Most nations are today members of theWorld Trade Organizationmultilateral trade agreements. States can unilaterally reduce regulations and duties on imports and exports, as well as form bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements. Free trade areas between groups of countries, such as theEuropean Economic Area and theMercosuropen markets, establish a free trade zone among members while creating a protectionist barrier between that free trade area and the rest of the world. Most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applyingtariffs to imports orsubsidies to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade includeimport quotas, taxes andnon-tariff barriers, such as regulatorylegislation.
Historically, openness to free trade substantially increased from 1815 to the outbreak ofWorld War I. Trade openness increased again during the 1920s, but collapsed (in particular in Europe and North America) during theGreat Depression. Trade openness increased substantially again from the 1950s onwards (albeit with a slowdown during the1973 oil crisis). Economists and economic historians contend that current levels of trade openness are the highest they have ever been.[5][6][7]
Economists are generally supportive of free trade.[8] 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 oftrade barriers has a positive effect on economic growth[9][10][11][12][13][14] and economic stability.[15] However, in the short run,liberalization of trade can cause unequally distributed losses and the economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.[10][16][17]
Trade ofgoods without taxes (including tariffs) or othertrade 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 somefirms, households, orfactors of production an advantage over others.
Two simple ways to understand the proposed benefits of free trade are throughDavid Ricardo's theory ofcomparative 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.[18][19]
Most economists would recommend that evendeveloping nations should set their tariff rates quite low, but the economistHa-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.[20][21] 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 tostimulate 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 asimport substitution industrialization, is largely considered ineffective for currently developing nations.[20]
The light red regions are the net loss to society caused by the existence of the tariff.[citation needed]
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.[22][23]
This has three 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.[22][23]
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.[18]
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 gains from free trade are larger than the losses.[18]
A 2021 study found that across 151 countries over the period 1963–2014, "tariff increases are associated with persistent, economically and statistically significant declines in domestic output and productivity, as well as higher unemployment and inequality, real exchange rate appreciation, and insignificant changes to the trade balance."[24]
A 2023 study inJournal of Political Economy found that reductions in trade costs since 1980 caused increases in agricultural productivity, food consumption and welfare across the world. The welfare gains were particularly large in some developing countries.[27]
According tomainstream economics theory, the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can lead toeconomic inefficiency through the process oftrade diversion. It is 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 reason is why many economists place such high importance on negotiations for global tariff reductions, such as theDoha Round.[18]
Political poster from the BritishLiberal Party displaying their views on the differences between an economy based on free trade andprotectionism. The free-trade shop is shown as full to the brim with customers due to its low prices. The shop based upon protectionism is shown as suffering from high prices and a lack of customers, with animosity between the business owner and the regulator.
The literature analyzing the economics of free trade is rich. Economists have done extensive work on the theoretical and empirical effects of free trade. Although it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade provides a net gain for society.[28][29] 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".[30]
Quoting Harvard economics professorN. Gregory Mankiw, "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards".[31] 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".[32]
Paul Krugman stated that free trade is greatly beneficial to the world as a whole, and especially beneficial to people in poorer nations, since it allows them to increase their standards of living.[33] He also stated in 2007 that, as the US trades more with less-industrialized countries whose workers are paid less than equivalent US workers (2007 wages in Mexico were 1/10 what they were in the US, and in China less than 1/20), increased trade with those countries will put downward pressure on unskilled labor rates in the US.[33]
This section needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(April 2024)
An overwhelming number of people internationally – both in developed and developing countries – support trade with other countries, but are more split when it comes to whether or not they believe trade creates jobs, increases wages, and decreases prices.[34] The median belief in advanced economies is that trade increases wages, with 31 percent of people believing it does, compared to 27 percent who believe it does not. In emerging economies, 47 percent of people believe trade increases wages, compared to 20 percent who says it lowers wages. There is a positive relationship of 0.66 between the average GDP growth rate for the years 2014 to 2017 and the percentage of people in a given country that say trade increases wages.[35] Most people, in both advanced and emerging economies, believe that trade increases prices. 35 percent of people in advanced economies and 56 percent in emerging economies believe trade increases prices, and 29 percent and 18 percent, respectively, believe that trade lowers prices. Those with a higher level of education are more likely than those with less education to believe that trade lowers prices.[36]
The notion of a free trade system encompassing multiple sovereign states originated in a rudimentary form in 16th centuryImperial Spain.[37] AmericanjuristArthur Nussbaum noted that Spanish theologianFrancisco de Vitoria was "the first to set forth the notions (though not the terms) of freedom of commerce and freedom of the seas".[38] Vitoria made the case under principles ofjus gentium.[38] However, it was two early British economistsAdam Smith andDavid 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. For example, Smith pointed to increased trading as being the reason for the flourishing of not justMediterranean cultures such asEgypt,Greece andRome, but also ofBengal (East India) andChina.Netherlands prospered greatly afterthrowing off Spanish Imperial rule and pursuing a policy of free trade.[39] This made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most important question in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled withmercantilist,protectionist,isolationist,socialist,populist and other policies over the centuries.
