Economists stress that free trade allows and, in fact, forces a nation to maximize the (net) value of the goods and services produced within its borders. Similarly, free trade allows consumers to maximize the net benefits from the goods and services that they purchase and consume. In addition, free trade improves a nation?s growth prospects. Despite these benefits, the general public remains skeptical about free trade policies. Some opposition is due to a lack of understanding about the reasons for and the impact of international trade. Additional opposition arises because the general public differs from economists in how they weigh the costs and benefits of free trade policies and which issues trade negotiations should encompass. Implementing free trade policies imposes costs upon those incurring either job losses or wage reductions. Relative to economists, some opponents of free trade tend to weigh these costs more heavily than the benefits. In addition, some oppose free trade because of concerns that free trade contributes to the abuse of workers throughout the world and to environmental degradation.> To increase political support and to facilitate trade negotiations, Coughlin explores three increasingly controversial suggestions: increased education, policies to reduce the cost to those harmed by trade liberalization, and expansion of the issues covered in trade negotiations. Clearly, no easy answer exists for generating political support for one of the few issues that most economists agree upon?a nation?s economic well-being is best served by free trade."> Economists stress that free trade allows and, in fact, forces a nation to maximize the (net) value of the goods and services produced within its borders. Similarly, free trade allows consumers to maximize the net benefits from the goods and services that they purchase and consume. In addition, free trade improves a nation?s growth prospects. Despite these benefits, the general public remains skeptical about free trade policies. Some opposition is due to a lack of understanding about the reasons for and the impact of international trade. Additional opposition arises because the general public differs from economists in how they weigh the costs and benefits of free trade policies and which issues trade negotiations should encompass. Implementing free trade policies imposes costs upon those incurring either job losses or wage reductions. Relative to economists, some opponents of free trade tend to weigh these costs more heavily than the benefits. In addition, some oppose free trade because of concerns that free trade contributes to the abuse of workers throughout the world and to environmental degradation.> To increase political support and to facilitate trade negotiations, Coughlin explores three increasingly controversial suggestions: increased education, policies to reduce the cost to those harmed by trade liberalization, and expansion of the issues covered in trade negotiations. Clearly, no easy answer exists for generating political support for one of the few issues that most economists agree upon?a nation?s economic well-being is best served by free trade.">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedlrv/y2002ijan.p1-22nv.84no.1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The controversy over free trade: the gap between economists and the general public

Author

Listed:
  • Cletus C. Coughlin
Abstract
Despite economists? nearly universal support of free trade, the general public in the United States has serious reservations about it. In this article, Cletus C. Coughlin examines the reasons for this difference of opinion and the primary suggestions for bridging this gap.> Economists stress that free trade allows and, in fact, forces a nation to maximize the (net) value of the goods and services produced within its borders. Similarly, free trade allows consumers to maximize the net benefits from the goods and services that they purchase and consume. In addition, free trade improves a nation?s growth prospects. Despite these benefits, the general public remains skeptical about free trade policies. Some opposition is due to a lack of understanding about the reasons for and the impact of international trade. Additional opposition arises because the general public differs from economists in how they weigh the costs and benefits of free trade policies and which issues trade negotiations should encompass. Implementing free trade policies imposes costs upon those incurring either job losses or wage reductions. Relative to economists, some opponents of free trade tend to weigh these costs more heavily than the benefits. In addition, some oppose free trade because of concerns that free trade contributes to the abuse of workers throughout the world and to environmental degradation.> To increase political support and to facilitate trade negotiations, Coughlin explores three increasingly controversial suggestions: increased education, policies to reduce the cost to those harmed by trade liberalization, and expansion of the issues covered in trade negotiations. Clearly, no easy answer exists for generating political support for one of the few issues that most economists agree upon?a nation?s economic well-being is best served by free trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Cletus C. Coughlin, 2002. "The controversy over free trade: the gap between economists and the general public," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 84(Jan.), pages 1-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedlrv:y:2002:i:jan.:p:1-22:n:v.84no.1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/publications/review/02/01/1-22Coughlin.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaushik Basu, 1999. "Child Labor: Cause, Consequence, and Cure, with Remarks on International Labor Standards," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 1083-1119, September.
    2. Grossman, G.M & Krueger, A.B., 1991. "Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement," Papers 158, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
    3. Mayda, Anna Maria & Rodrik, Dani, 2005. "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1393-1430, August.
    4. David H. Romer & Jeffrey A. Frankel, 1999. "Does Trade Cause Growth?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 379-399, June.
    5. Fuss,Melvyn A. & Waverman,Leonard, 2006. "Costs and Productivity in Automobile Production," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521031752, September.
