Introduction

The discriminatory nature of protectionism means that a process of import substitution is likely to result from such policies. Thus, on a priori grounds the newly protected industries of 1932 should have received a favourable stimulus, improving their standing relative to the non-protected and already protected industries. Most of the existing literature on the impact of the 1932 tariff has in fact focused on the issue of import substitution. In this chapter we present an extensive re-evaluation of the disaggregated evidence.

A study of the sectoral impact of the General Tariff is needed not only in terms of resolving some of the problems arising from the existing literature, but as a way of checking the reliability of the macroeconomic argument and evidence presented in chapter 4. The existence of a well-defined sector subject to the policy change of 1932 allows us a further test of the claim that much of the fall in import propensities was due to tariffs. Moreover, we are not arguing that the General Tariff was the only influence on sectoral growth performance; a disaggregated analysis is necessary to distinguish the characteristics of those industries that benefited most from protection from those that benefited least. Two levels of industrial disaggregation will be used in this chapter. A broad industrial classification will be used to analyse the role of changes in trade in accounting for sectoral growth performance.