Origins of Terms in International Economics

Here I record what I have been able to learn about the origins of some of the terms we use in international economics, both who introduced their meanings and who first gave them their names, if those are not the same people.

If I attribute a concept or the term for it to a particular author, that means I have personally checked the source and seen it used there in the way that I describe. However, if I say or imply that this was the first use of a concept or term, I obviously cannot always know that for certain. For most of these, I have searched in Google Scholar to find the first use of the term identified there. But I don't know how complete that tool is (it seems remarkably good), and in any case I can't find who may have used a term orally with their colleagues or students without publishing it earlier. If you know of prior uses that should be mentioned, please let me know, preferably by e-mail to alandear@umich.edu.


Index of Origins

Aggressive unilateralism
Anti-dumping
Asian Tigers
Atlas method
Balance of trade
Banana republic
Canonical model of currency crises
Carousel approach
CES function
Comparative advantage
Continuum of goods
Currency area
Deadweight loss
Depression
Diversification cone
Dixit-Stiglitz utility
Dumping
Dutch disease
Edgeworth-Bowley box
Emerging market
Flying Geese
Fragmentation
Gravity model
Great Moderation
Grexit
Harberger triangle
Hirschman index
Holy Trinity
Home market effect
Hub and spoke integration
Ideal price index
Immiserizing growth
Impossible Trinity
Inconsistent Trinity
Infant industry protection
Intermestic
J-Curve
Kaldor-Hicks criterion
Lerner diagram
Level playing field
Marshall-Lerner condition
Meade Index
Mirror statistics
Most Favored Nation
New new trade theory
New trade theory
Normal Trade Relations
Offer curve
Peso problem
Policy space
Precautionary Principle
Price-specie flow mechanism
Purchasing power parity
Rent seeking
Resource curse
Second-best argument for protection
Social dumping
Splinternet
Stylized fact
Tariffication
Technology gap model
Terms of trade
Thank-you note
Third World
Tiger economy
Trade deflection
Trilemma
Variable geometry
Vent for surplus

Aggressive unilateralism
The term itself appeared three times prior to 1990, in writings by Carlton and Bixler 1962, Carlton 1963-64, and Etzold 1982, but always in the non-economic context of the Cold War and military conflict. For example, Carlton and Bixler worried that the American right wing would "come to power in the United States and build a garrison state, pursue policies of aggressive unilateralism, ...."

In the context of economics and trade policy, the term was coined by Bhagwati (1990), who also used it that same year as the title of a volume that he edited with Hugh Patrick.

Asian Tigers, Tiger economy
I've not been able to track down the first use of this term to refer to the foursome of Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Everywhere I've seen the term used in writing, the author seems to assume that it is already familiar. The earliest source for "Asian Tigers" in Google Scholar is a book first published in 1983, but I've found only the much later 8th edition, and I suspect that the term did not appear in much earlier editions.

Google also finds a mention of "tiger economies" in a paper on Southeast Asia in the 1985 Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, but I haven't been able to access that journal to see if they are named there. I suspect not.

So the earliest explicit use of "Asian Tigers" to mean these four countries seems to be in 1987, and in that year it appeared twice. Rabushka (1987) has the following: "The four Asian Tigers – Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea – are renown [sic] as the hyper-growth economies of the Pacific Rim." and Griffith (1987) has

    And recently, neo-classical economic thinkers are citing the economic success of the Asian Tigers - Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea - as empirical evidence that an export-oriented strategy of development tends to be positively correlated with better growth.
Atlas method
The Atlas method gets its name from its use in the World Bank Atlas, more recent editions of which are called the Atlas of Global Development.

The current method seems to have been used first in the 1985 edition of the Atlas, where it says "...the procedures for estimating gnp in U.S. dollars differ from those used in previous years." Previous editions had used average prices and exchange rates from a three-year base period, whereas the new procedure was to use "the simple average of the exchange rates for the current year and for the two preceding years; the latter two exchange rates are adjusted for differences between domestic and U.S. inflation." The most important difference between the new and old methods was that the old one used a difference conversion for a given year in successive editions of the Atlas, making comparisons difficult. I am unable, from reading details of the prior procedure, to tell whether the new one also causes other differences. In any case, it seems that the subsequent use by others of the "Atlas method" has been to use the method introduced in World Bank (1985).

In an effort to determine whether the Atlas method had a prior history, I have used Google Scholar to search for "Atlas method" over various years. The term itself was used with other meanings prior to its use by the World Bank, as well as subsequently: a method of measuring the maturity of skeletons; a method in meteorology for detecting weather events; a tool for measuring the "HLB value of a reagent," whatever that is, by Atlas Chemical Industries; and an exercise program by body builder Charles Atlas.

The earliest mentions of the World Bank's Atlas method were in 1980, where I found two. One of these (by M.Y. Smith, "Romania: forecasting and development," in Futures) mentions "following the World Bank Atlas method of adjusting official Romanian national accounts data." The second (by Davies, Grawe, and Kavalsky, "Poverty and the Development of Human Resources: Regional Perspectives," World Bank) has a table of GNP per capita data labeled "IBRD Atlas method, US dollars."

From these it appears that the term "Atlas method" predated the version of World Bank (1985) and referred to the method used in prior editions, which seems to have been slightly different.

Balance of trade
Price (1905) examines the origins of this concept, the exact wording of which appeared in 1615 and the concept of which, without the wording, can be found as early as 1381 in England, when writers were concerned that by importing a greater value than it was exporting, England was losing money -- i.e., gold and silver. Somewhat before the term "balance of trade" appeared, similar concerns were said in 1601 to be due to "overbalancing of foreign commodities." From the discussion by Price, it appears that "balance of trade" in this early use referred to a situation in which values of exports and imports were equal, rather than today's use measuring the extent to which they are unequal.

Fetter (1935) dates the term to 1623, apparently disagreeing with Price that its use in 1615 was comparable. His main concerns are with the common attribution that a positive balance of trade is "favorable" and with whether the term includes only trade in goods or instead extends beyond that to include other payments such as we today would include in the balance on current account or even balance of payments. It appears that early writings used the term variously in each of these senses.

[I was alerted to the articles by Price and Fetter by Obstfeld (2012).]

Banana republic
As explained nicely in Economist (2013), the term was coined by the writer O. Henry in a short story in 1904, set in a fictional land he described as a “small, maritime banana republic.” He was living at the time in Honduras, on which he must have based his description. Honduras was and remains one of the countries that rely heavily on plantations of bananas, owned by what was then the United Fruit Company, now called Chiquita.

Canonical model of currency crises
Krugman (1997) gives credit for this model, which he seems in this source to be the first to call the "canonical model," to apparently unpublished "work done in the mid-1970s by Stephen Salant, at that time at the Federal Reserve's International Finance Section," focusing on schemes to stabilize commodity prices, and described briefly in Salant and Henderson (1978) where it is applied to the market for gold. Krugman then drew on that work for his model of currency crises in Krugman (1979b), and it was refined by Flood and Garber (1984).

Carousel approach
Also called carousel retaliation, this was introduced to US legislation in 1999 by a group of senators led by Mike DeWine of Ohio and a group of representatives led by Larry Combest of Texas. The Senate bill was "S. 1619, the Carousel Retaliation Act of 1999." I have not been able to locate that, but it seems to be the first use of this term. The bill was a response to concern that the retaliatory tariffs used by USTR in the beef hormone case would not be effective, and it was introduced as an amendment to Section 301. The following year, the content of the bill, but not its name, was included in P.L. 106-200, May 18, 2000, the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

Since then, "carousel" has continued to be used in this context, including as a verb: "to carousel the tariffs." For for more on this history of the carousel approach, see Griffin (2019).

CES function
Arrow et al. (1961, pp. 225-226) described their empirical motivation to "derive a mathematical function having the properties of (i) homogeneity, (ii) constant elasticity between capital and labor, and (iii) the possibility of different elasticities for different industries." They named it the CES function and estimated it across industries and countries.

One of the co-authors, Minhas1962, tried to rename it the "homohypallagic" function, deriving from Greek homo=same and hypallage=substitution. He credited the idea for this name to Emmanuel G. Mesthene of the Rand Corporation. The name did not catch on.

Mukerji (1963) also tried to rename it the "SMAC function," using the initials of the four authors of Arrow et al. (1961) -- Solow, Minhas, Arrow, and Chenery -- but that too failed to catch on.

The CES function did not play a major role in international trade theory during the first decade or two after its introduction, perhaps because trade theorists had a proud tradition of deriving results without specifying functional forms. It came into its own, however, in the Dixit-Stiglitz function used by Krugman (1980) as central to incorporating monopolistic competition into the New Trade Theory. The innovation here was to make the number of products (varieties) variable.

Comparative advantage
Ruffin (2002) credits the concept of comparative advantage and the law of comparative advantage to Ricardo (1951-1973), in a discovery that Ruffin dates to early October 1816. The law was developed in Ricardo's celebrated chapter on foreign trade, while the term "comparative advantage" seems to have first appeared in a later chapter (Ricardo (1951-1973), Vol I, p. 263). In crediting Ricardo, Ruffin disagrees with Chipman (1965) who credits Torrens (1815). From what I see in this debate, Torrens deserves credit for first stating the possibility that a country will import a good in which it has an absolute advantage, even though he seems not to have recognized its importance, and he certainly did not work out the full conditions needed for this to happen, as Ricardo did.

Continuum of goods
The first to model trade with a continuum of goods were Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson (1977), who also use that term in their title. They cite an unpublished paper by Charles Wilson, also dated 1977, that further explores their model, but in the published version of that paper, Wilson (1980) credits them with having suggested this modification of traditional trade theory. This approach was admired but not used extensively by others until Eaton and Kortum (2002) replaced deterministic continuous functions for productivity with stochastic distributions in what is now the widely used EK Model.

Currency area
Mundell (1961, p. 657) spoke of "...defining a currency area as a domain within which exchange rates are fixed...". Perhaps because the exchange rates among separate national currencies are seldom if ever truly fixed, the term has come to mean a group of countries that share a common currency. Mundell also coined the term "optimum currency area" which is now more commonly expressed as optimal currency area.

Deadweight loss
This term for the efficiency costs of a tariff or other market imperfection was introduced to the literature by Samuelson (1952, p. 294):
    If the impediments consist of artificial tariffs whose revenues represent mere transfers of income, substitution effects are more heavily involved, the only income effects being the transfers between and within countries and the "deadweight loss" resulting from interferences with perfect competition.
My Google-Scholar search has failed to find the term before this, but Samuelson's failure to explain it further in this source suggests that he, at least, had been using the term for some time. He certainly continued to use it in subsequent writings. It appears in four more of his publications just between 1952 and 1960. In various of these he defines "deadweight" somewhat further as "theoretically avoidable" and "deadweight loss" as "inefficiency in the use of resources."

The latter appears in Samuelson (1960) in which he honors Harold Hotelling. Perhaps coincidentally, Hotelling (1938) is one of two sources that I came across that used "dead loss" to mean the efficiency loss due to a tax. This suggests to me that Samuelson may have introduced "deadweight loss" as an improvement over "dead loss," since the latter is used with other meanings in other contexts. Because of that, I've found it difficult to search for others who may have used "dead loss" with this particular economic meaning (more commonly it simply means an activity that is not successful). But I did happen across Bickerdike (1906) who used it precisely for the triangle of unrequited consumer loss due to an import tariff:

    It can be shown geometrically that the "loss" Aka comprises all the dead loss involved in the reduction of imports, including the waste of energy.
where Aka is the triangle under the demand curve over the decline in imports due to an increase in price.

Whatever may have motivated Samuelson, his use of the term certainly caught on. Whereas my search for the term prior to 1950 found nothing, and in 1951-1960 found only the several articles by Samuelson, in 1961-1970 it appeared 26 times, almost all by authors other than Samuelson and with his meaning.

