Search This Blog

Sunday, April 19, 2026

Mercantilism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seaport at sunset, a painting by Claude Lorrain, completed in 1639 at the height of mercantilism

Mercantilism is a form of economic system and nationalist economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports and minimize the imports of an economy. It seeks to maximize the accumulation of resources within the country and use those resources for one-sided trade.

The concept aims to reduce a possible current account deficit or reach a current account surplus, and it includes measures aimed at accumulating monetary reserves by a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods. Historically, such policies may have contributed to war and motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist theory varies in sophistication from one writer to another and has evolved over time.

Mercantilism promotes government regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting and bolstering state power at the expense of rival national powers. High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods, were almost universally a feature of mercantilist policy. Before it fell into decline, mercantilism was dominant in modernized parts of Europe and some areas in Africa from the 16th to the 19th centuries, a period of proto-industrialization. Some commentators argue that it is still practised in the economies of industrializing countries in the form of economic interventionism.

With the efforts of supranational organizations such as the World Trade Organization to reduce tariffs globally, non-tariff barriers to trade have assumed a greater importance in neomercantilism.

History

Merchants in Venice

Mercantilism became the dominant school of economic thought in Europe throughout the late Renaissance and the early modern period (from the 15th to the 18th centuries) before advent of Classical liberalism. Evidence of mercantilistic practices appeared in early modern Venice, Genoa, and Pisa regarding control of the Mediterranean trade in bullion. However, the empiricism of the Renaissance, which first began to quantify large-scale trade accurately, marked the beginning of mercantilism as a codified school of economic theories. The Italian economist and mercantilist Antonio Serra is considered to have written one of the first treatises on political economy in his 1613 work, A Short Treatise on the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

Mercantilism, in its simplest form, is all about bullionism, or the theory that a nation's wealth is measured in terms of how much precious metal, particularly gold and silver, it possesses. Mercantilist authors were concerned with the movement of money, however, more than with the hoarding of it. They felt that money needed to move through the economy to induce trade and economic activity, a concept different from that of simply amassing wealth. This focus on money's role, specifically precious metals, mirrors modern discussions of the money supply and its implications for economic growth, i.e., how money supply expansion can stimulate economic activity. However, with the advent of fiat money (money not backed by a physical commodity) and floating exchange rates, the importance of specie (gold and silver) in economic systems has diminished. Progressively, the focus shifted from the handling of money to the implementation of industrial policies that placed greater economic goals, e.g., stimulating general prosperity and supporting technological and industrial advancement, above the financing of war.

England began the first large-scale and integrative approach to mercantilism during the Elizabethan Era (1558–1603). An early statement on national balance of trade appeared in Discourse of the Common Wealth of this Realm of England, 1549: "We must always take heed that we buy no more from strangers than we sell them, for so should we impoverish ourselves and enrich them." The period featured various but often disjointed efforts by the court of Queen Elizabeth I (r. 1558–1603) to develop a naval and merchant fleet capable of challenging the Spanish stranglehold on trade and of expanding the growth of bullion at home. Queen Elizabeth promoted trade and navigation acts in Parliament and issued orders to her navy for the protection and promotion of English shipping. The first Navigation Acts regulating trade were passed by Parliament in 1651 and 1652, during the English Commonwealth.

Authors noted most for establishing the English mercantilist system include Gerard de Malynes (fl. 1585–1641) and Thomas Mun (1571–1641), who first articulated the Elizabethan system (England's Treasure by Foreign Trade or the Balance of Foreign Trade is the Rule of Our Treasure), which Josiah Child (c. 1630/31–1699) then developed further.

Numerous French authors helped cement French policy around statist mercantilism in the 17th century, as King Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) followed the guidance of Jean Baptiste Colbert, his Controller-General of Finances from 1665 to 1683 who revised the tariff system and expanded industrial policy. Colbertism was based on the principle that the state should rule in the economic realm as it did in the diplomatic, and that the interests of the state as identified by the king were superior to those of merchants and of everyone else. Mercantilist economic policies aimed to build up the state, especially in an age of incessant warfare, and theorists charged the state with looking for ways to strengthen the economy and to weaken foreign adversaries.

In Europe, academic belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century after the East India Company annexed Mughal Bengal, a major trading nation, and the establishment of British India through the activities of the East India Company, in light of the arguments of Adam Smith (1723–1790) and of the classical economists. French economic policy liberalized greatly under Napoleon (in power from 1799 to 1814/1815). The British Parliament's repeal of the Corn Laws under Robert Peel in 1846 symbolized the emergence of free trade as an alternative system.

Theory

Most of the European economists who wrote between 1500 and 1750 are today generally described as mercantilists; this term was initially used solely by critics, such as Mirabeau and Smith, but historians proved quick to adopt it. Originally the standard English term was "mercantile system". The word "mercantilism" came into English from German in the early-19th century.

The bulk of what is commonly called "mercantilist literature" appeared in the 1620s in Great Britain. Smith saw the English merchant Thomas Mun (1571–1641) as a major creator of the mercantile system, especially in his posthumously published Treasure by Foreign Trade (1664), which Smith considered the archetype or manifesto of the movement. Perhaps the last major mercantilist work was James Steuart's Principles of Political Economy, published in 1767.

Mercantilist literature also extended beyond England. Italy and France produced noted writers of mercantilist themes, including Italy's Giovanni Botero (1544–1617) and Antonio Serra (fl. 16th–17th centuries) and, in France, Jean Bodin and Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Themes also existed in writers from the German historical school from List, as well as followers of the American and British systems of free-trade, thus stretching the system into the 19th century. However, many British writers, including Mun and Edward Misselden, were merchants, while many of the writers from other countries were public officials. Beyond mercantilism as a way of understanding the wealth and power of nations, Mun and Misselden are noted for their viewpoints on a wide range of economic matters.

The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, one of the pioneers of cameralism, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, which comprehensively sums up the tenets of mercantilism:

  • That every little bit of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
  • That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
  • That a large, working population be encouraged.
  • That all exports of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
  • That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
  • That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
  • That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
  • That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
  • That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.

Other than Von Hornick, there were no mercantilist writers presenting an overarching scheme for the ideal economy, as Adam Smith would later do for classical economics. Rather, each mercantilist writer tended to focus on a single area of the economy. Only later did non-mercantilist scholars integrate these "diverse" ideas into what they called mercantilism. Some scholars thus reject the idea of mercantilism completely, arguing that it gives "a false unity to disparate events". Smith saw the mercantile system as an enormous conspiracy by manufacturers and merchants against consumers, a view that has led some authors, especially Robert E. Ekelund and Robert D. Tollison, to call mercantilism "a rent-seeking society". To a certain extent, mercantilist doctrine itself made a general theory of economics impossible. Mercantilists viewed the economic system as a zero-sum game, in which any gain by one party required a loss by another. Thus, any system of policies that benefited one group would by definition harm the other, and there was no possibility of economics being used to maximize the commonwealth, or common good. Mercantilists' writings were also generally created to rationalize particular practices rather than as investigations into the best policies.

