Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:11:03.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DECONSTRUCTING THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE TRADE: A CASE STUDY OF THE ROLE OF ECONOMISTS IN POLICY DEBATES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2012

Robert Driskill
Robert Driskill*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that, in light of the apparent settled nature of economists’ judgement on the issue of trade liberalization, the profession has stopped thinking critically about the question and, as a consequence, makes poor-quality arguments justifying their consensus. To develop support for this claim, the paper first recounts what economic analysis can say about trade liberalization. Then it analyses the quality of the arguments that economists make in support of free trade. The paper argues that the standard argument made by economists in favour of free trade is either incoherent or implicitly imposes philosophical value judgements about what is good for a nation or society, or it makes leaps of empirical faith about how the world works. The paper concludes with suggestions for better arguments.

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 1 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Artuc, E., Chaudhuri, S. and McLaren, J. 2010. Trade shocks and labor adjustment: a structural empirical approach. American Economic Review 100 (3): 1008–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacchus, J. 2004. Trade and Freedom. London: Cameron May.Google Scholar
Cardosa, E. and Helwege, A. 1992. Latin America's Economy: Diversity, Trends, and Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caves, R., Frankel, J. and Jones, R. 2007. World Trade and Payments: an Introduction. Boston: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Diaz-Alejandro, C. 1975. Trade policies and economic development. In International Trade and Finance: Frontiers for Research, ed. Kenen, P., 93–150. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Driskill, R. 2008. Why do economists make such dismal arguments about free trade? Foreign Policy, web edition, May 2008.Google Scholar
Feenstra, R. and Taylor, A. 2008. International Economics. New York: Worth Publishing.Google Scholar
Hahn, F. 1998. Reconsidering free trade. In The Economics and Politics of International Trade; Freedom and Trade, Vol. II. Routledge.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. and McPherson, M. S. 2009. Preference satisfaction and welfare economics. Economics and Philosophy 25: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. 1996. Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. 2002. Free Trade under Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Krishna, P. and Senses, M. Z. 2009. International Trade and Labour Income Risk in the US. NBER Working Paper Number 14992. Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. and Obstfeld, M. 2006. International Economics, 7th edition. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. and Obstfeld, M. 2009. International Economics, 8th edition. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Leamer, E. E. 1983. Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review 73: 31–43.Google Scholar
Leamer, E. E. 2007. A flat world, a level playing field, a small world after all, or none of the above? Journal of Economic Literature XLV: 83–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lileeva, A. and Trefler, D. 2010. Improved access to foreign markets raises plant-level productivity . . . for some plants. Quarterly Journal of Economics CXXV: 1051–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, I.M.D. 1960. A Critique of Welfare Economics, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Magee, S. P. 1975. Prices, incomes, and foreign trade. In International Trade and Finance: Frontiers for Research, ed. Kenen, P., 175–252. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maneschi, A. 2004. The true meaning of David Ricardo's four magic numbers. Journal of International Economics 62 (2): 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mankiw, G. 2008. Beyond the noise on free trade. New York Times, 16 March 2008.Google Scholar
McClosky, D.N. 1999. The Common Weal and Economic Stories. Reprinted in What do Economists Contribute? ed. Klein, Daniel B.. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menezes-Filho, N. and Muendler, M. 2007. Labor Reallocation in Response to Trade Reform. Mimeo, University of California, San Diego, and CESifo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, E. 2007. Competitive cooperation. Wall Street Journal, Feb. 15, A19.Google Scholar
Pugel, T. 2007. International Economics, 13th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Google Scholar
Radford, R.A. 1945. The economic organisation of a P.O.W. camp. Economica 12: 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhardt, U. 2011. The debate on free trade continues. NYtimes.com. Economix blog, 4 March 2011.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1938. Interpersonal comparisons of utility: A comment. The Economic Journal 48: 635–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. 2001. The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, F. and Rodrik, D. 2001. Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptics Guide to the Cross-National Evidence. Macroeconomics Annual 2000, eds. Bernanke, B. and Rogoff, K.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press for NBER.Google Scholar
Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, B. and Oneal, J. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1939. The gains from international trade. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, May: 195–205.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1966. The gains from international trade once again. The Economic Journal, December 1962; reprinted in The Collected Scientific Papers of Paul A. Samuelson, ed. J. Stiglitz, 792–801. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1981. Bergsonian welfare functions. In Economic Welfare and the Economics of Soviet Socialism, ed. Rosefield, S., 227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 2004. Where Ricardo and Mill rebut and confirm arguments of mainstream economists supporting globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives 18 (3): 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stokey, E. and Zeckhauser, R. 1978. A Primer for Policy Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Summers, R. and Heston, A. 1984. Improved international comparisons of real product and its composition: 1950–1980. Review of Income and Wealth 30: 207–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tawney, R.H. 1912. The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century, p. 409. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
World Bank 1993. The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zajac, E. 1995. Political Economy of Fairness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar