- 5 -
It probably seems to some people unnecessary to prove it
because it is self-evident. However, to anyone who thinks it is self-
evident, I would commend an article in a recently published issue of
the Üverseas Development Institute Review.
The Institute is an independent body financed by donations
from British business and the British Government and by grants from
other sources.
The Study I am referring to is called "British Protectionism
and LDC Imports" and it was written by the Editor of the Review,
Mr. Vincent Cable.
He shows that there is very little connection between the
loss of jobs and the "flood of imports." I quote
"the employment displacement problems created by lac
imports or trade generally are relatively unimportant."
in the clothing sector
"notional productivity growth emerges clearly as the
most potent cause of employment displacement
....
In
footwear and cotton fabrics imports have been decisively
the major influence, though in both cases the major
growth of imports has been from developed countries or
Comecon and not from ldcs. A major cause of displacement
in textile yarn production has been falling consumption."
The conclusion is inevitable. Even assuming a total substitution
of imports by domestic production in these four sectors, Mr. Cable
calculates that, the employment saving could recoup only twenty seven
per cent of the jobs lost since 1970.
/ But ....