Mercantilist domestic policy was more fragmented than its trade policy. While Adam Smith portrayed mercantilism as supportive of strict controls over the economy, many mercantilists disagreed. The early modern era was one of letters patent and government-imposed monopolies; some mercantilists supported these, but others acknowledged the corruption and inefficiency of such systems. Many mercantilists also realized that the inevitable results of quotas and price ceilings were black markets. One notion that mercantilists widely agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the working population; laborers and farmers were to live at the "margins of subsistence". The goal was to maximize production, with no concern for consumption. Extra money, free time, and education for the lower classes were seen to inevitably lead to vice and laziness, and would result in harm to the economy.

The mercantilists saw a large population as a form of wealth that made possible the development of bigger markets and armies. Opposite to mercantilism was the doctrine of physiocracy, which predicted that mankind would outgrow its resources. The idea of mercantilism was to protect the markets as well as maintain agriculture and those who were dependent upon it.

Policies

Mercantilist ideas were the dominant economic ideology of all of Europe in the early modern period, and most states embraced it to a certain degree. Mercantilism was centred on England and France, and it was in these states that mercantilist policies were most often enacted. The United States, a former British colony, has also employed mercantilist policies at times in its economic history.

The policies have included:

  • High tariffs, especially on manufactured goods.
  • Forbidding colonies to trade with other nations.
  • Monopolizing markets with staple ports.
  • Banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments.
  • Forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships, as per, for example, the Navigation Acts.
  • Subsidies on exports.
  • Promoting manufacturing and industry through research or direct subsidies.
  • Limiting wages.
  • Maximizing the use of domestic resources.
  • Restricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade.

France

French finance minister and mercantilist Jean-Baptiste Colbert served for over 20 years.

Mercantilism arose in France in the early 16th century soon after the monarchy had become the dominant force in French politics. In 1539, an important decree banned the import of woolen goods from Spain and some parts of Flanders. The next year, a number of restrictions were imposed on the export of bullion.

Over the rest of the 16th century, further protectionist measures were introduced. The height of French mercantilism is closely associated with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for 22 years in the 17th century, to the extent that French mercantilism is sometimes called Colbertism. Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in order to increase exports. Protectionist policies were enacted that limited imports and favored exports. Industries were organized into guilds and monopolies, and production was regulated by the state through a series of more than one thousand directives outlining how different products should be produced.

To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported. Colbert also worked to decrease internal barriers to trade, reducing internal tariffs and building an extensive network of roads and canals. Colbert's policies were quite successful, and France's industrial output and the economy grew considerably during this period, as France became the dominant European power. He was less successful in turning France into a major trading power, and Britain and the Dutch Republic remained supreme in this field.

New France

France imposed its mercantilist philosophy on its colonies in North America, especially New France. It sought to derive the maximum material benefit from the colony, for the homeland, with a minimum of colonial investment in the colony itself. The ideology was embodied in New France through the establishment under Royal Charter of a number of corporate trading monopolies including La Compagnie des Marchands, which operated from 1613 to 1621, and the Compagnie de Montmorency, from that date until 1627. It was in turn replaced by La Compagnie des Cent-Associés, created in 1627 by King Louis XIII, and the Communauté des habitants in 1643. These were the first corporations to operate in what is now Canada.

United Kingdom

In England, mercantilism reached its peak during the Long Parliament government (1640–60). Mercantilist policies were also embraced throughout much of the Tudor and Stuart periods, with Robert Walpole being another major proponent. In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament. Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War, but were often controversial.

The Anglo-Dutch Wars were fought between the English and the Dutch for control over the seas and trade routes.

With respect to its colonies, British mercantilism meant that the government and the merchants became partners with the goal of increasing political power and private wealth, to the exclusion of other European powers. The government protected its merchants—and kept foreign ones out—through trade barriers, regulations, and subsidies to domestic industries in order to maximize exports from and minimize imports to the realm. The government had to fight smuggling, which became a favourite American technique in the 18th century to circumvent the restrictions on trading with the French, Spanish, or Dutch. The goal of mercantilism was to run trade surpluses to benefit the government. The government took its share through duties and taxes, with the remainder going to merchants in Britain. The government spent much of its revenue on the Royal Navy, which both protected the colonies of Britain but was vital in capturing the colonies of other European powers.

British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary. British mercantilism thus mainly took the form of efforts to control trade. A wide array of regulations were put in place to encourage exports and discourage imports. Tariffs were placed on imports and bounties given for exports, and the export of some raw materials was banned completely. The Navigation Acts removed foreign merchants from being involved England's domestic trade. British policies in their American colonies led to friction with the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies, and mercantilist policies (such as forbidding trade with other European powers and enforcing bans on smuggling) were a major irritant leading to the American Revolution.

Mercantilism taught that trade was a zero-sum game, with one country's gain equivalent to a loss sustained by the trading partner. Some have argued that mercantilist policies had a positive impact on Britain, helping to transform the nation into the world's dominant trading power and a global hegemon. One domestic policy that had a lasting impact was the conversion of "wastelands" to agricultural use. Mercantilists believed that to maximize a nation's power, all land and resources had to be used to their highest and best use, and this era thus saw projects like the draining of The Fens.

United States

The American School of economics dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-20th century. It is closely related to mercantilism, and it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

  1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–1970).
  2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation).
  3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.

Other countries

Mercantilism helped create trade patterns such as the triangular trade in the North Atlantic, in which raw materials were imported to the mother country and then processed and redistributed to other colonies.

The other nations of Europe also embraced mercantilism to varying degrees. The Netherlands, which had become the financial centre of Europe by being its most efficient trader, had little interest in seeing trade restricted and adopted few mercantilist policies. Mercantilism became prominent in Central Europe and Scandinavia after the Thirty Years' War (1618–48), with Christina of Sweden, Jacob Kettler of Courland, and Christian IV of Denmark being notable proponents.

The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors had long been interested in mercantilist policies, but the vast and decentralized nature of their empire made implementing such notions difficult. Some constituent states of the empire did embrace mercantilism, most notably Prussia, which under Frederick the Great had perhaps the most rigidly controlled economy in Europe.

Spain benefited from mercantilism early on as it brought a large amount of precious metals such as gold and silver into their treasury by way of the new world. In the long run, Spain's economy collapsed as it was unable to adjust to the inflation that came with the large influx of bullion. Heavy intervention from the crown put crippling laws for the protection of Spanish goods and services. Mercantilist protectionist policy in Spain caused the long-run failure of the Castilian textile industry as the efficiency severely dropped off with each passing year due to the production being held at a specific level. Spain's heavily protected industries led to famines as much of its agricultural land was required to be used for sheep instead of grain. Much of their grain was imported from the Baltic region of Europe which caused a shortage of food in the inner regions of Spain. Spain limiting the trade of their colonies is one of the causes that led to the separation of the Dutch from the Spanish Empire. The culmination of all of these policies led to Spain defaulting in 1557, 1575, and 1596.

During the economic collapse of the 17th century, Spain had little coherent economic policy, but French mercantilist policies were imported by Philip V with some success. Ottoman Grand Vizier Kemankeş Kara Mustafa Pasha also followed some mercantilist financial policies during the reign of Ibrahim I. According to the historian Alex M. Feldman, Russia under Peter I (Peter the Great) pursued mercantilism based on similarities with concurrent Spanish mercantilism and older models of political economy derived from the Byzantine economy.