    6. Magee, Christopher, 2001. "Administered protection for workers: an analysis of the trade adjustment assistance program," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 105-125, February.
    7. Levine, Ross & Renelt, David, 1992. "A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth Regressions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 942-963, September.
    8. Edwards, Sebastian, 1998. "Openness, Productivity and Growth: What Do We Really Know?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(447), pages 383-398, March.
    9. Kimberly Ann Elliott & Richard B. Freeman, 2004. "White Hats or Don Quixotes? Human Rights Vigilantes in the Global Economy," NBER Chapters, in: Emerging Labor Market Institutions for the Twenty-First Century, pages 47-97, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), 1995. "Handbook of International Economics," Handbook of International Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    11. Harrison, Ann & Hanson, Gordon, 1999. "Who gains from trade reform? Some remaining puzzles," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 125-154, June.
    12. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Andrew Warner, 1995. "Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 26(1, 25th A), pages 1-118.
    13. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Kimberly Ann Elliott, 1994. "Measuring the Costs of Protection in the United States," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number 77, April.
    14. Robert J. Blendon, 1997. "Bridging the Gap between the Public's and Economists' Views of the Economy," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 105-118, Summer.
    15. J. David Richardson, 1995. "Income Inequality and Trade: How to Think, What to Conclude," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 33-55, Summer.
    16. William B. Walstad, 1997. "The Effect of Economic Knowledge on Public Opinion of Economic Issues," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 195-205, September.
    17. Carlos E. Zarazaga, 1999. "Measuring the benefits of unilateral trade liberalization, Part I: static models," Economic and Financial Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Q III, pages 14-25.
    18. Cecil E. Bohanon & Marilyn Flowers, 1998. "The Unintended Consequences of Trade Adjustment Assistance," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 18(1), pages 65-73, Spring/Su.
    19. Alison Butler, 1992. "Environmental protection and free trade: are they mutually exclusive?," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue May, pages 3-16.
    20. Paul Krugman, 1997. "Why Should Trade Negotiators Negotiate About?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 113-120, March.
    21. Walter Corson, 1995. "Trade Adjustment Assistance," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 3c2b45a78c434ff1acecc50da, Mathematica Policy Research.
    22. LE Marcal, 2001. "Does Trade Adjustment Assistance Help Trade‐Displaced Workers?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 19(1), pages 59-72, January.
    23. Kearl, J R, et al, 1979. "A Confusion of Economists?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 28-37, May.
    24. repec:mpr:mprres:1981 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. K. Alec Chrystal & Cletus C. Coughlin & Geoffrey E. Wood, 1988. "Protectionist trade policies: a survey of theory, evidence and rationale," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Jan, pages 12-29.
    26. Gary Clyde Hufbauer & Rita Rodriguez (ed.), 2001. "Ex-Im Bank in the 21st Century: A New Approach?," Peterson Institute Press: All Books, Peterson Institute for International Economics, number sr14, April.
    27. Thomas W. Hertel, 2000. "Potential gains from reducing trade barriers in manufacturing, services and agriculture," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 82(Jul), pages 77-104.
    28. Kaushik Basu, 1999. "International Labor Standards and Child Labor," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 80-93, September.
    29. Lori G. Kletzer & Robert E. Litan, 2001. "A Prescription to Relieve Worker Anxiety," Policy Briefs PB01-02, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    30. Daniel C. Esty, 2001. "Bridging the Trade-Environment Divide," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 113-130, Summer.
    31. Paul T. Decker & Walter Corson, 1995. "International Trade and Worker Displacement: Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 48(4), pages 758-774, July.
    32. Rodrik, Dani, 1995. "Political economy of trade policy," Handbook of International Economics, in: G. M. Grossman & K. Rogoff (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1494, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jorge García-García & Enrique Montes-Uribe & Iader Giraldo-Salazar (ed.), 2019. "Comercio exterior en Colombia: política, instituciones, costos y resultados," Books, Banco de la Republica de Colombia, number 2019-isbn:9789586644068, August.
    2. Michael E. S. Hoffman, 2005. "Politico-Economic Determinants of American Trade Policy Attitudes," International Trade 0510017, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Jorge García-García & David C. López-Valenzuela & Enrique Montes-Uribe, 2020. "Porqué Colombia no exporta más," Borradores de Economia 1139, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    4. Oldřich Krpec & Vladan Hodulák, 2012. "Politická ekonomie zahraniční obchodní politiky - instituce, regulace, sociální a politický kontext [Political Economy of Trade Policy - Institutions, Regulation, Social and Political Context]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2012(1), pages 20-39.
