Выбрать главу

Whatever the exact cause was, the Netherlands failed to industrialize to the same extent as its competitor countries, Britain, Germany and Belgium. Nevertheless, thanks to the strengths of its commercial network, it remained one of the richest countries in the world until the early twentieth century.[163]

One exception to the policy paralysis that seemed to have gripped the Netherlands between the late seventeenth and early twentieth centuries was the effort made by King William I (1815—40). William I established many agencies providing subsidized industrial financing, the most important of which was the Netherlands Trading Company (Nederlandsche Handels-Maatschappij) set up in 1824. The Company supported Dutch industries by means of targeted procurement policies (especially in sugar refining, shipbuilding and textiles), using the profits from its monopoly trade with the colony of Java, which from 1831 onward was forced to produce cash crops such as coffee, sugar and indigo.[164] William I also founded the Fund for the National Industry (1821), the Amortisation Syndicate (1822), and the General Society for Furthering the National Industry (1822). During the 1830s, strong state support was also provided for the development of modern cotton textile industry, especially in the Twente region.[165]

However, from the late 1840s, the country reverted to a laissez-faire regime, which lasted until the First World War, and to an extent until the Second World War. First of all, as we can see in table 2.1, the Netherlands remained the least protected economy among the NDCs, except for Britain in the late nineteenth century and Japan before the restoration of tariff autonomy. Second, in 1869 the country abolished patent law (which was first introduced in 1817) on the grounds that it created an artificial monopoly. This move was partly inspired by the anti-patent movement that was sweeping Europe at the time, which in fact had a strong association with the free trade movement (see section 3.2.3.B for further details). Despite international pressures, the country refused to reintroduce the patent law until 1912 (more on this later).[166] Third, the Dutch government deliberately created a private sector company in order to compete with two existing private sector companies in managing the national railway, which it organized and financed.[167] This practice was hardly heard of at the time, and although it is strictly speaking not a laissez-faire policy, it is nevertheless a precursor of modern pro-competitive activist industrial policy.

During this extreme laissez-faire period, the Dutch economy remained on the whole rather sluggish, and its industrialization relatively shallow. According to the authoritative estimate by Maddison, measured in 1990 dollars, the Netherlands was still the second richest country in the world in 1820 after the UK, even after a century of relative decline ($1,756 vs. $1,561). A century later (1913), however, it had been overtaken by no fewer than six countries – Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Belgium – and almost by Germany. Germany’s per capita income was only about 60 per cent that of the Netherlands in 1820 ($1,561 as opposed to $1,112), but by 1913 was only a shade below it ($3,950 vs. $3,833-for detailed income figures, see table 3.7 in Chapter 3).[168]

It was largely for this reason that the end of the Second World War saw the introduction of more interventionist policies. An active industrial policy was practised, especially in the years up to 1963. This included measures like financial supports for two large firms (one in steel, the other in soda), subsidies to industrialize backward areas, the encouragement of technical education, promoting the development of the aluminium industry through subsidized gas, and the development of key infrastructures.[169]

C. Switzerland

Switzerland was one of Europe’s earliest industrializers. Biucchi argues that Switzerland’s Industrial Revolution started barely 20 years later than Britain’s did. By 1850 Switzerland, like Belgium, was one of the most industrialized economies in the world, although the heterogenous and decentralized nature of the country meant that the degree of industrialization remained uneven across different cantons.[170]

The cotton industry in particular experienced incredible development during the 1820s and 1830s. According to Milward and Saul, ‘[b]etween one-third and one-half of the cotton yarn woven in Switzerland in 1822 was imported from Britain. Yet by 1835 imports of British yarn had almost ceased’.[171] Switzerland was a world technological leader in a number of important industries, especially in the cotton textile industry, where in many areas it was deemed technologically more advanced than Britain.[172]

Given this very small technological gap (if any) with the leader country, infant industry protection was not very necessary for Switzerland. Also, given its small size, protection would have been more costly for Switzerland than for bigger countries. Moreover, given the country’s highly decentralized political structure and very small size, there was little room for centralized infant industry protection.[173]

Biucchi argues that free trade was the most important aspect of Swiss economic’ policy as early as the sixteenth century. He admits, however, that the ‘natural’ protection from British competition accorded by Napoleon’s intervention provided the Swiss textile industry with a critical breathing space, particularly in view of the technological gap that was emerging as a result of British success in mechanization in the textile industry at the time.[174] Moreover, Switzerland’s laissez-faire policy did not necessarily mean that its government had no sense of strategy in its policy-making. Its refusal to introduce a patent law until 1907, despite strong international pressure, is such an example. This anti-patent policy is argued to have contributed to the development of a number of industries. Especially affected by this were the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, which actively stole technologies from Germany, and the food industry, in which the absence of patents actually encouraged direct foreign investment (more on this in sections 2.3.3 and 3.2.3.B).[175]

2.2.7. Japan and the East Asian NICs

Japan came onto the industrial scene rather late. It was forced open by the Americans in 1854 (the infamous ‘Black Ship’ incident). Though they had had some glimpses of the European world before this through their contact with Portuguese and Dutch traders, the Japanese were, on gaining wider exposure to the West, shocked by the relative backwardness of their country. Soon afterwards, the feudal political order collapsed and, after the so-called Meiji Restoration of 1868, a modernizing regime was established. Since then the role of the Japanese state has been crucial to the country’s development.

вернуться

163

Dhondt and Bruwier 1973, p. 329, 355.

вернуться

164

van Zanden 1996, pp. 84-5.

вернуться

165

Kossmann 1978, pp. 136-8; Henderson 1972, pp. 198-200.

вернуться

166

For further details, see Schiff 1971.

вернуться

167

van Zanden 1999, pp. 179-80.

вернуться

168

Maddison 1995.

вернуться

169

van Zanden 1999, pp. 182-4.

вернуться

170

Biucchi 1973, pp. 464, 628.

вернуться

171

Milward and Saul 1979, pp. 454-5.

вернуться

172

Biucchi 1973, p. 629.

вернуться

173

Biucchi 1973, p. 455.

вернуться

174

Biucchi 1973, pp. 628, 630-1.

вернуться

175

For further details see Schiff 1971.