There is less consensus on whether to render the term as 1) "deadweight loss," 2) "dead-weight loss," or 3) "dead weight loss." Samuelson himself, in Samuelson (1960), used both the first and the second on the same page (p. 24). A Google-Scholar search over 1970-2016 finds more than twice as many of the first (17,600) as of the second and third combined (7,580).

Depression, The Great Depression
Mendel (2009, an intern at the History News Network, reports that the term "depression" was being used for an economic downturn as early as US President James Monroe in 1819, referring to what has been called the Panic of 1819 and its bank failures and currency depreciation. Monroe also used the phrase great depression in his 1820 Fourth Annual Message. Other presidents after Monroe -- including Grant, Hayes, and Coolidge -- used the terms as well, prior to Herbert Hoover, who is often credited with introducing the term in preference to the more common "panic."

Although Hoover referred to the world has experiencing "a great depression," he did not give it the name "The Great Depression." That seems to have been coined by Robbins (1934).

Diversification cone
Dixit and Norman (1980, p. 52) attribute this to Lerner (1952) and McKenzie (1955). I see nothing in Lerner to justify this. McKenzie, however, makes considerable use of the concept in the form of a set of factor endowments within which factor price equalization occurs, though he does not give it a name. Since he projects factor requirements and factor endowments onto a simplex, his set appears as a triangle, though a cone is implicit. I do not yet know who may have preceded Dixit and Norman in using this term.

Dixit-Stiglitz utility
This refers unambiguously to the model of monopolistic competition introduced by Dixit and Stiglitz (1977) and to the similar model of Spence (1976) that leads this sometimes to be called Spence-Dixit-Stiglitz utility. What is less clear is exactly what is meant by either term. The term "Dixit-Stiglitz utility" did not appear in publication until 1987, when it then appeared more than once but with slightly varying meanings. The varying meanings have continued since then, but the commonality among them is
    U={Σinxiρ}1/ρ       0<ρ<1
with the interpretation that n, the number of products or varieties, is variable and that σ=1/(1-ρ)>1 is the elasticity of substitution among them. It is this interpretation of variable n that allows this function to display very simply a preference for variety. If x=xi, i=1,...,n, then U reduces to
    U=n(1-ρ)/ρ(nx)
so that an equal increase in n and fall in x (keeping Σx constant) increases U to the extent that ρ<1.

Dixit and Stiglitz (p. 298) start with a somewhat general form for utility, u=U(x0,V(x1,x2,x3,...)), where the range of products is left unspecified but greater than the number of products actually consumed, n. They then consider several special cases, the one usually adopted by others being a CES form for the function V: u=U(x0,{Σinxiρ}1/ρ). What is crucial and distinctive about either form is that the number of products (often called varieties) consumed, n, is variable.

Neary (2004) notes that later users of Dixit-Stiglitz utility combined three assumptions that Dixit and Stiglitz themselves mentioned but never used in combination: symmetry of V in xi, CES form for V, and Cobb-Douglas form for U. He therefore suggests that the following should be called "Dixit-Stiglitz lite":

    u = x0(1-μ)Vμ,       V={Σinxiρ}1/ρ

In fact later users have often omitted the numeraire good, x0, or replaced it with other goods. And the symmetric CES function with variable n has, by itself, come to be what is most commonly regarded as the Dixit-Stiglitz utility function, or sometimes the Dixit-Stiglitz subutility function. In that case the Dixit-Stiglitz utility function appears identical to the CES function, the only difference being the interpretation of n as variable.

The function has also been used frequently for production, with the xi as intermediate inputs, following Ethier (1982). The number of varieties is variable and contributes to the value of the function, which in this case is output. However, Ethier made the role of n in productivity explicit with a second parameter, and his production function was:

    M = nαin(xiρ/n)}1/ρ,       0<ρ<1, α>1
If α were equal to one, this function would not increase with a rise in n and an equal fall in a common x=xi, so α>1 is what generates Ethier's international returns to scale when the xi are traded. Ethier's function reduces to the Dixit-Stiglitz form when α=1/ρ>1, whose positive benefit from variety (greater n) is then directly related to the elasticity of substitution, σ=1/(1-ρ). Although most users of Dixit-Stiglitz utility have ignored this possibility of separating the benefits of variety from the elasticity of substitution, a few authors have followed Ethier's example, notably Benassy (1996) who was in turn followed by Acemoglu, Antras, and Helpman (2007).

Dumping, Anti-dumping
The word "dumping" began to be used in 1903 with essentially its current meaning of an unfairly low export price. Prior to 1903 the word was seldom used in the context of international trade (based on my Google Scholar search), and then primarily in combination with another word, such as "dumping ground" or "dumping field," in speaking of disposal of surplus product.

The term came into frequent use in 1903 in several books that were published in that year, such as Ashley (1903), and especially in the speeches of Joseph Chamberlain. In a speech on tariff reform in Liverpool on October 27, 1903, he defined dumping and stressed its harm to free-trade Britain:

    What is dumping? Dumping is the placing of the surplus of a home manufacture in a foreign country without reference to its original and normal cost. Dumping takes place when the country which adopts it has a production which is larger than its own demand. Not being able to dispose of its surplus at home, it dumps it somewhere else.
Chamberlain's remarks were in the context of what came to be called the Fiscal Question of how and whether to use tariffs to counter such behavior and to provide a tariff preference to members of the British Commonwealth who were being impacted by dumping from non-members.

Although the definition of dumping is today codified in the WTO and in national anti-dumping statutes, its definition has been subject to some dispute. Viner (1923) examined several alternative definitions and concluded in favor of "price discrimination between national markets" (p. 3). This deliberately included selling for different prices in different foreign markets and selling at home for a lower price than abroad. He called the latter practice "reverse dumping," and then had to identify the more common opposite practice as "export dumping." Finger (1993), who has argued that any industry can secure anti-dumping duties if there is political will, prefers to define dumping as "whatever you can get the government to act against under the antidumping law" (p. vii).

The first anti-dumping law was enacted in Canada in 1904, as part of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act of 1897, according to Ciuriak (2005). As reported there, the legislation made no use of the words "dumping" or "anti-dumping," and merely provided that imports should be subject to a "special duty of customs equal to the difference between such fair market value and such selling price."

The first use that I've found of "anti-dumping" was Shortt (1906), writing about the Canadian policy. That the term caught on may not be surprising, but note that the other WTO-permitted unfair trade policy, directed at subsidized exports, is called a countervailing duty, not an anti-subsidy duty.

DUP activity
Bhagwati (1982) introduced this acronym for directly unproductive profit-seeking activity. After listing a variety of activities that fit this description, including rent seeking, revenue seeking, and others, he said (p. 990), "Thus, these are aptly christened DUP activities."

Dutch disease
Term was coined by The Economist in an article "The Dutch Disease" in the issue of November 26, 1977, pp. 82-83, which included the passage "... in the words of Lord Kahn [1905-1989], 'when the flow of North Sea oil and gas begins to diminish, about the turn of the [21st] century, our island will become desolate.' Any disease which threatens that kind of apocalypse deserves close attention." The article attributes the problems of the Dutch economy (an external appearance of strength but internally high unemployment and a declining manufacturing sector) to "three causes, only one of them external." These are (1) a strong currency; (2) high industrial costs; and (3) use of government gas revenues to increase spending rather than investment. As used since, the term has been focused primarily on the real exchange rate. The term was used by Corden and Neary (1982), whose reference to it as "... sometimes referred to as the 'Dutch Disease'" suggested that it had passed into common usage.

Edgeworth-Bowley box
The origins of this were examined by Tarascio (1972). The diagram was first drawn by Pareto (1906), based originally, though only very partially, on a diagram of Edgeworth (1881). Edgeworth's diagram was not a box at all, and was drawn on axes more approptiate to an offer curve than to exchange of fixed quantities of goods or factors. Edgeworth's purpose was to define and depict the contract curve, which today we almost always draw within the box diagram.

Bowley's name was added to the name of the diagram as a result of Bowley (1924), who drew indifference curves for two individuals, one rotated clockwise 90 degrees and the other counterclockwise, thus forming the outline of a box, within which he showed Edgeworth's contract curve. That is probably why his name came to be associated with Edgeworth's. However, Bowley did not claim originality, and while he cited Edgeworth for the contract curve, he neither named nor attributed the box diagram. Indeed, in his own diagram showing exchange, his focus was on the internal portion and he did not extend the axes of his two indifference maps far enough to touch or cross, and therefore did not actually produce a box. And had he done so, his box would have been a mirror image of the one we normally draw today.

It was Pareto (1906), writing in Italian that was soon translated into French, who had actually been the first to draw and use the box diagram. It is unclear whether his contribution was known to Bowley and to others writing in English until later. His diagram, displaying indifference curves for two consumers, one drawn conventionally and one rotated 180 degrees, formed the box very much as we know it today, for exchange between consumers. With each consumer endowed with only one of the two goods, he showed a trade equilibrium as a common tangent to two indifference curves that were also tangent to a price line from the consumers' endowment point.

I have searched in Google Scholar for "Edgeworth box," "Edgeworth-Bowley box," "box diagram," and the joint appearance of "Edgeworth" and "box." The last of these gets many hits, of course, but none of them are about the Edgeworth box, until Stolper and Samuelson (1941). Their Figure 2, p. 67, had labor and capital on the axes and isoquants for two industries inside. Of this they said:

    This is done in Fig. 2 which consists of a modified box diagram long utilised by Edgeworth and Bowley in the study of consumers' behaviour.
Since this classic paper did not find its way into publication immediately (see Deardorff and Stern (1994)), it seems very likely that Saumuelson introduced his version and name of the box to his colleagues and students in the years before this. Whether he himself originated it or picked it up from others as an oral tradition, I do not know.

Based on all of this, it appears that the box applied to consumption, as well as the Edgeworth production box, have both often been called just the Edgeworth Box, even though Edgeworth never drew either. Calling it the Edgeworth-Bowley box is only slightly less erroneous, since Bowley's version of the box was incomplete and perhaps accidental.

Pareto was more deserving of having his name on the consumption version of the box diagram than either Edgeworth or Bowley. Stolper and Samuelson, if they needed further recognition, should share credit for the application to production that has played such a large role in international trade theory. And it seems likely that they, too, were the ones who led us to call it the Edgeworth or Edgeworth-Bowley box ever since.

Emerging market
According to The Economist (October 7, 2017), "The term was coined by Antoine van Agtmael in 1981 when he was working for the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a division of the World Bank." As explained there, he pitched the idea of a "Third World Equity Fund" -- which would give foreign investors easier access to stock markets in places like Brazil, India, and South Korea -- to a group of fund managers. Some were intrigued, but hated the name. "So Mr Agtmael spent the weekend dreaming up the term 'emerging markets', with which he hoped to evoke 'progress, uplift and dynamism.' That label proved wildly successful."

Flying Geese
The name Flying Geese Model or Paradigm derives from a graph of Akamatsu (1961), (but 1937 in Japanese) that resembles a formation of flying geese. The graph shows paths over time of a developing country's imports, production, and exports of a product, similar to the product cycle.

Fragmentation
As used to mean a splitting up of production processes, the term fragmentation was first introduced by Jones and Kierzkowski (1990), who start their analysis by noting (p. 31) that increasing returns and specialization encourage a growing firm to "switch to a production process with fragmented production blocks connected by service links.... Such fragmentation spills over to international markets." (Italics in original.) Many other terms have been used with the same, or related, meanings, as listed here, but "fragmentation" seems to have caught on most widely.

