Mercantilism: Meaning, History and Examples

Famed French diplomat Jean-Baptiste Colbert eloquently articulated, “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.” This quote gives us some insight into the core of mercantilism, an influential economic doctrine spanning the 16th to the 18th centuries.

Mercantilism advocates for a trade surplus, steering the economy towards more exports than imports. This aspiration was supported by protective tariffs, governmental intervention, and the endorsement of monopolies. Countries such as France, Spain, Britain, Germany, and several others adopted this philosophy. Central to mercantilist thinking was the notion that the world’s wealth was fixed. Thus, a nation’s prosperity was intrinsically tied to its possession of scarce commodities, particularly gold and silver. As a consequence, states aimed to boost their treasuries by exporting more goods than they imported, amassing bullion reserves in the process.

This doctrine contributed to the establishment of monopolistic enterprises, exemplified by entities like the famed East India Company. It also imposed limitations on the origin of acquired goods, fostering inflated consumer prices. The tutelage of mercantilism often incited commercial and, consequently, military frictions, with the latter manifesting through smuggling activities designed to tactically evade the system’s constraints.

This website contains affiliate links. When you make a purchase through these links, we may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.

In the 16th to the 18th centuries, mercantilism served as the prevailing economic doctrine. It posited the notion that the creation of wealth at the global level was finite. As a result, states needed to tightly regulate their commercial affairs to amass riches and bolster their sovereignty and might. At its core, mercantilism also espoused the scarcity of worldwide riches. This underlined a nation’s fiscal robustness as contingent upon its accumulation of capital, particularly esteemed metals like gold and silver.

To achieve this, governments worldwide aimed to augment their exports while curbing the inflow of imports, employing an array of protectionist edicts including taxes and barriers to trade. This strategic approach was designed to ensure a favourable balance of trade, thereby fostering economic growth and the accumulation of bullion. Additionally, a significant populace was viewed as integral, serving the dual purpose of fueling the labour market and domestic consumption. Hence, the exploitation of colonies was instrumental in this scheme, providing essential raw materials and captive venues for commerce.

Mercantilism features

Definition of Mercantilism

The economic doctrine of mercantilism underscored the imperative of a trade balance heavily skewed in favour of a state’s exports. This aim was operationalized through a concerted strategy of export enhancement and import constraint, primarily orchestrated via protectionism and monopolistic practices. Predominant in Western Europe from the 16th to the 18th century, mercantilism further guided economic policies across the continent, governing interactions with foreign markets and shaping the dynamics of international trade.

Characteristics of Mercantilistic Policies

The amassment of prized metals, particularly gold and silver, was emphasized under Mercantilism. Dubbed “bullionism,” this component was essential to a nation’s quest for financial supremacy. Therefore, a principal tenet of mercantilism was the aspiration for a trade surplus, with scholars advocating for expanded exports and restricted imports to attain this coveted position. Such an arrangement, mercantilists believed, would augment a country’s stockpile of precious metals, signifying economic prowess and contributing to national welfare.

To safeguard local industries from external challengers, governments also employed an arsenal of measures. These included protective tariffs, trade embargoes, and the establishment of exclusive trading congregations. Hence, these approaches aimed to fortify the economic position of the home country, at times at the detriment of more ecumenical trading partners. The mercantilist framework was underpinned by the zero-sum conception of wealth, contending that economic benefits for one entity necessitated losses for others, thus fostering a spirit of intense competition in the global commercial arena.

Mercantilism in Renaissance Europe

Mercantilism, a predominant economic doctrine prior to the Industrial Revolution, emerged in Western Europe from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Its inception can be traced back to metropolitan regions such as Venice, Genoa, and Pisa during the Renaissance. These hubs aimed to dominate Mediterranean commerce. The era’s embrace of systematic trading analysis laid the groundwork for mercantilism as a structured doctrine.

Early proponents of mercantilism, Antonio Serra and his contemporaries, advanced its principles during this period. In 1613, Serra penned a critical dissertation on political economy. Meanwhile, British figures like Gerard de Malynes and Thomas Mun bolstered these ideas, defining the Elizabethan variant of mercantile policy by the 17th century. Additionally, the French figure Jean-Baptiste Colbert significantly influenced mercantile strategy during this era, urging for state intervention to steer economic activities toward national growth.

