From the inception of history of civilization to the present epoch, man in the quest to survive and progress has always been engaged in one form of socio-economic relation or the other. The nature of socio-economic relation he enters into knowingly or unknowingly controls and determines his achievements in terms of what he makes out from the society in the bid to eke out a living and become better. With the passage of time, socio-economic relations intensified, increased in different dimensions and improved in volumes and qualities as the man’s greatest need and means of survival, and upon which meeting other needs of life is dependent on. Claude (1981) observed that economic need is man’s most fundamental need and also the most decisive of all other factors of society and generally determines the character of other factors in the society. In the same vein, Gingrich (1995) corroborated that the capacity of a nation to compete in the global market is a hallmark of economic growth; therefore, economic growth is the most crucial social policy objective a nation must entrench to after securing the lives of the citizenry. Notably, all democracies in the world take cognizance of the crucial need for economic freedom of citizens, equality and empowerment as often contained in the democratic constitutions of all nations. Hence, explanations of the above reality of all times become necessary in order to manage, advance and trace the socio-economic system of the society from where it was to where it is, and where eventually it is desired to be. Thus, there was a need for statism, a system whereby state or national government regulates commercial and other socio-economic activities using the instruments of laws, policies, tariffs, sanctions, production quotas, taxes, etc. with the view to achieve protectionism for homeland safety and profit accumulation in order to enhance national power in the conduct of international relations. Be that as it may, the emergence of state and its interventionism strategies and tactics in control of the international trade is what is known as mercantilism system. Mercantilism which is derived from the word mercantile, has to do with “trade and commercial affairs” according to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 6th Edition. Mercantilism according to Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (2009), is the economic policy trending in Europe from the 16th to the 18th centuries, where government used power to control industry and trade with the theoretical belief that national power is achieved and sustained by having constant large quantity of exports over imports. Mercantilist system grew at the dawn of nation-states that began after the European Thirty Years’ War that ended in the Concert of Europe that gave birth to the Westphalia Treaty of 1648. As the nation-states emerged, each was struggling and competing to survive and advance its interests using trade and commerce to grow the national economy and power. Onuoha (2008) noted that state has remained the most significant and dominant actor in international relations since after the Westphalia Treaty of 1648 till date. Thus, each state began to use its powers to champion trade and commerce among nations in the international trade. However, it is noteworthy to state that prior to the emergence of nation-states as a result of the Westphalia Treaty of 1648, the Western Europe practiced a system of socio-economic relations known as feudalism (Abonyi, 2005). Mercantilism helped to crush the remains of feudalism thereby giving birth to a new economic relation largely dependent on trade and commerce and industry controlled by the exchange of monetary equivalent stored in the form of precious ornaments like gold, silver, jewelry, metal ore, etc. to grow national economy and acquire power; that is, there existed a definite substance for exchange as the source of national wealth and power relations in the international community. The pursuit of economic relation and its power at the interstate levels were chaotic and anarchical in a manner akin to the Hobbesian state of nature where life was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short (Hobbes, 1962). This is because trade and commercial activities became conflictual and lawless since they were unregulated. Crises and clashes of interests among the nations enveloped in mutual interstate conflict which according to Onuoha (2008) is one of the 3Cs (conflict, cooperation and competition) in international relations, were dominant in foreign trade, before mercantilism surfaced with state-centric view in championing international relations, trade and commerce. The state became the actor above other actors (non-state actors) dictating the direction and pace in international relations. Therefore, there was a need for a Leviathan (state) involvement as a superior authority with the final say in regulating all economic matters. Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (2009) noted that “the mercantilist approach in economic policy first developed during the growth of national states; efforts were directed toward the elimination of the internal trade barriers that characterized the Middle Ages, when a cargo of commodities might be subject to a toll or tariff at every city and river crossing”. Before the emergence of mercantilism, international trade was not properly accounted for and ill-coordinated as chaotic individualism dominated the scene as each maneuvers the other at will and with impunity. But when the state took over, certain excesses were curbed and a level of sanity was introduced though still crudely aggressive but not like when the state was not involved at all. Mercantilism is known for trading with general characteristic of engaging in the explorations in search of potential markets and raw materials. They have strong taste for voyages towards discovery of new geographic areas, raw materials