

  • Danmarks Statistik (2012). Statistikbanken. Offentlige finanser. OFF12: Skatter og afgifter efter skattetype, http://www.statistikbanken.dk (last accessed August 2012).

  • Deutsche Bundesbank (ed. 1976): Deutsches Geld- und Bankwesen in Zahlen 1876–1975. Frankfurt/Main: Fritz Knapp Verlag (data taken from data collection by Sensch J, Der Deutsche Außenhandel Deutschlands. Basisdaten für den Zeitraum 1830 bis 2000. GESIS-Datenkompilation at http://www.histat.gesis.org/ (last accessed August 2012).

  • Edvinsson, R (2005). Growth, Accumulation, Crisis: With New Macroeconomic Data for Sweden. Almqvist & Wiksell International; Stockholm.

  • Ferreres, OJ (ed., 2005). Dos siglos de economía argentina (1810–2004). Historia argentina en cifras, Buenos Aires: El Ateneo/Fundación Norte y Sur.

  • Holtfrerich, L (1980). Die deutsche Inflation 1914–1923. Ursachen und Folgen in internationaler Perspektive. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Horlings, E (2002). ‘The International Trade of a Small and Open Economy. Revised Estimates of the Imports and Exports of Belgium, 1835–1990,’ NEHA-Jaarboek 65, 110–142.

  • IMF (2005). Historical Government Finance Statistics Database and Browser on CD-ROM, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

  • IMF (2009a). Government Finance Statistics Online. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, http://www.imfstatistics.org/gfs/ (last accessed January 2009).

  • IMF (2009b). International Financial Statistics Online. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, http://www.imfstatistics.org/ifs/ (last accessed January 2009).

  • Japan Statistics Bureau (2008). Historical Statistics of Japan, http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/chouki/index.htm (last accessed October 2008).

  • Jofré, J, Lüders, R, Wagner, G (2000). ‘Economía Chilena 1810–1995. Cuentas Fiscales. Universidad Católica de Chile’, Instituto de Economía, Documento de Trabajo 188, december 2000.

  • Johansen, H.C. (1985). Danish Historical Statistics, 1814–1980. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

  • Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt (1889). Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich 10, 1889. Berlin: Putkammer und Mühlbrecht.

  • Lains, P (2007). ‘Growth in a Protected Environment: Portugal, 1850–1950’, Research in Economic History 24, 119–160.

  • Lévy-Leboyer, M, Bourgouignon, F (1990). The French Economy in the Nineteenth Century. An Essay in Econometric Analysis, Cambridge, Cambs.: Cambridge UP.

  • Liesner, Th (1989). One Hundred Years of Economic Statistics. United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden. London: The Economist Publications.

  • Lloyd, P (2008). ‘100 Years of Tariff Protection in Australia’, Australian Economic History Review 48, 99–145.

  • Mitchell, BR (1992). International Historical Statistics. Europe, 1750–1988. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

  • Mitchell, BR (1993). International Historical Statistics. The Americas, 1750–1988. New York: Stockton.

  • Mitchell, BR (1995). International Historical Statistics. Africa, Asia & Oceania, 1750–1988. New York: Stockton.

  • Mitchell, BR (2003). International Historical Statistics. Europe, 1750–2000. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

  • Ohkawa, K, Shinohara, M (1979). Patterns of Japanese Economic Development. A Quantitative Appraisal. New Haven/London: Yale UP.

  • OECD (2009). SourceOECD Revenue Statistics of OECD Member Countries Database, http://puck.sourceoecd.org/vl=1842396/cl=38/nw=1/rpsv/statistic/s19_about.htm?jnlissn=16081099 (last accessed January 2009).

  • OECD (2012). OECD Main Economic Indicators. Balance of Payments Series. Accessed via IHS DataInsight (last accessed June 2012).

  • OxLAD (2009). Oxford Latin American Economic History Database, Oxford: Latin American Centre at Oxford University, http://oxlad.qeh.ox.ac.uk/index.php (last accessed January 2009).

  • Ritzmann-Blickenstorfer, H (1996). Historische Statistik der Schweiz—Statistique historique de la Suisse—Historical Statistics of Switzerland. Zürich: Chronos, 1996.

  • Smits, J-P, Horlings, E, van Zanden, JL (2000). ‘Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800–1913’, Groningen: Groningen Growth and Development Centre (= GGDC Research Memorandum 5).

  • Statistisches Bundesamt (2012). VGR des Bundes, Steuereinnahmen. Steuereinnahmearten. Zölle. 81000-0149. DeStatis, https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online (last accessed August 2012).

  • Statistisches Reichsamt (1926). Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich 1926. 45. Jg. Berlin: Reimar Hobbing. Data obtained from GESIS datafile ZA8299 at http://www.histat.gesis.org/ (last accessed August 2012).

  • Sutch, R, Carter, SB (general eds., 2006). Historical Statistics of the United States Millenial Edition Online. New York: Cambridge UP, http://hsus.cambridge.org.

  • Tena, A (2007). ‘New Series of the Spanish Foreign Sector’, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Working Papers in Economic History 07-14.

  • Urquhart, MC, Buckley, KAH, Leacy, FH (eds., 1983). Historical Statistics of Canada. Second edition. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

  • Valério, N (ed., 2001). Estatísticas Históricas Portuguesas/Portuguese Historical Statistics. Lisbon: Instituto Nacional de Estadística.

  • Vamplew, W (ed., 1987). Australians. Historical Statistics. Broadway, New South Wales: Fairfax, Syme & Weldon (Australians: A Historical Library, 10).

  • World Bank (2008). World Development Indicators 2008 CD-ROM. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lampe, M., Sharp, P. Tariffs and income: a time series analysis for 24 countries. Cliometrica 7, 207–235 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-012-0088-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-012-0088-5

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation