Free trade

Free trade is a trade policy that does not restrict imports or exports; it is the idea of the free market as applied to international trade. In government, free trade is predominately advocated by political parties that hold right-wing or liberal economic positions, while economically left-wing political parties generally support protectionism,[1][2][3][4] the opposite of free trade.

Most nations are today members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) multilateral trade agreements. Free trade is additionally exemplified by the European Economic Area and the Mercosur, which have established open markets. However, most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying tariffs to imports or subsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include import quotas, taxes, and non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation.

There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth.[5][6][7][8][9][10] However, liberalization of trade can cause significant and unequally distributed losses, and the economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.[6]

Features

Free trade policies generally promote the following features:

  • Trade of goods without taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers)
  • Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers
  • The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations, or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an advantage over others
  • Unregulated access to markets
  • Unregulated access to market information
  • Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power
  • Trade agreements which encourage free trade.

Economics

Economic models

Two simple ways to understand the proposed benefits of free trade are through David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and by analyzing the impact of a tariff or import quota. An economic analysis using the law of supply and demand and the economic effects of a tax can be used to show the theoretical benefits and disadvantages of free trade.[11][12]

Most economists would recommend that even developing nations should set their tariff rates quite low, but the economist Ha-Joon Chang, a proponent of industrial policy, believes higher levels may be justified in developing nations because the productivity gap between them and developed nations today is much higher than what developed nations faced when they were at a similar level of technological development. Underdeveloped nations today, Chang believes, are weak players in a much more competitive system.[13][14] Counterarguments to Chang's point of view are that the developing countries are able to adopt technologies from abroad, whereas developed nations had to create new technologies themselves, and that developing countries can sell to export markets far richer than any that existed in the 19th century.

If the chief justification for a tariff is to stimulate infant industries, it must be high enough to allow domestic manufactured goods to compete with imported goods in order to be successful. This theory, known as import substitution industrialization, is largely considered ineffective for currently developing nations.[13]

Tariffs

EffectOfTariff
The pink regions are the net loss to society caused by the existence of the tariff.

The chart at the right analyzes the effect of the imposition of an import tariff on some imaginary good. Prior to the tariff, the price of the good in the world market (and hence in the domestic market) is Pworld. The tariff increases the domestic price to Ptariff. The higher price causes domestic production to increase from QS1 to QS2 and causes domestic consumption to decline from QC1 to QC2.[15][16]

This has three main effects on societal welfare. Consumers are made worse off because the consumer surplus (green region) becomes smaller. Producers are better off because the producer surplus (yellow region) is made larger. The government also has additional tax revenue (blue region). However, the loss to consumers is greater than the gains by producers and the government. The magnitude of this societal loss is shown by the two pink triangles. Removing the tariff and having free trade would be a net gain for society.[15][16]

An almost identical analysis of this tariff from the perspective of a net producing country yields parallel results. From that country's perspective, the tariff leaves producers worse off and consumers better off, but the net loss to producers is larger than the benefit to consumers (there is no tax revenue in this case because the country being analyzed is not collecting the tariff). Under similar analysis, export tariffs, import quotas, and export quotas all yield nearly identical results.[11]

Sometimes consumers are better off and producers worse off, and sometimes consumers are worse off and producers are better off, but the imposition of trade restrictions causes a net loss to society because the losses from trade restrictions are larger than the gains from trade restrictions. Free trade creates winners and losers, but theory and empirical evidence show that the size of the winnings from free trade are larger than the losses.[11]

Trade diversion

According to mainstream economic theory, the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can lead to economic inefficiency through the process of trade diversion. It is economically efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this does not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while the low cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer (and not the low cost producer as well) can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss. This is why many economists place such high importance on negotiations for global tariff reductions, such as the Doha Round.[11]

Economist opinions

The literature analysing the economics of free trade is extremely rich with extensive work having been done on the theoretical and empirical effects. Though it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society.[17][18] In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries."[19]

Quoting Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards."[20] In a survey of leading economists, none disagreed with the notion that "freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment."[21]

Most economists would agree that although increasing returns to scale might mean that certain industry could settle in a geographical area without any strong economic reason derived from comparative advantage, this is not a reason to argue against free trade because the absolute level of output enjoyed by both "winner" and "loser" will increase with the "winner" gaining more than the "loser" but both gaining more than before in an absolute level.

History

Early era

David ricardo
David Ricardo

The notion of a free trade system encompassing multiple sovereign states originated in a rudimentary form in 16th century Imperial Spain.[22] American jurist Arthur Nussbaum noted that Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria was "the first to set forth the notions (though not the terms) of freedom of commerce and freedom of the seas."[23] Vitoria made the case under principles of jus gentium.[23] However, it was two early British economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo who later developed the idea of free trade into its modern and recognizable form.

Economists who advocated free trade believed trade was the reason why certain civilizations prospered economically. Adam Smith, for example, pointed to increased trading as being the reason for the flourishing of not just Mediterranean cultures such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, but also of Bengal (East India) and China. The great prosperity of the Netherlands after throwing off Spanish Imperial rule and pursuing a policy of free trade[24] made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most important question in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled with mercantilist, protectionist, isolationist, communist, populist, and other policies over the centuries.