Early Mercantilistic Theorists

The traction of mercantilist ideology in Renaissance Europe stemmed from sovereign nations’ ambitions to enhance their economic and geopolitical standing. This was achieved through strategies earmarked by a distinct emphasis on boosting exports, restricting foreign goods access, and further accumulating precious metals. Fostering a self-sufficient economic model geared such determinations.

Accumulation of Bullion

The tenets of mercantilism focused on the accumulation of precious metals, particularly gold and silver, dubbed “bullionism.” This economic theory championed a positive trade balance achieved through export enhancement and import constraints. It also supported protective measures to safeguard local industries from international rivals. Mercantilists argued that a nation’s wealth and influence could be maximized by boosting exports and curbing imports. Their strategy aimed at achieving a net inflow of precious metals and a beneficial trade surplus.

To fortify local industries, governments of mercantilist states enforced various protectionist tactics. These included the imposition of tariffs, trading limits, and the ownership of monopolistic trading entities. The perception in mercantilism that the earth’s wealth is constant, coupled with a belief in zero-sum competition, underscored the imperative of securing one’s economic advancement at the possible detriment of others.

In the mercantilist framework, the accrual of precious metals, notably gold and silver, known as bullionism, was extolled as instrumental for a nation’s economic vigour and global influence. As a result, administrations pursued tactics to ensure a surplus in the trade balance and swell bullion stocks. This was often executed by preferring export activities over imports, facilitated with tariffs, impediments to trade, and the establishment of monopolistic trading bodies.

Positive Trade Balance

Central to the mercantilist doctrine was the aspiration for a favourable export-over-import trade balance. This objective propelled the implementation of policies that supported the sales of local goods abroad. It also aimed to restrict foreign goods’ entry, with the ambition of bolstering national wealth through precious metals accumulation and augmenting the country’s standing. Notable among these initiatives were the enactment of the Sugar Act in 1764 and the Navigation Acts. These policies greatly contributed to a trade balance in favour of Great Britain, furthering its economic ascendancy.

Protectionist Policies

Mercantilist thinkers set forth the application of protective policies to further fortify domestic industries against global competition and foster local industrial development. These strategies involved the imposition of duties, regulations on trade, and the formation of monopolies, exemplified by entities like the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company, which monopolized trade paths for centuries. Moreover, the enforcement of military forces to guard against external threats to local commerce and resources was a common practice within the mercantilist paradigm.

Thomas Mun in England and Jean-Baptiste Colbert in France stand as pivotal figures in the development of mercantilism.

Thomas Mun and English Mercantilism

Mun, a merchant and writer, delineated the principles of the Elizabethan system in his seminal work, “England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade,” published in 1664. His discussion on the criticality of securing a favourable trade balance is foundational to mercantilist thought.

Meanwhile, broader application of these ideas emerged during the Elizabethan Era in England, spanning from 1558 to 1603. This period saw the significant influence of merchants like Mun and Gerard de Malynes, who played a crucial role in establishing the framework of English mercantilism.

Mun’s writings significantly shaped English mercantilist policies. The English government actively pursued a strategy to achieve a surplus in trade, a concept central to mercantilist economic thought.

This approach underscored the importance of precious metals, advocating for trade balances inclined towards more substantial exports than imports.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert and French Mercantilism

In the French context, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, serving as Controller-General of Finances under Louis XIV, championed mercantilist ideals. His policies aimed to bolster French industry and trade through governmental oversight as well as protectionist measures. Colbert was known for his overhaul of the French tariff system, encouragement of local manufacturing, and efforts to enhance the French naval capabilities.

These endeavours were all in the interest of fortifying French supremacy in the sphere of international trade, hence, indicating a clear commitment to mercantilist strategies.

The practical application of mercantilism saw the enactment of stringent colonial policies by powers like Britain and France. In British colonies specifically, this approach birthed extensive trade limitations. These restrictions impeded both the expansion and autonomy of local enterprises.

British Colonial Mercantilism

The British crown often mandated that commerce within the colonies occur solely in gold and silver. This directive not only depleted local currency but also generated inflationary trends. Linked to these policies was the significant growth of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

This nexus emerged as the colonies, acting as suppliers of essential materials, bartered with African traders for slaves. Thus, the exploitation of human labour became intertwined with mercantilist strategies.

Within the realm of British colonial mercantilism, severe constraints on the purchase of finished products resulted in exorbitant prices. The colonies were viewed primarily as both markets for outbound goods and as sources of essential raw materials. No manufacturing activities were allowed, and commerce was strictly monopolized by the mother country.