Wars and imperialism

Mercantilism was the economic version of warfare backed up by the state apparatus, and was well suited to an era of military warfare. If authorities viewed the level of world trade as fixed, it followed that the only way to increase a polity's trade was to take it from another. A number of wars, most notably the four Anglo-Dutch Wars (from 1652 to 1784) and the Franco-Dutch Wars (as from 1672 to 1678), can be linked directly to mercantilist theories. Most wars had other causes but they reinforced mercantilism by clearly defining the enemy, and justified damage to the enemy's economy.

Mercantilism fueled the imperialism of this era, as many nations expended significant effort to conquer new colonies that would be sources of gold (as in Mexico) or sugar (as in the West Indies), as well as becoming exclusive markets. European power spread around the globe, often under the aegis of companies with government-guaranteed monopolies in certain defined geographical regions, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company (operating in present-day Canada).

With the establishment of overseas colonies by European powers, especially from the 17th century, mercantile theory gained a new and wider significance, in which its aim and ideal became both national and imperialistic.

The connection between Marxist theory and mercantilism has been explored by Marxist economist and sociologist Giovanni Arrighi (1937-2009), who analyzed mercantilism as having three components: "settler colonialism, capitalist slavery, and economic nationalism", and further noted that slavery was "partly a condition and partly a result of the success of settler colonialism."

In the French economy, the triangular trade method was integral in the continuation of mercantilism throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. In order to maximize exports and minimize imports, France worked on a strict Atlantic route: France, to Africa, to the Americas and then back to France. By bringing African slaves to labor in the New World, their labor value increased, and France capitalized upon the market resources produced by slave labor.

Mercantilism as a weapon has continued to be used by countries through the 21st century by way of modern tariffs, as it puts smaller economies in a position where they may need to conform to the larger economies' goals or risk economic ruin due to an imbalance in trade. Trade wars are often dependent on such tariffs and restrictions hurting an opposing economy.

Origins

The term "mercantile system" was used by its foremost critic, Adam Smith, but Mirabeau (1715–1789) had used "mercantilism" earlier. Mercantilism functioned as the economic counterpart of the older version of political power: divine right of kings and absolute monarchy.

Scholars debate why mercantilism dominated economic ideology for 250 years. One group, represented by Jacob Viner, sees mercantilism as simply a straightforward, common-sense system whose logical fallacies remained opaque to people at the time. This, he argues, was because people lacked the necessary analytical tools.

The second school, supported by scholars such as Robert B. Ekelund, portrays mercantilism not as a mistake, but rather as the best possible system for those who developed it. This school argues that rent-seeking merchants and governments developed and enforced mercantilist policies. Merchants benefited greatly from the enforced monopolies, bans on foreign competition, and poverty of the workers. Governments benefited from the high tariffs and payments from the merchants. Whereas later economic ideas were often developed by academics and philosophers, almost all mercantilist writers were merchants or government officials.

Monetarism offers a third explanation for mercantilism. European trade exported bullion to pay for goods from Asia, thus reducing the money supply and putting downward pressure on prices and economic activity. The evidence for this hypothesis is the lack of inflation in the British economy until the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, when paper money came into vogue.

A fourth explanation lies in the increasing professionalisation and technification of the wars of the era, which turned the maintenance of adequate reserve funds (in the prospect of war) into a more and more expensive and eventually competitive business.

Mercantilism developed at a time of transition for the European economy. Isolated feudal estates were being replaced by centralized nation-states as the focus of power. Technological changes in shipping and the growth of urban centers led to a rapid increase in international trade. Mercantilism focused on how this trade could best aid the states. Another important change was the introduction of double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting. This accounting made extremely clear the inflow and outflow of trade, contributing to the close scrutiny given to the balance of trade. New markets and new mines propelled foreign trade to previously inconceivable volumes, resulting in "the great upward movement in prices" and an increase in "the volume of merchant activity itself".

Before mercantilism, the most important work in economics in Europe was that of the medieval scholastic theorists. The goal of these thinkers was to find an economic system compatible with Christian doctrines of piety and justice. They focused mainly on microeconomics and on local exchanges between individuals. Mercantilism was closely aligned with the other theories and ideas that began to replace the medieval worldview. This period saw the adoption of Machiavellian realpolitik and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations. The mercantilist idea of all trade as a zero-sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integral to the works of Thomas Hobbes. This dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world, and some of the most stridently mercantilist legislation, such as the Navigation Ordinance of 1651, was enacted by the government of Oliver Cromwell.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert's work in 17th-century France came to exemplify classical mercantilism. In the English-speaking world, its ideas were criticized by Adam Smith with the publication of The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and later by David Ricardo with his explanation of comparative advantage. Mercantilism was rejected by Britain and France by the mid-19th century. The British Empire embraced free trade and used its power as the financial center of the world to promote the same. The Guyanese historian Walter Rodney describes mercantilism as the period of the worldwide development of European commerce which began in the 15th century with the voyages of Portuguese and Spanish explorers to Africa, Asia, and the New World.

End of mercantilism

Adam Smith, David Hume, Edward Gibbon, Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were the founding fathers of anti-mercantilist thought. A number of scholars found important flaws in mercantilism long before Smith developed an ideology that could fully replace it. Critics such as Hume, Dudley North and John Locke undermined much of mercantilism and it steadily lost favor during the 18th century.

In 1690, Locke argued that prices vary in proportion to the quantity of money. Locke's Second Treatise also points towards the heart of the anti-mercantilist critique: that the wealth of the world is not fixed, but is created by human labor (represented embryonically by Locke's labor theory of value). Mercantilists failed to understand the notions of absolute advantage and comparative advantage (this idea was only fully fleshed out in 1817 by David Ricardo) and the benefits of trade.

Much of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is an attack on mercantilism.

Hume famously noted the impossibility of the mercantilists' goal of a constant positive balance of trade. As bullion flowed into one country, the supply would increase, and the value of bullion in that state would steadily decline relative to other goods. Conversely, in the state exporting bullion, its value would slowly rise. Eventually, it would no longer be cost-effective to export goods from the high-price country to the low-price country, and the balance of trade would reverse. Mercantilists fundamentally misunderstood this, long arguing that an increase in the money supply simply meant that everyone gets richer.

The importance placed on bullion was also a central target, even if many mercantilists had themselves begun to de-emphasize the importance of gold and silver. Adam Smith noted that at the core of the mercantile system was the "popular folly of confusing wealth with money", that bullion was just the same as any other commodity, and that there was no reason to give it special treatment. More recently, scholars have discounted the accuracy of this critique. They believe Mun and Misselden were not making this mistake in the 1620s, and point to their followers Josiah Child and Charles Davenant, who in 1699 wrote, "Gold and Silver are indeed the Measures of Trade, but that the Spring and Original of it, in all nations is the Natural or Artificial Product of the Country; that is to say, what this Land or what this Labour and Industry Produces." The critique that mercantilism was a form of rent seeking has also seen criticism, as scholars such as Jacob Viner in the 1930s pointed out that merchant mercantilists such as Mun understood that they would not gain by higher prices for English wares abroad.

The first school to completely reject mercantilism was the physiocrats, who developed their theories in France. Their theories also had several important problems, and the replacement of mercantilism did not come until Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. This book outlines the basics of what is today known as classical economics. Smith spent a considerable portion of the book rebutting the arguments of the mercantilists, though often these are simplified or exaggerated versions of mercantilist thought.