TheOttoman Empire hadliberal free trade policies by the 18th century, with origins incapitulations of the Ottoman Empire, dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further withcapitulations in 1673, in 1740 which loweredduties to only 3% for imports and exports and in 1790. Ottoman free trade policies were praised by British economists advocating free trade such asJ. R. McCulloch in hisDictionary of Commerce (1834), but criticized by British politicians opposing free trade such asPrime MinisterBenjamin Disraeli, who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846Corn Laws debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.[40]
Average tariff rates in France, the United Kingdom and the United States
Trade incolonial America was regulated by the British mercantile system through theActs 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 theAmerican 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".[41]
Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of theAmerican Revolution. After the British Parliament issued theProhibitory Act in 1775, blockading colonial ports, theContinental Congress responded by effectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on 6 April 1776 – three months before declaring sovereign independence.[42]
In March 1801, the PopePius VII ordered some liberalization of trade to face the economic crisis in thePapal States with themotu proprioLe più colte. Despite this, the export of national corn was forbidden to ensure the food for thePapal States.
Britain waged twoOpium Wars to force China to legalize theopium trade and to open all of China to British merchants.
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.[44]
According to economic historianDouglas Irwin, a common myth about United States 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.[45] A review by theEconomist of Irwin's 2017 bookClashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy notes:[45]
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 toPaul 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, theJeffersonians strongly opposed protectionism. In the 19th century, statesmen such as SenatorHenry Clay continuedAlexander Hamilton's themes within theWhig Party under the nameAmerican System. The oppositionDemocratic Party contested several elections throughout the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s in part over the issue of the tariff and protection of industry.[46] The Democratic Party favored moderate tariffs used for government revenue only while the Whigs favored higher protective tariffs to protect favored industries. The economistHenry Charles Carey became a leading proponent of the American System of economics. This mercantilist American System was opposed by the Democratic Party ofAndrew Jackson,Martin Van Buren,John Tyler,James K. Polk,Franklin Pierce andJames Buchanan.
The fledglingRepublican Party led byAbraham Lincoln, who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade and implemented a 44% tariff during theCivil War, in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort and in part to protect favored industries.[47] CongressmanWilliam McKinley (later to become President of the United States) introduced tariffs in 1890 which raised the average duty on imports to almost 50%, an increase designed to protect domestic industries and workers from foreign competition, as promised in the Republican platform.[48] It representedprotectionism, a policy supported by Republicans and denounced by Democrats. It was a major topic of fierce debate in the1890 congressional elections, which gave a Democratic landslide. Democrats replaced the McKinley Tariff with theWilson–Gorman Tariff Act in 1894, which lowered tariff rates.[49]
Free trade may apply to trade ingoods and services. Non-economic considerations may inhibit free trade as a country may espouse free trade in principle but ban certain drugs, such asethanol, or certain practices, such asprostitution, and limiting international free trade.[56]
Some degree of protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world. 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%.[57] The American economistC. Fred Bergsten devised the bicycle theory to describetrade policy. According to this model, trade policy is dynamically unstable in that it constantly tends towards either liberalization or protectionism. To prevent falling off the bike (the disadvantages of protectionism), trade policy andmultilateral trade negotiations must constantly pedal towards greater liberalization. To achieve greater liberalization, 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 globalization and the motives for trades unions and politicians to call for protection of trade.[58]
InKicking Away the Ladder, development economistHa-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 theCorn Laws which restricted import of grain in 1846 in response to domestic pressures and reduced protectionism for manufactures only 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.[59] The most consistent practitioners of free trade have been Switzerland, the Netherlands and to a lesser degree Belgium.[60] Chang describes theexport-oriented industrialization policies of theFour Asian Tigers as "far more sophisticated and fine-tuned than their historical equivalents".[61]
The Global Enabling Trade Report measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destinations. The index summarizes four sub-indexes, namely market access; border administration; transport and communications infrastructure; and business environment. As of 2016, the top 30 countries and areas were the following:[62]
Academics, governments and interest groups debate the relativecosts, benefits and beneficiaries of free trade.