    5. Davies, Antony & Quinlivan, Gary, 2006. "A panel data analysis of the impact of trade on human development," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 868-876, October.
    6. Lotz, Sebastian & Fix, Andrea R., 2013. "Not all financial speculation is treated equally: Laypeople’s moral judgments about speculative short selling," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 34-41.
    7. Jacob, Robert & Christandl, Fabian & Fetchenhauer, Detlef, 2011. "Economic experts or laypeople? How teachers and journalists judge trade and immigration policies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 662-671.
    8. Anne Musson, 2012. "The importance of the stakeholders’ involvement in building indicators. The case of environmental regulation in France," Working Papers hal-02947023, HAL.
    9. Angirasa, Aditi K. & Ocana, Claudia, 2003. "The Free Trade Debate: One More Round," 2003 Annual Meeting, February 1-5, 2003, Mobile, Alabama 35179, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Michael Hoffman, 2009. "What explains attitudes across US trade policies?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 447-460, March.
    11. William Poole, 2004. "Free trade: why are economists and noneconomists so far apart?," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, vol. 86(Sep), pages 1-6.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua J. Lewer & Hendrik Van den Berg, 2003. "How Large Is International Trade’s Effect on Economic Growth?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 363-396, July.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3202 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sam Hak Kan Tang & Nicolaas Groenewold & Charles Ka Yui Leung, 2003. "Institutions, Technical Change and Macroeconomic Volatility, Crises and Growth: A Robust Causation," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 03-21, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    4. Kuo-Hsing Kuo & Cheng-Te Lee & Chen Fang, 2014. "Free Trade and Economic Growth," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1-2), pages 69-76, June.
    5. Jin, Jang C., 2006. "Openness, growth, and inflation: Evidence from South Korea before the economic crisis," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 738-757, October.
    6. Jin, Jang C., 2006. "Can openness be an engine of sustained high growth rates and inflation?: Evidence from Japan and Korea," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 228-240.
    7. Rivera, Sandra A. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "How does China’s growth affect India? An Economywide Analysis," Conference papers 331359, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Raihan, Selim, 2004. "Trade Barriers in a Global Perspective," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30618, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    9. Ulaşan, Bülent, 2012. "Openness to international trade and economic growth: A cross-country empirical investigation," Economics Discussion Papers 2012-25, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. Francisco Rodríguez, 2006. "Openness and Growth: What Have We Learned?," Wesleyan Economics Working Papers 2006-011, Wesleyan University, Department of Economics.
    11. Harrison, Ann & Rodríguez-Clare, Andrés, 2010. "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Industrial Policy for Developing Countries," Handbook of Development Economics, in: Dani Rodrik & Mark Rosenzweig (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 4039-4214, Elsevier.
    12. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    13. Yasir Khan & Attiya Yasmin Javid, 2015. "The Impact of Formal and Informal Institutions on Economic Performance: A Cross-Country Analysis," PIDE-Working Papers 2015:130, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
    14. Bretschger, Lucas, 2010. "Taxes, mobile capital, and economic dynamics in a globalizing world," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 594-605, June.
    15. James N. Giordano, 2017. "Job Training Subsidies, Reemployment and Earnings in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 23(3), pages 283-293, August.
    16. L. ALAN WINTERS & NEIL McCULLOCH & ANDREW McKAY, 2015. "Trade Liberalization and Poverty: The Evidence So Far," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Non-Tariff Barriers, Regionalism and Poverty Essays in Applied International Trade Analysis, chapter 14, pages 271-314, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Sinem Pınar Gürel & Aykut Lenger, 2016. "The Nonlinear Analysis of External Dynamics on Economic Growth: The Case of Turkey," International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research (IJBESAR), Democritus University of Thrace (DUTH), Kavala Campus, Greece, vol. 9(1), pages 57-68, April.
    18. MALEK MANSOUR Joffrey, 2010. "Trade Openness and Growth: Does Sector Specialization Matter?," EcoMod2003 330700093, EcoMod.
    19. Aribah Aslam, 2020. "The hotly debate of human capital and economic growth: why institutions may matter?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1351-1362, August.
    20. Rosa Capolupo & Giuseppe Celi, 2008. "Openness And Economic Growth: A Comparative Study Of Alternative Trading Regimes," Economie Internationale, CEPII research center, issue 116, pages 5-36.
    21. María Soledad Feal Zubimendi, 2008. "Crecimiento económico y apertura comercial: análisis de la influencia de los canales," Estudios Economicos, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Departamento de Economia, vol. 25(50), pages 37-73, January-j.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Free trade;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedlrv:y:2002:i:jan.:p:1-22:n:v.84no.1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Scott St. Louis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbslus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.