and market for exchange of goods towards profit maximization. Thus, they have capitalist drive for cost-effective exportation and production. These fundamental characteristics of mercantilism led to the discovery of the New World, people whose existence was hitherto unknown before. So to say, mercantilism as an international trade-oriented venture driven by aggressive export for massive accumulation of wealth for national economic development and power, was what laid the foundation for colonialism, imperialism, neoliberal democracy and the present globalization. These international economic concepts and theories for which mercantilism laid the foundation, are all based on trade, commerce, industry, business, etc. which purposely export the objective of profit-making. One of the greatest scholarly works on mercantilism is traceable to Heckscher (1935) cited in Haley (1936) whose writings influenced the world view about mercantilism through the contribution of his work which shaped and helped in understanding mercantilism from a more detailed economic perspective described in phases. He saw mercantilism as a “phase in the history of economic policy” that advocates uniformity in the application of means towards the realization of an end — economic objective/gain. Heckscher further observed that mercantilism thrived on four phases through which he captured the meanings of mercantilism as a reflection of the phases known as (1) “a system of economic policy designed to promote unification of the state, (2) a system of economic policy designed to increase the power of state, (3) a system of economic policy designed to promote the wealth, and thus the power, of the state through systematic protection of domestic producers, and (4) a system of monetary policy”. Mercantilism is described as an aggressive economic policy that metamorphosed into a theory and system of international trade that canvasses for intense export and minimum import in order to accumulate bullions in the form of gold and silver as a means to maintain balance of trade and grow a national economy. Basically, mercantilism is a form of economic policy that has to do with buying and selling of goods for profit purposes across national boundaries. So, it is an aspect of trade and commerce within the jurisdictions of international system. Amuka (2014) noted that during mercantilism, the wealth of a nation was measured by the volume of treasure accumulated in the form of gold and silver. He further describes mercantilist view as a notion that a nation is better placed in foreign trade if she exports more goods to other countries than imported from them so that the surplus value from export will increase the inflow of money into the domestic economy. Mercantilism according to Magnusson (1978: 114) as a means to production of value and generating progress, has a content that tallies with “merchant capitalism”, where states engender unequal exchange thereby “rationalizing reality”. On the other hand, McDermott (1999) stated that mercantilism is a partnership between government and private individuals through monopolies to increase public income generation. He further noted that government through imposing monopoly rights establishes the means of revenue from specific firms and drains off percentage of its profit beyond what is obtainable through traditional sources. Mercantilism as economic theory, is a system of trade that advocates a nation to engage in massive export to accumulate bullions (gold and silver) as wealth and to minimize import to ensure economic growth and favorable balance of trade in the international market. Mercantilism emphasizes three key factors in trade to ensure national prosperity. Among the three factors, two of them are saliently known as aggressive export and minimal import, to accumulate bullions. The third is not well noticed but the other two are dependent on it, if the mercantilist general objective is to be achieved. The third is mass production to have enough to export, i.e. to exchange goods with other countries for bullions to be acquired and valued and stored as national treasure. Also, large production makes the goods available and possibly affordable for national consumption, thereby saving cost of importation and having enough to re-invest in the national economy which triggers large expansion through multiplier effects. Furthermore, a country must wisely export the excess or leftover from domestic consumption, otherwise it will have to import what she exported at a higher cost to satisfy the local needs that were not met before she exported either raw materials or finished products or both. A good case at hand that has defiled solution is Africa that exports raw materials to overseas at cheaper rates and ends up expensively importing manufactured goods made from the raw materials she exported. Against the foregoing background, we leverage on Neale’s (1979) explanations of mercantilism cited in Coleman (1980) to deduce it to be a politico-economic theory and history that analyzes the style of pursuit of national power and wealth among the nation-states who regulated trade and commerce, using economic policy. Interrogations of scholarly works on mercantilism reveal that mercantilism can be said to be an embodiment of economic history, economic ideology — thought/philosophy, economic policy, economic theory and economic system of international trade based on statism. Williams (1958) argued that convergent views exist among scholars and statesmen on mercantilism as a changing balanced economy of agriculture and commerce revolving around capitalism through a nationalistic structure that leverages on state as a tool for the realization of the objectives. The method used is historic approach that is explanatory and qualitative in the analysis of mercantilism. Secondary data were sourced and collected from journal articles, textbooks, Internet materials etc. and were used