The article entitled “Electrification, Tractorization, and Motorization: Revisiting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act” by Boudreau looks into the reasons that led to the adoption of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act document. Deeply rooted in the roaring 20s, the preconditions for the new legislation were formed by the economic and political peculiarities of the ‘Jazz age.’The author hypostasizes that the general perception of the Act as a response to weak farm prices is wrong. Instead, Beaudreau (2014) claims that the havoc in agriculture necessitating the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act adoption was caused by electrification and tractorization of the sector and the excess of production in agricultural farming.
The roaring twenties were a period of industrial rise, especially well-noted in the agricultural sector since the transition from mule farming to tractorization has significantly increased the agricultural output across the US. The government, in an attempt to curb the surplus of domestic agricultural goods, has considered raising tariffs on imports to make the sector more balanced. While the rise in tariffs is usually seen as a measure to support the domestic producer necessitated by weak pricing, the historical context of the 20es brought about unprecedented opportunities for the domestic producers. The thriving of the US agricultural market, as well as the general background of the country’s development at that period, make Beaudreau’s thesis well-grounded. The author seems reasonable in his claim that specific industrial and economic conditions prompted the government to drastic measures while pricing issues were of no major concern at that time.
To support his thesis, the author uses a number of primary and secondary sources, such as governmental data, books, and peer-reviewed articles. These sources are highly credible and effective since they are evidence-based and allow to assess the historical situation of the given period. Among the articles used, some are meta-analytical and others experimental, which allows Beaudreau to support his thesis with qualitative and quantitive data. The sources not used in the article are questionnaires and field observations since the use of these sources is limited in historical research. I would suggest the author use pictograms, charts, and tables that refer to the chosen historical period to make his analysis more credible and effective.
The thesis is well supported by arguments comprising evidence from the general state of the agriculture industry of that period in the US and more specific tractorization evidence in the farming sector. Beaudreau (2014) starts his analysis by examining US agriculture and the impact of electrification on the industry. Beaudreau states that electrification caused a “1300 percent increase in productivity”, which resulted in “widespread excess capacity” (2014, p. 1047). Thus, while the farmers increased their ability to produce goods, this did not automatically translate into the population’s ability to buy goods.
The drop in prices was a logical outcome of this situation; since “surpluses accumulated and prices weakened” (2014, p. 1055). The shock of the 1300 increase in productivity could not be easily managed. Thus, Beaudreau says that “technology shock […] lies at the root of the demand for protection, which ultimately led to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act” (2014, p. 1042). The idea behind the Act was that “higher tariffs would increase domestic output by reducing imports, thus leading to greater employment, profits, and earnings” (Beaudreau, 2014, p. 1042). Electrification was accompanied by the tractorization of the industry, which resulted in the fact that the agricultural sector needed fewer workers to produce goods. Many people, earlier employed in agriculture, moved to cities and factories; however, with electrification on the way, the factories did not need new hands. The unemployment spiked, adding one more reason for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to be adopted (Beaudreau, 2014). The arguments the author gives to support his thesis are effective and adequate. Using a two-fold model of argumentation, the author shows both the consequences of electrification and tractorization and the way they, acting independently, led to the adoption of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
The majority of sources agree with the author’s point of view; the fact is proved by a large number of scientific literature he uses to support his arguments. However, there are those who consider the drop in prices to be the main reason for the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act legislation and do not see the full picture. The article fits into the larger discussion on the topic, electrification and tractorization being one of the main achievements of the 1920es. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act legislation was the cornerstone legislation of that period since it aimed at balancing the demand and supply within the country, it led to the consequences the Senators did not envisage. Thus, the retaliation measures were taken by other countries, which resulted in a sharp drop in export from the US at a time when the output in the production soared. The country’s curbed export added to the ensuing Great Depression and the difficulties the US faced. Thus, determining the reasons for the adoption of this Act enhances people’s understanding of that historical period. The implications of the article lie in the fact that while the governmental measures were born out of care for the country and its people, the consequences were not carefully examined, which exacerbated the problems the country later faced.
Reference
Beaudreau, B. C. (2014). Electrification, Tractorization, and Motorization: Revisiting the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Journal of Economic Issues, 48(4), 1039-1071.