Hubbry Logo
Friedrich ListFriedrich ListMain
Open search
Friedrich List
Community hub
Friedrich List
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Friedrich List
Friedrich List
from Wikipedia

Daniel Friedrich List (6 August 1789 – 30 November 1846) was a German entrepreneur, diplomat, economist and political theorist who developed the nationalist theory of political economy in both Europe and the United States.[1][2][3][4] He was a forefather of the German historical school of economics and argued for the Zollverein (a pan-German customs union) from a nationalist standpoint.[5] He advocated raising tariffs on imported goods while supporting free trade of domestic goods and stated the cost of a tariff should be seen as an investment in a nation's future productivity.[4] His theories and writing also influenced the American school of economics.

Key Information

List was a political liberal[6] who collaborated with Karl von Rotteck and Carl Theodor Welcker on the Rotteck-Welckersches Staatslexikon [de], an encyclopedia of political science that advocated constitutional liberalism and which influenced the Vormärz.[7] At the time in Europe, liberal and nationalist ideas were almost inseparably linked, and political liberalism was not yet attached to what was later considered "economic liberalism."[6][8] Emmanuel Todd considers List a forerunner to John Maynard Keynes as a theorist of "moderate or regulated capitalism."[9]

Biography

[edit]

Early life

[edit]

Daniel Friedrich List was born in the free imperial city of Reutlingen in the Duchy of Württemberg. His date of birth is uncertain, but his baptism is usually given as August 6, 1789.[10] His father, Johannes (1746–1813), was a prosperous master tanner and a city official, and his mother was Maria Magdalena (née Schäfer). Daniel Friedrich was the second son and youngest child in his family.[11] He was educated at the town's Latin School. As an apprentice at his father's tanning business, List showed little interest in manual labor. He was apprenticed as a bureaucratic clerk at Blaubeuren.[11] After passing his examination, he entered the administrative service in 1805 and became Taxes and Warehouses Commissioner in Schelklingen.[11]

University professor and early advocacy for German customs union: 1817–1820

[edit]

At age 23 in 1811, List was promoted to a post at Tübingen. While there, he regularly attended lectures at the University of Tübingen and expanded his reading. He also made the acquaintance of the future minister Johannes von Schlayer [de].[11] In 1816, List's position in the bureaucracy was improved as the succession of King William I of Württemberg ushered in a period of reform. Under minister Karl August von Wangenheim [de], later his sponsor, List rose quickly through the bureaucracy. He moved to the Ministry of Finance in Stuttgart and rose to the position of chief auditor and accountant in 1816. In that role, he commissioned surveys among emigrants from Baden and Württemberg for the purpose of studying the increase in emigration and enacting countermeasures.[12]

Von Wangenheim, who had meanwhile been appointed Minister for Church and School Affairs for the Duchy, commissioned List to propose reforms to university civil service training. List proposed establishing a political science faculty alongside the standard legal training, arguing in 1817:

"No one in our University has any conception of a national economy. No one teaches the science of agriculture, forestry, mining, industry, or trade. ... [T]he forms of government are in such a truly barbarous state, that if an official of the seventeenth century rose again from the dead he could at once take up his old work, though he would assuredly be astonished to find the advances that had been made during the interval in the simplest process of manufacture."[13]

This proposal was accepted and the institution opened in Tübingen on October 17, 1817. Despite lacking a university degree, List was appointed professor of public administration science at the insistence of Von Wangenheim. The established professors and the university committees opposed the appointment on the grounds that List had only achieved his position through patronage, and they accused him of incompetence.

List published his thoughts on these reform in the short book Die Staatskunde und Staatspraxis Württembergs (1818). He further published arguments for constitutional liberalism in the magazine Volksfreund aus Schwaben, a national newspaper for morality, freedom and law. His journalistic activities drew suspicion from the new Württemberg government, and List was compelled to submit a petition to the king to defend himself against accusations of subversion.

In 1819, List traveled to Frankfurt and organized local merchants to establish the General German Trade and Industry Association. This association, which was later renamed the "Association of German Merchants and Manufacturers", is considered the first German business association of the modern era. List thus stands at the beginning of the economic association system that has been typical of German economic history since the 19th century.[14] List formulated the association's opposition to customs borders between the various German states and first envisioned the creation of a large German common market as a necessary prerequisite for the industrialization of Germany.[15] With regard to the foreign trade policy of this desired new internal market, List advocated a retaliatory tariff that would compensate for the trade barriers that existed for German traders abroad. This tariff was intended to protect German economic interests, but it was not yet the idea of an educational tariff that he later developed.[16] The association initiated a petition drive and lobbied German governments and princes to promote these policies.

"Thirty-eight customs and toll lines in Germany paralyze internal traffic and produce approximately the same effect as if every limb of the human body were ligated so that the blood did not overflow into another. In order to trade from Hamburg to Austria, from Berlin to Switzerland, one has to cross ten states, study ten customs and toll regulations, and pay ten times the transit toll."
– Extract from the petition of the General German Trade and Industry Association of 14 April 1819 to the Federal Assembly, formulated by Friedrich List[17]

The Bundestag did not recognize the trade association and instead referred the signatories to the individual state governments. These, however, strictly rejected outside interference in state affairs, and List's activism lost the trust of King Wilhelm I. In order to forestall his dismissal as professor, List resigned his office.[18] Instead, List turned his focus to activism. He became editor-in-chief of the newspaper Organ for the German Trade and Industry, founded on July 1, 1818 and managing director of the Trade and Industry Association. In the latter role, he traveled to various German capitals and unsuccessfully sought dialogue with the governments. Among other places, he traveled to Vienna in 1820, where a pan-German follow-up conference to the Carlsbad Assembly was held. There, List presented an expanded memorandum advocating for the broad principles of free trade. He also presented suggestions for an industrial exhibition or the establishment of an overseas trading company. Despite these failures, Wangenheim, who had become the Württemberg delegate to the Bundestag, relied on List to develop plans for a south German customs union [de], which eventually became a reality in 1828.

Member of Württemberg parliament and imprisonment: 1820–1824

[edit]

By 1819, List had been elected to the Württemberg state parliament, but his election was invalid, having not reached the minimum age of 30. In 1820, he was elected to the state parliament from Reutlingen.

As a member of parliament, he continued his campaign for democracy and free trade. In his "Reutlingen Petition " of January 1821, he criticized the prevailing bureaucracy and economic policy, arguing, "A superficial look at the internal conditions of Württemberg must convince the unbiased observer that the legislation and administration of our fatherland suffer from fundamental defects that are consuming the marrow of the country and destroying civil liberties."[19] List further argued that Württemberg suffered under a “world of bureaucrats separated from the people, spread over the whole country and concentrated in the ministries, ignorant of the needs of the people and the conditions of civil life, … opposing every influence of the citizen as if it were a threat to the state.”[20] To remedy the issue, List proposed strong local self-government, including free elections to local authorities and independent local jurisdiction. However, his petition was confiscated by police before it could be distributed. Under pressure from King Wilhelm I, the conservative parliament withdrew his political immunity in a vote on February 24, 1821.[21]

On April 6, 1822, List was sentenced to ten months imprisonment at Hohenasperg.[22] He fled and evaded capture for two years in Baden, Alsace and Switzerland but returned to serve his sentence in 1824, having been unable to build a secure life in exile.

Exile in United States: 1825–1833

[edit]

After serving five months of his sentence at Hohenasperg, List was pardoned in exchange for agreeing to emigrate to the United States of America. He initially worked as a farmer, with little success. After one year, he sold his farm and moved to Reading, Pennsylvania, where he became editor-in-chief of the German-language Reading Adler from 1826 to 1830.[23][24]

After discovering a coal deposit in 1827, he and several partners founded a coal mine. In 1831, they also founded the Little Schuylkill Navigation, Railroad and Coal Company, which opened a railroad line to transport the coal, making List an early American railroad pioneer.[23] Through these ventures, he gained a certain amount of wealth and financial independence, which he lost again in the wake of the Panic of 1837.