The Ottoman Empire had liberal free trade policies by the 18th century, with origins in capitulations of the Ottoman Empire, dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further with capitulations in 1673, in 1740 which lowered duties to only 3% for imports and exports, and in 1790. Ottoman free trade policies were praised by British economists advocating free trade, such as J. R. McCulloch in his Dictionary of Commerce (1834), but criticized by British politicians opposing free trade, such as prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 Corn Laws debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.[25]

Droits de douane (France, UK, US)
Average Tariff Rates (France, UK, US)

Trade in colonial America was regulated by the British mercantile system through the Acts of Trade and Navigation. Until the 1760s, few colonists openly advocated for free trade, in part because regulations were not strictly enforced – New England was famous for smuggling – but also because colonial merchants did not want to compete with foreign goods and shipping. According to historian Oliver Dickerson, a desire for free trade was not one of the causes of the American Revolution. "The idea that the basic mercantile practices of the eighteenth century were wrong," wrote Dickerson, "was not a part of the thinking of the Revolutionary leaders".[26]

Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of American Revolutionary War. After the British Parliament issued the Prohibitory Act, blockading colonial ports, the Continental Congress responded by effectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on April 6, 1776. According to historian John W. Tyler, "Free trade had been forced on the Americans, like it or not."[27]

In March 1801 the Pope Pius VII ordered some liberalization of trade to face the economic crisis in the Papal States with the Motu Proprio "Le più colte"; despite this, the export of national corn was forbidden to ensure the food for the State.

British ships in Canton
Britain waged two Opium Wars to force China to legalize the opium trade and to open all of China to British merchants.

In Britain, free trade became a central principle practiced by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Large-scale agitation was sponsored by the Anti-Corn Law League. Under the Treaty of Nanking, China opened five treaty ports to world trade in 1843. The first free trade agreement, the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, was put in place in 1860 between Britain and France, which led to successive agreements between other countries in Europe.[28]

Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g., Henry Ford and Secretary of State Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. Woodrow Wilson included free-trade rhetoric in his "Fourteen Points" speech of 1918:

The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this: [...]

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.[29]

According to economic historian Douglas Irwin, a common myth about U.S. trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century.[30] A review by the Economist of Irwin's 2017 book Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy notes:[30]

Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there. A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall, and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again. By the time that happened, the economy would be recovering, giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery. Mr Irwin also methodically debunks the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power, a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today. As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23% in 1870 to 36% in 1913, the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost, estimated at around 0.5% of GDP in the mid-1870s. In some industries, they might have sped up development by a few years. But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas.

According to Paul Bairoch, since the end of the 18th century, the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. For the most part, the "Jeffersonians" strongly opposed it. In the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator Henry Clay continued Hamilton's themes within the Whig Party under the name "American System." The opposition Democratic Party contested several elections throughout the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s in part over the issue of the tariff and protection of industry.[31]

In the U.S., the Democratic Party favored moderate tariffs used for government revenue only, while the Whigs favored higher protective tariffs to protect favored industries. The economist Henry Charles Carey became a leading proponent of the "American System" of economics. This mercantilist "American System" was opposed by the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan.

The fledgling Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade and implemented a 44% tariff during the Civil War – in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort, and to protect favored industries.[32] William McKinley (later to become President of the United States) stated the stance of the Republican Party (which won every election for President from 1868 until 1912, except the two non-consecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) as thus:

Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, 'Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: 'Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.[33]

During the interwar period, economic protectionism took hold in the United States, most famously in the form of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which is credited by economists with the prolonging and worldwide propagation of the Great Depression.[34]:33[35] From 1934, trade liberalization began to take place through the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act.

20041120-1 bushchinamtg-1-515h
George W. Bush and Hu Jintao of China meet while attending an APEC summit in Santiago de Chile, 2004.

In Kicking Away the Ladder, development economist Ha-Joon Chang reviews the history of free trade policies and economic growth, and notes that many of the now-industrialized countries had significant barriers to trade throughout their history. The United States and Britain, sometimes considered the homes of free trade policy, employed protectionism to varying degrees at all times. Britain abolished the Corn Laws, which restricted import of grain, in 1846 in response to domestic pressures, and it reduced protectionism for manufactures in the mid 19th century, when its technological advantage was at its height, but tariffs on manufactured products had returned to 23% by 1950. The United States maintained weighted average tariffs on manufactured products of approximately 40–50% up until the 1950s, augmented by the natural protectionism of high transportation costs in the 19th century.[36] The most consistent practitioners of free trade have been Switzerland, the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree Belgium.[37] Chang describes the export-oriented industrialization policies of the Four Asian Tigers as "far more sophisticated and fine-tuned than their historical equivalents".[38]

Some degree of protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world. Most developed nations maintain controversial agricultural tariffs. From 1820 to 1980, the average tariffs on manufactures in twelve industrial countries ranged from 11 to 32%. In the developing world, average tariffs on manufactured goods are approximately 34%.[39] The American economist C. Fred Bergsten devised the ‘bicycle theory’ to describe trade policy. According to this model trade policy is ‘dynamically unstable’, in that it constantly tends towards either liberalisation or protectionism. To prevent falling off the bike (the disadvantages of protectionism), trade policy and multilateral trade negotiations must constantly pedal towards greater liberalisation. To achieve greater liberalisation decision makers must appeal to the greater welfare for consumers and the wider national economy over narrower parochial interests. However, Bergsten also posits that it is also necessary to compensate the losers in trade and help them find new work, as this will both reduce the backlash against globalisation and the motives for trades unions and politicians to call for protection of trade.[40]

Post-World War II

Since the end of World War II, in part due to industrial size and the onset of the Cold War, the United States has often been a proponent of reduced tariff-barriers and free trade. The U.S. helped establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later the World Trade Organization (WTO); although it had rejected an earlier version in the 1950s (International Trade Organization or ITO).[41] Since the 1970s, U.S. governments have negotiated managed-trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s, the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006, and a number of bilateral agreements (such as with Jordan).

