Editing Free trade (section)

== Politics ==
{{Organize section|date=February 2019}}
{{More citations needed|section|date=November 2019}}

Academics, governments and interest groups debate the relative [[social cost|costs]], benefits and beneficiaries of free trade.

Arguments for [[protectionism]] fall into the economic category (trade hurts the economy or groups in the economy) or into 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 represents [[neocolonialism]] in disguise.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective|first1=Ha-Joon|last1=Chang|date=July 1, 2002|publisher=Anthem Press|isbn=1843310279 }}</ref> The moral category is wide, including concerns about:<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets|first1=Jason|last1=Hickel|date=February 13, 2018|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|url=https://www.amazon.com/Divide-Global-Inequality-Conquest-Markets-ebook/dp/B073SG4L8T/ref=sr_1_2?crid=FYECG8VZRZ61&keywords=the+divide+jason+hickel&qid=1692054298&s=books&sprefix=the+divide+jason+hickel%2Cstripbooks%2C133&sr=1-2}}</ref>

* [[Infant industry argument|destroying infant industries]]
* undermining long-run economic development
* promoting [[income inequality]]
* tolerating [[environmental degradation]]
* supporting [[child labor]] and [[sweatshops]]
* creating a [[race to the bottom]]
* accentuating poverty in poor countries
* harming [[Defense (military)|national defense]]
* forcing [[cultural change]]

Economic arguments against free trade criticize the assumptions or conclusions of economic theories. 

Domestic industries often oppose free trade on the grounds that lower prices for imported goods would reduce their profits and market share.<ref>[[William Baumol]] and [[Alan Blinder]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=NNRU3b_tE7cC&pg=PA761 Economics: Principles and Policy], p. 722.</ref><ref name='brakman'>{{Cite book| last = Brakman | first = Steven |author2= Harry Garretsen |author3= Charles Van Marrewijk |author4= Arjen Van Witteloostuijn  | title = Nations and Firms in the Global Economy : An Introduction to International Economics and Business | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2006 | location = Cambridge | isbn = 978-0521832984}}</ref> For example, if the United States reduced tariffs on imported sugar, sugar producers would receive lower prices and profits, and 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.<ref>[[Richard L. Stroup]], James D. Gwartney, Russell S. Sobel, [https://books.google.com/books?id=1cklAwAVAgkC&pg=PA45 Economics: Private and Public Choice], p. 46.</ref><ref name='pugel'>{{Cite book | last = Pugel | first = Thomas A. | title = International economics | publisher = McGraw-Hill | year = 2003 | location = Boston | url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780071198752 | isbn = 978-0071198752 | url-access = registration }}</ref> Since each of the 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 reduction in tariffs.<ref name='brakman'/> 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.

[[File:Real Wages vs Trade Percent of GDP.svg|thumb|500px|United States real wages vs. trade as a percent of GDP<ref>{{cite web|title= Earnings – National|url= http://bls.gov/data/#wages|work= Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject|publisher= Bureau of Labor Statistics|access-date= 16 March 2012|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120315185503/http://www.bls.gov/data/#wages|archive-date= 15 March 2012|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product|url= https://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid|archive-url= http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120911022000/http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid|work= National Income and Product Accounts Table|publisher= U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis|access-date= 16 March 2012|archive-date= 2012-09-11|url-status= dead}}</ref>]]

[[Socialists]] frequently oppose free trade on the ground that it allows maximum [[Exploitation of labour|exploitation]] of [[Labor movement|workers]] by [[Capital (economics)|capital]]. For example, [[Karl Marx]] wrote in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' (1848): "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".  Marx supported free trade, however, solely because he felt that it would hasten the social revolution. He also viewed the tendency to support protectionism out of spite for free trade to be unsound. That is because Marx viewed protectionism as a means for domestic firms to establish "large-scale" industry within its borders, which would inevitably make it dependent on the world market so that it could make more revenue for example. He also argues that protectionism does not stop a country from developing a domestic economic system that ironically mirrors competitive free trade. <ref>"It is in this revolutionary sense ''alone'', gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." Marx, Karl [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx On the Question of Free Trade] Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848</ref>

Many [[anti-globalization]] groups oppose free trade based on their assertion that free-trade agreements generally do not increase the [[economic freedom]] of the [[poor]] or of the [[working class]] and frequently make them poorer.

Some opponents of free trade favor free-trade theory but oppose free-trade agreements as applied. Some opponents of [[NAFTA]] see the agreement as materially harming 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 [[agricultural subsidy|subsidized]] corn from the United States into Mexico freely under [[NAFTA]] at prices well below production cost ([[dumping (pricing policy)|dumping]]) because of its ruinous effects to Mexican farmers.