Gravity model
The gravity model of bilateral international trade flows first appeared independently in Tinbergen (1962) and Pöyhönen (1963), but neither used the word "gravity." Tinbergen's formulation was very similar to the formulation of the basic model used today:
    Eij = α0Yiα1Yjα2Dijα3
where Eij is exports from country i to country j, Yi,Yj are their national incomes, Dij is the distance between them, and α0...3 are constants. Pöyhönen's formulation differed from this slightly, including country-specific multipliers cicj and replacing Dij with (1+γDij).

Pöyhönen was member of the same Finnish research team as Pulliainen (1963) whose formulation was more like Tinbergen's. While he also does not call this a gravity model, he does mention the parallel: "The results of our empirical study show that the structure of international trade is capable of description in terms of gravitational theory." (p. 88).

This analogy to gravity was actually resisted by another early user of the model, Linnemann (1966). He followed the above authors in setting out an equation much like the above, with Y's replaced by "potential supply" and "potential demand" which he went on to explain interms of both GDP and population. But in his footnote 43 (pp. 34-35) he remarked, "Some authors emphasize the analogy with the gravitation law in physics, and try to establish that [α3=−2]. We fail to see any justification for this." And in the rest of his book the only mention of "gravity" regards the "centres of gravity" of the countries considered, used for defining distance between them.

The first to call this a gravity model seems to have been Waelbroeck (1965), which includes (p. 499) "Hypothesis 2: The gravity model: distance, export push, and import pull" and has the equations from the other three authors. Waelbroeck notes that "There is, as has been pointed out, an odd similarity between formulae (6) and (7) and the law of gravity, with Yi and Yj playing the role of masses, and this justifies christening the model as the gravity, or G, model." He does not say where it was "pointed out," but it seems likely that he was referring to Pulliainen (1963).

Predating all of this explicit application to bilateral trade between countries, however, the term "gravity model" was used in other social science contexts, and models of this form were used, under other names, in other applications. Bramhall and Isard (1960), in a chapter of a volume on regional science, discuss "gravity, potential, and spacial interaction models -- which for short we shall term gravity models." Similar to other earlier applications that do not seem to have used that name, they formulate the number of trips between areas with different populations using populations instead of GDPs.

Another later source, Glejser and Dramais (1969), cite gravity models as having been used for a long time in literatures on migration, tourism, and telephone calls as well as trade. In a series of papers starting with Zipf (1946), Zipf applied what he called "The P1P2/D Hypothesis" to inter-city movements of freight, persons, information, and perhaps more. Stewart (1947) included in his "Empirical Mathematical Rules Concerning the Distribution and Equilibrium of Population" a formula similar to gravity, but called it "potential." He also cited a much earlier author, Reilly (1929), who provided a "law of retail gravitation," but that was for explaining the market regions covered by cities of different sizes, not the transactions between them.

Great Moderation
This term, as applied to the moderating of economic fluctuations from the 1980s to 2007, seems first to have been used by Stock and Watson (2003). They used the word "moderation," not capitalized and without the adjective "great," throughout the paper, but the title of their section 3, p. 170, was "Dating the Great Moderation."

The term was picked up, and probably made much more visible, by Ben Bernanke in his Remarks at the meetings of the Eastern Economic Association in Washington, DC, February 20, 2004, while he was a member (but not yet Chair) of the Board of Governors of the Fed. See Bernanke (2004). He cites several authors as having documented the decline in volatility, the first being Kim and Nelson (1999) who cite McConnell and Perez-Quiros (2000), in a 1999 Fed working paper, as having documented the decline in a linear formulation rather than a structural shift. McConnell and Perez-Quiros, in turn, start their paper with "The business press is currently sprinkled with references to the 'death' or 'taming' of the business cycle in the United States." Neither of these papers use the term "Great Moderation," or even the word "moderation."

So it appears that the phenomenon represented by the Great Moderation was noted gradually over time and then documented by a number of scholars. The name for it as well as one of the more rigorous documentations of it were by Stock and Watson (2003).

Grexit
This term first appeared in print in Buiter and Rahbari (2012). DeTraci Regula, in an undated posting on About.com, suggests that the term was coined by the second author, Citigroup's Ebrahim Rahbari. She also points out the prior existence of GrexIt.com, an e-mail storage and organizing tool. I'm told by someone who worked in the EU prior to 2012 that the term was in use there as early as 2010.

Harberger triangle
As a theoretical construction for measuring welfare costs due to market distortions, this idea goes back to Dupuit (1844) and independently to Jenkin (1871-72). Dupuit, pp. 280-282 in the 1969 reprint, very clearly explains how to infer utility from the area to the left of his demand curve (which has price on the horizontal axis), then uses that to derive the triangle of net loss from a tax in his Figure 3. Jenkin, p. 113, provides a supply and demand diagram much as we would use today (albeit with the axes reversed and with curves, not straight lines) and also the incidence and welfare effects of a tax. He clearly identifies what we would today call the excess burdens of the tax on suppliers and demanders, using the familiar (curvilinear) triangles: "This excess of loss is represented by the area CC"D for the sellers, and C'C"D for the buyers."

Hines (1999) provides a good review of this history. Although several others had used this tool, Arnold Harberger made repeated use of it especially in Harberger (1954) applied to monopolies, in Harberger (1964a) applied to an excise tax, and in Harberger (1964b) applied to other distortions.

Although Chase (1964) referred twice to "Harberger's triangle," he did so in an edited volume where he was summarizing another of Harberger's papers that appeared there. The term "Harberger triagle" then did not appear in print, that I can find, until 1976, even though several authors cited Harberger's papers and his method. In 1976, Bruno and Habib (1976) included

    An alternative would be to use Harberger's (1964) measure based on the notion of the excess burden. If, in fact, in the above model we were to measure the area of the 'Harberger triangle' (ΔS) under the supply curve between L1 and L0, we would get ....
In the same year, Ippolito (1976) began his discussion with
    It is commonly alleged that the welfare costs of monopoly are the "Harberger triangles" generated by price-cost ratios that exceed unity [1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10], but this approach has been recently challenged by Tullock [9].
Both authors' use of quotation marks on the term suggests that it was not yet commonly used. One might have thought that some of the seven references cited by Ippolito would have used the term, but that was not the case. I therefore date the term to 1976.

Harberger triangles in trade
Harberger himself first used his triangles to measure the costs of monopoly, and later for taxes and other market distortions. He did not apply it to tariffs or other distortions of international trade. The first I have found to do that was Johnson (1958, p. 252). Without citing any prior authors at all, so I cannot tell whether he thought this was new, he used data on trade and tariffs to calculate the benefits to the UK of moving to free trade with Europe:

    It will be approximately equal to the change in the value of imports from the Free Trade Area, multiplied by half the tariff rate previously levied. ... This is motivated in the usual way from change in consumer surplus and tariff revenue.
Johnson did not, of course, call this a Harberger triangle. Even after 1976 when the term became common as applied to domestic distortions, it was not applied to the costs of trade barriers until around 1990. Tullock (1989, p. 26) notes a "Harberger triangle" in his diagram for a trade restriction. Williamson (1990) used it to quantify the losses due to Britain's corn laws and remarked (p. 138) "Like most Harberger Triangle calculations, this figure is very small...." Around the same time, Vousden (1991) made extensive use of the tool in his treatment of protection, with "Harberger triangle" appearing in his index in five places throughout the book. I have found increasing use of the term since then in applications to tariffs and other trade barriers.

For some reason, however, trade economists have tended to prefer the term deadweight loss to identify the costs measured by Harberger triangles in the tariff context.

Hirschman index
This index of trade concentration first appeared in Hirschman (1945). Michaely (1958) misunderstood it as being identical to the Gini coefficient and called it that in his application to exports, while acknowledging that Hirschman had also used it for that purpose. In fact Hirschman's formula, H=sqrt[Σ(xi/x)2], is not the same as the Gini coefficient. As Hirschman (1964) pointed out, his formula reflects not just unequal distribution but also fewness, its value rising the smaller is the number of goods in the summation. I have calculated both measures in a spreadsheet and can confirm that they do indeed yield different values and that the Hirschman index does indeed fall as the number of goods rises, while the Gini coefficient does not. In spite of this, several others followed Michaely in calling it the Gini coefficient or Gini index, until Hirschman published his correction in 1964.

Hirschman (1964) also pointed out that his index differed from what had come to be called the Herfindahl index of industrial concentration only by Hirschman's inclusion of the square root. Herfindahl had introduced his index in Herfindahl (1950). In spite of the fact that Herfindahl himself acknowledged Hirschman's prior contribution, his index was named the Herfindahl Index by Rosenbluth (1955) and the name stuck, even though Rosenbluth later tried to correct the error. Today (February 2016), the Herfindahl index is said by Wikipedia to be "also known as Herfindahl-Hirschman index." A Google search for "Herfindahl-Hirschman index" get "about 96,700 results" while a search for "Herfindahl index" gets "about 144,000".

As for the Hirschman index itself and its use for quantifying concentration of trade, it is difficult to search for it without the Herfindahl, but I was able to find a few sources that use it. For example, Ng (2002), p. 587 says "The related measure used by UNCTAD is the concentration index, or Hirschman index (H)" and then provides the formula above.

Holy Trinity, Inconsistent Trinity, Impossible Trinity, and Trilemma
These four terms – and probably more that I haven’t seen yet – have each been used in the literature of international finance to mean the impossibility, or at least the difficulty, of achieving the following three aims simultaneously: exchange rate stability, monetary independence, and perfect capital mobility.

The first to be used for something like this was "trilemma," which I only learned about belately. Maury Obstfeld directed me to a passage in Irwin (2012) who had been alerted by Russell Boyer to an early draft of Friedman (1953). It, in a passage not included in the published version, said that the macroeconomic dilemma

    has become a trilemma: fixed exchange rates, stable internal prices, unrestricted multilateral trade; of this trio, any pair is attainable; all three are not simultaneously attainable.
While Friedman's threesome is not quite the same as today's trilemma, the economics of it are similar. The term itself then disappeared from view for several decades, to re-emerge later as perhaps the most frequent of the four.

The term, “holy trinity,” was used with this meaning, but perhaps only once, as it mostly had other meanings even within international macroeconomics. The second, “inconsistent trinity,” appears to have been the first to be used more than once in published work, in response to the monetary crisis of 1971. The third, “impossible trinity,” and especially the fourth, “trilemma,” have been used with this meaning a great deal in recent years. I will deal with each in turn.

Holy Trinity
There are two threesomes within the literature of international finance that have sometimes been referred to by the term “Holy Trinity.” One threesome concerns the attributes that are needed for a stable international financial system:

    Attributes:
    • Adjustment
    • Liquidity
    • Confidence

The second threesome concerns the policy arrangements that may be used to achieve one or more of these attributes:

    Policies:
    • Exchange-rate stability
    • Monetary independence
    • Perfect capital mobility

The earliest use that I have found for “Holy Trinity” in the context of international monetary economics is a doctoral thesis, Høiberg-Nielsen (1983). This included (p. 116-117),

    The aim of the present chapter is then to analyze, somewhat critically, the concepts of adjustment and liquidity in an international monetary system. These two concepts [adjustment and liquidity] were together with confidence, what we might call “the holy trinity” in the debate in the late 60’s on international monetary reform.
Høiberg-Nielsen thus used “Holy Trinity” for the threesome of attributes, which may be related to, but is surely not the same as, the threesome of policies. It seems a bit unlikely that a term coined in a doctoral thesis would have gained wider acceptance, but I have so far been unable to find it in any earlier writings.

The term “Holy Trinity” is of course widely used in a religious context, and also in many other contexts where a threesome is thought to be especially important. In economics, for example, Machlup (1965) and at least one other used it for the “objectives of a stable price level, full employment, and a faster growth rate.” My search for the term in Google Scholar is hindered by its wide use in other contexts. But I have looked for it, as well as the other terms considered here, in some of the more widely cited works of both Mundell and Fleming, and I failed to find it.

