American economic historian Jeffrey Williamson, specialist in global development, dies

American economic historian Jeffrey Williamson died on August 29. The researcher dedicated himself to studying the development of the global economy from the end of the 18th century until the end of the Pax Britannica, with the First World War.

Williamson's theme was to study the role of the global economy in shaping the great divergence between the various peripheries — Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, China and Japan — and the center, the economies of Western Europe.

The argument, with many differences, is reminiscent of the center-periphery model of ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America). Williamson documents that there was strong deindustrialization in India and the Ottoman Empire, from the end of the 18th century until the third quarter of the 19th century. The demand for raw materials generated large gains in terms of trade in the periphery, which discouraged existing industry.

In India, climate problems and the disorganization of the Mughal Empire, in association with moderate gains in terms of trade, produced strong deindustrialization.

Mexico suffered deindustrialization in the first half of the 19th century. From the third quarter of the century onwards, the terms of trade stopped rising and a more consistent policy of industrial development had the desired result, mainly in the textile industry.

Based on careful studies with primary databases, Williamson showed that Latin America employed very high import tariffs and, from the end of the 19th century, there were clear signs of an intentional policy of industrialization.

For Brazil, Williamson documented that we had, from 1870 until the First World War, a certain stability in the terms of trade. We practiced very high import tariffs on manufactured goods and import tariffs on food, especially grains, were relatively low. Making food cheaper helped reduce labor costs and stimulated industrialization.

Looking at Williamson's findings for Brazil, contrary to what we imagine, we did not do badly, from the end of the Empire and until the First Republic, in stimulating industrialization, compared to other countries in the region.

Where we did very badly, and we carry this cross to this day, was in investing in schooling.

These and many other findings are in Williamson's excellent 2011 book, "Trade and Poverty: When the Third World Fell Behind", which summarizes 50 years of much research.

A lesser-known work by Williamson was published in 2005 in the Journal of Economic Growth in collaboration with Kevin O’Rourke. In the study, they quantitatively document that David Ricardo was right: the continuation of the Industrial Revolution in England was stimulated by the liberalization of trade that occurred with the end of the Grain Law in the 1840s.

England's opening to food imports raised wages and reduced land income, freeing up work for industry. In the study, they point out a clear structural break in the land rent/wages ratio for England in the 1840s: it stops growing and starts falling quickly.

I once spoke briefly with Williamson when he was here at FEA-USP. Very attentive, detached, he shared his series with anyone who asked for them. To this day I have with me the series of Brazilian terms of trade since the 19th century, which he sent me.

My gratitude remains.