In Europe, six countries formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 which became the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958. Two core objectives of the EEC were the development of a common market, subsequently renamed the single market, and establishing a customs union between its member states. After expanding its membership, the EEC became the European Union (EU) in 1993. The European Union, now the world's largest single market,[42] has concluded free trade agreements with many countries around the world.[43]

Modern era

1 singapore city skyline dusk panorama 2011
Singapore is the top country in the Enabling Trade Index.

Most countries in the world are members of the World Trade Organization,[44] which limits in certain ways but does not eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. Most countries are also members of regional free trade areas that lower trade barriers among participating countries. The EU and the US are negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Initially led by the U.S., twelve countries that have borders on the Pacific Ocean are currently in private negotiations[45] around the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is being touted by the negotiating countries as a free trade policy.[46] In January 2017, the United States pulled out of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Parternship.[47]

Degree of free trade policies

Free trade may apply to trade in services as well as in goods. Non-economic considerations may inhibit free trade: a country may espouse free trade in principle but (for example) ban certain drugs (such as alcohol) or certain practices (such as prostitution[48]), thus limiting international free trade.

The Enabling Trade Index measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destinations. The index summarizes four sub-indexes: market access; border administration; transport and communications infrastructure; and business environment. The top 30 countries and areas as of 2016 were:[49]

  1.  Singapore 6.0
  2.  Netherlands 5.7
  3.  Hong Kong 5.7
  4.  Luxembourg 5.6
  5.  Sweden 5.6
  6.  Finland 5.6
  7.  Austria 5.5
  8.  United Kingdom 5.5
  9.  Germany 5.5
  10.  Belgium 5.5
  11.   Switzerland 5.4
  12.  Denmark 5.4
  13.  France 5.4
  14.  Estonia 5.3
  15.  Spain 5.3
  16.  Japan 5.3
  17.  Norway 5.3
  18.  New Zealand 5.3
  19.  Iceland 5.3
  20.  Ireland 5.3
  21.  Chile 5.3
  22.  United States 5.2
  23.  United Arab Emirates 5.2
  24.  Canada 5.2
  25.  Czech Republic 5.1
  26.  Australia 5.1
  27.  South Korea 5.0
  28.  Portugal 5.0
  29.  Lithuania 5.0
  30.  Israel 5.0

Politics

The relative costs, benefits and beneficiaries of free trade are debated by academics, governments and interest groups.

Arguments for protectionism fall into the economic category (trade hurts the economy or groups in the economy) or the moral category (the effects of trade might help the economy, but have ill effects in other areas); a general argument against free trade is that it is colonialism or imperialism in disguise. The moral category is wide, including concerns of destroying infant industries and undermining long-run economic development, income inequality, environmental degradation, supporting child labor and sweatshops, race to the bottom, wage slavery, accentuating poverty in poor countries, harming national defense, and forcing cultural change.[50] However, poor countries which have adopted free trade policies have experienced high economic growth, with China and India as prime examples. Free trade allows companies from rich countries to directly invest in poor countries, sharing their knowledge, providing capital and giving access to markets.

Economic arguments against free trade criticize the assumptions or conclusions of economic theories. Sociopolitical arguments against free trade cite social and political effects that economic arguments do not capture, such as political stability, national security, human rights and environmental protection. There is a danger that a country could establish a monopoly in a certain product by underselling other countries, and then use that monopoly position to unfairly increase prices at a later date. Some products are important to national security, and it is dangerous to allow domestic producers of these products to go out of business, especially if the main producer is a country that may one day be an enemy. Countries which allow low wages to workers have a competitive advantage in attracting industry and this may lead to a general worsening of wages for workers in all countries. Some countries may facilitate low-cost production of goods in their countries by allowing pollution of the environment. This could allow more degradation of the world's environment to occur.

Free trade is often opposed by domestic industries that would have their profits and market share reduced by lower prices for imported goods.[51][52] For example, if United States tariffs on imported sugar were reduced, U.S. sugar producers would receive lower prices and profits, while U.S. sugar consumers would spend less for the same amount of sugar because of those same lower prices. The economic theory of David Ricardo holds that consumers would necessarily gain more than producers would lose.[53][54] Since each of those few domestic sugar producers would lose a lot while each of a great number of consumers would gain only a little, domestic producers are more likely to mobilize against the lifting of tariffs.[52] More generally, producers often favor domestic subsidies and tariffs on imports in their home countries, while objecting to subsidies and tariffs in their export markets.

Real Wages vs Trade as a Percent of GDP

Socialists frequently oppose free trade on the ground that it allows maximum exploitation of workers by capital. For example, Karl Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie... has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." Nonetheless, Marx did favor free trade – solely because he felt that it would hasten the social revolution.[57]

"Free trade" is opposed by many anti-globalization groups, based on their assertion that free trade agreements generally do not increase the economic freedom of the poor or the working class, and frequently make them poorer. Where the foreign supplier allows de facto exploitation of labor, domestic free-labor is unfairly forced to compete with the foreign exploited labor. To this extent, free trade is seen as an end-run around workers' rights and laws that protect individual liberty.

