American Political Science Review Vol.81 Figure 1.Four Main Types of Factor Endowments Land-Labor Ratio High Low Abundant: Abundant: Capital Capital Advanced Economy Land Labor Scarce: Scarce: Labor Land Abundant: Abundant: Land Labor Backward Economy Scarce: Scarce: Capital Capital Labor Land culture will gain from free trade.Farmers scarce,workers and labor-intensive and pastoralists will try to expand their industries will embrace protection and(if influence in some movement of a "Pop- need be)imperialism.The benefited sec- ulist"and antiurban stripe. tors will seek to expand their political Conversely,in backward economies power,if not by disfranchisement then with low land-labor ratios (the lower by curtailment of workers'economic right-hand cell of Figure 1),land and prerogatives and suppression of their capital are scarce and labor is abundant. organizations. The model therefore predicts class con- These implications of the theory of flict:labor will pursue free trade and international trade(summarized in Figure expanded political power (including,in 2)seem clear,but do they in any way some circumstances,a workers'revolu- describe reality?I shall address that ques- tion);landowners,capitalists,and tion more fully below,but for now it is capital-intensive manufacturers will unite worth observing how closely the experi- to support protection,imperialism,and a ence of three major countries-Germany, politics of continued exclusion.(Lest the Britain,and the United States-conforms picture of a rising in support of freer to this analysis in the period of rapidly markets seem too improbable a priori,I expanding trade in the last third of the observe at once its general conformity nineteenth century;and how far it can go with Popkin's 1979 astute interpretation to explain otherwise puzzling disparities of the Vietnamese revolution.) in those states'patterns of political The reverse form of class conflict is evolution. expected to arise in the final case,that of Germany and the United States were an advanced but land-rich economy (the both still relatively backward,that is, upper left-hand cell of Figure 1)under capital-poor,societies:both,in fact, increasing exposure to trade.Because imported considerable amounts of capital both capital and land are abundant, in this period(Feis 1965,24-25 and Chap. capitalists,capital-intensive industries, 3).Germany,however,was rich in labor and agriculture will all benefit from,and and poor in land;the United States,of will endorse,free trade;labor being course,was in exactly the opposite posi- 1124American Political Science Review Vol. 81 Figure I. Four Main Types of Factor Endowments I Advanced Economy Backward Economy Land-Labor Ratio High Low Abundant: Abundant: Capital Capital Land Labor Scarce: Scarce: Labor Land Abundant: Abundant: Land Labor Scarce: Scarce: Capital Capital Labor Land culture will gain from free trade. Farmers and pastoralists will try to expand their influence in some movement of a "Pop￾ulist" and antiurban stripe. Conversely, in backward economies with low land-labor ratios (the lower right-hand cell of Figure I), land and capital are scarce and labor is abundant. The model therefore predicts class con￾flict: labor will pursue free trade and expanded political power (including, in some circumstances, a workers' revolu￾tion); landowners, capitalists, and capital-intensive manufacturers will unite to support protection, imperialism, and a politics of continued exclusion. (Lest the picture of a rising in support of freer markets seem too improbable a priori, I observe at once its general conformity with Popkin's 1979 astute interpretation of the Vietnamese revolution.) The reverse form of class conflict is expected to arise in the final case, that of an advanced but land-rich economy (the upper left-hand cell of Figure 1)under increasing exposure to trade. Because both capital and land are abundant, capitalists, capital-intensive industries, and agriculture will all benefit from, and will endorse, free trade; labor being scarce, workers and labor-intensive industries will embrace protection and (if need be) imperialism. The benefited sec￾tors will seek to expand their political power, if not by disfranchisement then by curtailment of workers' economic prerogatives and suppression of their organizations. These implications of the theory of international trade (summarized in Figure 2) seem clear, but do they in any way describe reality? I shall address that ques￾tion more fully below, but for now it is worth observing how closely the experi￾ence of three major countries-Germany, Britain, and the United States-conforms to this analysis in the period of rapidly expanding trade in the last third of the nineteenth century; and how far it can go to explain otherwise puzzling disparities in those states' patterns of political evolution. Germany and the United States were both still relatively backward, that is, capital-poor, societies: both, in fact, imported considerable amounts of capital in this period (Feis 1965,24-25 and Chap. 3). Germany, however, was rich in labor and poor in land; the United States, of course, was in exactly the opposite posi-