The argument has been made that free trade is the path that should and will be taken to improve the world economy for all. Through it States will be able to better allocate resources, labor, and goods. This sentiment, however, is not shared my all. A major opponent of free trade is Ian Fletcher. His argument against free trade is sound, however through other readings, especially Moonhawk Kim’s on the GATT/WTO, it can be seen that the theory of free trade is still evolving at the international level and that by sticking with it and having States being willing to work with each other it will end up being able to accomplish all that it is theorized to do.
The argument has been made that globalization in inevitable and free trade is the best option for States to employ for their economies. Fletcher, however, sees this as a great lie. In chapter one of his book Free trade doesn’t work: What should replace it and why, he begins with his argument against globalization and then finishes with the faults of free trade and what he calls lies that are told about to in an attempt to connive States this is the path to take.
Fletcher begins his argument with globalization. Theories written about globalization revolved around the ideas of whether it is good or bad for States economies and how long will it last. These ideas, Fletcher, believes, misses the mark. Each of these thoughts on globalization assume that globalization is a force that cannot be stopped and will happen whether States like it or not. This is not the case. Instead, Fletcher argues, should be “how far will it go,” “what shape will it take,” and “what measures should States take to influence it.” These questions show that globalization is choice that States can make and ...
... middle of paper ...
...nvergence of State regulatory system and that instead of this divide States are instead devising institutional solutions that will aid in the converge of these two systems and that while this may happening there is still a need for continued evolving of the international governance of free trade to ensure the fairness of it.
As noted Fletcher does make some valid arguments when it comes to why free trade is not the route State should take. However, a thorough examination of his arguments exposes holes. Add this to the writings of Kim and it can be seen that while the system is not perfect the organizations like the GATT and WTO exist to help perfect the system. Understanding this will lead to beneficial discussions about how the system can be continually updated and perfected. Doing this will allow for free trade to be able to accomplish what is theorized to do.
Free trade comes with its share of pros and cons. It is responsible for increased economic growth, better business environments, encourages investment
The United States has for over two centuries been involved in the growing world economy. While the U.S. post revolutionary war sought to protect itself from outside influences has since the great depression and world war two looked to break trade restrictions. The United States role in the global economy has grown throughout the 20th century and as a result of several historical events has adopted positions of both benefactor and dependent. The United States trade policy has over time shifted from isolationist protectionism to a commitment to establishing world-wide free trade. Free trade enterprise has developed and grown through organizations such as the WTO and NAFTA. The U.S. in order to obtain its free trade desires has implemented a number of policies that can be examined for both their benefits and flaws. Several trade policies exist as options to the United States, among these fair trade and free trade policies dominate the world economic market. In order to achieve economic growth the United States has a duty to maintain a global trade policy that benefits both domestic workers and industry. While free trade gives opportunities to large industries and wealthy corporate investors the American worker suffers job instability and lower wages. However fair trade policies that protect America’s workers do not help foster wide economic growth. The United States must then engage in economic trade policies that both protect the United States founding principles and secure for tomorrow greater economic stability.
As Ian Fletcher pointed out in Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace it And Why, nations need a well-chosen balance between openness and closure toward the larger world economy (Fletc...
While free trade has certainly changed with advances in technology and the ability to create external economies, the concept seems to be the most benign way for countries to trade with one another. Factoring in that imperfect competition and increasing returns challenge the concept of comparative advantage in modern international trade markets, the resulting introduction of government policies to regulate trade seems to result in increased tensions between countries as individual nations seek to gain advantages at the cost of others. While classical trade optimism may be somewhat naïve, the alternatives are risky and potentially harmful.
Although it already existed long before through primitive trade and migration, globalization has become a major factor in the world organization since the twentieth century. With the creation of transnational companies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, political and economic associations appeared new powerful actors that cannot be left apart in states’ decisions and whose influence may, according to some, threaten the authority of nation-states. Indeed it can be thought that globalization is causing the end of borders between countries and what is more that it is creating a sort of universal society in which states’ sovereignty is not the main authority anymore. However this essay will try to demonstrate that globalization is not undermining state sovereignty but that it is in fact leading to its transformation and to a new variety of nations. In order to prove it I will first define the main key words and will then focus on the different arguments about the effects of globalization and finally I will demonstrate that globalization has led to a transformation of the concept of state sovereignty.