Some opponents of free trade favor free trade theory but oppose free trade agreements as applied. Some opponents of NAFTA see the agreement as being materially harmful to the common people, but some of the arguments are actually against the particulars of government-managed trade, rather than against free trade per se. For example, it is argued that it would be wrong to let subsidized corn from the U.S. into Mexico freely under NAFTA at prices well below production cost (dumping) because of its ruinous effects to Mexican farmers. Of course, such subsidies violate free trade theory, so this argument is not actually against the principle of free trade, but rather its selective implementation.

Research shows that support for trade restrictions is highest among respondents with the lowest levels of education.[58] The authors find "that the impact of education on how voters think about trade and globalization has more to do with exposure to economic ideas and information about the aggregate and varied effects of these economic phenomena, than it does with individual calculations about how trade affects personal income or job security. This is not to say that the latter types of calculations are not important in shaping individuals' views of trade – just that they are not being manifest in the simple association between education and support for trade openness."[58] A 2017 study found that individuals whose occupations are routine-task-intensive and who do jobs that are offshorable are more likely to be protectionist.[59]

Research suggests that attitudes towards free trade do not necessarily reflect individuals' self-interests.[60][61]

Colonialism

It has long been argued that free trade is a form of colonialism or imperialism, a position taken by various proponents of economic nationalism and the school of mercantilism. In the 19th century these criticized British calls for free trade as cover for British Empire, notably in the works of American Henry Clay, architect of the American System[62] and by German American economist Friedrich List.[63]

More recently, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has denounced the "sophistry of free trade" in an introduction he wrote for a book titled The Hidden Face of Free Trade Accords, written in part by Correa's current Energy Minister Alberto Acosta. Citing as his source the book Kicking Away the Ladder, written by Ha-Joon Chang, Correa identified the difference between an "American system" opposed to a "British System" of free trade. The latter, he says, was explicitly viewed by the Americans as "part of the British imperialist system." According to Correa, Chang showed that it was Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and not Friedrich List, who was the first to present a systematic argument defending industrial protectionism.

Alternatives

The following alternatives for free trade have been proposed: balanced trade, fair trade, protectionism, industrial policy.

In literature

The value of free trade was first observed and documented by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, in 1776.[64] He wrote,

It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.[65]

This statement uses the concept of absolute advantage to present an argument in opposition to mercantilism, the dominant view surrounding trade at the time, which held that a country should aim to export more than it imports, and thus amass wealth.[66] Instead, Smith argues, countries could gain from each producing exclusively the good(s) in which they are most suited to, trading between each other as required for the purposes of consumption. In this vein, it is not the value of exports relative to that of imports that is important, but the value of the goods produced by a nation. The concept of absolute advantage however does not address a situation where a country has no advantage in the production of a particular good or type of good.[67]

This theoretical shortcoming was addressed by the theory of comparative advantage. Generally attributed to David Ricardo who expanded on it in his 1817 book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,[68] it makes a case for free trade based not on absolute advantage in production of a good, but on the relative opportunity costs of production. A country should specialize in whatever good it can produce at the lowest cost, trading this good to buy other goods it requires for consumption. This allows for countries to benefit from trade even when they do not have an absolute advantage in any area of production. While their gains from trade might not be equal to those of a country more productive in all goods, they will still be better off economically from trade than they would be under a state of autarky. [69][70]

Exceptionally, Henry George's 1886 book Protection or Free Trade was read out loud in full into the Congressional Record by five Democratic congressmen.[71][72] Tyler Cowen wrote that 'Protection or Free Trade "remains perhaps the best-argued tract on free trade to this day."[73] George discusses the subject in particular with respect to the interests of labor. Although George is very critical towards protectionism:

We all hear with interest and pleasure of improvements in transportation by water or land; we are all disposed to regard the opening of canals, the building of railways, the deepening of harbors, the improvement of steamships as beneficial. But if such things are beneficial, how can tariffs be beneficial? The effect of such things is to lessen the cost of transporting commodities; the effect of tariffs is to increase it. If the protective theory be true, every improvement that cheapens the carriage of goods between country and country is an injury to mankind unless tariffs be commensurately increased.[74]

George considers the general free trade argument 'inadequate'. He argues that the removal of protective tariffs alone is never sufficient to improve the situation of the working class, unless accompanied by a shift towards land value tax.[75]

See also

Concepts/topics:

Trade organizations:

References

  1. ^ Murschetz, Paul (2013). State Aid for Newspapers: Theories, Cases, Actions. Springer Science+Business Media. p. 64. ISBN 978-3642356902. Parties of the left in government in adopt protectionist policies for ideological reasons and because they wish to save worker jobs. Conversely, right-wing parties are predisposed toward free trade policies.
  2. ^ Peláez, Carlos (2008). Globalization and the State: Volume II: Trade Agreements, Inequality, the Environment, Financial Globalization, International Law and Vulnerabilities. United States: Palgrave MacMillan. p. 68. ISBN 978-0230205314. Left-wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right-wing parties.
  3. ^ Mansfield, Edward (2012). Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements. Princeton University Press. p. 128. ISBN 978-0691135304. Left-wing governments are considered more likely than others to intervene in the economy and to enact protectionist trade policies.
  4. ^ Warren, Kenneth (2008). Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior: A-M, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. p. 680. ISBN 9781412954891. Yet, certain national interests, regional trading blocks, and left-wing anti-globalization forces still favor protectionist practices, making protectionism a continuing issue for both American political parties.
  5. ^ See P.Krugman, «The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade», American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 83(3), 1993 ; and P.Krugman, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1994.
  6. ^ a b "Free Trade". IGM Forum. March 13, 2012.
  7. ^ "Import Duties". IGM Forum. October 4, 2016.
  8. ^ N. Gregory Mankiw, Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade, New York Times (April 24, 2015): "Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another.... But economists reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade."
  9. ^ William Poole, Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, September/October 2004, 86(5), pp. 1: "most observers agree that '[t]he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal.'"
  10. ^ "Trade Within Europe | IGM Forum". www.igmchicago.org. Retrieved 2017-06-24.
  11. ^ a b c d Steven E. Landsburg. Price Theory and Applications, Sixth Edition, Chapter 8
  12. ^ Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection, Second Edition, Chapter 20. p. 255
  13. ^ a b Pugel (2007), International Economics, pp. 311–312
  14. ^ Chang, Ha-Joon, Kicking Away the Ladder: Good Policies and Good Institutions in Historical Perspective
  15. ^ a b Alan C. Stockman, Introduction to Economics, Second Edition, Chapter 9
  16. ^ a b N. Gregory Mankiw, Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition, Chapter 7
  17. ^ Fuller, Dan; Geide-Stevenson, Doris (Fall 2003). "Consensus Among Economists: Revisited" (PDF). Journal of Economic Review. 34 (4): 369–387. doi:10.1080/00220480309595230. (registration required)
  18. ^ Friedman, Milton. "The Case for Free Trade". Hoover Digest. 1997 (4). Archived from the original on 2007-01-22.
  19. ^ Whaples, Robert (2006). "Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!". The Economists' Voice. 3 (9). doi:10.2202/1553-3832.1156.
  20. ^ Mankiw, Gregory (2006-05-07). "Outsourcing Redux". Retrieved 2007-01-22.
  21. ^ "Poll Results | IGM Forum". www.igmchicago.org. Retrieved 2016-07-01.
  22. ^ Giovanni Arrighi (1994). The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times. Verso. p. 58. ISBN 978-1-85984-015-3.
  23. ^ a b Arthur Nussbaum (1947). A concise history of the law of nations. Macmillan Co. p. 62.
  24. ^ Appleby, Joyce (2010). The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  25. ^ Paul Bairoch (1995). Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes. University of Chicago Press. pp. 31–32.
  26. ^ Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution, p. 140.
  27. ^ Tyler, Smugglers & Patriots, p. 238.
  28. ^ International Monetary Fund Research Dept. (1997). World Economic Outlook, May 1997: Globalization: Opportunities and Challenges. International Monetary Fund. p. 113. ISBN 9781455278886.
  29. ^ Fourteen Points
  30. ^ a b "A historian on the myths of American trade". The Economist. Retrieved 2017-11-26.
  31. ^ Larry Schweikart, What Would the Founders Say? (New York: Sentinel, 2011), pp. 106–124.
  32. ^ Lind, Matthew. "Free Trade Fallacy". Prospect. Archived from the original on 6 January 2006. Retrieved 3 January 2011.
  33. ^ William McKinley speech, October 4, 1892 in Boston, MA William McKinley Papers (Library of Congress)
  34. ^ Eun, Cheol S.; Resnick, Bruce G. (2011). International Financial Management, 6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. ISBN 978-0-07-803465-7.
  35. ^ Irwin, Douglas A. (2017-09-19). "Steve Bannon's Bad History". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-09-20.
  36. ^ Chang (2003), Kicking Away the Ladder, p. 17
  37. ^ Chang (2003), Kicking Away the Ladder, p. 59
  38. ^ Chang (2003), Kicking Away the Ladder, p. 50
  39. ^ Chang (2003), Kicking Away the Ladder, p. 66
  40. ^ Destler, Mac and Noland, Marcus (July 2, 2014). Constant Ends, Flexible Means: C. Fred Bergsten and the Quest for Open Trade. Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  41. ^ http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/pera9707.pdf
  42. ^ "EU position in world trade". European Commission. Retrieved 24 May 2015.
  43. ^ "Agreements". European Commission. Retrieved 17 March 2016.
  44. ^ "Members and Observers". World Trade Organisation. Retrieved 3 January 2011.
  45. ^ "Everything You Need To Know About The Trans-Pacific Partnership". The Washington Post. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
  46. ^ "Trans-Pacific Partnership". U.S. Trade Representative. Archived from the original on 27 December 2014. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
  47. ^ "Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Parternship, Obama's Signature Trade Deal". New York Times. Retrieved 2 September 2017.
  48. ^ Compare: Ditmore, Melissa Hope (2006). Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work. Greenwood Press. p. 581. ISBN 9780313329685. Retrieved 2018-06-01. 'Let us by all means apply the sacred principles of free trade to trade in vice, and regulate the relations of the sexes by the higgling of the market and the liberty of private contract.'
  49. ^ http://reports.weforum.org/global-enabling-trade-report-2016/enabling-trade-rankings/
  50. ^ Boudreaux, Don Globalization, 2007
  51. ^ William Baumol and Alan Blinder, Economics: Principles and Policy, p. 722.
  52. ^ a b Brakman, Steven; Harry Garretsen; Charles Van Marrewijk; Arjen Van Witteloostuijn (2006). Nations and Firms in the Global Economy : An Introduction to International Economics and Business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83298-4.
  53. ^ Richard L. Stroup, James D. Gwartney, Russell S. Sobel, Economics: Private and Public Choice, p. 46.
  54. ^ Pugel, Thomas A. (2003). International economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-119875-X.
  55. ^ "Earnings – National". Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Archived from the original on 2012-03-15. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
  56. ^ "Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product". National Income and Product Accounts Table. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved 16 March 2012.
  57. ^ "It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." Marx, Karl On the Question of Free Trade Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848
  58. ^ a b Hainmueller, Jens; Hiscox, Michael J. (2006-04-01). "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade". International Organization. 60 (02): 469–498. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060140. ISSN 1531-5088.
  59. ^ Owen, Erica; Johnston, Noel P. (2017). "Occupation and the Political Economy of Trade: Job Routineness, Offshorability, and Protectionist Sentiment". International Organization: 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818317000339. ISSN 0020-8183.
  60. ^ Mansfield, Edward D.; Mutz, Diana C. (2009-07-01). "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety". International Organization. 63 (03): 425–457. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090158. ISSN 1531-5088.
  61. ^ "Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?" (PDF).
  62. ^ "Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the recolonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.", "In Defense of the American System, Against the British Colonial System." 1832, Feb 2, 3, and 6, Clay, Henry (1843). "The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay". II: 23–24.
  63. ^ "Had the English left everything to itself – 'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends – the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist."
  64. ^ Bhagwati (2002), Free Trade Today, p. 3
  65. ^ Smith, Wealth of Nations, pp. 264–265
  66. ^ Pugel (2007), International Economics, p. 33
  67. ^ Pugel (2007), International Economics, p. 34
  68. ^ Ricardo (1817), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Chapter 7 "On Foreign Trade"
  69. ^ Bhagwati (2002), Free Trade Today, p. 1
  70. ^ Pugel (2007), International Economics, pp. 35–38, 40
  71. ^ Weir, "A Fragile Alliance," 425–425
  72. ^ Henry George, Protection or Free Trade: An Examination of the Tariff Question, with Especial Regard to the Interests of Labor(New York: 1887).
  73. ^ Cowen, Tyler (May 1, 2009). "Anti-Capitalist Rerun". The American Interest. 4 (5). Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  74. ^ "True Free Trade", Chapter 3, Protection or Free Trade
  75. ^ "Protection or Free Trade - Chapter 16". www.truefreetrade.org.