While in the United States, List further developed arguments for economic nationalism, joining American entrepreneurs in demanding the introduction of protective tariffs in 1827. List also came into contact with the ideas of Alexander Hamilton and contributed, among other works, to the 1827 publication Outlines of American Political Economy, in which he provided economic support for the demand for trade protections.[25] He began to distance himself from Adam Smith's theories of free trade as the basis for his customs union proposals, instead arguing that protective tariffs would empower the United States and Germany, which lagged behind England in industrialization, to develop domestic economic sovereignty. In Outlines of Political Economy, List drew heavily on Jean-Antoine Chaptal's work De l’industrie française (1819) and the emerging historical school of economics to argue that economic policy should vary depending on the needs of individual states.[24][26] Some argue (e.g., Chang, 2002) that List's American exile inspired his pronounced "National System", which found realization in Henry Clay's American System. Others deny this (e.g., Daastøl, 2011), since List argued for a German customs union as early as 1819 and his views in the United States were framed as pragmatic rather than dogmatic and were influenced by liberal protectionists such as Chaptal and Adolphe Thiers.[26]

The protectionist campaign brought List into the presidential election of 1828, in which he supported Andrew Jackson. Jackson granted List American citizenship in 1830 and appointed him consul to Hamburg in 1830, though this appointment was not confirmed by the United States Senate,[24] and the Grand Duchy of Baden at Leipzig in 1833, providing him diplomatic immunity and protection from prosecution in Württemberg. However, the position did not provide a fixed salary, and List soon neglected his duties. While in Leipzig, List traveled frequently to Paris to promote American-French trade relations. He met frequently with Heinrich Heine and, through his daughters, befriended the musicians Robert and Clara Schumann.

Leipzig, railway promotion and encyclopedist: 1833–1837

[edit]
List's design for a greater German railway network, published after his death

Soon after his arrival in Leipzig in 1833, List began to promote the construction of a greater German railway network. For List, overcoming the inner-German customs barriers and the construction of railways were the "Siamese twins" of German economic history and thus necessary steps towards the economic development of the German states.[27] He wrote a short paper, which he distributed free of charge in large numbers, arguing for the economic advantages of such a railway, which would enable cheap, fast and regular mass transport, and therefore promote the development of the division of labor, the choice of location for commercial enterprises and ultimately, a developed consumer economy. On the basis of this paper, a committee was founded that drew up a convincing cost and profitability analysis, negotiated the necessary concessions with the government and finally issued shares to finance the route. The Leipzig–Dresden railway, established in 1839, was the first German long-distance railway line. Most other German railway projects were also based on List's model of organization.[28]

He subsequently attempted to initiate similar projects in other German states or publicly supported existing projects. In 1835, for example, he advocated a route from Mannheim to Basel, another from Magdeburg to Berlin and a connection from there to Hamburg. In order to promote these proposals and his economic program, List founded the Eisenbahnjournal und National-Magazin für die Fortschritt in Handel, Gewerbe und Ackerbau in 1835. Forty issues of this magazine were published, concluding in 1837.

In Leipzig, List also proposed an encyclopedia of political science, the Rotteck-Welckersches Staatslexikon [de] working with Karl von Rotteck and Carl Theodor Welcker as co-editors. Significant tensions quickly arose, particularly with Welcker, until List was pushed out of the project. The encyclopedia, published in 1834, is considered one of the most important texts of early German liberalism. It provided a common intellectual basis for the emerging German liberal movement and was therefore a significant contribution to its cohesion across the German states. Franz Schnabel described the first edition of 1834 as the "basic book of Vormärz liberalism."[29] List contributed articles focused on industry and technology, including railways, steamships, workers, wages and labor-saving machines.[30]

Despite his achievements, List himself received little material benefit from his involvement in railway politics, apart from a few bonuses. When his income from his American investments decreased following the Panic of 1837, List had to give up his voluntary activism and look for new ways of earning money. In addition, his attempt to be rehabilitated in Württemberg failed in 1836, after a corresponding petition for clemency had been rejected. List decided to relocate permanently to Paris.

Journalism and The National System: 1837–1841

[edit]

In Paris, List wrote regularly for the leading German newspaper, Allgemeine Zeitung, as a correspondent on French domestic politics. He also returned to his work on general political economy. His 1837 work The Natural System of Political Economy renewed interest in his ideas in Germany, such that from 1839 to 1840, he was able to publish numerous essays on trade policy and legislation, which would later form the basis of his magnum opus.

In 1840, List returned to Germany following the death of his only son, Oskar, in the service of the French Foreign Legion. He settled in Augsburg, initially continuing his work as a journalist. In 1841, he published his main work, The National System of Political Economy, inspired by the work of Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui, Histoire de l'economique politique en Europe.[31] As in his earlier writings, List argued that economic development was the product of legal, social and political factors and that industrialization was the necessary initial spark of a self-reinforcing process of development. Therefore, to promote industrialization, List advocated for the establishment of a unified nation-state and a protective tariff against foreign goods, until an internationally competitive domestic industry could be developed.[32]

List continued to promote his ideas in the German context, arguing that the liberal tariffs established by the Zollverein in 1834 had primarily promoted Prussian interests within Germany, and that the greater German economy should establish an "educational" tariff to counter the superior productivity of England. In 1844, the Zollverein set moderate protective tariffs focused on iron and yarn, stimulating economic development for a time but allowing technology transfers and the importation of necessary finished goods from England.[33][34]

Later years: 1841–1846

[edit]

In 1841, the Württemberg government restored List's "civic honor", though his hopes of a position in the southern German states was not fulfilled. He continued to argue for protective tariffs, but became increasingly withdrawn due to ill health. In 1841, he declined an offer to edit the Rheinische Zeitung, a new liberal Cologne newspaper, and the role went to Gustav Höfken [de].[35] Karl Marx eventually took the post.[36] He also rejected an offer from Russian Minister of Finance Georg Ludwig Cancrin.[37]

In 1843, he established the Zollvereinsblatt in Augsburg, a newspaper in which continued his advocacy for the enlargement of the Zollverein and the organization of a national commercial system.[23] After a long lecture tour in 1844, he returned to Augsburg in 1845.[24] As the Zollverein moved toward a policy of free trade and List's ideas fell out of public interest, his publisher withdrew and he continued the Zollvereinsblatt at his own expense. He visited England with a view to forming a commercial alliance between that country and Germany but was unsuccessful.[23]

In 1846, with his property lost in another American crisis and his health failing, List traveled to Tyrol and committed suicide in Kufstein on November 30 with a seven-inch travel pistol.[4] Since the autopsy showed that List was "afflicted with such a degree of melancholy that free thought and action was impossible", he was afforded a Christian burial.[38]

In an obituary, List's long-time opponent Altvater[who?] wrote:

“It was List who stimulated a general sense of national economy in Germany, without which no nation can adequately shape its destiny.”

— Obituary in the Baltic Sea Stock Exchange News of January 1, 1847[39]

Views

[edit]

Nationalist view of political economy

[edit]
Das nationale System der politischen Ökonomie, 1930[40]

List's theory of "national economics" differed from the doctrines of "individual economics" and "cosmopolitan economics" by Adam Smith and Jean-Baptiste Say. List argued that Smithian critiques of mercantilism were "partly correct", but argued for the need for temporary tariff protection targeted to protect specific infant industries that were critical to economic growth.[41]

List contrasted the economic behaviour of an individual with that of a nation.[41] An individual promotes only his own personal interests but a state fosters the welfare of all its citizens. An individual may prosper from activities which harm the interests of a nation. "Slavery may be a public calamity for a country, nevertheless some people may do very well in carrying on the slave trade and in holding slaves." Likewise, activities beneficial to society may injure the interests of certain individuals. "Canals and railroads may do great good to a nation, but all waggoners will complain of this improvement. Every new invention has some inconvenience for a number of individuals, and is nevertheless a public blessing". List argued that although some government action was essential to stimulate the economy, an overzealous government might do more harm than good. "It is bad policy to regulate everything and to promote everything by employing social powers, where things may better regulate themselves and can be better promoted by private exertions; but it is no less bad policy to let those things alone which can only be promoted by interfering social power."

Due to the "universal union" that nations have with their populace, List stated that "from this political union originates their commercial union, and it is in consequence of the perpetual peace thus maintained that commercial union has become so beneficial to them. ... The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power, is a conclusion for which the reasons are very strong. ... A universal republic ... , i.e. a union of the nations of the earth whereby they recognise the same conditions of right among themselves and renounce self-redress, can only be realised if a large number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry and civilisation, political cultivation and power. Only with the gradual formation of this union can free trade be developed; only as a result of this union can it confer on all nations the same great advantages which are now experienced by those provinces and states which are politically united. The system of protection, inasmuch as it forms the only means of placing those nations which are far behind in civilisation on equal terms with the one predominating nation, appears to be the most efficient means of furthering the final union of nations, and hence also of promoting true freedom of trade."[42]

In his seventh letter List repeated his assertion that economists should realise that since the human race is divided into independent states, "a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare, and independence. It is a dictate of the law of self-preservation to make its particular advancement in power and strength the first principles of its policy". A country should not count the cost of defending the overseas trade of its merchants. And "the manufacturing and agricultural interest must be promoted and protected even by sacrifices of the majority of the individuals, if it can be proved that the nation would never acquire the necessary perfection ... without such protective measures."[43]

List argued that international trade reduced the security of the states who took part in it.[44]

List argued that statesmen had two responsibilities: "one to contemporary society and one to future generations". Normally, the attention of most leaders is occupied by urgent matters, leaving little time to consider future problems. But when a country had reached a turning point in its development, its leaders were morally obliged to deal with issues that would affect the next generation. "On the threshold of a new phase in the development of their country, statesmen should be prepared to take the long view, despite the need to deal also with matters of immediate urgency."[45]

List's fundamental doctrine was that a nation's true wealth is the full and many-sided development of its productive power, rather than its current exchange values. For example, its economic education should be more important than immediate production of value, and it might be right that one generation should sacrifice its gain and enjoyment to secure the strength and skill of the future. Under normal conditions, an economically mature nation should also develop agriculture, manufacture and commerce. However, the last two factors were more important since they better influenced the nation's culture and independence and were especially connected to navigation, railways and high technology, and a purely-agricultural state tended to stagnate

However, List claimed that only countries in temperate regions were adapted to grow higher forms of industry. On the other hand, tropical regions had a natural monopoly in the production of certain raw materials. Thus, there were a spontaneous division of labor and a confederation of powers between both groups of countries.

List contended that Smith's economic system is not an industrial system but a mercantile system, and he called it "the exchange-value system". Contrary to Smith, he argued that the immediate private interest of individuals would not lead to the highest good of society. The nation stood between the individual and humanity, and was defined by its language, manners, historical development, culture and constitution. The unity must be the first condition of the security, well-being, progress and civilization of the individual. Private economic interests, like all others, must be subordinated to the maintenance, completion and strengthening of the nation.

Stages of economic development

[edit]

List theorised that nations of the temperate zone (which are furnished with all the necessary conditions) naturally pass through stages of economic development in advancing to their normal economic state. These are:[citation needed]

  1. Pastoral life
  2. Agriculture
  3. Agriculture united with manufactures
  4. Agriculture, manufactures and commerce are combined

The progress of the nation through these stages is the task of the state, which must create the required conditions for the progress by using legislation and administrative action. This view leads to List's scheme of industrial politics. Every nation should begin with free trade, stimulating and improving its agriculture by trade with richer and more cultivated nations, importing foreign manufactures and exporting raw products. When it is economically so far advanced that it can manufacture for itself, then protection should be used to allow the home industries to develop, and save them from being overpowered by the competition of stronger foreign industries in the home market. When the national industries have grown strong enough that this competition is not a threat, then the highest stage of progress has been reached; free trade should again become the rule, and the nation be thus thoroughly incorporated with the universal industrial union. What a nation loses in exchange during the protective period, it more than gains in the long run in productive power. The temporary expenditure is analogous to the cost of the industrial education of the individual.[citation needed]

In a thousand cases the power of the State is compelled to impose restrictions on private industry. It prevents the ship owner from taking on board slaves on the west coast of Africa, and taking them over to America. It imposes regulations as to the building of steamers and the rules of navigation at sea, in order that passengers and sailors may not be sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of the captains. [...] Everywhere does the State consider it to be its duty to guard the public against danger and loss, as in the sale of the necessaries of life, so also in the sale of medicines, etc.[46]

Railways

[edit]

List was the leading promoter of railways in Germany. His proposals on how to start up a system were widely adopted.[47] He summed up the advantages to be derived from the development of the railway system in 1841:[48]

  1. It is a means of national defence: it facilitates the concentration, distribution and direction of the army.
  2. It is a means to the improvement of the culture of the nation. It brings talent, knowledge and skill of every kind readily to market.
  3. It secures the community against dearth and famine, and against excessive fluctuation in the prices of the necessaries of life.
  4. It promotes the spirit of the nation, as it has a tendency to destroy the Philistine spirit arising from isolation and provincial prejudice and vanity. It binds nations by ligaments, and promotes an interchange of food and of commodities, thus making it feel to be a unit. The iron rails become a nerve system, which, on the one hand, strengthens public opinion, and, on the other hand, strengthens the power of the state for police and governmental purposes.

List drew up proposals for a national railway network before the first steam locomotive ran between Nuremberg and Fürth. He suggested construction of a railway between Leipzig and Dresden which would soon become Germany's first long distance railway. He is honored for his early promotion of the importance of railways with a bust in Leipzig main station as well as several streets named after him adjacent to railway stations (e.g. Friedrich-List-Platz). When the Swiss-German architect de:Martin Mächler first proposed what is today Berlin main station in 1917, he suggested the new central interchange station of the German rail network be named in honor of List.

Britain and world trade

[edit]

While List once had urged Germany to join other 'manufacturing nations of the second rank' to check Britain's 'insular supremacy', by 1841 he considered that the United States and Russia would become the most powerful countries[citation needed]—a view also expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville the previous year. List hoped to persuade political leaders in England to co-operate with Germany to ward off this danger. His proposal was perhaps not so far-fetched as might appear at first sight. In 1844, the writer of an article in a leading review had declared that 'in every point of view, whether politically or commercially, we can have no better alliance than that of the German nation, spreading as it does, its 42 millions of souls without interruption over the surface of central Europe'.[49]

The practical conclusion which List drew for Germany was that it needed for its economic progress an extended and conveniently bounded territory reaching to the seacoast both on north and south, and a vigorous expansion of manufacture and trade, and that the way to the latter lay through judicious protective legislation with a customs union comprising all German lands, and a German marine with a Navigation Act. The national German spirit, striving after independence and power through union, and the national industry, awaking from its lethargy and eager to recover lost ground, were favorable to the success of List's book, and it produced a great sensation. He ably represented the tendencies and demands of his time in his own country; his work had the effect of fixing the attention, not merely of the speculative and official classes, but of practical men generally, on questions of political economy; and his ideas were undoubtedly the economic foundation of modern Germany as applied by the practical genius of Bismarck.

List considered that Napoleon's 'Continental System', aimed just at damaging Britain during a bitter long-term war, had in fact been quite good for German industry. This was the direct opposite of what was believed by the followers of Adam Smith. As List put it:

I perceived that the popular theory took no account of nations, but simply of the entire human race on the one hand, or of the single individual on the other. I saw clearly that free competition between two nations which are highly civilised can only be mutually beneficial in case both of them are in a nearly equal position of industrial development, and that any nation which owing to misfortunes is behind others in industry, commerce, and navigation ... must first of all strengthen her own individual powers, in order to fit herself to enter into free competition with more advanced nations. In a word, I perceived the distinction between cosmopolitical and political economy.[50]

List's argument was that Germany should follow actual English practice rather than the abstractions of Smith's doctrines:

Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends—the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist. Indeed, it is more than probable that without her [highly protectionist] commercial policy England would never have attained to such a large measure of municipal and individual freedom as she now possesses, for such freedom is the daughter of industry and wealth.

Influences

[edit]

List's hostility to free trade was first decisively shaped by the ideas of his friend Adolphe Thiers and other liberal protectionists in France.[26] He was also later influenced by Alexander Hamilton and the American School rooted in Hamilton's economic principles, including Daniel Raymond,[51] but also by the general mode of thinking of America's first Treasury Secretary, and by his strictures on the doctrine of Adam Smith. He opposed the cosmopolitan principle in the contemporary economical system and the absolute doctrine of free trade which was in harmony with that principle, and instead developed the infant industry argument, to which he had been exposed by Hamilton and Raymond.[51] He gave prominence to the national idea and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development. He famously doubted the sincerity of calls to free trade from developed nations, in particular Britain:

Any nation which by means of protective duties and restrictions on navigation has raised her manufacturing power and her navigation to such a degree of development that no other nation can sustain free competition with her, can do nothing wiser than to throw away these ladders of her greatness, to preach to other nations the benefits of free trade, and to declare in penitent tones that she has hitherto wandered in the paths of error, and has now for the first time succeeded in discovering the truth.[52]

His idea of productive powers was influenced by the philosophy of productivity of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling.[53][54] He was acquainted with Robert Schumann and Heinrich Heine.[53]

Personal life

[edit]

During his time as a professor in Tübingen, List married the widow Karoline Neidhard, daughter of the poet David Christoph Seybold [de] and sister of the writer and editor Ludwig Georg Friedrich Seybold and Major General Johann Karl Christoph von Seybold [de] (1777–1833) in Wertheim on February 19, 1818. List received permission from the ruler and dispensation from the University of Tübingen to marry in Baden.