Research shows that support for trade restrictions is highest among respondents with the lowest levels of education.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Hainmueller|first1=Jens|last2=Hiscox|first2=Michael J.|date=2006|title=Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade|journal=International Organization|volume=60|issue=2|pages=469–498|citeseerx=10.1.1.407.4650|doi=10.1017/S0020818306060140|doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |issn=1531-5088|s2cid=152381282}}</ref> Hainmueller and Hiscox find:

<blockquote>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<ref name=":0" /></blockquote> A 2017 study found that individuals whose occupations are routine-task-intensive and who do jobs that are [[offshoring|offshorable]] are more likely to favor protectionism.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1= Owen|first1= Erica|last2= Johnston|first2= Noel P.|date= 2017|title= Occupation and the Political Economy of Trade: Job Routineness, Offshorability, and Protectionist Sentiment|journal= International Organization|volume= 71|issue= 4|pages= 665–699|doi= 10.1017/S0020818317000339|s2cid= 158781474|issn= 0020-8183}}</ref>

Research suggests that attitudes towards free trade do not necessarily reflect individuals' self-interests.<ref>{{Cite journal |title = Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety |journal = International Organization |date = 2009-07-01 |issn = 1531-5088 |pages = 425–457 |volume = 63 |issue = 3 |doi = 10.1017/S0020818309090158 |first1 = Edward D. |last1 = Mansfield |first2 = Diana C. |last2 = Mutz|s2cid = 2134093 |url = https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/322 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url = https://web.stanford.edu/~tomz/working/RhoTomz-2015-05-02.pdf |title = Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest? |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160203052117/https://web.stanford.edu/~tomz/working/RhoTomz-2015-05-02.pdf |archive-date = 2016-02-03 |url-status = dead }}</ref>

=== Colonialism ===
{{Further|Dependency theory}}
[[File:Colonization 1945.png|thumb|upright=1.25|Map of [[colonial empire]]s in 1945]]

Various proponents of [[economic nationalism]] and of the school of [[mercantilism]] have long portrayed free trade as a form of colonialism or imperialism. In the 19th century, such groups criticized British calls for free trade as cover for [[British Empire]], notably in the works of American [[Henry Clay]], architect of the [[American System (economic plan)|American System]].<ref>{{Cite book | title = The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101013125040&view=1up&seq=7&skin=2021 | volume = II | first = Henry | last = Clay | year = 1843 |chapter=In Defense of the American System: In the Senate of the United States, February 2d, 3d, and 6th, 1832 |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Biyh3OmxhOMC&pg=PA23 | pages= 23–24 | publisher = Greeley & McElrath | hdl = 2027/njp.32101013125040 | hdl-access = free |quote=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.}}</ref>

Free-trade debates and associated matters involving the colonial administration of [[Ireland]]<ref>
{{cite book
 | last1 = Hechter
 | first1 = Michael
 | year = 1999
 | title = Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=2iExDwAAQBAJ
 | edition = 2
 | publisher = Routledge
 | publication-date = 2017
 | isbn = 978-1351511926
 | access-date = 4 August 2019
 | quote = After the Corn Laws were repealed, ending Ireland's virtual monopoly of the British grain market, the Irish land system changed radically.
}}
</ref>
have periodically (such as in 1846 and 1906) caused ructions in the [[Conservative Party (UK)|British Conservative]] ([[Tories (British political party)|Tory]]) Party ([[Corn Laws|Corn Law]] issues in the 1820s to the 1840s, [[Irish Home Rule movement|Irish Home Rule]] issues throughout the 19th and early-20th centuries).

Ecuadorian President [[Rafael Correa]] (in office from 2007 to 2017) denounced the "sophistry of free trade" in an introduction he wrote for a 2006 book, ''The Hidden Face of Free Trade Accords'',<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I3TSD9Y1VmQC|title=El rostro oculto del TLC|first1=Alberto|last1=Acosta|first2=Rafael|last2=Correa|year=2006|publisher=Editorial Abya Yala|isbn=978-9978226100|access-date=2 March 2022|via=Google Books}}</ref> which was written in part by Correa's Energy Minister Alberto Acosta. Citing as his source the 2002 book ''Kicking Away the Ladder'' written by [[Ha-Joon Chang]],<ref>{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X5N7JMS1wNYC | title=Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective| isbn=978-0857287618| last1=Chang| first1=Ha-Joon|year=2002| publisher=Anthem Press}} [http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm Review].</ref> Correa identified the difference between an "American system" opposed to a "British System" of free trade. The Americans explicitly viewed the latter, he says, as "part of the British imperialist system". According to Correa, Chang showed that Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]] (in office 1789–1795), rather than List, first presented a systematic argument defending industrial protectionism.