 |
| Image credit |
Jayati Gosh has written an interesting article in which she argues that the main problem with free trade is that it one-sidedly empowers multinational corporations enabling them to exploit less developed countries. Her view would seem to support my conjecture that there is really no free trade (certainly not in the Ricardian sense, which is what people usually imply when defending free trade), but only managed or mismanaged (= insufficiently managed) trade.
However, in the face of her accusations (see below), it is not clear to me what she means when she writes "free trade is ultimately broadly beneficial".
Obviously, she implies that the benefits from trade (not free trade) are inadequately distributed.
On entering into a debate of the subject matter, we should always ask ourselves how free trade is defined.
In the Ricardian sense of (i) comparative advantage guaranteeing improvements to all parties involved, or as (ii) the absence of certain restrictions to trade (which ones exactly)?
In the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes free trade (which Ricardo did provide us with), the assessment of the benefits and costs of trade will always be imprecise, shifting, contentious, subject to personal and political perceptions.
Even if free trade is ultimately broadly beneficial, the fact remains that as trade has become freer, inequality has worsened. One major reason for this is that current global trade rules have enabled a few large firms to capture an ever-larger share of value-added, at a massive cost to economies, workers, and the environment.
Make sure to read the entire short article at the source.
No comments:
Post a Comment