Cited by 277Global trade and economicsAsian Industrial and Economic DevelopmentEconomic Theory and Policy

Kicking away the ladder: Infant industry promotion in historical perspective

Chang, Ha-Joon·2003·Oxford Development Studies

Abstract

This article introduces a new dimension in the debate on infant industry promotion by pointing out that, historically, the developed countries themselves did not develop on the basis of free trade policy and laissez-faire industrial policy that they currently recommend to, or even force upon, the developing countries. It first critically examines the "official history of capitalism", which sees the last few centuries as a continuous, if sometimes disrupted, advance of the free trade system. Then it shows how virtually all of today's developed countries, especially the UK and the USA, the supposed homes of free trade, used tariff protection and subsidies to develop their industries when they were in catching-up positions. It then criticizes the orthodox counter-argument that, while using protection in the early days of their economic development, today's developed countries never used it as much as today's developing countries have done. Finally, pointing out that the supposedly "good" policies of free trade and laissez-faire industrial policy have led to a collapse in growth in the developing countries during the last two decades, the article argues for a total rethink on trade policy and, more broadly, development strategy, for developing countries. Above all, it recommends that the global rules need to be rewritten in such a way that developing countries are allowed more actively to use tariffs and subsidies for infant industry promotion in accordance with their development…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1360081032000047168

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Discounting current efforts could add justification to claims that an environmentalist agenda is being used to slow down Brazil's development by 'kicking away the ladder'.

    “Moreover, discounting current efforts could add justification to claims that an environmentalist agenda is being used to slow down Brazil's development by 'kicking away the ladder' (Chang, 2003).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chang, H.-J.
Corresponding author
Chang, Ha-Joon
Venue
Oxford Development Studies
Published
2003-03
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
21-32
ISSN
  • 0264-5491 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0818
  • 1469-9966
OpenAlex
W1972126835
Cited by
277
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oxford Development Studies (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Global trade and economics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Asian Industrial and Economic Development
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economic Theory and Policy
Keywords
infant industry protection, protective tariffs, industrial subsidies, free trade, development strategy, catching-up economies, trade policy, global trade rules, economic growth, history of capitalism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review