Scholars are also divided over the cause of mercantilism's end. Those who believe the theory was simply an error hold that its replacement was inevitable as soon as Smith's more accurate ideas were unveiled. Those who feel that mercantilism amounted to rent-seeking hold that it ended only when major power shifts occurred. In Britain, mercantilism faded as the Parliament gained the monarch's power to grant monopolies. While the wealthy capitalists who controlled the House of Commons benefited from these monopolies, Parliament found it difficult to implement them because of the high cost of group decision making.

Mercantilist regulations were steadily removed over the course of the 18th century in Britain, and during the 19th century, the British government fully embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics. On the continent, the process was somewhat different. In France, economic control remained in the hands of the royal family, and mercantilism continued until the French Revolution. In Germany, mercantilism remained an important ideology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the historical school of economics was paramount.

Legacy

Adam Smith criticized the mercantile doctrine that prioritized production in the economy; he maintained that consumption was of prime significance. Additionally, the mercantile system was well-liked by the traders as it involved what is now referred to as rent seeking.

In specific instances, protectionist mercantilist policies also had an important and positive impact on the state that enacted them. Adam Smith, for instance, praised England's Navigation Acts of 1660 to 1760, as they greatly fostered the expansion of the British merchant fleet and played a central role in turning Britain into the world's naval and economic superpower from the 18th century onward. Some economists thus feel that protecting infant industries, while causing short-term harm, can be beneficial to a specific economy in the long term.

In the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) affirmed that motivating the production process was as significant as encouraging consumption, which benefited the new mercantilism. Keynes also affirmed that in the post-classical period the primary focus on gold- and silver-supplies (bullion) was rational. During the era before paper money, an increase in gold and silver was one of the ways of mercantilism increasing an economy's reserve or the supply of money. Keynes reiterated that the doctrines advocated by mercantilism aided the improvement of both the domestic and foreign outlay — domestic because the policies lowered the domestic rate of interest, and investment by foreigners by tending to create a favorable balance of trade. Keynes and other economists of the 20th century also realized that the balance of payments is an important concern. Keynes also supported government intervention in the economy as necessary, as did mercantilism.

As of 2010, the word "mercantilism" remained a pejorative term, often used to attack various forms of protectionism.

Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, wrote of mercantilism: "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), representing the Austrian School of economics, describes it this way:

Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state. Thus, mercantilism held exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged.

Rothbard viewed mercantilism not as a coherent economic theory but rather as a series of post-hoc rationalizations for various economic policies by interested parties.

Neo-mercantilism

Some systems that copy several mercantilist policies, such as Japan's economic system, are sometimes called neo-mercantilist. In an essay appearing in the May 14, 2007 issue of Newsweek, business columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote that China was pursuing an essentially neo-mercantilist trade-policy that threatened to undermine the post–World War II international economic structure.

Second presidency of Donald Trump

After the re-election of Donald Trump as president of the United States in 2024, Serbian-American economist Branko Milanović described Trump's policies of implementing tariffs on imports, trade blocs, and other barriers against China as "neo-mercantilism", stating that it "marks a symbolic end to global neoliberalism".

Michael Strain of the conservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute also described Trump's policy as a return to mercantilism: "We are seeing a combination of true-believing mercantilism, shocking ignorance about how the global economy works, and shocking incompetence in the planning and execution of economic policy."

Crony capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crony capitalism, sometimes also called simply cronyism, is a pejorative term used in political discourse to describe a situation in which businesses profit from a close relationship with state power, either through an anti-competitive regulatory environment, direct government largesse, or corruption. Examples given for crony capitalism include the obtainment of permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other undue influence from businesses over the state's deployment of public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works. In other words, it is used to describe a situation where businesses thrive not as a result of free enterprise, but rather collusion between the business class and the political class

Wealth is then accumulated not merely by making a profit in the market, but through profiteering by rent seeking using this monopoly or oligopoly. Entrepreneurship and innovative practices that seek to reward risk are stifled since the value-added is little by crony businesses, as hardly anything of significant value is created by them, with transactions taking the form of trading. Crony capitalism spills over into the government, the politics, and the media, when this nexus distorts the economy and affects society to an extent it corrupts public-serving economic, political, and social ideals.

Historical usage

The first extensive use of the term "crony capitalism" came about in the 1980s to characterize the Philippine economy under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. Early uses of this term to describe the economic practices of the Marcos regime included that of Ricardo Manapat, who introduced it in his 1979 pamphlet "Some are Smarter than Others", which was later published in 1991; former Time magazine business editor George M. Taber, who used the term in a Time magazine article in 1980, and activist (and later Finance Minister) Jaime Ongpin, who used the term extensively in his writing and is sometimes credited for having coined it.

The term crony capitalism made a significant impact on the public as an explanation of the Asian financial crisis.

It is also used to describe governmental decisions favoring cronies of governmental officials.

The term is used largely interchangeably with the related term corporate welfare, although the latter is by definition specific to corporations.

In practice

South Korean President Park Geun-hye at a breakfast meeting with business magnates Lee Kun-hee and Chung Mong-koo. A group of massive, mostly family-run business conglomerates, called chaebol, dominates South Korea's economy.

Crony capitalism exists along a continuum. In its lightest form, crony capitalism consists of collusion among market players, which is officially tolerated or encouraged by the government. While perhaps lightly competing against each other, they will present a unified front (sometimes called a trade association or industry trade group) to the government in requesting subsidies, aid or regulation. For instance, newcomers to a market then need to surmount significant barriers to entry in seeking loans, acquiring shelf space, or receiving official sanction. Some such systems are very formalized, such as sports leagues and the Medallion System of the taxicabs of New York City, but often the process is more subtle, such as expanding training and certification exams to make it more expensive for new entrants to enter a market and thereby limiting potential competition. In technological fields, there a system may evolve whereby new entrants may be accused of infringing on patents that the established competitors never assert against each other. In spite of this, some competitors may succeed when the legal barriers are light. The term crony capitalism is generally used when these practices either come to dominate the economy as a whole or come to dominate the most valuable industries in an economy. Intentionally ambiguous laws and regulations are common in such systems. Taken strictly, such laws would greatly impede practically all business activity, but in practice, they are only erratically enforced. The specter of having such laws suddenly brought down upon a business provides an incentive to stay in the good graces of political officials. Troublesome rivals who have overstepped their bounds can have these laws suddenly enforced against them, leading to fines or even jail time. Even in high-income democracies with well-established legal systems and freedom of the press in place, a larger state is generally associated with increased political corruption.

The term crony capitalism was initially applied to states involved in the 1997 Asian financial crisis, such as Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand. In these cases, the term was used to point out how family members of the ruling leaders became extremely wealthy with no non-political justification. Southeast Asian nations, such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, still score very poorly in rankings measuring this. It was also used in this context as part of a broader liberal critique of economic dirigisme. The term has also been applied to the system of oligarchs in Russia. Other states to which the term has been applied include India, in particular the system after the 1990s liberalization, whereby land and other resources were given at throwaway prices in the name of public-private partnerships, the more recent coal-gate scam and cheap allocation of land and resources to Adani SEZ under the Congress and BJP governments. Similar references to crony capitalism have been made to other countries, such as Argentina and Greece. Wu Jinglian, one of China's leading economists and a longtime advocate of its transition to free markets, says that it faces two starkly contrasting futures, namely a market economy under the rule of law or crony capitalism. A dozen years later, prominent political scientist Pei Minxin concluded that the latter course had become deeply embedded in China. The anti-corruption campaign under Xi Jinping (2012–) has seen more than 100,000 high- and low-ranking Chinese officials indicted and jailed.

Many prosperous nations have also had varying amounts of cronyism throughout their history, including the United Kingdom, especially in the 1600s and 1700s, the United States and Japan.

Crony capitalism index

The Economist benchmarks countries based on a crony-capitalism index calculated via how much economic activity occurs in industries prone to cronyism. Its 2014 Crony Capitalism Index ranking listed Hong Kong, Russia and Malaysia in the top three spots.

In finance

Crony capitalism in finance was found in the Second Bank of the United States. It was a private company, but its largest stockholder was the federal government, which owned 20%. It was an early bank regulator and grew to be one of the most powerful organizations in the country due largely to being the depository of the government's revenue.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 completely removed Glass–Steagall’s separation between commercial banks and investment banks. After this repeal, commercial banks, investment banks and insurance companies combined their lobbying efforts. Critics claim this was instrumental in the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

In sections of an economy

"The Bosses of the Senate", corporate interests as giant money bags looming over U.S. senators

More direct government involvement in a specific sector can also lead to specific areas of crony capitalism, even if the economy as a whole may be competitive. This is most common in natural resource sectors through the granting of mining or drilling concessions, but it is also possible through a process known as regulatory capture, where the government agencies in charge of regulating an industry come to be controlled by that industry. Governments will often establish, in good faith, government agencies to regulate an industry. However, the members of an industry have a very strong interest in the actions of that regulatory body, while the rest of the citizenry are only lightly affected. As a result, it is not uncommon for current industry players to gain control of the watchdog and use it against competitors. This typically takes the form of making it very expensive for a new entrant to enter the market. An 1824 landmark United States Supreme Court ruling overturned a New York State-granted monopoly ("a veritable model of state munificence" facilitated by Robert R. Livingston, one of the Founding Fathers) for the then-revolutionary technology of steamboats. Leveraging the Supreme Court's establishment of Congressional supremacy over commerce, the Interstate Commerce Commission was established in 1887 with the intent of regulating railroad robber barons. President Grover Cleveland appointed Thomas M. Cooley, a railroad ally, as its first chairman and a permit system was used to deny access to new entrants and legalize price fixing.

The defense industry in the United States is often described as an example of crony capitalism. Connections with the Pentagon and lobbyists in Washington are described by critics as more important than actual competition due to the political and secretive nature of defense contracts. In the Airbus-Boeing WTO dispute, Airbus (which receives subsidies from European governments) has stated Boeing receives similar subsidies, which are hidden as inefficient defense contracts and in the form of federal and tax tax breaks. Other American defense companies were put under scrutiny for no-bid contracts for the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina-related contracts, purportedly due to having cronies in the Bush administration.

Gerald P. O'Driscoll, former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became examples of crony capitalism as government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate mortgage underwriting, saying: "The politicians created the mortgage giants, which then returned some of the profits to the pols—sometimes directly, as campaign funds; sometimes as "contributions" to favored constituents".

In developing economies

In its worst form, crony capitalism can devolve into simple corruption where any pretense of a free market is dispensed with, bribes to government officials are considered de rigueur and tax evasion is common. This is seen in many parts of Africa and is sometimes called plutocracy (rule by wealth) or kleptocracy (rule by theft). Kenyan economist David Ndii has repeatedly brought to light how this system has manifested over time, occasioned by the reign of Uhuru Kenyatta as president.

Corrupt governments may favor one set of business owners who have close ties to the government over others. This may also be done with religious or ethnic favoritism. For instance, Alawites in Syria have a disproportionate share of power in the government and business there (then-President Assad himself is an Alawite). This can be explained by considering personal relationships as a social network. As government and business leaders try to accomplish various things, they naturally turn to other powerful people for support in their endeavors. These people form hubs in the network. In a developing country, those hubs may be very few, thus concentrating economic and political power in a small interlocking group.

Normally, this will be untenable to maintain in business as new entrants will affect the market. However, if business and government are entwined, then the government can maintain the small-hub network.

Raymond Vernon, a specialist in economics and international affairs, wrote that the Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain because they were the first to successfully limit the power of veto groups (typically cronies of those with power in government) to block innovations, writing: "Unlike most other national environments, the British environment of the early 19th century contained relatively few threats to those who improved and applied existing inventions, whether from business competitors, labor, or the government itself. In other European countries, by contrast, the merchant guilds ... were a pervasive source of veto for many centuries. This power was typically bestowed upon them by the government." Vernon further stated that "a steam-powered horseless carriage produced in France in 1769 was officially suppressed." James Watt began experimenting with steam in 1763, got a patent in 1769 and began commercial production in 1775.

Raghuram Rajan, former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, has said: "One of the greatest dangers to the growth of developing countries is the middle income trap, where crony capitalism creates oligarchies that slow down growth. If the debate during the elections is any pointer, this is a very real concern of the public in India today". Tavleen Singh, columnist for The Indian Express, has disagreed. According to Singh, India's corporate success is not a product of crony capitalism, but rather because India is no longer under the influence of crony socialism.

Political viewpoints

While the problem is generally accepted across the political spectrum, ideology shades the view of the problem's causes and therefore its solutions. Political views mostly fall into two camps, which might be called the socialist and capitalist critique. The socialist position is that crony capitalism is the inevitable result of any strictly capitalist system and thus, broadly democratic government must regulate economic or wealthy interests to restrict monopoly. The capitalist position is that natural monopolies are rare; therefore, governmental regulations generally abet established wealthy interests by restricting competition.

Socialist critique

Critics of crony capitalism, including socialists and anti-capitalists, often assert that so-called crony capitalism is simply the inevitable result of any strictly capitalist system. Jane Jacobs described it as a natural consequence of collusion between those managing power and trade, while Noam Chomsky has argued that the word crony is superfluous when describing capitalism. Since businesses make money and money leads to political power, business will inevitably use their power to influence governments. Much of the impetus behind campaign finance reform in the United States and in other countries is an attempt to prevent economic power from being used to take political power.

Ravi Batra argues that "all official economic measures adopted since 1981 ... have devastated the middle class" and that the Occupy Wall Street movement should push for their repeal and thus end the influence of the super wealthy in the political process, which he considers a manifestation of crony capitalism.

Socialist economists, such as Robin Hahnel, have criticized the term as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problems of capitalism as avoidable irregularities. Socialist economists dismiss the term as an apologetic for failures of neoliberal policy and, more fundamentally, their perception of the weaknesses of market allocation.

Capitalist critique

Supporters of capitalism also generally oppose crony capitalism. Further, supporters such as classical liberals, neoliberals and right-libertarians consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with the free market. In the capitalist view, cronyism is the result of an excess of interference in the market, which inevitably will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running sectors of the economy. For instance, the Financial Times observed that, in Vietnam during the 2010s, the primary beneficiaries of cronyism were Communist party officials, noting also the "common practice of employing only party members and their family members and associates to government jobs or to jobs in state-owned enterprises."