Portrait of Elise List by Joseph Karl Stieler, housed in the Gallery of Beauties of King Ludwig I of Bavaria

List had four children:

  • Emilie (born on December 10, 1818), who served as his secretary from 1833;
  • Oskar (born on February 23, 1820);
  • Elise (born July 1, 1822)[55] and
  • Karoline, known as "Lina" (born January 20, 1829), who married history painter August Hövemeyer [de] on March 5, 1855.[55]

Emilie List was a close friend of Clara Schumann following their meeting in Paris in 1833, and they exchanged letters for the remainder of their lives. Elise List was a singer who performed under Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy and planned a concert tour with Franz Liszt which did not come to fruition.

Legacy

[edit]
Memorial statue at the main railway station of Leipzig

List's principal work is entitled Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie (1841) and was translated into English as The National System of Political Economy.

Before 1914, List and Marx were the two best-known German economists and theorists of development, although Marx, unlike List, devised no policies to promote economic development.

This book has been more frequently translated than the works of any other German economist, except Karl Marx.[56]

In Ireland he influenced Arthur Griffith of Sinn Féin and these theories were used by the Fianna Fáil government in the 1930s to instigate protectionism with a view to developing Irish industry.

Among others he strongly influenced was Sergei Witte, the Imperial Russian Minister of Finance, 1892–1903. Witte's plan for rapid industrialisation was centred around railroad construction (the Trans-Siberian railroad for example) and a policy of protectionism. At the time, it was largely considered that Russia was a backward country with an underdeveloped economy. The boom which was seen during the 1890s was largely credited to Witte's policy.

Angus Maddison noted that:

As Marx was not interested in the survival of the capitalist system, he was not really concerned with economic policy, except in so far as the labour movement was involved. There, his argument was concentrated on measures to limit the length of the working day, and to strengthen trade union bargaining power. His analysis was also largely confined to the situation in the leading capitalist country of his day—the UK—and he did not consider the policy problems of other Western countries in catching up with the lead country (as Friedrich List did). In so far as Marx was concerned with other countries, it was mainly with poor countries which were victims of Western imperialism in the merchant capitalist era.[57]

1989 Deutsche Bundespost stamp commemorating the 200th anniversary of List's birth

Heterodox economists, such as South Korean Ha-Joon Chang and Norwegian Erik Reinert, refer to List often explicitly when writing about suitable economic policies for developing countries. List's influence among developing nations has been considerable. Japan has followed his model.[58]

The international economic policy of Meiji Japan was a combination of Hideyoshi's mercantilism and Friedrich List's Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie.[59]

It has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping's post-Mao policies were inspired by List, as well as recent policies in India.[60][61]

China, under Deng, took on the clear features of a 'developmental dictatorship under single-party auspices.' The PRC would then belong to a class of regimes familiar to the 20th century that have their ideological sources in classical Marxism, but better reflect the developmental, nationalist views of Friedrich List.[62]

A 1943 German film The Endless Road portrayed List's life and achievements. He was played by Eugen Klöpfer.

North Korea with its Juche ideology has likewise been considered by Dieter Senghaas to follow an "unequaled" model of development inspired by List's "production of productive forces."[63]

See also

[edit]

Works in English translation

[edit]
  • —. The National System of Political Economy. Archived from the original on 2009-08-31. Retrieved 2007-12-14.

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Friedrich List (6 August 1789 – 30 November 1846) was a German economist, journalist, and statesman who formulated the theory of economic nationalism through his advocacy for temporary protective tariffs, state-supported infrastructure, and the cultivation of "productive powers" to enable industrial catch-up in less advanced nations against established free-trade powers. His seminal work, The National System of Political Economy (1841), critiqued cosmopolitan free trade as unsuitable for countries at different stages of development, positing instead that nations must prioritize building manufacturing capacity via deliberate policy before transitioning to freer exchange. Born to a tanner's family in , , List self-educated in and administration, becoming a professor at the and a proponent of south German commercial union against fragmented customs barriers. Political agitation for economic reform led to his imprisonment and exile in , prompting to the , where he naturalized, edited a German-language newspaper, and witnessed the practical successes of American protective tariffs inspired by . Returning to in 1837 as a U.S. in , List lobbied for German railway expansion and the , which laid groundwork for Prussian-led unification and rapid industrialization, though financial failures and depression culminated in his . His emphasis on national productive forces over abstract influenced developmental strategies in , the , , and later emerging economies, demonstrating empirically that targeted intervention could accelerate technological and industrial maturity against entrenched competitors.

Biography

Early Life and Formative Influences (1789–1817)

Georg Friedrich List was born on August 6, 1789, in , then a free imperial city in the , to a family of means headed by a prosperous tanner. His early environment in this southwestern German town, amid the economic fragmentation of the Holy Roman Empire's waning years, exposed him to the tensions between local guilds, trade barriers, and emerging administrative reforms following Württemberg's integration into broader state structures after 1803. List received a basic classical education at Reutlingen's , completing it around age 14, but showed little inclination for his father's leatherworking trade, instead seeking clerical roles that aligned with his intellectual curiosity. Largely self-taught beyond this, he immersed himself in political literature and administrative practices during brief stints in commerce and local governance, drawing initial insights from cameralist traditions emphasizing state fiscal management and economic stewardship—doctrines prevalent in Württemberg's bureaucracy. This period honed his pragmatic approach to , fostering a belief in targeted state intervention to overcome regional economic isolation, though specific readings from figures like the physiocrats or remain undocumented in his youth. By his late teens, around 1806, List entered Württemberg's as a and , advancing rapidly through bureaucratic ranks due to demonstrated competence in handling regulations and fiscal matters. His formative experiences in this role—navigating inter-state tariffs and the inefficiencies of fragmented customs—instilled a critical view of abstractions, prioritizing empirical observation of productive constraints over theoretical universals. In , at age 28, he secured an extraordinary professorship in cameralistics at the , bypassing formal academic credentials through endorsements of his practical expertise, marking the culmination of his early self-directed path toward .

Advocacy for Customs Union and Political Persecution (1817–1825)

In 1817, List was appointed professor of administration and politics at the , where he lectured on , emphasizing the need for administrative reforms and economic unification among German states to counter foreign competition. His teachings highlighted the inefficiencies of fragmented internal tariffs and the advantages of a protective customs policy, drawing from observations of Britain's industrial dominance achieved through historical rather than pure . By 1819, List had co-founded the Union of German Merchants and Manufacturers in , an organization aimed at lobbying for the abolition of internal customs barriers and the establishment of a unified external to foster national industry. That year, he drafted a key memorandum to the Federal Assembly of the , proposing a retaliatory that would impose high external duties while eliminating internal ones, thereby enabling to develop productive capacities akin to those in advanced economies. This advocacy positioned List as an early proponent of , arguing that cosmopolitan disadvantaged agrarian economies like Germany's against industrialized powers. In 1820, List was elected as a deputy from to the state parliament, where he continued pushing for liberal administrative reforms, public accountability in , and . His outspoken criticism of bureaucratic abuses, including demands for transparency in judicial procedures and reductions in state privileges favoring particularist interests, alienated conservative factions and the monarchy. These efforts culminated in his expulsion from the chamber in 1822, followed by a sentence on to ten months' imprisonment with hard labor in Asperg fortress for alleged agitation against the government. List evaded immediate capture by fleeing to , , and , living in for two years while continuing to write on economic unification. Upon returning to in 1824, he was arrested but secured release on the condition of emigrating, prompting his departure for the in 1825 to escape further political reprisals. This period of persecution stemmed from opposition by absolutist elements wary of his nationalist and reformist agenda, which threatened entrenched particularism and Austrian influence within the .

