Paul Bairoch (24 July 1930 in Antwerp – 12 February 1999 in Geneva) was a (in 1985 naturalised) Swiss economic historian of Belgian descent who specialized in urban history and historical demography. He published or co-authored more than two dozen books and 120 scholarly articles. His most important works emphasize the agricultural preconditions necessary for industrialization and controversially claim, contrary to most scholars that colonization was not beneficial to colonial empires. He argued that tariffs and growth were positively correlated in the 19th century.

Bairoch gained a bachelor's degree by correspondence, intending to become an engineer but he turned to studying economic history in 1956 at the parisian Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. He obtained his doctorate in 1963 at the Free University of Brussels where he worked from 1965 to 1995. He was economic adviser to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) at Geneva from 1967 to 1969, professor at the Sir George Williams University (Concordia) in Montréal from 1969 to 1971 and on recommendation of Fernand Braudel became director of studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes from 1971 to 1972. In 1972 he was made professor of history at the University of Geneva. He retired in 1995. He was also visiting professor at Harvard and at the Collège de France (1983) and Doctor honoris causa at the ETH Zurich. From 1985, Bairoch directed a number of research projects on the world economy at a Centre for International Economic History in Geneva.

Paul Bairoch sought through quantitative, empirical research of historical trends to question and challenge many beliefs which are nowadays generally accepted in economics (see in particular his work Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes), among which: the idea that free trade historically led to periods of economic growth; that moving away from free trade caused the Great Depression; and that colonial powers in the 19th and early 20th centuries became rich by exploiting the Third World.

Bairoch argued that such beliefs are based on insufficient knowledge and misguided interpretations of the economic history of the United States, Europe and the Third World. He researched extensively the reasons why an industrial takeoff was prevented in the colonised countries of the Third World (see e.g. his book Révolution industrielle et sous-développement). He is particularly known for his detailed empirical research on economic problems of Third World countries, on the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath and on urban history. His historical estimates of Gross Product measures are still being referred to in the literature, although some are also challenged by other economic historians such as Angus Maddison.

Bairoch argues that free trade contributed to deindustrialization in the Ottoman Empire. In contrast to the protectionism of China, Japan, and Spain, the Ottoman Empire had a liberal trade policy, open to foreign imports. This has origins in capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further with capitulations in 1673 and 1740, which lowered duties to 3% for imports and exports. The liberal Ottoman policies were praised by British economists such as J. R. McCulloch in his Dictionary of Commerce (1834), but later criticized by British politicians such as Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 Corn Laws debate:

There has been free trade in Turkey, and what has it produced? It has destroyed some of the finest manufactures of the world. As late as 1812 these manufactures existed; but they have been destroyed. That was the consequences of competition in Turkey, and its effects have been as pernicious as the effects of the contrary principle in Spain.

In his contribution to the Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Paul Bairoch argued that during the late 19th century, protectionist trade policies were positively associated with economic growth and trade expansion, while liberal trade policies coincided with stagnation. He summarized this position by stating that “protectionism [equaled] economic growth and expansion of trade; liberalism [equaled] stagnation in both.”

This claim has been subject to criticism, particularly by economist Douglas Irwin. While Irwin acknowledged the existence of a correlation between tariffs and growth during this period, he cautioned against interpreting this as evidence of a causal relationship. He pointed out that several countries with high tariffs, such as Argentina and Canada, experienced rapid growth not because of protectionism, but due to capital inflows that fueled export-led growth in agricultural staples. Irwin further noted that many land-abundant, labor-scarce countries imposed high tariffs primarily to generate government revenue, rather than to protect domestic industries. As a result, the association between tariffs and growth may be confounded by structural factors, such as factor endowments and fiscal policy, rather than trade strategy alone.