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro prefers to equate this problem with terms such as corporatocracy or corporatism, considered "a modern form of mercantilism", to emphasize that the only way to run a profitable business in such a system is to have help from corrupt government officials. Likewise, Hernando de Soto said that mercantilism "is also known as 'crony' or 'noninclusive' capitalism".

Even if the initial regulation was well-intentioned (to curb actual abuses) and even if the initial lobbying by corporations was well-intentioned (to reduce illogical regulations), the mixture of business and government stifles competition, a collusive result called regulatory capture. Burton W. Folsom Jr. distinguishes those who engage in crony capitalism—designated by him as political entrepreneurs—from those who compete in the marketplace without special aid from the government, whom he calls market entrepreneurs. While market entrepreneurs such as James J. Hill, Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price, political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad in railroads were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies or, in some way, use the government to stop competitors.

Red tape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red tape is excessive or redundant regulation or bureaucratic procedures that create financial or time compliance costs. It is usually associated with governments, but can apply to other organizations, such as private corporations.

Red tape differs from beneficial rules and safeguards. It is the administrative burden, or cost to the public, over and above the necessary cost of implementing policies and procedures. A distinction is sometimes made between rules that are dysfunctional from inception ("rules born bad"), and rules that initially served a useful function but evolved into red tape ("good rules gone bad").

Red tape can hamper the ability of firms to compete, grow, and create jobs. Research finds red tape has a cost to public sector workers, and can reduce employee well-being and job satisfaction. In 2005, the UK's Better Regulation Task Force suggested that red tape reforms could lead to an increase in GDP of 16 billion pounds per year, a greater than 1% rise. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimated the cost to business of red tape arising from federal, provincial and municipal government regulations was $11 billion in 2020, or about 28% of the total burden of regulation for businesses in Canada.

Many governments have introduced measures to limit or cut red tape, including the European Union, Argentina, the United States, and India. Experience from British Columbia, Canada suggests a successful red tape reduction initiative requires strong political commitment.

Red tape definition

The term "red tape" is sometimes employed as "an umbrella term covering almost all imagined ills of bureaucracy", both public and private. However, red tape is usually defined more narrowly as government policies, guidelines, and forms that are excessive, duplicative or unnecessary, and that generate a financial or time-based compliance cost. Red tape can be categorized as dysfunctional from inception (say because of inadequate comprehension of the problem being addressed); or may evolve into red tape when a rule is inadvertently changed or is no longer needed (for example, a rule that requires carbon copies when communication migrates to electronic mail).

Whereas red tape refers to unnecessary rules, administrative burden (sometimes called "white tape") recognizes that regulations that are intended for useful purposes may nonetheless entail a compliance cost.

Determining whether a regulation is justified rather than red tape can be difficult. Nevertheless, making the proper distinction is relevant when implementing reforms, and cutting red tape differs from deregulation.

Origins and history

Bundle of US pension documents from 1906 bound in red tape

It is generally believed that the term "red tape" originated in the early 16th century with the Spanish administration of Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, who started to use red tape, balduque, in an effort to modernize the administration that was running his vast empire. The red tape was used to bind the most important administrative dossiers that required immediate discussion by the Council of State, and separate them from files that were treated in an ordinary administrative way, which were bound with ordinary string. The origin of the word balduque is the name of the Dutch city 's-Hertogenbosch Bolduque or Bois-le-Duc ("the duke's forrest"), where in those days the red tape was manufactured.

In Britain, Charles Dickens spoke of red tape in David Copperfield (1850): "Britannia, that unfortunate female, is always before me, like a trussed fowl: skewered through and through with office-pens, and bound hand and foot with red tape." The English practice of binding documents and official papers with red tape was popularized in Thomas Carlyle's writings, protesting against official inertia with expressions like "Little other than a red tape Talking-machine, and unhappy Bag of Parliamentary Eloquence". As of the first decade of the 21st century, the British barristers' briefs continued to be bound with pink-coloured ribbon known as red tape.

In the United States, red tape was used to tie personal records of Civil War veterans, reputedly making access to them inconvenient. Early references to red tape in the U.S. include that of President Warren G. Harding's Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall (later convicted for his role in the Teapot Dome scandal) who, according to his own annual report for 1921, set himself the goal of removing "red tape and technicalities" from the management of the department's economic resources to combat stagnation. Similarly, the task handed to Scott C. Bone on his appointment as Governor of Alaska on 23 June 1921 was to "unravel government red tape". In 1921, the official explanation for the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment's strenuous march of 800 miles from Camp Sherman, Ohio to Fort Snelling was given as "red tape". While the army reportedly had insufficient funds to transport the regiment by rail, the cost to supply the troops on the march exceeded what their train fare might have been.

Red tape has historically often been associated with military procurement. In 1938, the IG Farben chairman Carl Krauch used the argument that red tape was responsible for previous delivery delays on the part of private enterprise in persuading Hermann Göring, the head of the Four Year Plan, to appoint him as plenipotentiary for the chemical industry over an Army Ordnance representative. In his speech at the meeting of SS Major-Generals in occupied Poznań on 4 October 1943, the SS leader Heinrich Himmler made reference to "red tape" as an example of a potential obstacle to "inventions" within Nazi Germany's armaments industry. In 1947, a contractor who had worked during World War II under Vannevar Bush in the Office of Scientific Research and Development remembered Bush's "impatience with Army red tape", apparently referring to the OSRD's executive secretary Irvin Stewart's organisational efforts.

As of the early 21st century, Spanish bureaucracy continued to be notorious for extreme levels of red tape (in the figurative sense) In 2013, the World Bank ranked Spain 136 out of 185 countries for ease of starting a business, which took on average 10 procedures and 28 days. Similar issues persist throughout Latin America. In Mexico in 2009, it took six months and a dozen visits to government agencies to obtain a permit to paint a house. To obtain a monthly prescription for gamma globulin for X-linked agammaglobulinemia, a patient had to obtain signatures from two government doctors and stamps from four separate bureaucrats before presenting the prescription to a dispensary. Mexico was the original home of Syntex, one of the greatest pharmaceutical firms of the 20th century, but in 1959, the company left for the American city of Palo Alto, California, in what is now Silicon Valley, because its scientists were fed up with the Mexican government's bureaucratic delays which repeatedly impeded their research.

Cost of red tape

It is impossible to know exactly how much of the burden of government regulations is red tape — i.e., is excessive and delivers little or no benefit. However, a survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) found red tape represented about 28% of the total burden of regulation in Canada in 2020. A European Union (EU) survey reported in 2008 that 36% of EU small and medium enterprises felt that red tape had "constrained their business activities".

The total cost of regulation for U.S. business was estimated in 2021 at US$364.3 billion, and for Canadian business in 2020 at US$31.9 billion, or CAN$38.8 billion. This cost represents 1.5% of GDP for the U.S. and 1.7% for Canada.

The CFIB estimated that the cost of red tape arising from Canadian federal, provincial and municipal government regulations was $11 billion in 2020. (This excluded COVID-19 related costs, to make the amount more comparable to previous years.) The annual cost of red tape per employee was higher for firms with fewer than 5 employees, at $1945, versus $398 for firms with 100 or more employees.

The Better Regulation Task Force suggested in 2005 that red tape reforms could potentially deliver an increase in income of 16 billion pounds per year, an amount greater than one percent of UK GDP. The EU's "Cutting Red Tape in Europe" report, which presented suggestions on how to reduce the administrative burden when member states implement EU legislation, estimated that the administrative burden reduction potential of all recommendations in the report exceeded €41 billion annually. Such calculations have been questioned, however, given that it can be difficult to ascertain costs of regulation in industries that are composed of diverse firms.

While a regulation may be useful, the cost of imposing it may exceed the benefits. The Canadian federal government applies a cost-benefit analysis to most regulatory proposals, which takes into account the cost of the policy to consumers, businesses, and other sectors of society. Since the 1970s, Australian governments have sought to subject regulation to rigorous cost-benefit analysis so as to constrain both the stock and flow of the regulatory burden.

Red tape reduction initiatives

It can be difficult to distinguish between justified regulatory costs and unneeded regulations. For this reason, the expression "cutting red tape" has been used to refer to both initiatives to reduce unnecessary regulation, and to policies to reduce the overall regulatory burden.

Canada

Canada's Red Tape Reduction Act of 2015 implemented a one-for-one rule that requires the removal of a regulation each time regulators impose a new administrative burden on business. Nevertheless, while Regulations decreased from 684 to 605 between 2014 and 2023, regulatory Requirements increased from 129,860 to 149,401.

A more successful reduction in red tape took place in the province of British Columbia, Canada, following a 2001 election promise to reduce the regulatory burden by 33%. At the time, regulation was heavy, with rules imposed on, for example, the size of televisions in restaurants, the number of par-four holes at golf courses, and the maximum seating capacity of ski hill lounges. After three years, a 37% reduction was achieved. A central element of the program was a strong commitment from the minister responsible and the provincial premier.

European Union

In the European Union (EU), reducing the administrative burden on firms has been a prominent theme since the 1990s. In 2024, the European Commission President advocated a red tape reduction program that emphasized simplification (eliminating regulatory overlap and contradictions), speed, and coherence to deal with the EU's patchwork of national regulations. An ongoing EU objective has been to remove red tape in order to facilitate trade across the European single market. For example, recycling labels on paint cans in Spain and France may differ because the two countries' interpretation of EU legislation are not aligned, and this prevents a can of paint made for the Spanish market from being sold in France. The European Round Table for Industry recommends stronger single-market enforcement so that lawmakers better transpose EU laws into national laws, which would promote regulatory harmonization and reduce the need for firms to manage different administrative processes in each EU country.

India

To reduce the administrative burden, in September 2021 the Indian government launched the National Single Window System (NSWS) which integrates clearances across central ministries and states. In addition to providing a common entry point, NSWS consolidates information requirements and aims to standardise application formats, support online tracking, and enable time-bound processing. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, is meant to reduce procedural delays by decriminalising minor, technical provisions and allow adjudication rather than prosecution. To minimize discretionary variation in routine cases, a “faceless” (electronic communication) assessment, appeal, and penalty process was introduced.

Korea

South Korea's Framework Act on Administrative Regulations codifies the definition, registration and publication of regulations; mandates regulatory impact analysis; provides for a presidential Regulatory Reform Committee; and requires sunset or re-examination clauses for new or strengthened regulations. On 15 September 2025 the first Core Regulation Rationalization Strategy Meeting was chaired by Korean President Lee Jae-myung, who stated: "Amid complex interests, ministerial differences have left regulations tangled like a spiderweb; sweeping them away is this administration’s goal."

Among the major initiatives is the online Regulatory Reform "Sinmungo" (request system) launched in 2014, which routes public and business complaints for ministerial review in an effort to reduce redundant paperwork and processing time. In 2015 the program Transfer Notification Plus replaced multiple provider-specific applications with a single authentication and consent procedure, thereby reducing visits, duplicate documentation, mis-entries, and missed applications. Similarly, in 2019 a cross-government regulatory sandbox was introduced to reduce pre-market uncertainty for new technologies. For example, autonomous delivery robots received a bundled approval for sidewalk operation in designated zones. Also in 2019, a Presidential Decree on Proactive Administration was adopted to curb procedural overload and to break the chain: interpretive uncertainty → extra documents → delay.

New Zealand

In March 2023, New Zealand established a Ministry for Regulation, which promotes a culture where "regulation is a last resort." The Regulatory Standards Bill introduced in 2024 aims to codify principles of good regulatory practice and "bring the same level of discipline to regulation that the Public Finance Act brings to public spending, with the Ministry for Regulation playing a role akin to that of Treasury." One of the Ministry's key initiatives was to build a red tape "tipline" which is used to prioritize reviews and recommend legislative changes. Among the Ministry's "horror stories" was a proposal to reduce the size of flour dust in commercial bakeries to such a low level that it couldn't be reliably measured or distinguished from other particles, making compliance effectively impossible.

United States

President Donald J. Trump prepares to cut a "red tape" display of regulations representative of 1960 and compared to the current numbers of regulations, December 14, 2017, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, announcing how the administration is keeping its promise to remove regulations burdening job creators and American taxpayers.

In the United States, cutting red tape was a central principle of a 1993 National Performance Review study requested by the Clinton Administration. In November 2024, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy would co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency which would provide advice from outside government on methods to "slash excess regulations", among other objectives.

Perceptions of red tape

Applying rules consistently can affect the extent to which individuals perceive that red tape exists in a government agency. A survey-based experiment in the context of a jury duty summons found inconsistently applied rules may be viewed as ineffective or unfair, fueling the perception of a high level of red tape.

Perception of red tape (as opposed to useful regulation) may be relevant in the public service context, since employees may be more willing to comply with rules that they perceive as valuable.

Impact on public sector employees

Red tape and employee performance

India's Hota Committee Report noted "file-pushing", in the form of extensive procedures and layered rules, slowed civil service decision-making, even for routine administrative actions. A 2025 survey of 73,795 Korean government officials found 48.11% of respondents agreed that inefficiencies were created by unnecessary documents and reports, and 22.06% said eliminating "formalism and other pseudo-work" was the most urgent priority to reduce inefficiency. Red tape led to unclear direction on rules, policies, and guidelines and, thereby, to poor internal client service, according to the Blueprint 2020 report that surveyed over 2,000 Canadian public servants.

A study that used interviews with 22 New Zealand public sector managers found red tape, in the form of irrelevant goals without real benchmarks, made giving performance feedback difficult. In turn, this made it difficult to address poor employee performance. Further, managers were less encouraged to develop their employees' skills.

Red tape and employee autonomy

Red tape can reduce employee flexibility and autonomy. A study of Dutch child welfare employees showed that red tape reduced interactions with clients and job effectiveness, which decreased job satisfaction. Highly motivated employees were found to be more sensitive to burdensome rules and procedures.

Evidence from the civil service in India finds ambiguity in interpreting overlapping rules may incentivise risk-averse behaviour and crowd-out professional judgement. Further, this can dampen morale.

Red tape and employee job satisfaction

The more employees perceive red tape (formalistic procedural burdens), the significantly lower is their job satisfaction according to a Korean police organization survey study from 2016 (n=294).  Similarly, the greater is the red tape perceived by civil servants, the higher is their intent to leave their current employer, as stated in a study that used data from the Korea Institute of Public Administration's 2019 Public Service Life Survey.