Arguments forprotectionism 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 representsneocolonialism in disguise.[21] The moral category is wide, including concerns about:[63]
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.[64][65] 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 ofDavid Ricardo holds that consumers would necessarily gain more than producers would lose.[66][67] 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.[65] 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.
United States real wages vs. trade as a percent of GDP[68][69]
Socialists frequently oppose free trade on the ground that it allows maximumexploitation ofworkers bycapital. For example,Karl Marx wrote inThe 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.[70]
Manyanti-globalization groups oppose free trade based on their assertion that free-trade agreements generally do not increase theeconomic freedom of thepoor or of theworking class and frequently make them poorer.
Some opponents of free trade favor free-trade theory but oppose free-trade agreements as applied. Some opponents ofNAFTA 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 tradeper se. For example, it is argued that it would be wrong to letsubsidized corn from the United States into Mexico freely underNAFTA at prices well below production cost (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.[71] Hainmueller and Hiscox 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[71]
A 2017 study found that individuals whose occupations are routine-task-intensive and who do jobs that areoffshorable are more likely to favor protectionism.[72]
Research suggests that attitudes towards free trade do not necessarily reflect individuals' self-interests.[73][74]
Various proponents ofeconomic nationalism and of the school ofmercantilism 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 forBritish Empire, notably in the works of AmericanHenry Clay, architect of theAmerican System.[75]
Free-trade debates and associated matters involving the colonial administration ofIreland[76]have periodically (such as in 1846 and 1906) caused ructions in theBritish Conservative (Tory) Party (Corn Law issues in the 1820s to the 1840s,Irish Home Rule issues throughout the 19th and early-20th centuries).
Ecuadorian PresidentRafael 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,[77] which was written in part by Correa's Energy Minister Alberto Acosta. Citing as his source the 2002 bookKicking Away the Ladder written byHa-Joon Chang, 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 SecretaryAlexander Hamilton (in office 1789–1795), rather than List, first presented a systematic argument defending industrial protectionism.[citation needed]
Under balanced trade, nations are required to provide a fairly even reciprocal trade pattern; they cannot run largetrade deficits or trade surpluses. Fair trade involves allowing trade but taking into account other interests, such asdirigisme, protectinglabor rights,environmentalism, etc.
Protectionism involvestariffs to protect domestic goods and industry from international competition, and to raise government revenue in lieu of other forms oftaxation.
In 1846, the United Kingdom abolished theCorn Laws (which had restricted import of grain), in response to thefamine in Ireland and other domestic pressures over food prices. It also reduced protectionism for manufactures, but only in the mid 19th century when its technological advantage was at its height. Tariffs on manufactured products had returned to 23% by 1950.[citation needed]
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.[59] The2016 presidential election marked the beginning of the trend of returning to protectionism in the United States, an ideology incorporated into Republican presidentDonald Trump's platform and largely maintained by his successorJoe Biden.[82][83]
Belgium also engaged in unequal exchange, most notoriously in theCongo Free State (CFS) underKing Leopold II. In direct violation of his promises of free trade within the CFS under the terms of theBerlin Treaty, not only did the CFS become a commercial entity directly or indirectly trading within its dominion, but Leopold had also been slowly monopolizing a considerable amount of the ivory and rubber trade by imposing export duties on the resources traded by other merchants within the CFS.[88]
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.[90]
This statement uses the concept ofabsolute advantage to present an argument in opposition tomercantilism, 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.[91] Instead, Smith argues, countries could gain from each producing exclusively the goods 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. However, the concept of absolute advantage does not address a situation where a country has no advantage in the production of a particular good or type of good.[92]
This theoretical shortcoming was addressed by the theory of comparative advantage. Generally attributed toDavid Ricardo, who expanded on it in his 1817 bookOn the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,[93] it makes a case for free trade based not on absolute advantage in production of a good, but on the relativeopportunity 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 ofautarky.[94][95]
Exceptionally,Henry George's 1886 bookProtection or Free Trade was read out loud in full into theCongressional Record by fiveDemocratic congressmen.[96][97] American economistTyler Cowen wrote thatProtection or Free Trade "remains perhaps the best-argued tract on free trade to this day".[98] Although George is very critical towards protectionism, he discusses the subject in particular with respect to the interests of labor:
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.[99]
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 a "single tax" in the form of aland value tax.[100]
^Murschetz, Paul (2013).State Aid for Newspapers: Theories, Cases, Actions.Springer Science+Business Media. p. 64.ISBN978-3642356902.Parties of the left in government adopt protectionist policies for ideological reasons and because they wish to save worker jobs. Conversely, right-wing parties are predisposed toward free trade policies.