in discussing and reviewing the following: Tracing the origin of mercantilist export-oriented advocacy in international trade, the consequent industrial and commercial revolutions it resulted in, the foundation it laid in international trade relations, the critiques and its relevance known as neo-mercantilism in the present international system. The mercantilist era of the 15th–17th-century businesses across national boundaries was patterned after strategies, tactics, models, simulations, calculations and analysis in order to adopt a favorable approach to edge an opponent out in trade competition. Therefore, the choice of Game theory is apt in the analysis of mercantilism. Game theory is a mathematical model of strategic analysis in arriving at an answer towards solving a problem. John von Neumann was the first to famously propound the Game theory alongside John and Oskar Morgenstern (1944), who tested its applicability in the field of economics to answer the economic questions. Game theory is a strategic model of mathematical interaction between decision makers towards establishing advantageous firm resolution on a matter of concern. However, in Game theory, the outcome of decision-making is usually unpredictable and unknown without assurance, because the outcome depends on the other party’s decision too, which cannot be ignored. In Game theory, a scheme of “winner takes it all” is often the resultant effect which the two parties are psychologically prepared for and they work against each other in order not to be the loser. This is how mercantilism operated to the extent that the harsh trade competition it evoked among nations necessitated government intervention and hijacking of international trade as evident in the socio-economic trends that evolved out of mercantilism. Game theory originated from mathematical science but was imported into political science by the behaviorists (Mbah, 2014). It is a mathematical model that focuses on the analysis of decision-making regarding the probability of conflict or competition and harmonious situations (Shubik, 1967). Game theory has to do with decision-making even though the decision makers do not know the exact resultant effect because of the factors outside the ability of them (Akinboye and Ottoh, 2007). Therefore, Game theory is the demonstration of manipulative capacity and maneuverability of the parties involved in decision-making, within the limit of what knowledge or information is available to them as each one plots to edge out the other or out-benefit the other based on the choices they make through decisions. It is called Game theory because generally like in a game, the outcome is certainly not accurately predictable. But one thing that is assured is that both parties involved in the decision-making are aware of the other and that whoever wins does so because of the choices made based on the decisions taken and implemented correctly. The mercantilist system operated from the perspective of Game theory where “a winner takes it all” approach is adopted in international business competition as each nation battles to outsmart and edge out the other in the export of goods and accumulation of bullions (wealth to be stored in the form of gold and silver). Mercantilism was anchored on international trade export rivalry and accumulation of wealth among nations who engaged in trade competition. Mercantilist trade competition was manipulative, ruthless, skirmish and full of gimmicks where nations seek to undo one another in the international trade system. Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff (1981) cited in Mbah (2014) succinctly posit that in Game theory, “the idea of the theory is for one actor to know the strategies or choices employed by the rival in order to outwit him…”. On the other hand, Global Strategic Rivalry theory was developed by Paul Krugman and Kelvin Lancaster in 1980, in which they argued that a firm or a nation should engage in building competitive advantage and strategy to keep it afloat and sustain it in the highly volatile and competitive global environment. The theory is based on the dynamic nature of global community where competition is always at peak and never ceases as each nation or firm tries to outwit the other by leveraging on several factors that are unevenly distributed or founded across the global scene. Therefore, the theory encourages nations/firms to develop strategies and tactically apply them towards gaining competitive advantage in the business world in order to get large global market share of their products/services. The world is a competitive place, and not only businesses are competitive. Therefore, mercantilism being an export-oriented competitive approach, advises against import to ensure balance of trade and payment thereby leading to aggressive rivalry among nations which metamorphosed into socio-economic trends that the world witnessed such as colonialism, imperialism, liberalism, globalization, multinational corporations (MNCs), etc., which are all products of international trade competition either in the struggle for raw materials, labor, market or dominance towards accumulation of wealth. Mercantilism contributed immensely to the development and the rise of money economy in Europe. It also laid the foundation for “industrial and commercial revolutions” that swept across Europe in the 18th century and trickled down to other parts of the world. In the feudal economy which mercantilism displaced, there was no money in circulation in the form of paper currency or coins that were generally accepted as the media of exchange for goods and services. Rather, what existed was barter system of socio-economic relations that guided transactions among the barons, peasants/serfs, noblemen, clergymen, kings and knights that constituted the classes in feudal era. During feudalism, land was the only industry and means of production and wealth generation. However, land