When the term “Globalization” is discussed, most academics, scholars, professionals and intellectuals attempt to define and interpret it in a summarized fashion. My main concern with this approach is that one cannot and should not define a process that altered decades of history and continues to, in less than 30 words. Global Shift is a book with remarkable insight. Peter Dicken rather than attempting to define the commonly misused word, explains Globalization in a clear and logical fashion, which interconnects numerous views. Dicken takes full advantage of his position to write and identify the imperative changes of political, economic, social, and technological dimensions of globalization.
Free trade also would increase peace between the developed countries such as China, Russia, and Europe. This would increase productivity and wealth due to money not having to be spent on war and fighting with other nations. As participants in the world’s most productive, innovative economy, the great majority of people in the United States benefit from the expansion of free trade. U.S. leaders must base the country’s trade policy on promoting the overall health of the U.S. economy,not on helping special interests. U.S. leadership in championing free trade is essential to maintaining the United States’ broader international role as a force for democracy and the rule of
They explain that, with the reduced or zero tariffs imposed making foreign suppliers easily lowering their prices, local companies have to compete with the prices, which they should do even if it is difficult for them, or consumers will go for imported goods over their locally produced products- Opponents of free trade say that with the increasing competition this treaty offers, some businesses might close down or decide to do business elsewhere. When this happens, workers will be displaced. Regardless of the reduced prices, this will still have an effect on these workers because they will be unemployed or paid with lower wages. - the opponents of free trade will continue to espouse the old argument that "the jobs created by globalization are often less sustaining and secure than the livelihoods abolished by it [in poor countries]." (froning)
In order for international trade to work well, governments must allow the world market to determine how goods are sold, manufactured and traded for all to economically prosper. While all nations may have the capability to produce any goods or services needed by their population, it is not possible for all nations to have a comparative advantage for producing a good due to natural resources of the country or other available resources needed to produce a good or service. The example of trading among states comprising the United States is an example of how free trade works best without the interve...
Free trade can be defined as the free access of the market by individuals without any restriction or any trade barriers that can obstruct the trade process such as taxes, tariffs and import quotas. Free trade in its own way unites and brings people together. Most individuals love the concept of free trade because it gives them the ability to move freely and interact in the market. The whole idea of free trade is that it lowers the price for goods and services by promoting competition. Domestic producers will no longer be able to rely on government law and other forms of assistance, including quotas which essentially force citizens to buy from them. The producers will have to enter the market and strive into to obtain profit.
Interdependence: The possibility that unhindered commerce trade prompts interconnections that make clash too much over the top.
In conclusion, Dani Rodrik believes that globalization works best when it is not pushed too far. This allows domestic governments to hold on to some authority over trade alongside policy-making space. Free-market trade going unchecked through hyper globalization would present a problem because people undermine the regulations that citizens are so used to being protected by. This would lead to a problem concerning legitimacy. One solution would be to impose a set of regulations among all countries, but that would be advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others, making it an unfair solution. Creating policy-making space provides governments with some ability to keep trade legitimate as globalization expands.
Everyday, countless interactions occur between nations around the world. Many of these exchanges are political or social, but a vast amount are also economic. Free trade is something that many countries partake in, or wish to partake in, in order to improve their overall production and consumption of goods. Free trade is sometimes referred to as laissez-faire trade because of the “hands off” approach from the government it incorporates. By having the ability to trade freely with other nations without the government placing restraints (often in the form of tariffs) on the exchanges, both countries involved in the trade increase their number of goods. Free trade is successful because it allows each country to produce the product that they possess
Fletcher, I. (2011). Crumbling of Free Trade – And Why it’s a Good Thing. Retrieved from
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?