A 2022 study that used survey data from 354 schools in Chile found school principals experienced increased emotional exhaustion and risk of burnout when they were advised of an increase in red tape in the form of unneeded compliance tasks. Similarly, research conducted into experiences of public-school leaders and teachers in Belgium observed that when employees were faced with a higher level of red tape (associated with the use of new digital tools), they were more likely to experience emotional exhaustion and, consequently, have a greater intention to leave their organization.

Red tape, economic growth, and corruption

Red tape and economic growth

While efficient government institutions can foster economic growth, cumbersome and unnecessary bureaucracy that delays permits and licenses slows technological advances. Red tape has been found to be an obstacle to investment and growth in a study using data for 68 countries.

Policies that require government regulation and bureaucratic intervention can stifle economic progress, as has been documented by economist Anne Krueger in the context of an import-substitution development strategy. This type of policy reduces the incentive to produce exports, thereby generating a foreign exchange "shortage" that puts pressure on governments to restrict imports to high priority areas such as medicines over consumer luxuries. These restrictions require increased intervention, such as additional customs inspections and import approvals. In turn, this leads to delays and greater complexity of the system, which raises costs for importers. The higher costs create an incentive for black-market activity, thereby leading to political pressure to tighten still further the restrictive import regime. Over time, regulation and red tape promote more red tape and regulation in a vicious circle, as supporters of import substitution become more entrenched, while those who oppose it, such as exporters, cannot survive in the new environment. Rising costs of administration in the private sector, along with costs of delays and market inefficiency, weigh on economic performance and often result in an economic crisis.

Red tape and corruption

The existence of regulations and authorizations provides a kind of monopoly power to the officials who must approve or inspect regulated activities. When regulations are not transparent, or an authorization can be obtained only from a specific office or individual (that is, there is no competition in the granting of these authorizations), bureaucrats have a great deal of power which may lead to corruption.

Officials may even intentionally introduce new regulations and red tape in order to be able to extract more bribes by threatening to deny permits. Particularly in developing and transition economies, surveys indicate that a large proportion of an enterprise manager's time (especially for small enterprises) requires dealing with bureaucracies, and this time can be reduced through the payment of bribes.

Ignore all rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Ignore all rules" (IAR) is a policy of the English Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, which reads (emphasis and links in original): "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The rule, under different language, was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger to encourage editors to add information without focusing excessively on formatting, though Sanger later criticized the rule's effects on the community.

The policy allows Wikipedia users to use a policy to occasionally work around the site's rules without rejecting the entire rule system. A study in 2012 found that in "Articles for deletion" discussions, which determine whether a Wikipedia article should be deleted, comments were given more weight when they used IAR as justification.

History

Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, with few policies, the intention being that users would determine rules via consensus. "Ignore all rules" was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger on a "rules to consider page", and became one of the first formal guidelines of Wikipedia. Sanger later said that his intention was to convey that "people should not worry about getting formatting right and getting every single detail of policy under their belts before they started contributing". Having conceived of the rule as a "temporary and humorous injunction" he rejected it in his later project Citizendium as "other people were taking it seriously".

The original formulation of the rule was:

If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participation in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.

The current formulation of the rule is:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [emphasis in original]

Sanger has opined that his proposal of IAR was "ironic", as was his rejection of a formal title and enforceable authority. In Open Sources 2.0, he describes these things as "clearly mistakes on [his] part", as they prevented him from enforcing rules. Sanger proposes that a "founding community charter" would have aided with issues in the community of Wikipedia, though he believes IAR and other early decisions did "help the project get off the ground".


Meaning

A flowchart relating to usage of rules on Wikipedia, displayed in the Wikipedia essay "What 'Ignore all rules' means"

"Ignore all rules" refers to the idea that a user is permitted to violate a rule on a case-by-case basis, if the rule's application could cause negative consequences. IAR provides agency for an editor whilst protecting the site's set of rules; it augments Wikipedia's bureaucratic structure. It is a logical impossibility, or a paradox, as its inclusion in Wikipedia's set of rules "makes rule violation an expected behavior". It is a variation of the barber's paradox.

"What "Ignore all rules" means", a Wikipedia essay, attempts to provide clarification as to the scope of IAR. The policy is argued not to justify all actions or prevent users from being held accountable for their edits. It is instead said to encourage the use of personal judgement and allow novices to contribute without full awareness of every policy and guideline.

It has been said that upon conception, IAR was partially "an admission that early contributors often faced situations in which any extant rule would not make sense". However, as the project developed, this became less relevant and by 2015 it had "become very difficult to find a situation in which no existing rule would apply".

The rule is closely related to "Wikipedia has no firm rules", the fifth of the "five pillars" which summarize the site's "fundamental principles". It also links to the guideline which states that Wikipedia editors should "be bold", an idea which Sanger proposed "in a similar spirit" to IAR.

A 2008 article notes that though the policy is "only sixteen words long, the page explaining what the policy means contains over 500 words, refers readers to seven other documents, has generated over 8,000 words of discussion, and has been changed over 100 times in less than a year". It evaluates the word count increases of many policies on the English Wikipedia, noting that though the word count of IAR had decreased, when including the supplemental page explaining it, this amounted to a 3600% increase in length since the rule's conception.

Use in practice

A 2012 American Behavioral Scientist study analyzed the English Wikipedia's deletion process, "articles for deletion" (AfD). It found that IAR significantly impacted the weight of a comment: a page was more likely to be retained if a Wikipedia editor cited IAR in a "keep" vote, and more likely to be deleted if an editor cited IAR in a "delete" vote. The study also found that an article was more likely to be kept if the AfD contained a "keep" comment referring to both IAR and a "notability" policy (a rule on Wikipedia about which topics should have an article). This was not the case for "delete" comments. Additionally, if an administrator referred to IAR in favor of deletion then the article was more likely to be kept. The study concluded that the rule acts by "strengthening the efficacy of the individual and diminishing that of the bureaucracy".

In Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'s 2010 book Good Faith Collaboration he writes that "ignore all rules" is "clever" and has substance of merit, but it "is bound to require qualification", such as that found in the essay "What 'Ignore All Rules' Really Means". McGrady proposed that Wikipedia's "Gaming the System" guideline is a better way to convey the spirit of Wikipedia than IAR. The former guideline forbids users from purposefully misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies in order to undermine their intent, an action referred to as "gaming". McGrady criticizes that IAR is "too abstract and too often misinterpreted or misused, itself a constant subject of gaming".

In his 2015 book Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Nathaniel Tkacz writes that despite the policy, "ignoring the rules in Wikipedia is not an effective strategy if a contributor wants his or her contribution to stick". Tkacz goes on to say that "Wikipedia does have firm rules", but that they "are not fixed for all time".

In a criticism of Wikipedia's bureaucracy, Dariusz Jemielniak writes that the rule is "knocked over in practice", noting that there are many essays on the site which explain when to use the rule. Jemielniak recommends that a "bureaucracy-busting squad" should be founded to "actively use and educate about" the rule. David Auerbach of Slate similarly writes that "ignore all rules" is hypocritically used by Wikipedia editors to "prevail in debates".

Interplanetary Internet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The speed of light, illustrated here by a beam of light traveling ...