American Exile and Observations of Industrial Policy (1825–1832)

Following his arrest and conditional release in for advocating economic unification among German states, List emigrated to the in 1825, arriving in New York at the invitation of the Marquis de Lafayette. Initially settling near , as a , List's venture failed due to limited capital and unfamiliarity with local conditions, prompting him to relocate to , by 1826. There, he served as of the German-language Reading Adler from 1826 to 1830, using the platform to discuss and promote protective policies amid debates over U.S. tariffs. List's practical engagements extended to infrastructure and resource development, reflecting his interest in state-supported industrialization. In the late 1820s, he acquired an anthracite coal mine near , and spearheaded the Little Schuylkill Navigation, Railroad and Coal Company, which constructed a and rail line operational by November —the first in the U.S. to transport both freight and passengers regularly. These efforts exposed him to the interplay of natural resources, transportation, and manufacturing, underscoring how targeted investments could accelerate economic diversification in a resource-rich but industrially nascent economy. His involvement aligned with the "American System" of , as championed by figures like , whom List encountered through protectionist circles. Central to List's American period were his observations of U.S. industrial policy, particularly the protective tariffs enacted in 1824 (averaging 37% ad valorem) and escalated in 1828 (reaching about 50%), designed to shield domestic manufacturers from British imports. He viewed these measures not as permanent barriers but as temporary safeguards enabling "infant industries" to mature, allowing the U.S.—predominantly agricultural in 1825 with manufacturing output under 10% of GDP—to build productive capacities in textiles, iron, and machinery. This experience critiqued cosmopolitan free trade theories, such as those of Adam Smith, which List argued favored established powers like Britain by perpetuating dependency on raw material exports; empirically, U.S. protected sectors grew rapidly, with cotton textile production expanding from 100,000 spindles in 1825 to over 800,000 by 1831. In 1827, at the urging of Philadelphia merchant Charles Jared Ingersoll, List published Outlines of American Political Economy, a series of twelve letters addressed to a German audience, synthesizing these insights to advocate protective duties for nations in early industrialization stages. The work, distributed to U.S. members, contended that unrestricted trade equated to "cosmopolitan" exploitation, whereas national systems prioritizing "productive powers" (via tariffs, , and infrastructure) enabled self-reliant growth, drawing directly from Hamilton's 1791 and contemporary U.S. practices. List's support for Andrew Jackson's 1828 presidential campaign, emphasizing tariffs for revenue and protection, culminated in his 1831 appointment as U.S. consul to the German states (though he departed America in 1832 before assuming the post). These years solidified List's conviction that must be context-specific, with serving as a causal mechanism for elevating agrarian economies toward manufacturing parity, a framework he later adapted for Germany.

Return to Germany: Railways and Institutional Reforms (1833–1837)

Upon his return to Germany in 1833, Friedrich List assumed the role of consul in , , leveraging his position to advocate for economic modernization. From this base, List focused on integrating railways into a broader strategy for national cohesion, arguing that such infrastructure would foster productive capacities and overcome fragmented state barriers. In 1833, List published Über ein sächsisches Eisenbahn-System als Grundlage eines allgemeinen deutschen Eisenbahn-Systems, proposing a comprehensive Saxon rail network as the foundation for a unified German system, with the Leipzig-to-Dresden line as a priority to connect industrial centers and ports. This tract emphasized railways' role in enhancing internal trade, military mobility, and technological diffusion, drawing on his American experiences where rail expansion had spurred growth. His advocacy influenced Saxon authorities, leading to the formation of a railway committee and preliminary surveys for the Leipzig-Dresden route by 1835. List's efforts culminated in direct involvement with the Leipzig-Dresden railway project, Germany's first long-distance line, chartered in 1837 and operational by 1839 after covering 133 kilometers at a cost of approximately 9 million thalers through mixed public-private funding. He championed joint-stock companies and state guarantees to mitigate investor risks, models that addressed institutional inertia in fragmented principalities lacking centralized capital markets. These initiatives reformed transport institutions by standardizing gauges and operations, laying groundwork for interstate coordination amid the emerging customs union of 1834, which List supported as complementary to rail in building "national productive powers." List's railway campaigns intersected with broader institutional pushes, including petitions for tariff harmonization and merchant associations to counter local monopolies, though financial speculations in rail ventures strained his resources by 1837. Despite setbacks, his work demonstrated causal links between infrastructure investment and economic , influencing subsequent Prussian rail policies and the expansion to over 5,000 kilometers of track.

Formulation of Nationalist Economics (1837–1841)

After the completion of the Leipzig-Dresden railway in 1837, List encountered financial setbacks from his infrastructure ventures but redirected his efforts toward systematizing economic theory. In the autumn of that year, he drafted The Natural System of Political Economy, an unpublished manuscript that first articulated his foundational critique of classical political economy. In this work, List introduced the concept of "productive powers"—encompassing skills, capital, and institutions—as the true measure of national wealth, contrasting it with the exchange values emphasized by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. He outlined developmental stages from agriculture to manufacturing, arguing that states must foster industrialization through targeted policies rather than universal free trade, which he viewed as perpetuating dependency for less advanced economies. Between 1838 and 1840, List continued refining these ideas amid personal hardships, including debt and relocation, while contributing articles to periodicals such as the Allgemeine Zeitung on trade policy and national development. He also published Das deutsche National-Transport-System in volks- und staatswirthschaftlicher Beziehung in 1838, linking transportation infrastructure to broader economic productivity, though his focus increasingly shifted from practical advocacy to theoretical exposition. These efforts culminated in the serialization and publication of the first volume of Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie in 1841, where List explicitly delineated a "national system" against the "cosmopolitan" framework of . In Das Nationale System, List contended that free trade suited only nations at the pinnacle of industrial power, like Britain, which had used historically to achieve dominance before advocating openness to maintain it. For , fragmented and agriculturally oriented, he prescribed temporary s, subsidies for nascent industries, and investments in to build equivalent productive capacities, ensuring national independence over mere commercial exchange. This approach subordinated to geopolitical strength, viewing unrestricted global competition as a mechanism for stronger economies to exploit weaker ones without reciprocity. List's framework emphasized causal sequences in development—where state intervention accelerates transitions between economic stages—drawing empirical lessons from Britain's rise and America's tariff policies during his U.S. residence. List's 1841 publication marked the maturation of his nationalist , influencing contemporaries in the and later policymakers, though it faced immediate opposition from free-trade proponents who dismissed as inefficient. The work's core assertion—that must serve national productive potential rather than abstract individual utility—remained grounded in observed industrial disparities, with List citing Britain's 1825-1830 tariff data and manufacturing output as evidence of selective historical .

Final Years: Struggles and Despair (1841–1846)

In 1841, List resided in Augsburg and completed the first part of his National System of Political Economy, while opposing the Anglo-Prussian commercial treaty signed on March 2 of that year, which he viewed as detrimental to German interests. He continued his literary output with Die Ackerverfassung, die Zwergwirthschaft und die Auswanderung in 1842, addressing agricultural structures, small-scale farming, and emigration issues. By 1844, he published Die Theorie des Dr. List vom Fabrikstaate und ihre geschichtlichen und statistischen Stützen, defending his views on industrial states through historical and statistical evidence. List's involvement in Saxon railway projects, aimed at advancing , led to significant financial losses amid operational and political challenges. These setbacks compounded his ongoing economic difficulties, exacerbated by ceaseless intellectual labor that induced severe headaches and physical weakness. Despite persistent advocacy for the and further railway development, List faced mounting opposition from free-trade proponents and institutional hurdles. In 1846, seeking to influence trade policy, List traveled to to assess the prospective repeal of Britain's and pursue a commercial agreement between and Britain, but these efforts ended in disappointment. Returning in despair, he wrote a despondent letter to Dr. Kolb reflecting his mental strain. Hoping for recovery, he journeyed to Tyrol, but on November 30, 1846, he committed by shooting himself in ; his body was discovered under snow, with a now marking his in the local . This apparent stemmed from accumulated failures in , deterioration, and unrealized nationalist visions.

Core Economic Theories

Critique of Cosmopolitan Free Trade

Friedrich List critiqued the doctrine of cosmopolitan , as propounded by and his followers, for treating economic principles as universally applicable without regard to national differences in industrial development. He argued that this approach conflates the interests of an abstract "humanity" with those of specific nations, leading to policies that favor already industrialized powers at the expense of emerging ones. In his 1841 work The National System of Political Economy, List distinguished between "cosmopolitan economy," which emphasizes interchangeable exchange values through unrestricted trade, and "political economy," which prioritizes the cultivation of a nation's productive powers, including manufacturing capabilities, skilled labor, and institutional frameworks. List contended that free trade under unequal conditions perpetuates dependency, as agricultural or less-developed economies, when exposed to competition from advanced manufacturing nations like Britain, forfeit opportunities to build their own industries and instead become mere suppliers of raw materials. This dynamic erodes productive powers, as resources flow toward immediate exchange values rather than long-term capacity-building, resulting in diminished national wealth and security over time. He highlighted Britain's historical use of protective measures, such as the from 1651 and until their repeal in 1846, to nurture its industries before advocating once it achieved dominance, illustrating the doctrine's selective application by vested interests. For nations like or the in the early , List warned, adopting cosmopolitan prematurely would condemn them to perpetual subordination, as it ignores the causal link between and the development of such as and . Central to List's argument was the superiority of productive powers over mere exchange values; the former encompass the aggregate abilities of a to produce goods efficiently through industry, , and , generating sustained wealth, whereas the latter represent only static trade gains that benefit consumers short-term but undermine . , in his view, assumes equal starting points among trading partners, overlooking how it disadvantages nations lacking these powers, as evidenced by the failure of tropical or agrarian economies to industrialize under open markets dominated by temperate-zone manufacturers. List thus rejected the cosmopolitan framework's optimism about automatic harmony through division of labor, asserting instead that states must temporarily restrict imports to foster industries until they can compete globally, a strategy he observed succeeding in the American protective tariff system post-1816. This , he maintained, aligns with natural national tendencies toward rather than speculative abstraction.