My expectation that I would find it in Mundell was prompted by Rose (1994) who said (p. 1) “This paper is concerned with the compatibility of: fixed exchange rates; independent monetary policies; and perfect capital mobility, Mundell’s ‘Holy Trinity’.” Note though that Rose uses “Holy Trinity” for the problematic threesome of policies, not the threesome of attributes. I have yet to find any earlier source for this interpretation.

On the contrary, I find Eichengreen (1993, p. 621) saying, “In the 1960s and 1970s, most of the literature on the Bretton Woods system was organized around the “holy trinity” of adjustment, liquidity, and confidence.” One might have expected Rose and Eichengreen to agree on the use of the term, since they were both at Berkeley, but apparently they did not. Eichengreen cites Mundell (1969), which does include a section headed “Liquidity, Adjustment, and Confidence,” but Mundell does not mention any “trinity,” at least in that source.

Inconsistent Trinity
The earliest use of any “trinity” to refer to the threesome of policies was Wallich (1972). In a section headed Inconsistent Trinity, he wrote (pp. 6-7):

    This sequence of events dramatically illustrates a fact well known to economists but never recognized in our institutional arrangements or avowed principles of national policy: fixed exchange rates, free capital movements, and independent national monetary policies are inconsistent. In certain situations, such as those of 1969-1971, one of the three has to give. A country can have any two of the trinity.

Given his prominence – Wallich had been a member of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisors and was later a governor of the Federal Research Board – I’m not surprised that his use of the word “trinity” for this threesome led others to use it, even if some may have also called the trinity “holy.”

Impossible Trinity
The origin of “Impossible Trinity” is easier to find, if not necessarily its meaning. Reisen (1993) published “The Impossible Trinity in South-East Asia,” in International Economic Insights. Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the paper itself, and therefore I cannot say with certainty how he used the term. What I do have is the comment by Rose (1994, p. 26): “Reisen (1993) believes that the Holy Trinity (which he refers to as the “Impossible Trinity”) has been possible in South-East Asia.” Assuming that Rose’s interpretation of Holy Trinity is also Reisen’s interpretation of “Impossible Trinity,” we have the latter as clearly meaning the trio of policies.

That the “Impossible Trinity” is the policy threesome is confirmed by Frankel (1994), who cites Reisen, and also by Borensztein and Ostry (1994) who do not. So at least until I can confirm from the source that Reisen used the term for the policy threesome, I am comfortable attributing it to him for its current use. Since his own publication seems to be a bit obscure, I am inclined to credit others, such as Rose and Frankel, for the term’s popularity.

Trilemma
It seems that the most common term in today’s literature for the difficulty of the threesome of policies is “trilemma.” That word has meaning in standard English for any three objectives that are difficult to achieve together because any two preclude the third. And the word has been used a great deal in contexts other than international finance, making it – again – hard to identify its first use in international finance for the policy threesome considered here.

My own search failed to find it before 1997, but again Maury Obstfeld alerted me to his paper Obstfeld (2020) where he cites columns by Friedman both in Newsweek, Friedman (1979), and in The Economist, Friedman (1983), that used the term. It was unclear in the first of these that this was the same trilemma discussed here, but in the second it was very clear indeed:

    ...forced those of us who have written on this subject more recently to expand Keynes’s dilemma to a trilemma. A country is compelled to choose two of the following three desirable objectives: stable prices (or, more generally, an independent monetary policy), a stable exchange rate (or, more generally, a predetermined path of exchange rates), freedom from exchange controls.

I found "trilemma" first in scholarly published work with its clear current meaning by Obstfeld and Taylor (1997). They say (p. 2):

    Secular movements in the scope for international lending and borrowing may be understood, we shall argue, in terms of a fundamental macroeconomic policy trilemma that all national policymakers face: the chosen macroeconomic policy regime can include at most two elements of the "inconsistent trinity" of (i) full freedom of cross-border capital movements, (ii) a fixed exchange rate, and (iii) an independent monetary policy oriented toward domestic objectives.
Their wording and italics, together with the absence of any citation to someone else, suggest to me that they thought they were introducing the term (though as noted above, Obstfeld later learned of its use by Friedman). Combined with my own failure to find any prior use of the term with this meaning, I credit Obstfeld and Taylor for its modern use, at least in scholarly writing.

To sum up, based on the sources that I have learned of, the four terms were introduced into the scholarly literature of international finance, with the current meaning of the threesome of policies above, by the following:

Inconsistent Trinity: Wallich (1972)
Holy Trinity: Høiberg-Nielsen (1983)
Impossible Trinity: Reisen (1993)
Trilemma: Friedman (1983)
Obstfeld & Taylor (1997).

Home market effect
This effect was both introduced and named by Krugman (1980), so there is not much more to say. However, Krugman spoke on p. 955 of "'Home Market' Effects," plural, suggesting that there may be more than one. The two effects that he demonstrated were the following:

First, in a model with increasing returns to scale (IRS), p. 957;

    This gives us our first result on the effect of the home market. It says that if the two countries have sufficiently dissimilar tastes each will specialize in the industry for which it has the larger home market.
Then, under "very special assumptions and on the analysis of special cases," p. 958:
    Nonetheless, the analysis does seem to confirm the idea that, in the presence of increasing returns, countries will tend to export the goods for which they have large domestic markets.
These, to me, seem to be two sides of the same coin, predicting across countries which will export in an IRS industry, and across industries, which a given country will export.

It is worth noting also, as Krugman did in his final sentence, that these results were anticipated by Linder (1961) and by Grubel (1970).

Linder did stress the importance of the demand in the home market in order for a country's industry to succeed and export (p. 17): "...a country cannot achieve a comparative advantage in the production of a good which is not demanded on the home market." But rather than stressing IRS, he viewed production functions as differing across countries in response to differences in demand (p. 90): "... the production functions of goods demanded at home are the relatively most advantageous ones." And Linder never spoke of a "home market effect."

Grubel, in a larger discussion of intra-industry trade, considered products differentiated by quality, with low-quality goods demanded more by low income consumers. Allowing then for IRS as well as differences in the distribution of income across countries, he noted that a country with a preponderance of low-income consumers would "specialize in the production of the low price and low quality model, supplying its own population and exporting to meet the demands of [the other country's] population with below average income."

Hub and spoke integration
Once countries began to enter free trade agreements with multiple other countries that did not have FTAs among themselves, it may have been inevitable that this arrangement would come to be called hub-and-spoke integration. The first use of "hub-and-spoke" in this context that I have identified was Wonnacott (1990), which included it in the title. The paper itself is no longer available, at least that I can find. I therefore don't know whether Wonnacott merefly used the term to describe these arrangements, or went beyond that to formulate an economic model of this sort of integration.

Such a model was certainly provided by Puga and Venables (1995) who also included "hub-and-spoke integration" as a keyword for their paper. They also cited Baldwin (1994) as discussing such arrangements, although again, as I have so far been unable to access Balwin's book, I don't know whether he even used the term or provided a model. Baldwin is cited by one author, Stawarska (1998), as "the author of the hub and spoke integration model."

Ideal price index
There are two widely used things that are routinely given the name "ideal price index." The oldest is the square root of the product of the Paasche and Laspeyre price indexes:

where p0, q0 and p1, q1 are vectors of prices and quantities of multiple goods at times (or locations, etc.) 0 and 1 respectively. Index provides a measure of an average change in prices between situations 0 and 1 that, by lying between Paasche and Laspeyre, seeks to avoid their downward and upward biases, respectively.

The second item that has come to be called an "ideal price index" is what can be derived from an explicit utility or production function as the minimum cost, given the set of individual prices of goods or inputs, of a unit of utility or output. The specific formula therefore depends on the utility or production function chosen, but most commonly in recent years these have been assumed to be CES, often with a variable number of arguments as in the Dixit-Stiglitz function.

The arguments of this function can be countable, but most often today they are taken to be in an uncountable set, over which both objective function and ideal price index are integrals. For example, using the notation of Bergstrand et al. (2019), let utility in situation i (year, country, etc.) be

where qi(ν) is the quantity demanded in situation i of variety ν, Ωi is the set of varieties available for consumption in situation i, and σ >1 is the (constant) elasticity of substitution between varieties. Then the "ideal price index" for prices pi(ν) in situation i is
This is particularly convenient, as the same analysis implies the following demands for the goods:
where Ei is total expenditure. Thus, the quantity demanded of variety ν depends inversely on its price relative to expenditure and also inversely (since σ >1) on its price relative to Pricei.

The term "ideal price index" has been used for objective functions ranging from Cobb-Douglas, through 2-good and n-good CES, to functions like this with additional arguments for other categories of goods. So unlike Index above, there is no single agreed-upon formula for this version of the "ideal price index."

Interestingly, this second version, despite its name, is not really an "index" at all in the usual sense. Indexes are needed when a simple average would not be meaningful, as when averaging across items with different units of measurement. Thus the initial Index above in necessarily a ratio, comparing prices across two situations. Neither numerators nor denominators within the expression have any meaning by themselves, but only in relation to their counterparts. In contrast, Pricei is defined for just the single situation i. If the objective function is a production function, then it is the minimum cost of a unit of output, which is well understood. But if it is a utility function, then it is the cost of a unit of utility, which has never been intended to have meaning by itself.

Therefore, what is today routinely called an "ideal price index" only becomes an actual price index when used in a ratio, such as (Pricei / Pricej), comparing prices in two different situations. It should be noted, too, that even this ratio will only be meaningful if the utility or production functions from which Pricei and Pricej are derived are linearly homogeneous and therefore, for utility, homothetic.

Now where did all this come from? For the older Index, that is fairly easy. It was Fisher (1922) who suggested and named it, though the formula itself had been suggested much earlier by Bowley (1899). Bowley called it (p. 641) “The best method theoretically for measuring "aisance relative." Aisance in French apparently means ease or affluence. For decades after Fisher named it, the square-root formula has been used and usually referred to as the "Fisher ideal price index."

The first effort I have seen to try to do better than Fisher by deriving a measure of prices from an objective function was Samuelson and Swamy (1974). They continued to use the term "ideal price index" but only for Fisher’s formula, not for their own. To improve on this, they defined by a price index and a quantity index from general objective functions, and showed them to be dual to one another.

Samuelson and Swamy do not call their own indexes "ideal." Recognizing instead their dependence on scale or income, they say (p. 568)

    We cannot hope for one ideal formula for the index number: if it works for the tastes of Jack Spratt, it won't work for his wife's tastes.
Their "quantity index" is, for consumers, really a utility function, and the duality with the price index captures exactly what was indicated above, that it is a minimum cost function. Rather than call it "ideal," they use several other terms for their price index (which as already noted is not really an index, a fact that they note), including "exact," "invariant canonical," and "true."

Most often cited by those who use things like Pricei above are Sato (1976) and Vartia (1976), whose Sato-Vartia weights allow them to give appropriate weights to different prices. Both Sato and Vartia did call their indexes "ideal," but as "ideal log-change index numbers" and, in the case of Sato, an "ideal log-change price index." Neither spoke of an "ideal price index" without the "log-change" qualification. Vartia referenced a 1975 discussion paper by Diewert that also deals with "ideal log-change index numbers." Diewert (1978) later examined several alternative price indexes, including what he called the Vartia index, but he used the word "ideal" only for the Fisher index. And in later work he showed that the Fisher index would be what he called "exact," for a unit cost function that is quadratic. His "exact" seems to be what is now called "ideal," in that it can be derived from a specified objective function.

Considering the role of the Pricei form of the "ideal price index" in measuring the importance of variety for welfare, one might have expected it to have been derived by Dixit and Stiglitz (1977). They did indeed derive it (for a sum of varieties, not an integral), and they called it a "price index," but they did not call it "ideal."