Such policies precluded the organic growth of local businesses, significantly impacting their independence. This intricate web of regulatory measures aimed at controlling commerce had dire consequences for the economic landscape of the colonies.

American Colonial Mercantilism

In the American colonies, the tenets of mercantilism contributed to economic turmoil, manifesting in inflation and excessive taxation. Mismanagement of printed currency also exacerbated these issues. The overarching restrictiveness of mercantilist principles sowed deep dissatisfaction among the colonies toward Britain, ultimately fostering seeds of rebellion.

Mercantilist Trading Companies

Mercantilism also fostered the rise of monopolistic trading enterprises, including the renowned East India Company and its French counterpart. Notably, the British and Dutch East India Companies exemplified the dominance of such corporate entities.

Endowed with exclusive trading privileges within designated regions, these entities operated under the aegis of their mother nations’ military forces. Therefore, this setup underscores the symbiotic relationship between mercantilist commerce and imperial power.

Economic Impacts

Mercantilism wielded profound influence across economic, political, and social realms. Notably, its emphasis on amassing trade surpluses and hoarding precious metals triggered the establishment of monopolistic trading ventures. These practices, coupled with protectionist trade walls, often inflated consumer prices. Moreover, mercantilism’s embrace inhibited innovation and thwarted economic diversity within various territories.

Merchants used the weight of their commerce to influence political landscapes significantly. This dynamic pertained especially to the burgeoning nation-states, which leveraged economic manoeuvres to promulgate their global authority. Strategies included the imposition of tariffs, export limitations, and import bans, alongside the establishment of commercial monopolies and the subsidization of nascent industrial sectors.

Political and Social Consequences

Plotting mercantilism’s social course reveals its complicity in the propagation of slavery and the subjugation of colonial peoples, painting these territories as mere sources of essential materials and guaranteed sales markets for the motherland. During the 16th and 18th centuries, the British Empire passed legislation to bolster mercantilist principles, using tariffs and shipping regulations as its main means.

The shadow of mercantilism still looms over contemporary discussions on economic nationalism, protectionism, and governmental intervention in global exchanges. Although the strict system itself has waned, discernible echoes persist in the form of contemporary preferences for exporting over importing, which some scholars have labelled as “neomercantilism.”

Mercantilism epitomized economic nationalism with a focus on trade policies aimed at bolstering the state’s power and prosperity. Central to this approach was the endeavour to maintain a favourable trade balance, amass precious metals, and shield domestic sectors using various barriers and control measures. These efforts were, therefore, guided by a quest to advance national riches and influence, aligning with a belief that the accumulation of global wealth was a competitive enterprise.

Adherents of mercantilism also contended that the wealth of the Earth was finite and that a country’s success necessarily entailed the diminishment of others. This fundamental premise informed their policies, contributing to economic and military competitions among European nations seeking to secure colonies, trading paths, and resource access. The enduring influence of mercantilism manifests in contemporary dialogues surrounding economic nationalism, protective trade measures, and the government’s role in promoting strategic economic interests at a national level.

In the late 18th century, mercantilism faced heavy criticism, notably from proponents of laissez-faire economics, including Adam Smith. Smith and his contemporaries disputed the notion of a dichotomy between domestic and foreign commerce, asserting that both were essentially beneficial for all involved parties as well as for the general public. The idea that wealth generated through international trade is not fixed but could expand, negated the central premise of mercantilist ideology.

Moreover, these critics delineated the deleterious effects of mercantilist methodologies, which included escalated consumer prices, inhibition of progressive initiatives, and the subjugation of colonial territories. The momentum towards a free trade paradigm grew significantly, exemplified by the rescinding of the Corn Laws by the British Parliament in 1846, marking a pivotal transition in Europe away from mercantilism.

Although vestiges of mercantilism have been purported to linger in global economic frameworks, the principles of protectionism and governmental regulation over commercial activities have been widely discredited by the critiques of classical economists.

Laissez-Faire Economics

Adam Smith’s seminal work, “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), promulgates the benefits of unrestricted trade and condemns the inefficiencies perpetuated by monopolistic enterprises. David Ricardo‘s elucidation of the principle of comparative advantage further eroded the perspective of mercantilists, asserting the non-zero-sum nature of commercial interactions. This economic theory advocates for the operation of markets devoid of governmental dictations, imagining a scenario where independent parties partake in transactions leading to fiscal enhancement on a broader scale.