National Productive Powers Over Exchange Values

List critiqued the classical "theory of values," associated with economists like , which posits that national wealth derives primarily from the efficient exchange of goods based on and market prices, treating economies as aggregates of individual transactions. In contrast, List's "theory of productive powers" emphasized the cultivation of a nation's inherent capacities to generate wealth through industry, , , and supporting institutions, arguing that true prosperity stems not from trading existing commodities but from enhancing the forces that create them. Productive powers encompassed both material elements—such as capital, labor skills, and natural resources—and immaterial factors like , legal security, and national unity, which collectively amplify output and independence over mere barter efficiencies. Central to List's argument was the assertion that "the power of creating wealth is then vastly more important than wealth itself," as a nation's strength lies in its ability to develop and productive systems rather than accumulating exchangeable values through imports of cheaper foreign goods. He contended that focusing solely on exchange values, as in doctrine, suits advanced industrial powers like Britain—which had used for centuries to build its factories before advocating —but disadvantages emerging economies like or the , where premature openness stifles domestic industry and perpetuates agricultural dependency. For instance, List highlighted how England's output reached £70 million annually by the early through initial tariffs, transforming imports into high-value exports and elevating national productive capacity far beyond what exchange-focused metrics would predict. List further differentiated productive powers by their cumulative, interdependent nature: manufacturing not only increases material wealth but activates latent resources, raises land values (e.g., proximity to industry boosting agricultural productivity), and fosters immaterial advancements like technical knowledge and social cohesion, creating a virtuous cycle absent in pure trade scenarios. He warned that equating national wealth with exchange values ignores geopolitical realities, such as vulnerability to blockades—evident in the Continental System's disruptions during the —whereby reliant nations forfeit self-sufficiency. Thus, policy should prioritize protective tariffs to nurture infant industries until productive powers mature, enabling eventual competitiveness; for , this meant duties of 20-60% under the customs union from 1834 onward, which spurred railway development and industrial output without inflating exchange values prematurely. This approach, List maintained, aligns with national survival, as "the property of a nation does not depend on the quantity of riches and of exchangeable values it possesses, but upon the degree in which the productive power is developed."

Developmental Stages and Temporary Protectionism

List theorized that economies advance through sequential stages of development, from rudimentary agrarian societies to mature industrial powers, with policy prescriptions varying accordingly to foster "productive powers"—the aggregate of skills, capital, infrastructure, and industrial capacity that underpin long-term national wealth and competitiveness. In his view, universal , as advocated by and , suits only nations at comparable advancement levels, particularly those already industrialized; for less developed economies, premature exposure to unrestricted competition stifles nascent industries and perpetuates dependency on raw material exports. List drew on historical examples, such as Britain's mercantilist policies from the 16th to 18th centuries, which shielded domestic manufacturing from foreign rivals until it achieved superiority, enabling subsequent advocacy for global free trade. Central to List's framework were three primary stages: the agricultural (focused on farming and raw goods), the (building industrial capabilities), and the commercial (dominated by and atop established production). Agricultural nations, like pre-unification German states in the early , require protective s to nurture "infant industries" incapable of immediate rivalry with advanced economies such as Britain, whose exports of cheap manufactured goods would otherwise flood and undermine local markets. , List emphasized, is not perpetual but temporary—lasting only until domestic productive powers mature, typically measured by cost parity with international competitors, after which gradual reductions facilitate transition to freer exchange without sacrificing or growth potential. This approach prioritizes causal development of internal capacities over short-term exchange efficiencies, warning that ignoring stages leads to "unnatural" paths where weaker nations remain suppliers of primary goods, enriching traders at the expense of producers. List quantified the benefits through empirical observations from his U.S. experience (1825–1832), where protective tariffs under the American System—enacted via the and subsequent duties averaging 20–50% on imports—spurred manufacturing growth from negligible levels to contributing over 15% of national product by the , enabling infrastructural leaps like canals and early railroads. He contrasted this with 's pitfalls, citing Britain's (1651 onward) as protective measures that built naval and industrial dominance before 1846's Corn Law repeal, when Britain, as the "metropolis of commerce," could dictate terms. Critics, including classical economists, dismissed such interventions as inefficient distortions, but List countered with first-hand data: German states' fragmented tariffs pre-Zollverein (1834) yielded only 1–2% annual growth, versus post-union acceleration to 3–4% amid selective protections. Ultimately, temporary serves as a strategic instrument for ascending the developmental ladder, ensuring nations achieve the "fourth stage" of balanced agro-industrial-commercial maturity where enhances rather than erodes power.

Infrastructure, Education, and State Intervention

Friedrich List advocated for extensive state-supported development as essential to enhancing a nation's productive powers, particularly through railways, canals, and improved transportation networks. During his from to , List contributed to early railway planning, including a 16-page report on January 20, 1830, proposing improvements to the Little Schuylkill region in , which facilitated the construction of the Little Schuylkill Railroad as one of America's pioneering rail lines. Upon returning to in 1834, he promoted railways as a cornerstone of economic unification, viewing their development alongside the customs union as interdependent forces for national progress, and dedicated efforts to efficient transport systems to integrate regional economies. List argued in his 1841 work The National System of that governments should invest in nationally managed , such as railways, river navigation, and canals, to foster industrial growth and overcome geographical fragmentation in developing economies. State intervention, in List's framework, extended beyond protectionist tariffs to direct public funding and coordination of infrastructure projects, which private enterprise alone could not adequately undertake due to high risks and long-term returns. He contended that such interventions built the material foundations of productive powers—encompassing capital, machinery, and —enabling nations to advance from agricultural to manufacturing stages without reliance on foreign dominance. This approach contrasted with doctrines by emphasizing temporary but robust government roles in initiating projects that private capital would later sustain, as evidenced by his support for state-backed rail expansion in to counter Britain's industrial lead. List integrated education into his concept of moral and intellectual productive powers, viewing it as a critical to cultivate skilled labor and technical knowledge necessary for industrialization. He prioritized "mental capital"—encompassing , scientific advancement, and vocational —over mere exchange values, arguing that an educated populace formed the core of a nation's long-term economic strength. In The National System of Political Economy, List highlighted the need for government emphasis on education systems that develop human capabilities, enabling adaptation to industrial demands and reducing dependence on imported expertise. This included promoting institutions for practical sciences and , which he saw as indispensable for nations trailing in global to build endogenous and .

Geopolitical Realism

Britain's Exploitative Role in Global Trade

Friedrich List argued that Britain's economic ascendancy stemmed from centuries of deliberate protectionist measures rather than unfettered , including the of 1651, which restricted colonial trade to British ships, and high tariffs on manufactured imports alongside subsidies for domestic industries during the 18th century. These policies, List contended, allowed Britain to nurture its "productive powers"—manufacturing capabilities, technical skills, and —while suppressing competitors through export prohibitions on machinery and raw material controls from colonies. By the early , having achieved industrial supremacy, Britain shifted to advocating cosmopolitan , epitomized by the influence of and the eventual repeal of the in 1846, which List viewed as a strategic pivot to exploit its lead. In List's analysis, this advocacy masked an exploitative intent: free trade would flood emerging economies like Germany's with cheap British manufactures, undermining local industries and consigning them to perpetual raw material export roles, thus perpetuating dependency and unequal exchange. He emphasized that unrestricted commerce benefits only nations at comparable development stages; for backward economies, it erodes incentives for industrialization, as advanced powers like Britain could undersell nascent competitors lacking scale or technology. List highlighted Britain's colonial system—monopolizing markets in India and Ireland, for instance—as a mechanism to extract resources while blocking rivals' growth, arguing that true reciprocity required protective tariffs to equalize conditions. List's critique extended to geopolitical realism, positing that Britain's doctrine served to maintain global hegemony by discouraging sovereign industrial policies elsewhere, as evidenced by its opposition to the German in the 1830s. He warned that without countermeasures, nations risked becoming "vassals" in a system where exchange values (mere trade balances) overshadowed productive capacity, quoting that societies must "sacrifice some present advantages in order to insure to itself future ones" through temporary . This perspective, drawn from historical empirics rather than abstract , positioned Britain's role as causal in stunting continental Europe's potential, prioritizing power dynamics over universal harmony.

