----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Prof. Rosser is quite right: the UK benefitted dramatically from supporting 
free trade. It had the high value added activities, and need to import much 
raw material. It clearly enhanced its own competitive advantage to switch 
to free trade--and encourage others to do the same. The research of 
Williamson and O'Rourke showed that the most protected economies in the 
second half of the nineteenth century enjoyed the highest growth. 
 
The case for free trade is hardly clear cut, either empirically or 
theoretically. After all, Ricardian comparative advantage produces only a 
one-off improvement; it does not give rise to what Brad Andrew as aptly 
named Myrdal-Porter growth--a self-reenforcing cycle of innovation and 
productivity growth. The ready issue is what environment engenders the 
highest rates of innovation and thus real growth--the Schumpeterian 
challenge. As one might expect, what works best depends on the context, 
e.g. the relative competitive position, nature of markets, quality of legal 
system, etc. In some contexts free trade is indeed the best approach, but 
not always and everywhere. 
 
Fred Carstensen 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]