Bibliography

Further reading

External links

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an inter-governmental forum for 21 Pacific Rim member economies that promotes free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Inspired from the success of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s series of post-ministerial conferences launched in the mid-1980s, the APEC was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence of Asia-Pacific economies and the advent of regional trade blocs in other parts of the world; and to establish new markets for agricultural products and raw materials beyond Europe. Headquartered in Singapore, the APEC is recognised as one of the oldest forums and highest-level multilateral blocs in the Asia-Pacific region, and exerts a significant global influence.An annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting is attended by the heads of government of all APEC members except Republic of China (Taiwan) (which is represented by a ministerial-level official under the name Republic of China as economic leader). The location of the meeting rotates annually among the member economies, and a famous tradition, followed for most (but not all) summits, involves the attending leaders dressing in a national costume of the host country. APEC has three official observers: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. APEC's Host Economy of the Year is considered to be invited in the first place for geographical representation to attend G20 meetings following G20 guidelines.

Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement

Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), official name as the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America (French: Accord de libre-échange entre le Canada et les États-Unis D'Amérique), is a trade agreement reached by negotiators for Canada and the United States on October 4, 1987, and signed by the leaders of both countries on January 2, 1988. The agreement phased out a wide range of trade restrictions in stages over a ten-year period, and resulted in a substantial increase in cross-border trade. With the addition of Mexico in 1994 FTA was superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (French: Accord de libre-échange Nord Américain (ALENA), Spanish: Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN)).As stated in the agreement, the main purposes of the Canadian-United States Free Trade Agreement were:

Eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States

Facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement

Significantly liberalize conditions for investment within that free-trade area

Establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes

Lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), also known as TPP11 or TPP-11, is a trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. At the time of its signing, the eleven countries' combined economies represented 13.4 percent of the global gross domestic product, approximately US$13.5 trillion, making the CPTPP the third largest free trade area in the world by GDP after the North American Free Trade Agreement and European Single Market.The CPTPP incorporates most of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provisions by reference, but suspended 22 provisions the United States favored that other countries opposed, and lowered the threshold for enactment so the participation of the U.S. is not required. The TPP was signed on 4 February 2016, but never entered into force as a result of the withdrawal of the United States.All original TPP signatories except the U.S. agreed in May 2017 to revive it and reached agreement in January 2018 to conclude the CPTPP. The formal signing ceremony was held on 8 March 2018 in Santiago, Chile.The agreement specifies that its provisions enter into effect 60 days after ratification by at least 50% of the signatories (six of the eleven participating countries). The sixth nation to ratify the deal was Australia on 31 October, and the agreement came into force for the initial six ratifying countries on 30 December 2018.

Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement

Note: Within this article, "CAFTA" refers to the agreement as it stood before January 2004, and "CAFTA-DR" is used after that.

The Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) is a free trade agreement (legally a treaty under international law, but not under U.S. law). Originally, the agreement encompassed the United States and the Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and was called CAFTA. In 2004, the Dominican Republic joined the negotiations, and the agreement was renamed CAFTA-DR.

CAFTA-DR, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and active bilateral free trade agreements such as the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement are seen as bloc agreements instead of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement. Panama has completed negotiations with the United States for a bilateral free trade agreement known as the Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement, and has been in effect since October 2012.

The CAFTA-DR constitutes the first free trade agreement between the United States and a small group of developing countries. It was created with the purpose of creating new and better economic opportunities by opening markets, eliminating tariffs, reducing barriers to services, and more. In 2015, it was estimated that the total two-way trade resulted in $53 billion. Nearly all Central American exports to the United States had already been tariff-free thanks to the 1984 Caribbean Basin Initiative.

European Free Trade Association

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a regional trade organization and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. The organization operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the European Single Market and are part of the Schengen Area. They are not, however, party to the European Union Customs Union.

EFTA was historically one of the two dominant western European trade blocs, but is now much smaller and closely associated with its historical competitor, the European Union. It was established on 3 May 1960 to serve as an alternative trade bloc for those European states that were unable or unwilling to join the then European Economic Community (EEC), which subsequently became the European Union. The Stockholm Convention, to establish the EFTA, was signed on 4 January 1960 in the Swedish capital by seven countries (known as the "outer seven").

Since 1995, only two founding members remain, namely Norway and Switzerland. The other five, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, have joined the EU in the intervening years. The initial Stockholm Convention was superseded by the Vaduz Convention, which aimed to provide a successful framework for continuing the expansion and liberalization of trade, both among the organization's member states and with the rest of the world.

Whilst the EFTA is not a customs union and member states have full rights to enter into bilateral third-country trade arrangements, it does have a coordinated trade policy. As a result, its member states have jointly concluded free trade agreements with the EU and a number of other countries. To participate in the EU's single market, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are parties to the Agreement on a European Economic Area (EEA), with compliances regulated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court. Switzerland has a set of bilateral agreements with the EU instead.

European Union free trade agreements

The European Union has concluded free trade agreements (FTAs) and other agreements with a trade component with many countries worldwide and is negotiating with many others.

Free-trade area

A free-trade area is the region encompassing a trade bloc whose member countries have signed a free-trade agreement (FTA). Such agreements involve cooperation between at least two countries to reduce trade barriers – import quotas and tariffs – and to increase trade of goods and services with each other.

If people are also free to move between the countries, in addition to a free-trade agreement, it would also be considered an open border. It can be considered the second stage of economic integration.

Free-trade zone

A free-trade zone (FTZ) is a class of special economic zone. It is a geographic area where goods may be landed, stored, handled, manufactured, or reconfigured, and re-exported under specific customs regulation and generally not subject to customs duty. Free trade zones are generally organized around major seaports, international airports, and national frontiers—areas with many geographic advantages for trade.

Free Trade Hall

The Free Trade Hall on Peter Street, Manchester, England, was a public hall, constructed in 1853–56 on St Peter’s Fields, the site of the Peterloo Massacre. It is now a Radisson hotel.

The hall was built to commemorate the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. The architect was Edward Walters. The hall was owned by the Manchester Corporation. It was bombed in the Manchester Blitz and its interior rebuilt and was Manchester's premier concert venue until the construction of the Bridgewater Hall in 1996. The hall was designated a Grade II* listed building in 1963.

Free Trade Party

The Free Trade Party which was officially known as the Australian Free Trade and Liberal Association, also referred to as the Revenue Tariff Party in some states, was an Australian political party, formally organised in 1887 in New South Wales, in time for the 1887 colony election, which the party won. It advocated the abolition of protectionism, especially protective tariffs and other restrictions on trade, arguing that this would create greater prosperity for all. However, many members also advocated use of minimal tariffs for government revenue purposes only. Its most prominent leader was George Reid, who led the Reid Government as the fourth Prime Minister of Australia (1904-5) . In New South Wales it was succeeded by the Liberal and Reform Association in 1902, and federally by the Anti-Socialist Party in 1906. In 1909, the Anti-Socialist Party merged with the Protectionist Party to form the Commonwealth Liberal Party.

North American Free Trade Agreement

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA; Spanish: Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, TLCAN; French: Accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ALÉNA) is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994. It superseded the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada, and is expected to be replaced by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement once it is ratifed.NAFTA has two supplements: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

Most economic analyses indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen, but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition. Economists hold that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablishes trade barriers will adversely affect the U.S. economy and cost jobs. However, Mexico would be much more severely affected by job loss and reduction of economic growth in both the short term and long term.On September 30, 2018, it was announced that the United States, Mexico, and Canada had come to an agreement to replace NAFTA with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). The USMCA is the result of the renegotiation of NAFTA that the member states undertook from 2017 to 2018, though NAFTA will remain in force until the USMCA is ratified by its members.

Protectionism

Protectionism is the economic policy of restricting imports from other countries through methods such as tariffs on imported goods, import quotas, and a variety of other government regulations. Proponents claim that protectionist policies shield the producers, businesses, and workers of the import-competing sector in the country from foreign competitors. However, they also reduce trade and adversely affect consumers in general (by raising the cost of imported goods), and harm the producers and workers in export sectors, both in the country implementing protectionist policies, and in the countries protected against.