It is only in 1985 that I find sources using the term "ideal price index" with the meaning of Pricei. Both Obstfeld (1985) and Jagannathan (1985) use the term and attribute the idea to Samuelson and Swamy (1974), even though neither those authors -- nor any since that I can find -- had used the term in print. From the published record, I cannot infer who among all these authors and others may have begun using the term in conversation.

The term has certainly caught on in recent years, but interestingly it was not used in two of the most influential papers that used the concept itself. Feenstra (1994) and Broda and Weinstein (2006) -- both known for using it to quantify the benefits from increased variety due to international trade -- used the index but not its name. Feenstra (p. 158) spoke of an "exact price index for the CES unit-cost function." Broda and Weinstein followed Feenstra in calling it the "exact price index," and used "ideal price index" only for the Fisher formula.

Well before Broda and Weinstein (2006), however, I find numerous uses of "ideal price index" to mean something like Pricei, and I find even a few before Feenstra (1994) such as Obstfeld (1985) and Jagannathan (1985) mentioned above. By now the term seems to have become far too standard for most authors to mention any source or sometimes even to explain it. As just one example, I went through the 37 appearances of "ideal price index" found by Google Scholar for the year 2003, and eleven of them were a variant of Pricei. I have not done the same for very recent years, as the term is now used more than 100 times each year, still often with the qualification "Fisher," but also often without and presumably something like Pricei.

Immiserizing growth
The term "immiserizing growth" was used by Bhagwati (1958) and it seems unlikely that anyone used it before him, since he seems to have coined the word "immiserizing."

As for the concept, Bhagwati credits Johnson (1953, 1955) with identifying a form of immiserizing growth and also with working out the conditions for Bhagwati's form of it in an unpublished note. Long before both of them, Edgeworth (1894, p. 39-40) had shown, though only by example, that increased production of exports could so reduce their relative price that the country would lose or, as Edgeworth put it, be "damnified by the improvement." Perhaps he should have called it "damnifying growth."

Edgeworth in turn credits Mill (1821) with noting the possible worsening of the terms of trade, though Mill apparently incorrectly equated this worsening with a necessary decline in welfare. (I have not read Mill and am taking Edgeworth's word for this.)

Infant industry protection
Several sources cite Alexander Hamilton (1791) as the first to argue in favor of tariffs to protect infant industries, on the grounds that their costs are initially so high that they will only be able to compete if protected, and that they will then be able to reduce their costs sufficiently to prosper without assistance. Hamilton's purpose was indeed to argue both for the importance of manufactures and for the need to use policy to promote manufactures. However, in parts of this document he states a clear preference for using "bounties" -- i.e., subsidies -- for this purpose: "...they are, in some cases particularly in the infancy of new enterprises, indispensable." (p. 280) Elsewhere, speaking specifically of encouraging production of iron, he favors a tariff: "The only further encouragement of manufactories of this article ... seems to be an increase of the duties on foreign rival commodities."

Some have also cited Say (1803) as an early advocate of infant industry protection. I have searched the document and do not find the basis for this. There is a discussion of reasons for using tariffs (mostly called "duties"), but none seems to capture the infant industry reasoning.

Most cite List (1841), writing in German, as providing the first explicit case for infant industry protection, and this seems right. In Chapter 12 of the 1909 translation by Sampson S. Lloyd, he says:

    It is true that protective duties at first increase the price of manufactured goods; but it is just as true, and moreover acknowledged by the prevailing economical school, that in the course of time, by the nation being enabled to build up a completely developed manufacturing power of its own, those goods are produced more cheaply at home than the price at which they can be imported from foreign parts.
It may be that List was taking this argument from "the prevailing economical school," but more likely he was just applying the insights from that literature to trade policy.

It was Mill (1848) who made the case first in English:

    The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. .... A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire, may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field. .... But it cannot be expected that individuals should, at their own risk, or rather to their certain loss, introduce a new manufacture, and bear the burthen of carrying it on until the producers have been educated up to the level of those with whom the processes are traditional. A protecting duty, continued for a reasonable time, will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment.
Mill apparently had some second thoughts about this case, as he changed "will" in the last sentence to "might" in his 7th edition. And an editor quotes him from a letter in 1869 saying
    Even on this point I continue to think my opinion was well grounded, but experience has shown that protectionism, once introduced, is in danger of perpetuating itself... and I therefore now prefer some other mode of public aid to new industries, though in itself less appropriate.
Nonetheless, Mill has continued to be the major figure cited as making the case for infant industry protection.

The term "infant industry protection"
Neither Mill nor any of the earlier authors used the term "infant industry protection," but instead spoke in various ways of firms and industries that were newly established. Hamilton spoke only once of an "infant manufacture" and List only once of "infant manufactures." The earliest mention I have found of anything like "infant industry protection" was an anonymous piece in the October 1854 issue of The North American Review, apparently stating the views of this journal with regard to protection. On page 479 appears the following:

    But the necessities and the requisite independence of a new people rising into greatness in a new world, inexorably demanded protection for its infant industry, and the aid of government in support of the various arts and manufactures during the period of their weakness and immaturity.
This did not specify the form of that protection, and went on to say that "the aid they sought from the government was designed to be only temporary."

I find no further occurrences of the phrase "infant industry" until the period 1880-1885. Taussig (1883) made the case for what he only called "young industries," but I found four other authors, around the same time, referring positively or negatively to protection of "infant industries." Sumner (1985), for example, in his Chapter V on "Sundry Fallacies of Protectionism," lists his first as "That infant industries can be nourished up to independence and that they then become productive." The idea, together with the association with infant rather than young, new, or immature industries had become the standard term. Ely (1888), in a collection of articles originally written for the Baltimore Sun, devoted a chapter to "The Infant Industry Theory of Protectionism Further Considered."

The conditions for "infant industry protection"
Also associated with infant industry protection are two "tests" to be satisfied in order for protection to be justified. These were identified and named by
Kemp (1960) as the Mill Test and the Bastable Test. Mill's test was that the protection be temporary, as Mill (1848) added in his 7th edition:

    ...protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will after a time be able to dispense with it; nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond the time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing.
Bastable's test was that the benefit from protection must exceed its cost, or as stated by Kemp, p. 65, "It is necessary, further, that the ultimate saving in costs should compensate the community for the high costs of the protected learning period." Bastable (1899, p. 135) himself stated both conditions:
    The onus of proof rests with those who advocate their employment, and they are bound to show (1) that the industry to be favoured will after a time be self-supporting, and (2) that the ultimate advantage will exceed the losses incurred during the process.

Intermestic
I could have simply said due to Manning (1977) in the glossary entry for this word, but I can't resist quoting the passage where the author coined the term:
    These new issues are thus simultaneously, profoundly and inseparably both domestic and international. If I may be permitted a coinage whose very cacophony may help provide emphasis-these issues are "intermestic."
The term seems to have caught on, as it is found over 60,000 times by Google, almost 3,000 times by Google Scholar, and a substantial number of times in Google NGrams, though the use peaked before 2000.

J-Curve
Magee (1973) seems to have been the first to do careful theoretical analysis of this phenomenon of the trade balance first worsening before it improves after a devaluation. But he was certainly not the first to use the term, as he cited a passage from the 1972 Wall Street Journal describing "what economists call a J-curve" in reference especially to the aftermath of the devaluation of the British pound in 1967.

A search through Google Scholar finds the term "J-curve" used frequently in other contexts, but the first use of the term applied to effects of a currency devaluation seems to have been at a 1971 conference (the proceedings of which I have not yet seen) and by Posner (1972). Both of these use the term as though it is already familiar, so I suspect that it had entered common use before this in the economic press.

Kaldor-Hicks criterion
Kaldor (1939) was the first to state this criterion, but he was followed in the next issue of the same journal by Hicks (1939) who built on Kaldor and developed the idea more fully. One could easily, based on reading Kaldor and the fact that Hicks did not claim to have had the idea himself, conclude that this should be called simply the "Kaldor criterion." Several authors in the next few years did attribute it solely to Kaldor. Most notable was Scitovszky (1941), who pointed out that the "principle enunciated in Mr. Kaldor's first-quoted article" (p. 77, footnote 1) could in certain cases justify both a policy change and its reversal.

It was Little (1949a, 1949b) who first called it the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. In 1949a, he credited Hicks with going beyond Kaldor by explicitly using it as a criterion for an increase in welfare, and then, throughout the last half of the paper, called it the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. Later the same year Little (1949b) addressed Scitovszky's criticism, and used that terminology throughout.

Lerner diagram
The Lerner Diagram was first drawn by Lerner in an unpublished seminar paper (a "term paper" according to his teacher Lionel Robbins) in 1933. He used unit-value isoquants together with unit isocost lines to show the relationship between goods prices and factor prices in the H-O model. That paper was reproduced, "as it was originally written" according to the journal editor, as Lerner (1952). It appears that Findlay and Grubert (1959) were the first to make extensive use of the diagram, attributing it as "a diagram introduced by Mr. A. P. Lerner in his brilliant paper on factor price equalization in international trade." They did not happen to christen it the "Lerner diagram," however, and the first use of this (based on a Google Scholar search) was by Findlay (1971).

Some (including myself, until I learned better) have called it the Lerner-Pearce diagram, giving credit also to Pearce (1952). Bierwag (1964), in footnote 2, p. 57, says "This diagram is often called the Lerner-Pearce diagram..." citing Lerner (1952) and the Pearce's comment in the same issue of the the journal, and says "it has been widely used in international trade theory." That may be, but he cites only Findlay and Grubert (1959) plus the preface to the Japanese edition of Harry Johnson's International Trade and Economic Growth, which I have not attempted to find.

In fact, although Pearce (1952) was debating Lerner regarding the likelihood of factor price equalization, he used unit isoquants, not unit-value isoquants, for the purpose. Since these do not align in equilibrium with a single unit isocost line, they cannot be used in the same way, and they do not achieve the essential simplicity of Lerner's construction. Pearce did use the diagram with unit-value isoquants in his comment on Lerner (1952), but there he wass clearly following Lerner.

Level playing field
This term in a general context means subjecting all participants in an activity to the same rules. Exactly how that came to be seen as leveling a field is not at all clear. In sports, a tilted playing field may well advantage one team or the other, but by changing direction at half-time, that advantage can be made even.

In the context of economics, I find the level playing field mentioned first for banking, and for financial markets more generally, as these were deregulated around 1980. As regulations were relaxed for some financial institutions, other institutions sought similar relaxation for themselves. These concerns extended especially to international financial markets, where differences in national regulations put some countries' firms at a disadvantage.

I find no use of the term "level playing field" in the context of international trade until 1982, when Bergsten and Cline (1982) cite Cline as noting that as comparative advantages become small due to growing similarity of factor endowments and technologies, differences in government policies and regulations become increasingly important in determining trade. They then say (p. 24):

    Under these conditions trade performance becomes less a matter of inherent comparative advantage and more one of determination by the type of strategic behavior associated with imperfectly competitive markets. A "level playing field," with international rules of behavior, becomes especially important where comparative advantage is arbitrary.
The following year, at least three more authors used the term with similar meaning. I won't quote them all here, except to note that Reich (1983), who later became Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, suggested the following (p. 788):
    Or we could simply match other nations' barriers and subsidies (and expect them to match our own) in an attempt to create a "level playing field" for free trade.

Marshall-Lerner condition
The condition was first stated in words by Marshall (1923) as characteristic of two offer curves that intersect in an unstable equilibrium, which he showed in his Fig. 20, p. 353 (appearing here as point E in Figs in the case Both Very Inelastic):
    For they assume the total elasticity of demand of each country to be less than unity, and on average to be less than one half, throughout a large part of its schedule. Nothing approaching this has ever occurred in the real world: it is not inconceivable, but it is absolutely impossible. [p. 354, bold italics added]
Although first published in 1923, the opening footnote to Appendix J in which it appears explains that Marshall had done much of the work between 1869 and 1873, with "somewhat later dates" for "attempts to assign definite measures" and was privately printed and circulated in 1879. So this first statement of the M-L condition dates back at least that far, perhaps half a century before its formal publication.

