Kevin Hjortshøj O'Rourke

What is the role of trade policy in promoting intra-Empire trade? We address the question in the context of interwar India, whose trade policies have been accused of harming British export interests. We quantify the impact of trade policy on the value and composition of Indian imports, using novel disaggregated data on both trade policies and imports for 114 commodity categories coming from 42 countries. We find that even though Indian protection lowered total imports, it substantially boosted imports from the UK. Despite the rising tariff barriers facing British exporters, trade diversion from other countries ensured that Indian trade policy benefited them overall.

We document the outbreak of a trade war after the United States adopted the Smoot-Hawley tariff in June 1930. U.S. trade partners initially protested, with many eventually choosing to retaliate with tariffs. Using a new quarterly dataset on bilateral trade for ninety-nine countries, we show that U.S. exports to retaliators fell by 28%–32%. Using a second new dataset on U.S. exports at the product level, we find that the most important U.S. exports to retaliating markets were particularly affected, suggesting a possible mechanism whereby the United States was targeted despite most-favoured-nation obligations. The retaliators’ welfare gains from trade fell by 8%–16%.

The paper provides an assessment of the health of capitalism, concluding that in a global perspective the institution is prospering. Whether or not that is good for global, national, regional, or sectional welfare is another matter. The paper also compares some 1930s debates about capitalism with similar debates in our own time.

This paper introduces a new dataset of commodity-specific, bilateral import data for four large Asian economies in the interwar period: China, the Dutch East Indies, India and Japan. It uses these data to describe the interwar trade collapses in the economies concerned. These resembled the post-2008 Great Trade Collapse in some respects but not in others: they occurred along the intensive margin, imports of cars were particularly badly affected, and imports of durable goods fell by more than those of non-durables, except in China and India which were rapidly industrialising. On the other hand the import declines were geographically imbalanced, while prices were more important than quantities in driving the overall collapse.

The article surveys three economic history literatures that can speak to contemporary challenges to globalization: the literature on the anti-globalization backlash of the nineteenth century, focused largely on trade and migration; the literature on the Great Depression, focused largely on capital flows, the gold standard, and protectionism; and the literature on trade and warfare.

Transforming the academic experience and success of students by building Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs) is increasing, but ALCs are still fewer than traditional classroom spaces. These new learning spaces create an inherent tension between increasing student enrollments and active learning environments. Accommodating increased class sizes does not have to exclude fostering an active learning space. We have an opportunity every time a classroom is renovated or a new building is built to intentionally acknowledge and engage this tension to positively influence student learning and success. As we renovate and construct new learning spaces on our campuses, it is not only important to understand how the “built pedagogy” (Monahan 2000, 2002) and “architecture as pedagogy” (Orr 1993, 1997) of our spaces can help or hinder more active learning pedagogies, but also how to support effective teaching in these spaces (Levesque-Bristol, 2019). While many institutions are prioritizing active learning as old classrooms get renovated, few are doing so at the broad campus-wide scope necessary to affect larger-scale culture change (Park & Choi, 2014). Two such institutions that are developing and supporting large-scale active learning spaces are the Technological University Dublin (TU Dublin) and Purdue University (Indiana, USA). TU Dublin and Purdue are conducting collaborative research focusing on how each institution’s new, large-scale construction of formal and informal learning spaces is impacting teaching and learning.