| Summary: | There is a major downward bias in the trend of most existing estimates of the periphery's nineteenth-century terms of trade. By using prices from the North Atlantic core as proxies for prices in the peripheral countries themselves, historians ignore the dramatic price convergence that took place during the nineteenth century. Measured correctly, the periphery's nineteenth-century terms-of-trade boom would appear considerably longer, greater, and more widespread than Jeffrey Williamson (2008, 2011) supposes, greatly reinforcing his grand narrative about the relation between globalization and the "great divergence." Many of the details of his narrative, however, must be revised. This is illustrated by the case of India.
|
|---|