National Sovereignty and Power Dynamics

List argued that national sovereignty fundamentally depends on the cultivation of domestic productive powers—encompassing industry, skills, , and —rather than mere accumulation of exchangeable wealth, as these enable a nation to achieve economic self-sufficiency and resist external domination. He posited that "the power of creating wealth is… vastly more important than wealth itself," emphasizing that nations prioritizing alongside gain superior political influence compared to those reliant on raw exports. A purely agricultural economy, List contended, inherently limits a nation's capacity for great political power, rendering it vulnerable to manipulation by industrialized states. In international power dynamics, List viewed as a mechanism that perpetuates hierarchies, allowing advanced powers like Britain to impose dependence on less developed nations through , leading to , industrial stagnation, and eventual subjugation. He warned that "free trade would bring forth… the universal subjection of nations to the supremacy of the greater powers," as exemplified by Britain's historical treaties, such as the 1703 with , which flooded Portuguese markets with British goods while stifling local industry. This dynamic, in List's analysis, transforms trade imbalances into instruments of geopolitical control, where weaker states finance the and commercial expansion of stronger ones, eroding their . To counter these asymmetries and secure , List advocated temporary protective tariffs—initially 40-60% on key imports, tapering to 15-25% over a —to foster industrial maturation and national resilience, drawing on precedents like the U.S. Tariff of 1828, which boosted domestic manufacturing by shielding nascent sectors from British competition. He asserted that "a nation that greatly values its and its safety, must make a vigorous effort to elevate itself," linking such policies to broader geopolitical strength, including military readiness and , as seen in the Zollverein's role in enhancing German economic cohesion from 1834 onward. Ultimately, List envisioned as elevating emerging powers to parity, enabling a balanced global order where is preserved through mutual recognition of national developmental trajectories rather than enforced cosmopolitan uniformity.

Hierarchical Views on Global Economies

List conceptualized global economies as stratified by nations' developmental stages, where productive capacities determine relative power and vulnerability in international exchange. He outlined five principal stages of economic advancement: the savage or barbarous state, characterized by rudimentary subsistence; the or state, focused on nomadic ; the state, emphasizing settled farming; the agro-manufacturing state, integrating basic industry with agriculture; and the final stage combining agriculture, manufactures, and , enabling full productive powers and commercial dominance. Nations at lower stages, such as agrarian societies exporting raw materials, face exploitation under , as advanced manufacturing powers—exemplified by Britain in the 1840s—leverage superior industrial output to dictate terms, locking peripherals into dependency. This arises not from inherent equality in cosmopolitan theory but from uneven , where exchange values favor those with diversified industries over raw exporters. In List's framework, the international division of labor reinforces this vertical structure rather than fostering mutual benefit, as Adam Smith's model assumed equal starting points among nations. He critiqued Britain's advocacy of universal as a mechanism to perpetuate its apex position, achieved through prior protectionism during its own ascent from agricultural to industrial dominance between 1650 and 1840. For instance, List noted that Britain's and had shielded its infant industries, allowing accumulation of capital and skills that now enabled it to flood markets with manufactures, undercutting competitors. Less advanced nations, like or the in the early , must thus temporarily deviate from via tariffs—ideally 20-30% on manufactures—to nurture domestic industries, ascending the hierarchy toward balanced productive powers. List envisioned a mature global order as a of self-sufficient nations at parity, rather than perpetual subordination, warning that unchecked breeds conflict and stifles universal progress. He distinguished temperate-zone nations as suited for due to and resources, while tropical regions might specialize in post-industrialization elsewhere, but rejected rigid cosmopolitan assignments that ignore national agency. Empirical evidence from Britain's 18th-century and —evading up to 50% effective tariffs on key imports—validated his causal view that , not natural endowments alone, drives hierarchical shifts. This realist perspective prioritized national sovereignty in climbing the global ladder, influencing later developmental strategies in and the U.S., where tariffs averaged 40-50% from 1820 to 1860.

Personal Life

Family Dynamics and Domestic Challenges

List married Caroline Seybold in 1818, with whom he had at least four children: Emilie (born December 10, 1818), Oskar (born February 23, 1820), Elise (born July 1, 1822), and Karoline. His daughter Emilie later served as his starting in 1833, indicating close involvement in his professional endeavors. List's political activism led to his in 1824 for advocating administrative reforms, creating immediate domestic upheaval as his family navigated the consequences of his ten-month detention without trial. Subsequent exile to the in 1825 necessitated prolonged separation or relocation, straining family resources and stability during his seven-year absence while editing a German-language newspaper in and pursuing business ventures. Chronic financial difficulties compounded these challenges, as List sacrificed potential wealth for his economic advocacy, including losses from American property investments during a mid-1830s . His ambitious Leipzig-Dresden railway project, initiated in 1837, yielded insufficient returns, deepening pecuniary woes and prompting relocation amid mounting debts. These pressures eroded family security, though List remained devoted to his wife and children, who offered steadfast support amid his deteriorating health. Following his death, public subscriptions were organized to aid the bereaved family, underscoring the extent of their hardship.

Mental Health Decline and Suicide

In the mid-1840s, Friedrich List's deteriorated amid chronic financial , professional frustrations, and physical ailments. Having invested heavily in industrial ventures and railways, List suffered significant losses during the economic downturns of the period, including the aftermath of the 1837 U.S. panic that eroded his assets accumulated during his American sojourn. These setbacks were compounded by his unsuccessful diplomatic efforts, such as the failed negotiation of a commercial treaty between and Britain in 1846, which deepened his sense of unfulfilled ambition. List's depression intensified as he grappled with poverty, lack of official recognition for his economic theories, and recurring illnesses, possibly including respiratory issues from earlier . Personal losses, including the deaths of family members, further exacerbated his emotional state, leading to profound despondency. Contemporaries noted his withdrawal and despair, attributing it to a confluence of material hardships and perceived intellectual isolation in advocating against dominant free-trade doctrines. On November 30, 1846, List ended his life by , shooting himself beside a railway line near in Tyrol while en route to . This act followed a period of acute mental anguish, with no evidence of external ; autopsy and witness accounts confirmed self-inflicted wounds to the head. Despite his earlier resilience—evident in overcoming imprisonment and exile in the —List's final years reflected a collapse under unrelieved stressors, a pattern observed in biographical analyses emphasizing untreated depressive episodes without modern psychiatric intervention.

Legacy

Contributions to German Unification and Industrialization

Friedrich List played a pivotal role in advocating for the Zollverein, a customs union among German states that eliminated internal trade barriers while imposing protective external tariffs. Established on January 1, 1834, under Prussian leadership, the Zollverein integrated the economies of participating states, fostering interdependence and countering British industrial dominance. List's writings and public campaigns emphasized that such a union would bind German states economically, laying the groundwork for political unification by enhancing Prussian economic hegemony and creating shared interests against external competition. List's protectionist framework, detailed in his 1841 publication The National System of Political Economy, argued for temporary tariffs to nurture "productive powers" like manufacturing and infrastructure, rejecting unqualified free trade as unsuitable for less-developed economies. This approach influenced German policy by justifying barriers against advanced British imports, allowing domestic industries—particularly in textiles, iron, and machinery—to expand without immediate foreign undercutting. By promoting internal free trade via the Zollverein alongside external protection, List's ideas facilitated capital accumulation and market expansion, contributing to Germany's shift from agrarian to industrial base in the mid-19th century. In , List actively promoted railways as engines of national integration and productivity. He advocated for a comprehensive German rail network and was directly involved in planning the Leipzig-Dresden line, constructed between and and opened in 1839 as Germany's first long-distance spanning 133 kilometers. This initiative demonstrated railways' potential to unify markets, reduce transport costs, and stimulate and iron industries, spurring subsequent expansions that reached over 5,000 kilometers by 1850 and integrated industrial regions like the . List's vision linked rail development to state intervention, accelerating technological diffusion and economic cohesion essential for unification and industrialization.