The next appearance of the condition was twenty years later still, in Lerner (1944). The context was very different from that of Marshall, as Lerner was not looking at the market for international exchange. Rather, his purpose was to determine whether a mechanism for maintaining full employment through the gold standard would be stable. The mechanism would start with a fall in the price level due to the outflow of gold associated with a negative trade balance. To be successful, that fall in price level would need to reduce the trade deficit, thus increasing aggregate demand. But then, "There are other circumstances that render the automatic maintenance of full employment still more precarious." His reason was that the direct effect of a fall in prices is to decrease the value of a given quantity of exports, not increase it, and this then needs to be offset by sufficient increase in export quantity and/or decrease in import quantity in order to cause net exports to rise. For this to be true, he says,

    The critical point is where the sum of the elasticity of demand for imports plus the elasticity of demand for exports is equal to unity.
This then, in words, was precisely the statement that has come down to us as the Marshall-Lerner condition. He also points out that a fall in the value of the currency would serve the purpose no better, as it would be subject to exactly the same result for the same reason. This latter interpretation, separated from the concern with employment, captures what is probably the most familiar statement of what the condition is about: the condition for a devaluation to improve the balance of trade.

A number of authors have chosen to name the condition after Robinson as well as Marshall and Lerner, presumably on the grounds that Robinson (1937) preceded Lerner in examining the same question of a devaluation and the balance of trade. Indeed, she did it more formally in a mathematical footnote that derived the change in the trade balance as

    k{Eq[εf(1h)/(εf+ηh)] − Ip[ηf(1−εh)/(ηf+εh)]}
where k is the percentage devaluation, Eq and Ip are the values of exports and imports, εf and ηh are the elasticities of demand and supply respectively for exports, and εh and ηf the elasticities for imports. Setting this to be greater than zero is not, of course, what we know as the Marshall-Lerner condition. It is not hard to get that condition from it, however: simply set the trade balance to zero (Eq=Ip) and take the limit as both supply elasticities (ηh and ηf) go to infinity. The above result becomes kEq(εf+εh−1), which will be positive if
    εf+εh > 1
Perhaps Robinson knew this and didn't think it worth mentioning, since the two conditions needed for its validity are quite restrictive, especially the assumption of zero trade balance which removes any need to reduce it by devaluation. In any case, in her second edition of the same work, Robinson (1947), she cited Lerner (1944) and stated the familiar result.

There is one other source that might have been expected to reach the result before Lerner (1944): Machlup (1939-40), who dealt in great detail with "The Theory of Foreign Exchanges." He applied supply-and-demand analysis to the exchange of currencies, and he noted that the supply curve for foreign exchange could be backward bending, changing some of market's comparative static implications. However, he did not mention that if both demands were sufficiently inelastic, then the equilibrium would be unstable. Therefore he did not find his way to the third familiar implication of the Marshall-Lerner condition: the stability of the market for foreign exchange.

From all of this, the name "Marshall-Lerner condition" seems appropriate, since both of those authors stated the condition, independently and in different contexts, and no other author seems to have done so.

Who gave it the name? Searching the literature around this time, I find Polak (1947) citing the condition, but only as "the well-known formula." Likewise Haberler (1949) presents the condition and includes the following:

    This condition is usually expressed in terms of elasticities of demand for imports and of demand for exports. It is now often referred to as the "Lerner condition", although it has been mentioned by Marshall and formulated with even greater precision later by Mrs. Robinson.
However, the first I have found to call it the Marshall-Lerner condition was Hirschman (1949). His purpose was to show that the condition is actually incorrect for determining the effect of a devaluation on a non-zero trade balance (as was implicit in Robinson (1937)), and he concludes:
    Our results permit the following conclusions:
      (a) The "Marshall-Lerner" condition for devaluation to have a favorable effect on the trade balance (sum of the two elasticities larger than unity) holds only when imports are equal to exports.
His use of quotation marks around the term suggests he was introducing it. And indeed a search in Google Scholar for "Marshall-Lerner" in the period 1900-1950 finds Hirschman's as the only valid entry. I conclude that it was Hirschman who gave it the name that stuck.

Meade Index
Meade (1955a) did not put his calculation into the form of an index, except in an appendix, but rather suggested adding up the increases in trade and the decreases in trade separately, each weighted by tariffs, and concluding that there had been a gain from trade (in his context of formation of a customs union) if the former were larger than the latter.

In his example of the duty on Dutch and Belgian beer, Meade said (p. 66): "What we need to do, therefore, is to take all the changes in international trade which are due directly or indirectly to the reduction in the Dutch duty on Belgian beer; value each change at its supply price in the exporting country and weight it by the ad valorem rate of duty in the importing country; add up the resulting items for all increases of trade and do the same for all decreases of trade; if the resulting sum for the increases of trade is greater than that for the decreases of trade, than [sic] there is an increase of welfare; and vice versa."

Meade's main point was that one should not look only at the product on which the tariff is being reduced, but rather at all changes in trade that will be caused, both positive and negative, by that change. Of course if tariffs on all other products were universally zero, then the contributions to his calculation for them would also be zero. Hence, this is a simple way of taking account of the second-best nature of a tariff reduction when tariffs on other products are not zero.

In his Appendix II (pp. 120-121), Meade formalized his calculation and called it "an index of the change in world welfare," which he derived as

      dU = uΣi{dxi(pici)}

where U is world utility, u is the common marginal utility, dxi is the change in trade of good i, pi is price to consumers, and ci is price (i.e., cost) to producers.

It seems to have been Vanek (1965, p. 15) who first called this the Meade Index.

Mirror statistics
The technique of using one country's trade data to derive or check the trade data of a country with which it trades has probably been used as long as data on trade were being published and used. But the term for this, "mirror statistics," is found first by Google Scholar in Brown, Marer, and Neuberger (1974), p. 300-301:
    Moreover, available data from different sources on the same variable – “mirror statistics” – often differ. Large relative discrepancies can be found between various series...
which they go on to explain in their data from the U.S., Europe, the USSR, and other countries of the OECD.

While the technique could be and probably is applied to data other than international trade, it is most frequently used for trade, and especially for trade with countries like the Soviet bloc and China where trade data, in the past, were unavailable or unreliable.

Most Favored Nation
The term goes back more than two centuries. The earliest use I've found with Google Scholar was from 1784, but the idea entered into international commercial treaties long before.

The term itself can be misleading, since when applied to a country it may be interpreted as favoring that country over others. In fact, the meaning is rather to not treat the country worse than others. It may have been this tendency to misinterpret that led the United States to replace it with permanent normal trading relations in 1998, during the lead-up to granting China permanent MFN treatment in 2000.

Erler (1956) says that the practice of treating trade partners no worse than others goes back to the 15th century. Erler writes in German, so I thank my friend Willi Kohler for providing the following:

    He argues that the first appearance of MFN was in the 15th century, when the territorial state was about to replace the city states, such as the Hanseatic League, that had so far dominated trade in northern and central Europe. The trade policy stance of these territorial states would soon be dominated by mercantilism. But this did not preclude MFN treatment.

    For instance, a treaty signed on August 17, 1417, by Henry V of England and Duke Johann of Burgundy stipulates that English captains shall be allowed to land their ships in Flemish ports "in the same way as the French, the Dutch and the Scottish captains would do." Erler explicitly (though perhaps not too convincingly) calls this an instance of MFN. [Erler (1956, p 52)]

    A further instance was the London Trade Agreement (sic! Londoner Handelsvertrag), signed on July 22, 1486 by Henry VII of England and Duke Franz of Brittany. It stipulates that English merchants, when doing business in Brittany, shall enjoy the exact same liberties/freedoms as do merchants from any other state who maintain commercial relationships with Brittany. Further, they shall be treated with the same "caution and graciousness" as these other merchants. This pretty much seems like true MFN treatment. [Erler (1956, p 53)]

A source that I found online but have been unable to learn the author of (seems to be a chapter from a dissertation in India) says that the concept of MFN has been used since the middle ages. But its first use by more or less that name was in the Treaty of Utrecht, which was actually a group of several treaties ending the War of the Spanish Succession 1713-1715. One of those, the Navigation and Commerce Treaty between England and France, included the following passage:

    Furthermore, it is agreed and concluded, as a general rule, that all ... shall use and enjoy the same privileges, liberties, and immunities ... as relate either to commerce, or to any other rights whatever, which any foreign nation, the most favoured, has, uses, and enjoys, or may hereafter have, use, and enjoy.

That passage does indeed appear in the 1713 treaty, reproduced in Magnusson (1995, p. 315-316).

New new trade theory
This name, which is surely even more unfortunate than the "New Trade Theory," was introduced to the literature in 2004 by Richard Baldwin and co-authors. Baldwin and Forslid (2004) say the following (p.1):
    This empirical evidence has lead [sic] to the development of what might be called the new new trade theory, that is to say new trade models modified to allow for a more sophisticated view of firms. One branch of this theory has been particularly successful in accounting for the new empirical findings that was started by Melitz (2003); Bernard, Eaton, Jensen and Kortum (2003) also present an early model.
It may be surprising that a literature than began in 2003 should already have a name a year later. But these papers had been circulating for some time before this, the Melitz paper having appeared as his job market paper in 2000.

New trade theory
This unfortunate term -- unfortunate because it has continued to be used more than forty years after the group of theories that it refers to were introduced, which are therfore not at all new -- may not have been introduced by any one person. Initially, it was simply used to distinguish what were then some recent theories from the older theories of Ricardo and Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson. But as no more descriptive or person-specific name came into use, "New Trade Theory" became the standard by default. This was surely at least in part because the New Trade Theory encompassed multiple models by multiple authors, their common characteristic being only that they included one or more of three departures from traditional assumptions: increasing returns to scale, imperfect competition, and product differentiation.

As I search for use of the term "new trade theory" in Google Scholar, I find nothing at all before 1984. In that year there is only one source that uses these words, Borrus, Tyson, and Zysman (1984), and it wasn't obvious that they thought this was a name for the recent literature but only a convenient way of directing attention to it. Only in 1986 do I find the expression appearing again, and now it shows up in five publications in that year. None of the authors in that year spoke as if they were naming this recent literature themselves. But as Krugman (1986a) used it several times, I am inclined to give him credit for popularizing the term. One other author, and in a volume edited by Krugman, spoke of "the so-called 'new' trade theory," perhaps having heard Krugman and others speak of it.

For many, including perhaps Krugman himself, the New Trade Theory is most closely associated with his writings, even though many others contributed importantly to it. One might have expected that "Krugman" would have taken his place alongside Ricardo and Heckscher-Ohlin in the name for a trade theory. But that did not happen, perhaps because Krugman himself led with the term "New Trade Theory." There is of course a Krugman Model, but that is only one among many models by Kruman and others, that are included the the New Trade Theory.

Normal Trade Relations
This term was adopted in 1998 by the United States Congress to replace Most Favored Nation in certain US statutes. The legislation was signed by President Clinton July 22, 1998, shortly before the debate on MFN China renewal. As explained in Senate Report 105-82, "Clarifying the Designation of Normal Trading Relations," September 15, 1997,
    Despite its name, MFN is not a special trading privilege or reward, nor is it the most favorable trade treatment that the United States gives its trading partners. Rather, MFN refers to the normal trade treatment that the United States gives to nearly every country in the world. Because there are only six countries in the world to which the United States does not give MFN status, MFN denotes the ordinary, not the exceptional, trading relationship. Furthermore, the United States extends better than MFN treatment to 150 countries and territories ....