Limitations of Mercantilist Policies

Detractions against mercantilism underscore its alleged promotion of a zero-sum commercial landscape, the exacerbation of inefficiencies and dishonesty, the rationalization of imperialism, and the inception of retaliatory commercial strategies. Conversely, favouring globalization and the virtues of an open market, accentuating reciprocal advantages derived through fair engagement with other nations has characterized the postwar era.

Nonetheless, proponents of neo-mercantilism advocate occasionally restraining open commerce to counteract domestic economic support, counter dumping practices, and bolster emergent industrial sectors, implying a nuanced approach to modern economic strategies.

In the late 18th century, the pillars of mercantilism began crumbling under the weight of arguments set forth by intellectual heavyweights like Adam Smith and fellow classical economist, David Ricardo. Essential to this intellectual revolution was Smith’s seminal work, “Wealth of Nations,” in 1776. Herein, he critically examined mercantilism’s central doctrines, propounding that the principles of free trade and the splintering of labour shone brighter in fostering economic advancement than the insular, protectionist policies mercantilism favoured.

Ricardo, building upon Smith’s foundation, contributed significantly by expanding on the merits of free trade. He diminished the premise central to mercantilism that posited global wealth as a fixed entity, demonstrating that nations could collectively thrive without engendering detriment onto others. Consequently, this theoretical reshaping ushered in a new era, marking the ascent of classical economics and free trade. Under these paradigms, the virtues of an unbridled, competitive marketplace were extolled, signifying an ideological shift crucial in the waning of mercantilist influence.

While the foundational pillars of mercantilism have since eroded, vestiges of its ethos persist within the realm of contemporary economic policy. Notably, the resurgence of protectionism in global economic strategies since the 1970s, a phenomenon often attributed to the emergence of “neomercantilism,” wherein governments opt for interventionist measures to bolster homegrown industries and net trade surpluses. Nevertheless, a prevailing consensus amongst economists extols the virtues of free trade as essential for maximizing the economic welfare of nations at large. This accord has catalyzed monumental efforts to deleverage international trade impediments through multilateral channels like the GATT and WTO, fundamentally altering the global trade landscape.

Mercantilism’s role in economic thought has waned, yet remnants persist in current policies. The United States has also seen a move towards neo-mercantilism. Policies focusing on bolstering domestic production, localizing supply chains, and advancing technology to rival China have been introduced. China, for its part, has long employed such strategies to bolster its global sway.

This shift is less pronounced in Europe, which historically champions liberal economic ideals and cooperation.

In contemporary times, “neomercantilism” or “economic interventionism” characterizes some up-and-coming nations’ strategies. Their goal is to advance domestic industries and constrain imports through subtle trade barriers. The embrace of neo-mercantilist principles is not confined to the West; Japan showcases a blend of open trading policies and targeted state support. Recent crises and power plays influencing its longevity have ensured that this trend will last.

Modern mercantilist approaches focus on underpinning exports and achieving trade surpluses by way of subsidies, regulations, and related tactics. Despite a trend towards neo-mercantilism, a widespread decrease in global trade is unlikely.

Developing nations, lacking abundant resources, are challenged by the spread of protective green policies and international struggles to bolster local industry.

From the 16th to the 18th centuries, Europe was under the sway of mercantilism, a prevailing economic doctrine. This policy revolved around regulating trade to bolster the wealth and authority of the state. Its proponents operated under the assumption that the total global wealth was limited. To ensure a favourable trade balance, they endeavoured to amass precious metals and fostered national industries through protective measures.

Despite succumbing to the ascendancy of free trade principles over time, mercantilism’s influence endures. Present-day discussions regarding economic nationalism, governmental intervention in international trade, and protectionism attest to this fact.

The core tenets of mercantilist ideology included the amassment of bullion, export encouragement, and import limitation. These practices, contested by champions of free trade, were predicated on the notion that prosperity was not mutually exclusive. Figures such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo pioneered the tenets of a free market economy and supplanted mercantilism with classical economic theory.

Nonetheless, remnants of mercantilist doctrine are perceptible in the economic strategies of modern states. This is particularly evident in the adoption of subsidies, tariffs, and mechanisms designed to insulate native industries from external competition. This phenomenon, termed as “neomercantilism,” underscores the persistent clash between global integration and a state’s aspiration for economic sovereignty. Hence, the reverberations of mercantilism punctuate contemporary dialogues concerning the equilibrium between unbridled commerce and domestic regulation.



Leave a Reply