本文選題：關(guān)稅法案 + 美國政黨政治�。� 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：美國1828年的關(guān)稅法案是美國早期的一系列關(guān)稅保護(hù)立法的高潮,因此在當(dāng)時飽受爭議。美國當(dāng)時的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展情況為國會制定1828年關(guān)稅法案提供了動機(jī)。制造業(yè)有了一定程度的發(fā)展,其中紡織業(yè)的發(fā)展相當(dāng)迅速,因此制造業(yè)主迫切希望國會制定新的關(guān)稅法案來應(yīng)對歐洲商品的競爭。制造業(yè)的發(fā)展也提高了其對原材料的需求,因此農(nóng)民也希望聯(lián)邦制定保護(hù)性關(guān)稅,保證他們能夠占有國內(nèi)正在擴(kuò)大的農(nóng)業(yè)原材料市場。 在制造業(yè)的大力推動下,眾議院制造業(yè)委員會制定出了1828年關(guān)稅法案的初稿。初稿出現(xiàn)伊始,眾議院內(nèi)就爆發(fā)了激烈的爭論。當(dāng)時美國各個州對法案初稿的態(tài)度大致如下：新英格蘭地區(qū)的一些州反對法案的通過,而另外一些州則支持法案的通過,西北部各州大多支持法案的通過,南方各州幾乎一致反對法案的通過。如果單獨(dú)考慮地區(qū)性利益對眾議院各州議員的的影響,法案幾乎是不可能被通過。在以人口決定席位的眾議院中,南方各州占據(jù)了大量的席位,而他們幾乎是一致反對法案通過的,可以與之匹敵的新英格蘭地區(qū)各州的態(tài)度又不統(tǒng)一,西北部的農(nóng)業(yè)州雖然大多支持法案的通過,但是由于人口相對較少,在眾議院中的席位相對于南方州和新英格蘭地區(qū)而言,是比較有限的,因此其影響力也相對有限。但是法案在眾議院中卻僥幸通過了,而這主要應(yīng)當(dāng)歸因于政黨政治的影響。1828年正是總統(tǒng)選舉年,競爭主要在A·杰克遜(Andrew, Jackson)和J·Q·亞當(dāng)斯(John, Quincy, Adams)之間展開。以新英格蘭地區(qū)為主要陣營的亞當(dāng)斯派為獲得制造業(yè)的支持,希望通過一部新的保護(hù)性關(guān)稅法案,而杰克遜派則集合了南方州和西部農(nóng)業(yè)州的支持,反對法案的通過。事實(shí)上,法案的初稿就是杰克遜針對亞當(dāng)斯派的一個政治伎倆。制定法案初稿的制造業(yè)委員會中杰克遜派占到多數(shù),法案中的許多條款可以說是杰克遜派對亞當(dāng)斯派的蓄意為難,因為無論法案通過與否,亞當(dāng)斯派都會受到嚴(yán)重的打擊。法案通過將會使亞當(dāng)斯在總統(tǒng)選舉中失去南方州和西部農(nóng)業(yè)州的支持,而法案無法通過,亞當(dāng)斯將會失去他的根據(jù)地新英格蘭地區(qū)的制造業(yè)工廠主們的支持。最終,法案在亞當(dāng)斯派的妥協(xié)下僥幸通過,成為了1828年關(guān)稅法案。 正是由于政黨政治對法案的影響,使得法案的實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容在經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)角度上來看存在諸多不合理,也就導(dǎo)致了法案的經(jīng)濟(jì)效用相當(dāng)有限,相反,法案對美國政治格局的影響卻不容忽視。不僅僅是當(dāng)年的總統(tǒng)大選,之后美國的許多政治事件都和該法案有著或多或少的聯(lián)系,其中最為直接的就是1832到1833年的“無效危機(jī)"(Nullification Crisis)。
[Abstract]:The US tariff Act of 1828 was the culmination of a series of early tariff protection legislation in the United States, so it was controversial at that time. Economic developments in the United States at the time provided an incentive for Congress to enact the tariff Act of 1828. The manufacturing industry has developed to a certain extent, among which the textile industry has developed quite rapidly, so manufacturers are eager for Congress to enact a new tariff bill to deal with the competition of European goods. The development of manufacturing has also increased demand for raw materials, so farmers also want a federal protective tariff to ensure they have access to the country's expanding market for agricultural raw materials. Driven by manufacturing, the House manufacturing committee produced a first draft of the 1828 tariff Act. From the very beginning of the first draft, a heated debate broke out in the House of Representatives. At that time, the attitudes of the states of the United States towards the draft bill were roughly as follows: some states in the New England region opposed the passage of the bill, others supported the passage of the bill, and most of the northwestern states supported the passage of the bill. The southern states almost unanimously opposed the passage of the bill. The bill is almost impossible to pass if you consider the impact of regional interests on House states alone. In the demographics of the House of Representatives, the southern states held a large number of seats, and they almost unanimously opposed the bill, and the New England states, which could rival it, were divided. Although most of the agricultural states in the northwest support the passage of the bill, because of its relatively small population, seats in the House of Representatives are relatively limited compared to the South and New England, so its influence is relatively limited. But the bill was passed in the House of Representatives, largely due to the influence of party politics. 1828 was the year of the presidential election, with competition between A. Jackson Andrew, Jackson) and J. Q. Adams John, Quincy, Adamsm. With New England as the main camp, Adams wanted a new protective tariff bill to win the support of manufacturing, while Jackson gathered support from southern and western agricultural states to oppose the passage of the bill. In fact, the first draft of the bill was Jackson's political ploy against Adams. Jackson had a majority on the manufacturing committee that produced the first draft of the bill, and many of its provisions could be said to be the deliberate embarrassment of Adams at the Jackson party, who would be badly hit whether the bill was passed or not. The passage of the bill would deprive Adams of support in the presidential election in the southern and western agricultural states, and the bill would lose the support of manufacturing factory owners in his New England base. In the end, the bill passed with the compromise of Adams and became the tariff Act of 1828. It is precisely because of the influence of party politics on the bill that the substance of the bill is unreasonable from an economic point of view, which leads to its limited economic utility. On the contrary, The impact of the bill on the political landscape of the United States cannot be ignored. It was not just the presidential election that followed, but much of the political events that followed were more or less linked to the bill, the most direct of which was the "ineffective crisis" of 1832 to 1833.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.2;K712.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 鄧峰;論美國關(guān)稅法的演變[J];東北亞論壇;2005年01期

2 馮明好;;1828年前美國關(guān)稅政策與幼稚工業(yè)的保護(hù)[J];魯東大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2011年03期

，

本文編號：1937151