Wikipedia explains the change as follows, but gives no source:

    The impetus for the change in terminology came from irritation voiced by some Americans that various totalitarian governments around the world enjoyed being a MFN of the United States.
I have also been told informally but authoritatively that the change was made because the US was in negotiations with China on accession to the WTO, and President Clinton did not want to say that we would "most favor" China. As one source says, "It was marketing. To a normal person, most-favored sounds like specially good treatment while MFN really is normal."

Offer curve
The offer curve, without the name, was first developed by Alfred Marshall. It was first published in an Appendix attached to Book III, Chapter VIII, of Marshall (1923), but as he explained in an opening footnote,
    Much of it had been designed to form part of an Appendix to a volume on International Trade, on which a good deal of work was done, chiefly between 1869 and 1873. ....the main body of the present Appendix is reproduced with but little change in substance from that part of the mss. which was privately printed and circulated among economists at home and abroad in 1879.
Marshall himself said he should share credit with others, but he names only Auspitz and Lieben (1879), "in which use is made of diagrams similar to mine, which they had constructed independently." I have viewed that work, which is in German, and did indeed see many diagrams similar to Marshall's. But based on Marshall's above statement, he was the first.

He did not however name it. He referred to his curves throughout only as OE and OG, for England and Germany respectively. Only once did he even use the world "offer" in connection with these curves, saying "E will be prepared to offer only OM′′ of her bales in return for P′′M′′ bales from G."

The best candidate I find for having named the offer curve is Edgeworth (1894). This article was published in three parts, in the second of which, Edgeworth (1894) Part II he showed the curves in various configurations and used the verb "offer" to explain what they represented. Then in the third part, Edgeworth (1894) Part III, discussing a similar diagram of Auspitz and Lieben (1989), he says "Accordingly their supply- or offer- curve is never inelastic in our sense of the term...." That, to me, qualifies Edgeworth as having introducing the term.

Several subsequent authors also used the term, perhaps following Edgeworth or perhaps coming to it on their own. Some used it not to represent international trade, but rather for the supplies and demands of individual consumers. Bowley (1924) however was quite explicit, both in using the diagram which he said had been used "by many writers in the fundamental treatment of foreign trade" (p. 5), and in calling it the offer curve (p. 7). He cited Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics for the concept and mathematics of the equilibrium, but apparently not for the offer curve.

The only other author who deserves mention here, however, is Lerner (1936). In this classic article on the symmetry between import and export taxes, his argument was built entirely on offer curves. In his opening sentence he stated as one of his purposes that he "demonstrates the applicability of Marshall's 'offer curve' apparatus to the elucidation of this problem." (p. 306) His use seemed to assume that readers were already familiar with both the diagram and the name for it, although his use of the quotation marks around it suggests that he didn't see the name as already universally adopted. But the use of the term in this still widely cited paper has surely secured its place in the lexicon of economics.

Peso problem
The term is often attributed to Milton Friedman, who apparently commented on the market for the Mexican peso in the early 1970s and explained Mexico's high (relative to the US) interest rate by the concern that the peso would be devalued, which it later was. It is not clear that Friedman actually used the term "peso problem," however. Paul Krugman, in his blog on July 15, 2008, says that the term was coined in the "MIT grad student lunchroom," perhaps by him or perhaps by Bill Krasker, who he says "published the first paper using the term" in Krasker (1980).

Policy space
Although the term or a variant began to be used in UNCTAD discussions and documents in the early 2000s, it was defined explicitly in the São Paulo Consensus of UNCTAD (2004, p. 2): "...the space for national economic policy, i.e., the scope for domestic policies, especially in the areas of trade, investment and industrial development, is now often framed by international disciplines, commitments and global market considerations."

Precautionary Principle
This expression has appeared a few times in the past, not as the name of a principle but simply as a descriptive adjective, as in "we advocate for the use of vaccines following the precautionary principle that risk of illness should be avoided." As a more agreed-upon principle several sources say that it originated in Germany, under the name Vorsorgeprinzip, used especially in environmental contexts as meaning to take action in advance so as to prevent harm, rather than wait to fix the harm after it has been done. This was said by Weidner (1986) to be included in the 1971 Environmental Programme of West Germany as follows:
    Precautionary Principle: Environmental policy is not limited to preventing immediate threats and removing damage that has already been caused, but demands that considerable efforts have to be made in order to prevent environmental damage from occurring in the future.
According to Christiansen (1994), "The precautionary principle is said to have made its way into English during the early 1980s as the translation of the German Vorsorgeprinzip (see von Moltke 1988)." I have so far been unable to access the Moltke reference.

As the term has been used more recently, however, it includes not just taking or blocking action to prevent harm, but specifically doing so even when the science has not conclusively demonstrated the need to do so. The Precautionary Principle in this modern sense seems to have appeared first in the 1987 North Sea Conference. Its Second North Sea Ministerial Declaration includes the following under paragraph VII:

    Accepting that, in order to protect the North Sea from possibly damaging effects of the most dangerous substances, a precautionary approach is necessary which may require action to control inputs of such substances even before a causal link has been established by absolutely clear scientific evidence;
While this calls it a "precautionary approach," later in the document it includes, under paragraph XVI.1, ..."even where there is no scientific evidence to prove a causal link between emissions and effects ('the principle of precautionary action')"

The term came into wider use in the 1992 meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The Rio Declaration from that conference, Agenda 21 (1992), again spoke repeatedly of a "precautionary approach." Paragraph 35.3 states the following:

    In the face of threats of irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific understanding should not be an excuse for postponing actions which are justified in their own right. The precautionary approach could provide a basis for policies relating to complex systems that are not yet fully understood and whose consequences of disturbances cannot yet be predicted.

The two terms "Precautionary Principle" and "Precautionary Approach" have both been in common use since the late 1980’s. Google NGram reports the first of these terms appearing more than four times as often as the second when they peaked in the early 2000’s. So it seems that Precautionary Principle is now the more standard term.

Price-specie flow mechanism
The mechanism -- by which a balance of payments surplus or deficit causes an inflow or outflow of money (specie) and a resulting rise or fall of prices that eliminates the imbalance -- was first laid out most clearly by Hume (1777). He made his point by imagining first cutting the stock of money substantially and arguing how this will change wages and prices so as to induce flows to restore balance, which he followed with a similar story for an initial increase in the stock of money (p. 311):
    Suppose four-fifths of all the money in Great Britain to be annihilated in one night.... Must not the price of all labour and commodities sink in proportion...?, What nation could then dispute with us in any foreign market...? Therefore, must this bring back the money which we had lost. Where, after we have arrived, we immediately lose the advantage ... and the farther flowing in of money is stopped.

Although Hume is today routinely credited with this idea, several other authors anticipated it, if not as clearly. Viner (1937, p. 74) credits Cantillon (1730) where "the self-regulating mechanism is clearly and ably expounded." I have tried to follow Cantillon's exposition, and I am not sure that would have understood the mechanism from that.

The mechanism has often been called just the "specie flow mechanism," though that de-emphasizes the role of prices, the role of which was not always recognized by other authors. The term "price-specie flow mechanism" entered the literature with Angell (1926), who dealt with it in detail.

Purchasing power parity
It was Cassel (1918, p. 413) who introduced the term in the context of discussing how exchange rates should be reset after World War I and the large differences in inflation that occurred in different countries, especially Sweden and England. "...the rates of exchanges should accordingly be expected to deviate from their old parity in proportion to the inflation of each country. .... I propose to call this parity 'the purchasing power parity.'" The idea, though not the name for it, is much older than that, said to date back at least to the 16th century.

Rent seeking
Rent seeking was introduced to the trade literature by Krueger (1974), who defined it generally but applied it to quantitative restrictions on trade. She noted (p. 291) that government restrictions on economic activity "give rise to rents ..., and people often compete for the rents." She called this competition rent seeking, a term that she apparently coined and that has caught on hugely.

Resource curse
The source for this is Auty (1993), which has the phrase it its title, Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis. I have not yet been able to access the book itself, but I found found no other use of the phrase prior to 1992, and in 1992 one source used it in quotation marks, as though it was from somewhere else. Auty himself cited his book in a 1993 paper as being from 1992, so it must have existed a while before that and already become familiar to others.

Second-best argument for protection
The introduction of the term "second best" in the context of protection was by Meade (1955b), who included four chapters on "The Second-Best Argument for Trade Control" with subheadings "The raising of revenue," "The Partial Freeing of Trade," "Domestic Divergences," and "Dumping as a complex case."

The classic paper establishing that trade policy is only second best in general for dealing with domestic distortions is by Bhagwati and Ramaswami (1963), who do not cite Meade. However, they also do not use the term "second best," and the point of their contribution is to argue for policies superior to trade policies. The term "second best" was adopted by Lipsey and Lancaster (1956), attributing it to Meade, but their application to tariffs is concerned only with the optimal level of one tariff when another is non-zero. By 1969, in Bhagwati et al. (1969), Bhagwati too was using the "second-best" terminology, but again his and his co-authors' main point was that tariffs are not even second best but only at most third best when other policies can be adjusted. Thus trade economists have generally used the second-best argument against protection rather than for protection.

If policies superior to tariffs are not available, however, the argument may become one in favor of protection. Thus in its simplest form, a government that is unable to levy any other kind of tax but requires revenue in order to function will use tariffs no matter how far down the list from first-best tariffs may lie. This has presumably been understood since long before the distorting effects of tariffs were examined by economists. And even here, the argument is subject to the caveat that the benefits from the government activity must outweigh the welfare losses due to the tariff.

This is equally true in more complex cases. The infant industry argument depends on distortions that prevent infant industries from reaping the full benefits of their production. The first-best policy is to correct or offset that distortion, perhaps by a production subsidy. But if production subsidies are unavailable (not just rejected politically, since that should in principle apply even more to a tariff, if it were fully understood), then a second-best tariff will be beneficial if not too large.

Social dumping
This term is a good deal older than I had supposed, appearing with very much the current meaning in 1930, and probably earlier. I find it for sure in Bonn and Siegfried (1930, which includes (p. 199),
    “… the low wages enabling the country to export goods manufactured under socially backward conditions of work are likely to bring the exported commodities under the category of "social dumping".
Google Schoolar says that it finds three more appearances of "social dumping" in 1926, 1928, and 1930, all in the International Labour Review, which I have been unable to access. From the use of the term by Bonn and Siegfried, it seems clear that it was already familiar.

Splinternet
The Economist (Nov 22, 2016) said the word and concept were not new, as a whole book had been written about it. That seems to have been Malcomson (2016). However, the term became common in online discussions well before that. The first use of the word I can find was by Tehrani (2008), but referring to the fragmentation of the world wide web by companies, not countries. Facebook, as the most familiar example, had become a sort of web-within-the-web, where websites would appear that were not reachable without entering Facebook itself. Later the same year, Searls (2008) used the term in the title of a blog post dealing with the role of national boundaries, though here the concern was with companies such as Apple that treated users differently from different countries, presumably in their effort to conform with national laws. Neither source mentions the efforts by governments such as China to wall off their portion of the internet in the way that Malcomson (2016) was most concerned with. The word "splinternet" came to be used in a great many sources online during 2010 and after, and I have not tried to find where the deliberate splintering by government was first included in the term.

Stylized fact
The source if this expression would appear to be very simple, as I found numerous authors who cited Kaldor (1957) as introducing it. In a review of a volume that contains a reprint of this essay, Lipsey (1962) complements Kaldor for basing his theorizing on "a series of 'stylised facts,' a device which prevents Mr. Kaldor's theorising from departing, as growth theories so often do ... for a world that is not our own." Kaldor instead intends to explain "what is currently believed to be the state of the world." This expression might well serve as well as any to define what might be meant by "sylized facts."