was unevenly distributed or, better said, all land was at the control of monarch/king and a few powerful individuals who reigned over the subjects, and determined who gets what portion and for what and why. Asadu (2014) rightly affirmed that feudalism is a political ideology anchored on hierarchical order of land ownership, in which land was the major means of production. He further asserted that political rights and invariably prosperity are attached to land ownership. Feudalism later failed as a socio-economic stage of human development due to its crude nature and inability to liberate the subjects from the oppressions of the monarchs and kings who claimed to have divine rights to rule. Rodney (1972) noted that at the collapse of feudalism in Europe, workers resorted to capitalists for the commodification of labor power to survive. The capitalists were the merchants and the industrialists who propagated mercantilism within and across national boundaries. Technological and industrial revolutions that use machines in the factory system of production increased global production capacities and increased trade volume thereby leading to massive export, which is the sole tenet of mercantilism. Nwachukwu (2007) posited that industrial revolution made the work easier, that large-scale and chain production became possible without taking so many resources (time, energy, cash, etc.). Production processes simplified with the aid of machines, tools and fewer resources. Williams (1958) argued that the underlining point in the pursuit of mercantilism is to generate favorable balance of trade via increased domestic output and export markets control and access to raw materials. Thus, the dominant emphasis here is that the spirit of mercantilism gave birth to unquenchable drives that led to technological and scientific inventions that changed the world in the competitive pursuit to maximize production, export more abroad, make huge profits and have large chunk of world markets share to boast the domestic economy of nations and power relations. Consequently, mercantilism being an apostle of trade, particularly at the level of international system, promotes aggressive and massive export over import to ensure that national prosperity was what necessitated the introduction of monetarist economy, paving way for the scientific and technological inventions that culminated in the development of industrial and commercial revolutions, because of the following factors inherent in mercantilism:
Mercantilism having originated in Europe, has generated a new perspective and a paradigm shift in European economic trade and its expansionary trends. Mercantilism set the stage for the contemporary economic foundation of international trade across societies. It led to rapid economic development of nation-states with the aid of buying and selling through promotion of trade, commerce, industry, manufacturing, etc. Mercantilist spirit assisted in the expansionary movements of European merchants into Africa and the Third World in general, in search of markets for their finished products and raw materials for the sustenance of their home industries. Historically, the British on arrival in Africa, to consolidate mercantilism for deeper penetration and profits maximization, opted for colonialism and capitalism which were imposed on the aborigines, cleverly. Igbo and Anugwom (2002) noted that colonialism was what ushered modernization and economic development in Nigeria thereby changing the pattern of socio-economic and political relations of the people. They further mentioned that British colonialists launched Nigeria into a “money economy” in replacement of “barter” and thus motivated Nigerians to engage in cash crops (rubber, cocoa, cotton, groundnut, timber, etc.) agricultural production for the exportation purposes, whereas Britain imports footwears, bicycles, clothing and other finished goods to Nigeria. This is how Nigeria was dragged into the anarchical international system beginning from trade (economy) down to politics, culture and other social relations unknowingly. Meanwhile, the unequal and unprepared relations flourished through monopolistic capitalism that is structured on exploitation that disarticulated the growth of Nigerian economy due to contradictions inherent in colonialism and its sister known as capitalism (Claude, 1981). Essentially, the Berlin Conference of 1884/85 convened by Ottoman Von Bismarck, the then President of Germany, where the scramble and partition of Africa took place among the colonizers, was to put an end to the colonizers’ fight against one another on the exploitation and exploration rights over the abundance of resources/treasures they found in Africa. International trade in slaves and local raw materials were the sole objective of the Europeans for coming to Africa, but colonialism sprout out as a necessary mission towards the accomplishment of the objective, if the abundance of raw materials they saw in Africa are to be properly harnessed and repatriated to the motherland of the colonialists. Claude (1981) noted that “the growth of colonial trade benefited Britain and its merchants…”. In mercantilist system, government regulates international trade in order to accumulate wealth and increase national power with which to bargain and conduct economic relations favorably among the nations. National power according to Onuoha (2008) generates prestige, helps in negotiation and national defense and therefore, is vital in regulating relations among countries in the world. One of the means to achieve national power therefore is through developing a strong and favorable mercantilist power within the frameworks of bilateral and multilateral economic relations among the nations. National power is also achieved through developing a strong economic power to negotiate or bulldoze a nation’s gateway in an international system. The anarchical nature of international system