1999/12/01 by Steven F. Lobell, Steven Lobell · 15 citations
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Aesthetics #Argument (complex analysis) #Economic history #Economics #Economy #Elite Sociology and Global Capitalism #Global Financial Crisis and Policies #Hegemony #International trade #Law #Period (music) #Philosophy #Political economy #Political science #Politics #Position (finance) #Protectionism #Social Policy and Reform Studies #Sociology #State (computer science)
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00141
published in International Studies Quarterly 43(4), 671-693 (Oxford University Press)
openalex publication_date 1999/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
In 1903–1906, 1917–1923, and 1930–1932 British decision makers debated whether to adopt a system of imperial preferences. Preferences were rejected in 1906 and 1923, but adopted in 1932 at the Ottawa Conference. The existing political economy literature focuses primarily on the hegemon's position in the international system, state or society centered arguments, and the role of ideas and beliefs to explain changes in a hegemon's foreign commercial policy. Using a second image reversed argument, I contend that changes in the commercial composition of the emerging contenders from a mix of liberal and nonliberal contenders in the first and second periods (1903–1906; 1917–1923) to nonliberal contenders in the third period (1930–1932) strengthened economic nationalists over free traders, contributing to Britain's adoption of imperial preferences. Although greatly diminished in strength, free traders were able to moderate the protectionist policies through the Ottawa Agreements and the Sterling Area.