However, the expression "stylized facts" does not appear in Kaldor's article, nor in its reprint. Instead, Kaldor says on page 591

    A satisfactory model concerning the nature of the growth process in a capitalist economy must also account for the remarkable historical constancies revealed by recent empirical investigations.
He follows this on page 592 with not a list but a paragraph that includes several of these "remarkable historical constancies," such as the "remarkable constancy" of the share of wages, that the capital/output ratio was virtually unchanged over a long period, and the "constancy in the rate of profit earned on investments." These and other historical constancies are documented on the same page in footnotes to extensive empirical work by others.

How, then, did it come about that so many have attributed the phrase "stylized facts" to Kaldor? I suspect that he probably did use the term in his early draft and in his presentations of his work to colleagues, who may then never have felt the need to read the published version. And I would go on to suggest that its removal from the published version may have been at the insistance of the editor, who felt that the work should be based on true facts, not stylized ones, and may have pushed Kaldor to include their sources.

Sadly (in my view), the term "stylized facts" has become widely used, and it is often applied in situations where the facts are just facts.

Tariffication
This word, which I had supposed was created to describe the conversion of quotas and other NTBs into equivalent tariffs, turns out to have been in use long before for a different purpose. The prices charged on a wide variety of products and services are called “tariffs,” and the setting of those prices seems routinely to be called tariffication.

I find the first use of a form of the word in the context of international trade policy in Wijkman (1986) who, however, wrote it as “re-tariffication” (p. 47):

    A likely outcome might consist of phasing out quantitative restrictions, either through negotiating their elimination on a reciprocal basis or by replacing them by tariffs representing an equivalent level of protection (‘re-tariffication’).
This form of the word was used by at least one other, but writers converged on "tariffication" in 1988.

The earliest appearance that I find is in Zietz (1988) who advocated its use in negotiations on trade barriers in agriculture. Whether others were already using the term at that time, I don’t know, and it is certainly true that others were advocating the substance of tariffication, though without using the word. Wolf (1985), as an early example, was advocating the replacement of quotas by tariffs as a means of “unraveling” the Multi-Fibre Arrangement.

The term came very much into its own in 1989, when the United States tabled a proposal to use tariffication in the Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture. I have not been able to access the US document itself to see whether it used the term, but around the same time, in writings by others about the US action, the term was certainly used, if not with approval. Economist (1989) called it a "monstrous word":

    The farm negotiations will resume in earnest next week. This time they look more promising, thanks to American proposals for "tariffication". That is a monstrous word for a sensible idea: the conversion of import quotas, variable levies, sluice-gate prices and all other border measures on farm trade into equivalent tariffs.

Technology gap model
Those who write about technology gap models routinely cite Posner (1961) as the first of several papers with this idea. However, Posner's paper includes neither the word "technology" nor the word "gap." It was Hufbauer (1966) who elaborated Posner's idea and spoke of a "technological gap account" of trade. Krugman (1986b) may have been the first to formalize the model to modern standards, and he certainly used the words. One source cites the same Krugman (1986) paper but listed as "Conference of the International Economic Association, Sweden, 1982," suggesting that the switch from "technological" to "technology" may have originated then with Krugman. I have found no earlier use of the term "technology gap."

Terms of trade
The phrase "terms of trade" was first used with more or less its modern meaning by Marshall (1923), p. 161. In an example involving countries E and G, he spoke of "the amounts to which E and G would be severally willing to trade at various 'terms of trade'; or, to use a phrase which is more appropriate in some connections, at various 'rates of exchange.'" He then explained his preference for the new term on the grounds that "rates of exchange" could be understood to connote monetary exchange rates, while he meant the rate at which goods are traded for other goods.

Having introduced the expression in the book, Marshall then used it in subsequent discussions, but he did not use it exclusively. He seemed to alternate between "terms of trade" and "rate of interchange," two expressions that seemed to be synonyms as he used them.

There is slight uncertainty as to whether this was Marshall's first use of the expression. This is because it also appears in Appendix J of the same book, which a footnote explains was largely written much earlier, between 1869 and 1873, and which was "privately printed and circulated among economists at home and abroad in 1879." (p. 330). However, Appendix J with only very few exceptions does not use "terms of trade," but rather alternates between "rate of interchange" and "exchange index." It seems likely that the few (I only found two) occurrences of "terms of trade" in that appendix were added when it was presumably revised for its 1923 publication. This is supported by the fact that "terms of trade" does not appear at all in the 1920 8th edition of Marshall's (1890) Principles.

Was Marshall the first to use the term? Taussig (1927) said so, citing Marshall (1923). And I have confirmed that Mill (1848) did not use the term. That of course leaves open a great many others who might have. But from the way Marshall introduced the term, it appears that he at least thought it was new.

Variations on the Terms of Trade

Taussig (1927), after explaining Marshall's preference for "terms of trade" over "rate of exchange," went on "to reduce still further the possibilities of misunderstanding" by refining the expression as barter terms of trade, emphasizing that it referred to the rate at which goods are exchanged for other goods. Taussig also distinguished net and gross barter terms of trade, the latter allowing for total amounts paid even when they differ from prices due to trade imbalances that might arise from, say, reparation payments.

Viner(1937) argued that the classical economists were concerned not just with the rates at which goods exchanged for one another, but also with the rates at which factors exchange, through their production of goods and trade. He therefore introduced the factoral terms of trade, both single and double.

Finally, Dorrance (1948) suggested income terms of trade as an alternative to all the others, which he argued gave a misleading indication of the extent to which a country was gaining from trade when markets were in disequilibrium, as had become more common in the mid-20th century. A rise in a country's barter terms of trade, due to a rise in its prices relative to the price of imports, could be harmful if it mainly caused a fall in the quantity it was able to sell. The income terms of trade, because it relates the value of exports -- price times quantity -- to the price of imports, will correctly record a decline if the price increase is more than offset by a quantity decrease.

To summarize, let pX, X, AX be the price, quantity, and productivity of factors producing exports respectively and pM, M, AM be the same for imports. We then have:

Variations
Commodity terms of trade
    = Net barter terms of trade:
    NBTT = pX/pM
Gross barter terms of trade: GBTT = M/X
Single factoral terms of trade: SFTT = (Px/Pm)×Ax
Double factoral terms of trade: DFTT = (Px/Pm)×(Ax/Am)
Income terms of trade: ITT = PXX/PM

Up or Down

As defined above, a rise in the terms of trade is an "improvement," in the sense that the country is getting more in return for what it exports. That has been the convention followed by most authors, who have defined it as pX/pM, but not all. Some have defined it as pM/pX, in which case a decline in the terms of trade is an improvement.

Marshall himself treated the terms of trade as a property of the transaction, not of either country, and thus his terms of trade was just the relative price of two goods, the identities of which were arbitrary. Also, a great many of those who have used the concept of the terms of trade have not needed to define it quantitatively, since they could speak simply of the terms of trade improving or deteriorating. But others have needed to incorporate the terms of trade into an economic model or report it as empirical data, and for either purpose it was necessary to choose either pX/pM or pM/pX.

The first to do this was Taussig (1927), who spoke of and reported data for the terms of trade of Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. For each he chose to define it as pM/pX, with the result that when his curves declined, that was beneficial for the country. Viner (1937) made the opposite choice, remarking in a footnote (p. 558) that

Viner's choice has been followed by economists studying both international trade and international development ever since.

However, the opposite choice has often been made by economists studying international monetary, macroeconomic, and financial issues. This seems to have started with Obstfeld (1980, p. 463) who had "... the terms of trade, defined as the price of foreign consumption goods in terms of home goods." This was not his choice when writing with Rogoff in the definitive textbook of the field, Obstfeld and Rogoff (1996), who on p. 25 said "In general a country's terms of trade are defined as the price of its exports in terms of its imports." But the same two authors, writing later, reverted to pM/pX, as have many (but not all) authors in that subfield writing since.

Thank-you note
As a policy to respond to a foreign subsidy. I attribute this to Paul Krugman fairly early in his career. I have, however, been unable to track down where he actually said it. I once asked him directly, but he couldn't recall.

Third World
"But the term third world did not originally refer to geopolitics. The first to use it in its modern sense was Alfred Sauvy, a French demographer who drew a parallel with the 'third estate' (the people) during the French revolution. In 1952 Sauvy wrote that 'this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World, like the Third Estate, wants to become something, too.' He was paraphrasing a remark by Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès, a delegate to the Estates-General of 1789, who said the third estate is everything, has nothing but wants to be something. The salient feature of the third world was that it wanted economic and political clout." From "Seeing the World Differently," The Economist, June 10, 2010.

Trade deflection
Shibata (1967, p. 151) defines this as a "redirection of imports from third countries through the partner country with the lowest tariff, with the sole aim of realizing tax advantage by exploiting the rate differentials between the member countries within an economic union." He notes that trade deflection had previously been defined in the Stockholm Convention, which established the European Free Trade Association, but somewhat more narrowly and differently as arising from difference in tariffs on raw materials or intermediate inputs that allows a final good to be exported from one member to another of an FTA.

Variable geometry
This term is a bit hard to track, as it seems to have many uses outside of economics, particularly within the engineering and design of machines. In order to limit a search to use of the term within the European Union, I have searched for "variable geometry Europe." Google Scholar fails to find this before 1982, when it appears in three sources. In all three, the term is used along with several others for the same idea, suggesting that none of them is new. For example, Emerson (1982) says
    Britain's token membership has in practice given support to the concept of two-tier Europe, two-speed Europe, variable geometry Europe -- call it what you will.
From this I gather that this and other terms had probably been circulating in discussions and perhaps negotiations of European integration for some time.

Exactly why one would speak of a "geometry," I don't know, but perhaps it was prompted by the different shapes that maps of included countries would take if different countries participated in different agreements.

Vent for surplus
The "vent for surplus" theory of trade was developed especially by Myint (1958), who attributed the term to Williams (1929) who had taken it from Mill (1848). Myint attributed the idea to Smith (1776).

The basis for the giving Smith (1776) credit (or blame) for the idea is the following passage, p. 240-1:

    Between whatever places foreign trade is carried on, they all of them derive two distinct benefits from it. It carries out that surplus part of the produce of their land and labour for which there is no demand among them, and brings back in return for it something else for which there is a demand. It gives a value to their superfluities, by exchanging them for something else, which may satisfy a part of their wants, and increase their enjoyments.

Mill (1848, p. 579) was critical of this idea, which he viewed as a mercantilist mis-conception:

    An extended market for its produce--an abundant consumption for its goods--a vent for its surplus--are the phrases by which it has been customary to designate the uses and recommendations of commerce with foreign countries. This notion is intelligible, when we consider that the authors and leaders of opinion on mercantile questions have always hitherto been the selling class. It is in truth a surviving relic of the Mercantile Theory....
It seems to have been this passage, with its "vent for its surplus," that introduced the "vent for surplus" terminology, though Mill himself calls it "customary." My Google-Scholar search for the term has not found anything earlier.

Both the terminology and the criticism also appear in Mill (1874), in a discussion of Ricardo's treatment of trade, which Mill preferred:

    Previously to his [Ricardo's] time, the benefits of foreign trade were deemed, even by the most philosophical enquirers, to consist in affording a vent for surplus produce, or in enabling a portion of the national capital to replace itself with a profit. The futility of the theory implied in these and similar phrases, was an obvious consequence from the speculations of writers even anterior to Mr. Ricardo.
Although published later, the Mill's preface to this volume says that the essay had been written much earlier, in 1829 and 1830. Thus the "vent for surplus" term seems to date from then. Although Myint has usually been cited with the term, it has most frequently been referred to as "Adam Smith's 'vent for surplus' theory."