free trade thesis statement

Free Trade vs. Protectionism: The Tariff Debate in the United States

The debate between free trade and protectionism is one of the most enduring political and economic disputes in American history. Since tariffs generated 90 percent of the national income between 1790 and 1860, those who identified as free-traders did not want to completely remove the tariff. Rather, they supported tariffs for revenue only. Those who believed tariffs should produce even more revenue than the government needed to function — creating a surplus — were known as protectionists.

Thanks for reading The Economic Historian! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

Why Protectionism?

High tariff walls, it was believed, would protect domestic industry from foreign manufacturers. These distant producers could hire laborers for a fraction of the cost that domestic manufactures could, allowing them to produce and sell similar products for a lower price. This did not sit well with American manufacturers who believed that Americans should only buy and sell their own products and restrict cheaply made foreign goods.

Like contemporary protectionists such as Donald Trump, they produced narratives of xenophobic binaries between “us” and the racialized “them,” pursuing tariffs that would not only keep American money within national borders, but also keep all things foreign out — both bodies and products.

Throughout the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, American policymakers such as William McKinley continually argued that high tariff walls not only stimulated progress, “dignified and elevated labor,” but also protected infant industries, allowing them to mature into fully developed manufacturers.

“Of [all] the arguments in favor of protection,” economist Frank Taussig grumbled in The Tariff History of the United States , “none has been more frequently or more sincerely urged than that which is expressed in the phrase ‘protection to the young industries.’”

Free Trade vs Protectionism

While protectionists such as William McKinley argued that high tariff walls protected infant industries, allowing them to mature into fully developed manufacturers, they also meant higher production costs and thus higher prices for American consumers. By 1892, when Taussig published the first edition of his book, he believed that the United States had become a different nation with more advanced industries. While it was undeniable that the United States had become a more industrialized nation, Taussig had fashioned his own narrative of free trade — as the only rational economic policy — a position that was bolstered and legitimized by his scholarly reputation.

Despite an almost religious zeal to protect American industry from foreign competitors, the late economic historian Douglas C. North wrote that “It is doubtful if the tariff promoted American industrialization much more rapidly than would have occurred in its absence, and it is even more doubtful that it resulted in any net addition to the national income” during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era — the period high tariffs were most often used.

North reinforced the conventional story of protectionism as irrational, leaving free trade the only ‘rational’ economic policy — a narrative that overlooks the inequitable outcomes of free trade agreements and reinforces the idea that economic growth is good for everyone

What is Comparative Advantage?

Conventional wisdom holds that protectionists have overlooked the value of an economic concept known as comparative advantage . First introduced by the British political economist David Ricardo , comparative advantage involves producing goods more efficiently than other countries. Each nation has a unique distribution of land and resources which allow them to specialize in specific industries.

If the United States can produce aircrafts with one-fourth the labor that Japan does and produces ships with three-fourths the labor, for instance, then the United States would be more efficient by specializing in the industry that it has a comparative advantage in (aircrafts) and importing products that it has a comparative disadvantage in (ships).

Comparative advantage seems pretty reasonable if this is where the story ends. If everybody wins, why wouldn’t everyone support free trade policies? The only problem with this narrative is that it doesn’t reflect reality. Like most economic theory, the story of comparative advantage does not consider asymmetric power relations.

Just because we cannot accurately measure power dynamics does not mean they don’t exist. Instead of a linear movement from theory to policy, we have a diverse range of policymakers with conflicting sets of interests who claw their way into the best deal they can get for the people they directly represent and, if it’s convenient, the rest of the country.

The Geography of Interests

As economic historian Douglas Irwin points out in his recent book, Clashing Over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy , the United States has always been divided by those who have opposing economic interests that are rooted in geography. Regions that are dominated by agriculture, for example, have traditionally supported low tariffs because they have an economic interest in doing so — they export a large proportion of their products.

Manufacturing regions, conversely, have a commercial interest in supporting high tariffs because they are threatened by foreign manufacturers. This geography of interests, Irwin writes, is reflected in Congressional voting patterns. Both protectionists and free-traders, moreover, have used the ideas of prominent scholars such as Adam Smith to legitimize their positions, as political theorist Glory Lui shows in a recent article .

Throughout the nineteenth century, Democratic free-traders were eager to display their knowledge of political economy in Congress, aiming to marshal Smith’s authority to legitimize free trade policies. Republicans were also guilty of using Smith, either by reading small portions of the Wealth of Nations that were removed from its broader context, or by attempting to delegitimize Smith altogether.

Marshaling a sense of nationalism, Republicans often called attention to the ‘American system of protection’, framing protectionism as an essential part of the American identity. By creating stories that involved Smith, they aimed to leverage his intellectual authority and image to support their regional economic interests.

Related Posts

The great inflation of the 1970s, the steam engine: driving force of the industrial revolution, the british industrial revolution: innovations, labor, and societal transformation.

Pingback: Breaking Down the Barriers: The Mechanics of Trade Wars – ARTHVIDYA

bros speaking enchantment table

I want to know the historical disadvantage of share buybacks in the US and UK

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Banking History
• Financial Crises
• History of Capitalism
• History of Economic Thought
• International Trade
• Labor History
• Racial Wealth Gap
• Neoliberalism

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Is Free Trade Really Free? Why Protectionism Is Alive and Well

February 8, 2016 • 10 min read updated: may 10, 2024.

Most countries say they favor free and fair trade. But is protectionism really dead? And if not, how does it affect the progress of emerging markets?

• Public Policy

Recently, it was reported that the three largest U.S. airlines — American, United, and Delta — are protesting three major Persian Gulf-based airlines’ right to fly in the U.S. market. The American carriers claim that the Gulf carriers (Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Etihad) have received $42 billion in subsidies from their governments over the past several years, amounting to an unfair trade advantage that enables them to offer better and lower-cost service.

The controversy doesn’t surprise Reuben Abraham, CEO and senior fellow at IDFC Institute (a Mumbai-based think tank) and a member of the World Economic Forum Council on Emerging Multinationals. “There’s no doubt about it: The Gulf carriers, [or for example] state-owned enterprises in China — all of them have some level of state subsidies embedded into them. But one mustn’t forget that equally there are subsidies embedded into products on the other side of the world.”

He gives the example of the iPhone. “Most of the technology inside of an iPhone in some point in time or another has been funded by the U.S. government…. Lithium-ion batteries came out of research funded by the [Department of Energy],” he says, naming a host of other essential inventions — liquid crystal displays, micro hard drives, microprocessors and click wheels — that he says fall into the category of government-supported. This argument was put forth by economist Mariana Mazzucato in her 2013 book, The Entrepreneurial State.

“Now, you want a level playing field for the iPhone to compete in fair markets like India,” says Abraham. “[But] if I’m an Indian firm manufacturing let’s say a smartphone, it’s a little hard for me to compete against something that has a state subsidy.”

Protectionism: Not Gone, Just Underground

Leaders at the 2009 G20 summit in London — a group representing both developed and developing markets and accounting for 85% of the global economy — pledged they “would not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.” And over a decade earlier in 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established to promote free trade and reduce trade barriers between nations. It now has 162 member countries.

Yet it appears that protectionism is by no means dead, according to Abraham as well as Ann Harrison, a Wharton management professor, and Tarun Khanna, a professor at Harvard Business School and a colleague of Abraham’s on the World Economic Forum Council on Emerging Multinationals. They say that protectionism, while certainly not as overt as it was 50 or 60 years ago, still exists in subtle and varied forms.

“An emerging market is actually competitive vis a vis labor…. My competitive advantage is not the iPhone … it is my techie.” –Reuben Abraham

“It’s not so black and white anymore,” says Khanna. Protectionism seen in the past was overt, he notes — such as having to pay tariffs of 40%, 50% or even 80% on imported cars. “In the old days, you had those [tariffs] in India and many countries in Africa.” The obvious result, he says, was that “the domestic providers of [items such as] cars were entirely protected, so they continued to produce terrible cars.”

Why Do Nations Practice Protectionism?

Harrison characterizes today’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty policies as a common form of protectionism used by most large countries including the U.S., EU, India, China and Mexico, although, she notes, the policies are sometimes put forth as a way to enforce fair trade. In these scenarios, a foreign firm introduces a low-cost product into an industrialized country such as the U.S. If the U.S. believes that the firm receives unfair advantages from its government, it will impose tariffs. “Brazilian orange juice, Mexican tomatoes … the list goes on and on,” says Harrison, adding that the tariffs can be very high. “When China was found guilty of dumping garlic, the garlic duty was 300%.”

Abraham points to farm subsidies as another form of protectionism. “You’re basically protecting domestic agricultural industry for political reasons.” Khanna agrees: “You see plenty of [this type of] protectionism in Japan … the Midwest United States, and so on.”

There can also be “disguised protectionism” in the form of health and safety requirements, says Harrison, as when a country blocks an import that it claims is dangerous to its consumers. Protectionism can even take the form of a marketing message: Harrison cites the U.S.’s “Buy American” campaign.

Khanna identified a prevalence of what he calls “bundled deals,” or “you can do this if you do that,” which he says are hard to characterize as purely protectionist. He says that China, for instance, has tended over the past seven or eight years to tell foreign companies wanting to build factories in China that in return, they will have to transfer some intellectual property to indigenous manufacturers. “It’s a little bit of an industrial policy type of issue, and it’s not strictly protectionism in the sense of being a tariff barrier…. It’s part of their bargaining power.”

Protectionism is not limited to the movement of goods, says Abraham. He states that another aspect involves labor, and that a “weird sort of hypocrisy” exists in the developed world on this point. “By and large, in the West when they talk about free trade, they’re talking about capital and capital goods — because that is where the West is competitive. But … an emerging market is actually competitive vis a vis labor.” He adds that from India’s perspective, for instance, “my competitive advantage is not the iPhone … it is my techie.”

In Abraham’s view, visas — and visa quotas — constitute “non-tariff trade barriers. It’s very hard for an Indian businessman to get a U.S. visa.” He adds that if an Indian professional wants to attend multiple conferences in Europe, for example, policies there require that the attendee apply for multiple short-term visas that grant only a handful of days’ stay for each event. “The average Westerner has no idea,” he says.

Is Protectionism Directed Against Emerging Markets?

The experts agree that in general, a freer trade environment rather than protectionism is better for the world economy. Khanna states that with protectionism, “you’re impeding the free flow of stuff that you might want to buy, or money that you and I want to invest, or talent that you and I might have, that needs to find its way to its best use.”

“Many countries have tried to use protectionism to nurture their home industries — but even though it makes sense in theory, countries screw it up about 75% of the time.” –Ann Harrison

Harrison observes that emerging markets might have some justification for being protectionist since their economies are struggling to establish themselves. On the other hand, she points out, this doesn’t always work well in practice. “Many countries have tried to use protectionism to nurture their home industries — but even though it makes sense in theory, countries screw it up about 75% of the time.”

She gives India as an example, saying that in the past it attempted to use protectionism to promote its nascent industries, but has only really become a successful, faster-growth country since it liberalized its economy in the early 1990s.

Are developing countries a particular target of protectionism by developed nations, as some have argued? Harrison says no. “I don’t think that emerging market multinationals are being targeted in any particular way. I think home countries just want to protect their own markets and promote their own firms, and I don’t think they discriminate in doing so.”

For instance, the French are “really trying to hold onto their cultural heritage,” she notes. And if one looks at the behavior of the French entertainment industry, for example, “they’re trying to … keep it as French as possible,” and “they don’t care where those foreign companies are coming from — whether emerging markets or the U.S.” She cites a similar example from the developing world. “Right now, India is protecting its retail sector, and it doesn’t care whether it’s a Walmart, a Carrefour or a Chinese retailer; it just wants to try to preserve the small mom-and-pop Indian stores.”

Abraham, on the other hand, does not dismiss the possibility of racism being an element in protectionism. He cites the much-publicized 2006 takeover of Arcelor, a French steel manufacturer, by Mittal, a company with its origins in India. According to The New York Times , Arcelor’s then-CEO, Guy Dollé, had made comments such as calling Mittal’s products lowly “eau de cologne” compared with the “perfume” produced by his own company. The comment where “racism really came out,” in Abraham’s view as well as others’, was when Dollé “actually had the gall to describe Mittal’s money as ‘monkey money.'”

Abraham also noted that Arcelor sought an alternative deal with a Russian steelmaker, recalling that Dollé praised that firm’s owner as “a true European.”

Khanna believes that countries’ levels of protectionism may ebb and flow with the political climate. Foreign business interests may become a target. “If you’re a politician and things aren’t going well economically and you want to get re-elected, an easy group to beat up is foreigners. They don’t vote.” This is true everywhere, he added, both in emerging markets and the developed world.

“If you’re a politician and things aren’t going well economically and you want to get re-elected, an easy group to beat up is foreigners. They don’t vote.” –Tarun Khanna

Along those lines, Abraham referred to the 1993 American movie Rising Sun , which he says played on popular sentiments of the time by portraying how Japanese business interests were “taking over everything in the United States…. It’s the flavor of the year, whether the Japanese or the Chinese or the Indians; it goes through these cycles.”

In looking at current trends, Khanna comments that protectionism “seems to be in great danger of rising,” calling it “one of those insidious things that we need to be vigilant about at all times.” He cites several potential contributing factors, including the increasing dominance of the far right and center right parties in Europe, a large number of “political and economic hotspots” in the world, and a general economic slowdown. This may lead to an environment, he says, in which countries “tend to favor the locals and batten down the hatches.”

The Danger of Blocs Over Free Trade

Both Harrison and Abraham see a trend toward preferential or regional trading blocs rather than multilateral global free trade, and predict it will continue. Harrison says the world is “clearly moving in the direction of … three giant blocs, with the Americas in one bloc, Europe in another bloc and Asia in another.” She notes that this trend benefits countries like the U.S., but very low-income countries — those “who are not big enough to come to the table” — typically get left out.

She adds that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is an example of a regional trade agreement, and is “truly a way of keeping some countries in and keeping other countries — for example, China — out.” It is an example of “protectionism that is still alive and well.”

Abraham agrees, noting, “The U.S. wants to write the rules of that trade agreement, and then invite China at a later date…. But what if China, India and a couple of other countries make their own preferential trade agreement and leave the U.S. out? As the clout of these countries basically goes up, you may see more and more of that.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

How Much Will a Harris or Trump Presidency Cost?

How Low-income Households Can Secure Their Retirement Finances

What I’ve Learned: Olivia S. Mitchell

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Benefits of free trade and globalization, costs of free trade and globalization, recommendations, works cited.

The general economic argument for free trade and globalization centers on the increased material growth brought about by trade to almost every state. In spite of the strength and numerous experimental studies that support this argument, many people are still opposed to free trade and globalization.

Opponents of free trade and globalization posit that economists support it since it helps in price reduction and products diversification while life entails more than these do (Bhagwati 84). This paper will focus on some of these benefits and costs. In addition, it will give recommendations on strategies that can help in enhancing free trade and globalization.

One of the benefits of free trade and globalization to participating countries is that it helps producers have access to international market. In most cases, domestic companies produce goods in small quantities due to constraints in the local market. Free trade and globalization gives these companies an opportunity to diversify their markets thus reaching a wider customer base.

Hence, it helps in increasing their production and profitability. Furthermore, free trade and globalization promotes specialization (Bhagwati 91-97). Companies focus on areas that they are best conversant with thus manufacturing quality products. This not only helps in increasing their sales volume, but also enhances production efficiency, in an organization.