^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.ISBN978-0230205314.Left-wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right-wing parties.
^Mansfield, Edward (2012).Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements.Princeton University Press. p. 128.ISBN978-0691135304.Left-wing governments are considered more likely than others to intervene in the economy and to enact protectionist trade policies.
^Warren, Kenneth (2008).Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior: A–M, Volume 1.Sage. p. 680.ISBN978-1412954891.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.
^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.
^Furceri, Davide; Hannan, Swarnali A; Ostry, Jonathan D; Rose, Andrew K (9 May 2022). "The Macroeconomy After Tariffs".The World Bank Economic Review.36 (2):361–381.doi:10.1093/wber/lhab016.
^Perla, Jesse; Tonetti, Christopher; Waugh, Michael E. (January 2021). "Equilibrium Technology Diffusion, Trade, and Growth".American Economic Review.111 (1):73–128.doi:10.1257/aer.20151645.
^Eaton, Jonathan; Kortum, Samuel (September 2002). "Technology, Geography, and Trade".Econometrica.70 (5):1741–1779.doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00352.JSTOR3082019.
^Farrokhi, Farid; Pellegrina, Heitor S. (2023). "Trade, Technology, and Agricultural Productivity".Journal of Political Economy.131 (9):2509–2555.doi:10.1086/724319.
^Fuller, Dan; Geide-stevenson, Doris (January 2003). "Consensus Among Economists: Revisited".The Journal of Economic Education.34 (4):369–387.doi:10.1080/00220480309595230.
^Ditmore, Melissa Hope (2006).Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work. Greenwood Press. p. 581.ISBN978-0313329685. Retrieved1 June 2018.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.
^abBrakman, 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.ISBN978-0521832984.
^"Earnings – National".Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Archived fromthe original on 15 March 2012. Retrieved16 March 2012.
^"Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product".National Income and Product Accounts Table. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. Archived fromthe original on 2012-09-11. Retrieved16 March 2012.
^"It is in this revolutionary sensealone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." Marx, KarlOn the Question of Free Trade Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848
^abHainmueller, Jens; Hiscox, Michael J. (April 2006). "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade".International Organization.60 (2).doi:10.1017/S0020818306060140.
^Owen, Erica; Johnston, Noel P. (2017). "Occupation and the Political Economy of Trade: Job Routineness, Offshorability, and Protectionist Sentiment".International Organization.71 (4):665–699.doi:10.1017/S0020818317000339.
^Mansfield, Edward D.; Mutz, Diana C. (July 2009). "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety".International Organization.63 (3):425–457.doi:10.1017/S0020818309090158.
^Cimoli, Mario; Dosi, Giovanni; Landesmann, Michael A.; Mazzucato, Mariana; Page, Tim; Pianta, Mario; Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Walz, Rainer (2015)."Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need?".Intereconomics.2015 (3):120–155.
^Swedberg, Richard (February 2018). "Folk economics and its role in Trump's presidential campaign: an exploratory study".Theory and Society.47 (1):1–36.doi:10.1007/s11186-018-9308-8.
Tyler, John W.Smugglers & Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution. Boston: Northeastern University Press (1986).ISBN0930350766.
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