makes the mercantilist proposition help a nation develop a strong economy as a weapon of trade in balancing the economic power relations. Mercantilism as foreign trade in pursuit of national economic power, is a means to balance power from the perspective of economic strength, which (Agbo, 2002) observed to be a part of policy consciously designed by the political elites to pursue national interest. Several scholars and factors contributed to the criticisms leveled against mercantilism. However, the two most significant attacks that shook mercantilism from its foundations are the works of physiocrats and Smith’s (1776) magnum opus entitled Wealth of Nations, which jointly dealt a great blow to mercantilism as a commanding force in the international system of trade. Nevertheless, there are other notable factors and intellectual discoveries and inventions that made inroads into the inglorious demystification of mercantilism. We shall briefly highlight few of them accordingly. The physiocrats are group of intellectuals and thinkers from France who emerged during the second half of the 18th century to challenge the restrictive policies and propositions of mercantilism (Microsoft Encarta Dictionary, 2009). The physiocratic movement generally coincided with the era of social movement in the 18th-century Europe, Ezeh and Chukwuemeka (2017) posited that this period of social movement was known as the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment, which replaced religiosity with rationality in the study and analysis of human society. Physiocrats claim that their movement is based on new discoveries founded on truth about international trade. Therefore, the physiocrats led the economic system known as physiocracy, which is a system that believed that wealth is from “land and agriculture” as its source. They advocated that land and agriculture should be properly developed and harnessed, not depending on mercantilist trade obscurity as what constitutes national wealth. The physiocrats condemned mercantilism for paying more attention to wealth than seeking the welfare of citizens through which real and enduring wealth comes from. Physiocrats argued that trade is the outcome of agricultural produce from land and mining as the sources, thus government should pay attention to land and agriculture instead of trade which is the endpoint, i.e. not to ignore the means (land and agriculture). Smith (1776) on the other hand published his book Wealth of Nations where he criticized and launched campaign against mercantilism with his self-acclaimed superior theory of free-market economy where trade and commerce are controlled by the invisible hands or forces of demand and supply. The free flow of goods must not be unnecessarily restricted in the market economy using the disguised concept that he called “the mercantile system” (Smith, 1776) which is protectionism through bullionism. He condemned mercantilism for unnecessarily imposing restrictive policies that inhibit the natural flow and development of a market economy without government impediments. He further posited that trade should be people-oriented, not government-oriented as advocated by mercantilist notion. A good example of mercantilist trade-restrictive policy that hindered economic growth and development was the British Navigation Acts 1651 which prevented other countries from trading with British-discovered colonies. Concretely, Claude (1981) observed that the Royal Niger Company that changed its name to United Africa Company owned by Tubman Goldie, with British concession in 1886, was the only company licensed to trade on behalf of the British Government in the British West African colonies, enforce laws, order, levy, and collect duties, ensure justice, free trade and stop slave trade. Smith (1776) also criticized mercantilism arguing that gold and silver are not the only wealth of a nation. Rather, the wealth of a nation is its land, buildings and all consumable products. Truly, mercantilist era coincidentally took shape or emerged when land was the chief source of individual and national wealth, as being the only means of production, industrial and viable social economic relations for the generation of means of exchange and value. Smith also identified the four natural sequences of growing society as a model of analysis contained in his book Wealth of Nations which are: hunting, pasturage, farming and commerce. Another powerful blow on mercantilism was Locke’s “labour theory of value” that espoused that the wealth of a nation is not fixed; rather, it is created by human labor. So, the dynamic multiplier effect value of labor is an undeniable factor in generating wealth. Hence, overemphasis on export is misleading and inaccurate at all times in generating the wealth for nation-building and development. Similarly, Eze (2005), Armstrong (2009) and Schultz (1981) argued that the real wealth of a nation lies in the totality of the quality of human capital development evident in the trained and skilled personnel who constitute the workforce at the macroeconomic level. There is research-based evidence of a shift from the erroneously hitherto belief that wealth of nations depends on possession of vast natural resources, to the widely accepted belief that quality human resources are the generators of real wealth of nations. This hypothesis is true, because if otherwise, Africa with the largest deposit of mineral resources in the world would have been the most developed and prosperous continent. But the reverse is the case thereby validating the hypothesis, as Africa despite her abundant natural resources is very impoverished, miserable, poverty-stricken and highly underdeveloped (Onah, 2011). The Comparative Cost Advantage theory of Ricardo (1817), as contained in his book Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, regarding international trade, also helps to reduce the effect of mercantilism where he