Protectionism Isn’T Counter-Cyclic (Anymore)

41 Pages Posted: 25 May 2012

See all articles by Andrew Kenan Rose

Andrew Kenan Rose

University of California - Haas School of Business; NUS Business School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

Date Written: April 2012

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that protectionism is counter-cyclic; tariffs, quotas and the like grow during recessions. While that may have been a valid description of the data before the Second World War, it is no longer accurate. In the post-war era, protectionism has not actually moved counter-cyclically. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers do not systematically rise during cyclic downturns; if anything, they tend to fall. I document this new stylized fact with a wide panel of data, using a variety of measures of protectionism and business cycles. I also provide some hints as to why protectionism is no longer counter-cyclic.

Keywords: barrier, business cycle, data, empirical, international, panel, policy, recession, tariff, trade

JEL Classification: E32, F13

Suggested Citation

Rose, Andrew Kenan and Rose, Andrew Kenan, Protectionism Isn’T Counter-Cyclic (Anymore) (April 2012). CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP8937, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2066310

Andrew Kenan Rose (Contact Author)

University of California - Haas School of Business ( email )

Berkeley, CA 94720
United States
510-642-6609 (Phone)
510-642-4700 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/arose

NUS Business School ( email )

15 Kent Ridge Dr
Singapore, 119245
Singapore

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)

London
United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
2
Abstract Views
821
PlumX Metrics