This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
u|
Message to Congress on November 18,1969, which accompanied President Nixon’s Trade Act of 1969.
The basic proposition was set out in “A New Trade Strategy for Canada and the United States”, Washington D.C. and Montreal: Canadian-American Committee, 1966. The committee is sponsored by the National Planning Association, in the United States, and the Private Planning Assdciation of Canada.
See the “Early Day Motion 171” tabled in the House of Commons in February, 1969.
“Japan Should Adopt a Free Trade Area Strategy”, Asahi Shimbun (in Japanese), Tokyo, December 21, 1968. For the White Paper, see Annual Report on the World Economy, Tokyo: Economic Planning Agency, 1968 (in Japanese).
Sir Eric Wyndham White, “International Trade Policy: the Kennedy Round and Beyond”, Address to the Deutsche Qesell-schaft fur Auswaärtige Politik, Bad Godesberg, October 27, 1966.
This testimony was republished as William Roth, “The President’s Trade Policy Study”, The Atlantic Community Quarterly, Washington D.C., Spring, 1968.
For a full discussion of these and other options, see Gérard and Victoria Curzon, “Options After the Kennedy Round”, in Harry G. Johnson (ed.), New Trade Strategy for the World Economy, London, 1969. Also see Edward English, “Tariffs and Trade”, in 1968 Conference Report, Toronto, 1969.
W. M. Corden, “The Structure of a Tariff System and the Effective Protective Rate”, Journal of Political Economy, Chicago, June, 1966.
This was, in fact, the main thrust of the Roth Report: Special Representative for Trade Negotiations, Future United States Foreign Trade Policy, Washington D.C., January, 1969. On the free trade treaty option, the report said: “The United States should not jeopardise the chance of a further reduction of trade barriers on an MFN basis by proposing or encouraging plans for participation in a new free trade area. It should be prepared to reexamine this position, however, if circumstances should change so as to make it unlikely that a liberal trade policy based on MFN can succeed.“ Attention might be directed to the dissenting views of a number of members of the Public Advisory Committee on Trade Policy who were favourably disposed towards the free trade treaty option. See pp. 12 and 13.
Raymond F. MikeseII, “Changing World Trade Patterns and America’s Leadership Role”, The Annals, Philadelphia, July, 1969. Professor Mikesell favours, however, a bolder and more dramatic approach.
Curzon and Curzon, op. cit., pp. 56 and 57.
For a full discussion of the free trade treaty option, see Harry G. Johnson, “Some Aspects of the Multilateral Free Trade Association Proposal”, The Manchester School, Manchester, September, 1969.
A comprehensive analysis of a generalised scheme of tariff preferences related to a free trade treaty can be found in David Wall, “The Third World Challenge“, London: The Atlantic Trade Study, Trade Policy Research Centre, 1968.
See, for instance, “Constructive Alternatives to Proposals for US Import Quotas”, Washington D.C. and Montreal: Canadian- American Committee, 1968. Also see the testimony of the Emergency Committee on American Trade, as presented by Mr Robert M c N e 111, before the Roth enquiry early in 1968 and reported in Business Week, New York, March 30, 1968.
As a reflection of the American mood, see Harald B. Malmgren, “Technology and Neo-Mercantilism in International Agricultural Trade”, Paper given to the American Agricultural Economics Association, Lexington, August 17 to 20, 1969. Also see the despatch from Bonn: Joseph Sterne, “US Officials Worried by Common Market Threat to Food Exports”, The Sun, Baltimore, November 17, 1969.
Harold B. MaImgren, “Troubles Ahead for World Farm Trade”, Address to the National Soybean Processors Association, Denver, August 25, 1969.
In the present writer’s view, the British attitude has been correctly assessed in Heinz H öpfl, “Nicht nur Wilsons Nein”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt, September 9, 1969. Herr Höpfl wrote: “Wilson’s rejection of any form of European federation is as authentic as was Churchill’s, Eden’s and Macmillan’s and springs from the same source. Nowhere does the idea of supra-national authority meet with such instinctive rejection as in Britain.“ This aspect of the crisis of European integration is discussed in Hugh Corbet, “Role of the Free Trade Area”, in Corbet and David Robertson (eds.), Europe’s Free Trade Area Experiment, Oxford, forthcoming.
For an account of the Johnson Administration’s reaction to the Brandt and Debré plans of 1968, see European Community, London, January, 1969.
On this possibility, see Lawrence C. McQuade, “Foreign Economic Policy: Trade, Payments and Controls”. Address to the St. Louis Committee on Foreign Relations, St. Louis, December 12, 1968. At the time Mr McQuade was Assistant Secretary of Commerce in the Johnson Administration.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Mr Hugh Corbet is Director of the Trade Policy Research Centre, London, a privately sponsored organisation, which is presently administering a major research programme on the free trade treaty option.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Corbet, H. Strategy for an open world economy. Intereconomics 5, 73–76 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928497
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928497