argued that nations should specialize on the production of goods for which they have the least inputs (opportunity cost) with the maximum output, i.e. cost-effectiveness based on each nation’s unique advantage or endowment. Each nation has one advantage or the other over another nation, thus nations are not equally gifted or developed thereby neutralizing the need for mercantilist competition since each nation will focus its strengths in the production of goods for which it has absolute advantage over others. With the popular acceptance of Ricardo’s theory, the international perspective changed from mercantilism’s stronghold towards the development of liberal political economy. Thus, unnecessary trade competition for export and accumulation of wealth will be naturally spread across nations based on their comparative advantage capacities, which leads to specialization that limits the excesses of mercantilism in international trade. Despite the above attacks or criticisms presented against mercantilism, we see them as the shortcomings of mercantilism due to passage of time that warranted changes in the scheme of things, bearing in mind that there is no single economic theory or system capable of solving all economic problems, especially at the global market level. Hence, mercantilism never died and may likely not die as claimed by some scholars who use such terms as “death”, “demise”, “downfall” or “obituary of mercantilism”. We are bold to say that mercantilism is silently alive with reformations to suit the contemporary economic worldview. Mercantilism, if not for any other contribution, obviously laid the ground foundation upon which the international system of trade is anchored on today. So, to debase mercantilism and subjecting it as irrelevant in the dustbin of economic history in today’s system is an intellectual anathema of great concern. Is mercantilism dead without heirs? Did the acclaimed death of mercantilism close its propositions entirely without leaving a glimpse of history behind? Are there any remains of mercantilism applicable to present-day international trade? If any, what are the lessons or the uses? The acclaimed downfall of mercantilism does not negate the tremendous roles and foundations it laid in the development of trade in the international system. Mercantilism provided the roadmap for international trade and painted the landscape of the international market with irremovable contributions that are very vital and at the heart of global trade (exportation). McDermott (1999) answering the question of the existence and relevance of mercantilism in modern economy posits that “in many developing nations, under one-party rule or managed by huge bureaucracies guided by industrial policies, the answer in undoubtedly, yes”. However, let us look at them closely with few examples justifying mercantilism with the new concept of neo-mercantilism that, as Fleming (1976) opined, began in 1930s and surfaced again in 1970s through depression.
Mercantilism has contributed immensely to the development of international trade, and it is no doubt relevant in today’s international system as some of its principles are still applied in conducting trade relations among the nations globally. Mercantilism is undeniably what laid the foundations for industrial and commercial revolutions occasioned by the search for economic prosperity of nations through international trade. It shaped and enhanced large-scale production, market-oriented economics and advanced search for raw materials that metamorphosed into colonies, imperialism, liberalism and globalization — internationalization of institutions and organizations. The method used is historic approach that is explanatory and qualitative in the analysis of mercantilism. Secondary data were sourced and collected from journal articles, textbooks, Internet materials, etc. and were used in discussing and reviewing the following: Tracing the origin of mercantilist export-oriented advocacy in international trade, the consequent industrial and commercial revolutions it resulted in, the foundation it laid in international trade relations, the critiques and its relevance known as neo-mercantilism in the present international system. The authors declare no conflicts of interests. No funding was available for this work. The lead author (Onah Celestine Chijioke) conceived the idea of the work, started it and shaped the major body framework of the paper per subheading. He provided the link that traced mercantilism (the old economic system) and associated it to the new economic system of international trade. He wrote the conclusion. The second author (Aduma Aloysius) came with the idea of triangulation, thus providing two theories used in the analysis of the work due to the inadequacy of using one theory which in most cases will not succinctly give enough explanation to a work of this wide scope with international and historic nature. The third author (Deborah O. Obi) sequenced the work to flow in the present structure. Thus, she neatly enhanced the body framework of the paper. In a special way, I (Onah Celestine Chijioke) thank Dr. Edeh, my lecturer from the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, whose series of lectures opened my eyes on the internal and external dynamics of international political economic system, which consequently spurred my interest to start writing this paper, before getting the two co-authors who contributed to this work. We acknowledge B. F. Haley and William Appleman Williams whose works gave clearer directions and provided us with useful insights that strengthened the manuscript to this standard. References
Page 2
You have to enable JavaScript in your browser's settings in order to use the eReader. Or try downloading the content offline DOWNLOAD |
What is the relationship between imports and exports in a mercantilist economic system
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