There is a consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare, while free trade, deregulation, and the reduction of trade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth. In fact protectionism has been implicated by some scholars as the cause of some economic crises, in particular the Great Depression. However, trade liberalization can sometimes result in large and unequally distributed losses and gains, and can, in the short run, cause significant economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is the regional intergovernmental organization and geopolitical union of nations in South Asia. Its member states include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, the Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SAARC comprises 3% of the world's area, 21% of the world's population and 3.8% (US$2.9 trillion) of the global economy, as of 2015.

SAARC was founded in Dhaka on 8 December 1985. Its secretariat is based in Kathmandu, Nepal. The organization promotes development of economic and regional integration. It launched the South Asian Free Trade Area in 2006. SAARC maintains permanent diplomatic relations at the United Nations as an observer and has developed links with multilateral entities, including the European Union.

South Asian Free Trade Area

The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) is an agreement reached on January 6, 2004, at the 12th SAARC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan. It created a free trade area of 1.6 billion people in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka (as of 2018, the combined population is 2.08 billion people, about 27% of the world's population of 7678322000 ). The seven foreign ministers of the region signed a framework agreement on SAFTA to reduce customs duties of all traded goods to zero by the year 2016. The SAFTA agreement came into force on January 1, 2006, and is operational following the ratification of the agreement by the seven governments. SAFTA requires the developing countries in South Asia (India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) to bring their duties down to 20 percent in the first phase of the two-year period ending in 2007. In the final five-year phase ending 2012, the 20 percent duty will be reduced to zero in a series of annual cuts. The least developed nations in South Asia (Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Maldives) have an additional three years to reduce tariffs to zero. India and Pakistan ratified the treaty in 2009, whereas Afghanistan as the 8th memberstate of the SAARC ratified the SAFTA protocol on 4 May 2011.

Tariff

A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states. It is a form of regulation of foreign trade. It is a policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or protect domestic industry. It helps limit trade deficits. The tariff is historically used to protect infant industries and to allow import substitution industrialization.

Trade

Trade involves the transfer of goods or services from one person or entity to another, often in exchange for money. A system or network that allows trade is called a market.

An early form of trade, barter, saw the direct exchange of goods and services for other goods and services. Barter involves trading things without the use of money. Later, one bartering party started to involve precious metals, which gained symbolic as well as practical importance. Modern traders generally negotiate through a medium of exchange, such as money. As a result, buying can be separated from selling, or earning. The invention of money (and later credit, paper money and non-physical money) greatly simplified and promoted trade. Trade between two traders is called bilateral trade, while trade involving more than two traders is called multilateral trade.

Trade exists due to specialization and the division of labor, a predominant form of economic activity in which individuals and groups concentrate on a small aspect of production, but use their output in trades for other products and needs. Trade exists between regions because different regions may have a comparative advantage (perceived or real) in the production of some trade-able commodity—including production of natural resources scarce or limited elsewhere, or because different regions' sizes may encourage mass production. In such circumstances, trade at market prices between locations can benefit both locations.

Retail trade consists of the sale of goods or merchandise from a very fixed location (such as a department store, boutique or kiosk), online or by mail, in small or individual lots for direct consumption or use by the purchaser. Wholesale trade is defined as traffic in goods that are sold as merchandise to retailers, or to industrial, commercial, institutional, or other professional business users, or to other wholesalers and related subordinated services.

Trade bloc

A trade bloc is a type of intergovernmental agreement, often part of a regional intergovernmental organization, where barriers to trade (tariffs and others) are reduced or eliminated among the participating states.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, is a defunct proposed trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States signed on 4 February 2016, which was not ratified as required and did not take effect. After the United States withdrew its signature, the agreement could not enter into force. The remaining nations negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

The TPP began as an expansion of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4) signed by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore in 2005. Beginning in 2008, additional countries joined the discussion for a broader agreement: Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States, and Vietnam, bringing the negotiating countries to twelve. In January 2017, the United States withdrew from the agreement. The other 11 TPP countries agreed in May 2017 to revive it and reached agreement in January 2018. In March 2018, the 11 countries signed the revised version of the agreement, called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. After ratification by six of them (Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Singapore), the agreement came into force for those countries on 30 December 2018.

The original TPP contained measures to lower both non-tariff and tariff barriers to trade, and establish an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The U.S. International Trade Commission, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories, while an analysis using an alternative methodology by two Tufts University economists found the agreement would adversely affect the signatories. Many observers have argued the trade deal would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the signatories' dependence on Chinese trade and bring the signatories closer to the United States.

United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement

The Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada is a signed but not ratified free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It is referred to differently by each signatory—in the United States, it is called the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA); in Canada, it is called the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in English and the Accord Canada–États-Unis–Mexique (ACEUM) in French; and in Mexico, it is called the Tratado entre México, Estados Unidos y Canadá (T-MEC). The agreement is sometimes referred to as "New NAFTA" in reference to the previous trilateral agreement it is meant to supersede, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Agreement is the result of a 2017–2018 renegotiation of NAFTA by its member states, which informally agreed to the terms on September 30, 2018, and formally on October 1. The USMCA was signed by United States President Donald Trump, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on November 30, 2018 as a side event of the 2018 G20 Summit in Buenos Aires. Each country's legislature still must ratify the agreement.

Compared to NAFTA, the agreement gives the United States more access to Canada's $19 billion dairy market, incentivizes more domestic production of cars and trucks, increases environmental and labor regulations, and introduces updated intellectual property protections.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.