Influence on American System and Beyond

Friedrich List, during his residence from 1825 to 1832, actively promoted protectionist policies that aligned closely with the principles of Henry Clay's American System, which emphasized tariffs to foster domestic manufacturing, , and a national bank to support economic independence from British influence. As editor of the German-language newspaper Das Deutsche Eigentums-Blatt in , List advocated for high tariffs on imported manufactures to protect nascent American industries, drawing directly from observations of U.S. tariff debates and successes under the and subsequent acts. His efforts contributed to pro-tariff conventions and public discourse, providing theoretical reinforcement to Clay's program, which had been articulated in as early as 1824. List's firsthand endorsement of these measures as essential for building "productive powers" helped sustain political support for amid debates over . List's seminal 1841 work, The National System of Political Economy, explicitly praised the American approach as a model for other nations, arguing that U.S. tariffs had enabled rapid industrialization by shielding agriculture-dominant economies from Britain's manufacturing dominance—a causal mechanism he contrasted with cosmopolitan free-trade theories. While List drew inspiration from Alexander Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures, his systematic exposition influenced later American economists, including Henry C. Carey, whose writings on harmonizing agriculture and industry echoed List's emphasis on national productive forces over mere exchange values. This intellectual lineage bolstered U.S. tariff policies through the mid-19th century, such as the Tariff of 1842, by framing protectionism as a temporary investment in long-term national power rather than perpetual restriction. Beyond the United States, List's framework profoundly shaped Germany's economic unification through the Zollverein customs union, established in 1834 under Prussian leadership, which List had advocated during his European return by arguing for tariff barriers to cultivate internal markets and infrastructure like railways. His ideas directly informed Otto von Bismarck's policies in the 1860s and 1870s, prioritizing state-directed industrialization, education, and transport networks to achieve political sovereignty by 1871, evidenced by Germany's subsequent steel and chemical output surpassing Britain's in key sectors by the 1890s. In Asia, Meiji Japan adopted Listian protectionism from the 1860s onward, imposing tariffs and subsidies to build heavy industries, resulting in export-led growth that transformed Japan into an industrial power by 1905, as policymakers cited List's rejection of uniform free trade for developing economies. List's emphasis on sequenced development—protection followed by eventual openness—also resonated in Latin American contexts, such as Argentina's 1870s tariff regimes, though outcomes varied due to institutional differences.

Contemporary Relevance in Development Economics

List's emphasis on nurturing "productive powers" through temporary protectionism for infant industries remains a cornerstone in contemporary development economics, particularly in critiques of unconditional free trade for low-income nations. Scholars argue that his framework anticipates modern industrial policy debates, where strategic interventions—such as tariffs, subsidies, and state-directed investment—enable catch-up growth by shielding emerging sectors from advanced economies' dominance until they achieve competitiveness. This approach contrasts with Ricardian comparative advantage models, prioritizing national productive capacity over static efficiency gains, as evidenced in List's 1841 National System of Political Economy. In recent scholarship, economists like Ha-Joon Chang invoke List to challenge the "Washington Consensus," asserting that industrialized nations historically employed protectionist measures—tariffs averaging 30-50% in the US from 1816 to 1945 and similar in Britain pre-1850—before advocating liberalization for others. Chang's analysis in Kicking Away the Ladder (2002) highlights how List's infant industry argument, drawn from American experience, justified such policies; denying them to developing countries perpetuates dependency, as seen in uneven outcomes post-1980s structural adjustments in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, where GDP growth lagged behind protected East Asian peers. Empirical studies corroborate this, showing protection combined with export discipline fostered diversification in South Korea, where effective tariffs on manufactures exceeded 20% in the 1960s-1970s, enabling per capita income to rise from $100 in 1960 to over $10,000 by 1990. List's ideas also inform discussions on blockages to development, such as institutional weaknesses and unequal global power dynamics, which hinder benefits for peripheral economies. For instance, China's state-led industrialization since , involving selective and massive , mirrors List's call for building internal markets and transport networks, yielding average annual GDP growth of 9.5% from to 2018. However, proponents stress that success requires time-bound measures and complementary reforms, as prolonged risks inefficiency, a caveat List himself noted in advocating progression to post-maturity. These principles underpin ongoing policy experiments in and , where bodies like UNCTAD reference List in promoting "productive development" over pure .

Controversies and Critiques

Debates on Protectionism's Long-Term Efficacy

List argued that protective tariffs should be temporary measures to nurture "infant industries" until they achieved sufficient productive capacity to compete internationally, after which nations could transition to freer trade. This approach, outlined in his 1841 work The National System of Political Economy, aimed to counteract the advantages of established industrial powers like Britain, which had themselves employed protectionism during early development. Proponents of List's framework cite historical cases where such policies facilitated long-term industrialization, such as Germany's Zollverein customs union established in 1834, which imposed tariffs to foster manufacturing and contributed to rapid economic growth by the late 19th century, with industrial output rising from 2% of global totals in 1850 to over 13% by 1913. Empirical assessments of infant industry protection reveal mixed outcomes, with successes often linked to strategic implementation rather than protection alone. In East Asian economies like , tariffs and subsidies in the 1960s–1980s supported export-oriented industries, leading to GDP per capita growth from $158 in 1960 to $1,646 by 1980 (in constant dollars), followed by gradual as sectors matured. Similarly, Japan's Meiji-era policies echoed List by shielding textiles and steel until global competitiveness was attained, enabling sustained expansion without permanent entrenchment. However, these cases involved strong state oversight, performance-based incentives, and eventual exposure to , conditions absent in many failures. Critics contend that List underestimated political economy barriers to temporariness, as protected industries frequently lobby to retain barriers, fostering and inefficiency over . Import substitution strategies in during the 1950s–1970s, inspired partly by Listian ideas, resulted in stagnant ; for instance, Argentina's manufacturing tariffs correlated with annual GDP growth averaging under 2% from 1950 to 1980, amid and failure to develop capabilities. Cross-country regressions from 1963–2014 across 150 nations indicate that higher tariffs reduce output growth, with a 10 increase linked to 0.5–1% lower annual GDP expansion persisting over a . Such suggests protectionism's long-term efficacy hinges on credible commitment mechanisms to phase out support—mechanisms List idealized but which empirical data shows are rare due to entrenched interests. Development economists like defend List's logic by highlighting how now-free-trade advocates historically protected industries, arguing failures stem from poor execution rather than inherent flaws. Yet, systematic reviews find that while learning spillovers can justify short-term aid, broad tariffs rarely generate net long-term gains, as dynamic inefficiencies—such as reduced incentives for efficiency—outweigh static protections in most contexts. List's emphasis on dynamics thus holds causal insight for unequal global starts but overstates protection's scalability without rigorous exit strategies, as evidenced by the divergence between selective East Asian triumphs and widespread ISI collapses.

Nationalism, Imperialism, and Alleged Biases

List's economic thought was fundamentally , positing the nation-state as the primary unit for organizing production and trade rather than universal principles of . In his seminal work, The National System of (1841), he contended that nations at different stages of industrial development require protective tariffs to nurture "productive powers"—encompassing education, , and —before transitioning to , drawing on Britain's own historical use of mercantilist policies from the 16th to 18th centuries to achieve dominance. This framework rejected Adam Smith's emphasis on and individual self-interest, arguing instead that unrestricted commerce perpetuates dependency for agrarian or early-industrial societies against advanced manufacturing powers like Britain, which List viewed as leveraging to maintain post-industrialization. Regarding imperialism, List critiqued Britain's "imperialism of free trade" as a mechanism to enforce unequal exchange, wherein naval supremacy and market access subordinated peripheral economies to London's financial and industrial core. Yet his nationalism implicitly endorsed replicating such hierarchical relations on Germany's terms: he advocated for colonial acquisitions to secure raw materials, emigration outlets, and markets complementary to domestic industry, specifically proposing German colonization of Texas in 1842 (to counter Anglo-American expansion) and later Central African territories or South American regions for settlement and resource extraction. These views aligned with his broader aim of national self-sufficiency, where colonies served as extensions of the metropolitan economy rather than equals, though List prioritized internal unification via the Zollverein customs union over overseas ventures during his lifetime. Critics have alleged biases in List's toward ethnocentric , framing as a zero-sum contest among nations that undervalues cooperative global exchange and risks militarized rivalries. , in 1845 analyses, dismissed List's system as ideological cover for emerging German bourgeois interests, subordinating international proletarian to national capitalist accumulation and ignoring how entrenches class divisions within states. Later interpreters, including some in , note a potential in List's selective historical analogies—overemphasizing Britain's protectionist ascent while downplaying instances where tariffs stifled innovation—but his arguments rested on observable causal chains, such as how in 19th-century would have hollowed out nascent industries amid British competition. List distanced his framework from racial or , focusing on institutional and material factors like and , though his prioritization of over individual or universal welfare has been faulted for enabling authoritarian state interventions.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.