On the other hand, specialization has led to production of quality goods and services, which meets consumer needs effectively. Therefore, free trade and globalization has not only benefited business organizations but has also been of significant benefit to consumers. In the US for instance, consumers benefit from lower prices and wide varieties of products in the marketplace (Bhagwati 98).

Nations participating in free trade benefit from shared technological expertise. Developing countries are the ones that substantially benefit from this. Free trade and globalization helps developing countries import sophisticated production machineries from developed nations. Besides, they acquire experts from these countries who train them on how to use the equipments (Bhagwati 101-112).

Previous centrally structured economies, which failed to reap from the numerous benefits of free trade and globalization due to their politically endorsed separation from market economies, currently desire to reap these benefits by reintegrating with the global marketing structure.

Free trade and globalization enlightens, enriches, and civilizes (Bhagwati 112). Free trade and globalization expose people to different cultures. This in return helps in enlightening artists and educators.

By interacting with others, educators and artists gain insight on how they can creatively articulate their knowledge to meet varied needs of their people. In an environment where only a small group of intellectuals has leisure and wealth, educators and artists address only the intellectuals’ needs.

Art forms are unpopular to the intellectuals and knowledge that does not serve their interests does not flourish. However, “since free trade and globalization create a widespread wealth, it paves room for the increase in opportunities and tastes that influence and support education and art” (Bhagwati 113-117).

Opposing views

The growth of free trade and globalization has triggered mixed reactions among the Americans. Data collected about trade and globalization paints a contradictory and sometimes mixed picture. Some Americans express their cynicism that free trade and globalization benefits most Americans, while others support it (Grisworld 65).

Since 1920s, Americans have expressed fears about foreign investment from countries such as Japan fueled by free trade and globalization. One of the reasons why some Americans are opposed to free trade and globalization is because it is hard to discern the benefits accrued from embracing it. However, they easily discern the costs of adopting free trade such as closure of steel factory in North Carolina.

Benefits associated with free trade and globalization, in most cases, is hidden from view in spite of them being substantial and real. For instance, Americans do not see the numerous job vacancies created by many small businesses that crop up to cater for foreign-owned companies or American exporters (Grisworld 71-77).

Moreover, they do not discern the vast amount of money they save due to reduced prices caused by free trade and globalization.

According to critics of free trade and globalization, the move leads to global cultural homogeneity. According to them, embracing free trade and globalization would lead to numerous cities adopting similar cultures. That is, due to free trade and globalization, Paris France would resemble Texas making the two cities unexciting (Grisworld 81).

This in return would discourage people from travelling since they would not be guaranteed of witnessing new things in the cities they visit. The opponents assert that to embrace cultural diversity, states ought to discourage free trade and globalization.

Just like free trade and globalization has numerous benefits, it also has numerous costs. Countries that promote free trade, subject their domestic industries to stiff competition. Normally, products obtained from foreign companies are offered at lower prices waging competition to domestic markets.

At times, domestic companies are forced out of the market “since it becomes hard for them to produce and sell their products at prices lower than those of foreign products” (Urata 20-27).

This in return leads to numerous people in the affected country loosing jobs, which is one of the arguments given by individuals opposed to free trade and globalization in America. Free trade and globalization discourages the survival of young industries, and to safeguard them, governments impose measures to protect young industries from competition.

In spite of the huge benefits of free trade and globalization, it leads to increased health risks. Free trade leads to an increase in number of international travels and transfer of goods such as agricultural products from one region to another. This, in return, helps in spread of viruses and pathogens.

Free trade and globalization have established a favorable platform for spread of diseases, which were once only prevalent in specific regions (Urata 29-32). For instance, spread of foot and mouth disease in European Union member states was intensified by free trade in meat among the member states. Had the member states not embraced free trade, they could be in a position to contain the disease, in a single country.

Free trade and globalization affects microeconomics negatively. Individuals transfer capital and resources from this level of the economy to other countries seeking to enjoy from lower costs imposed on raw materials and labor in such these countries (Urata 33-34). Besides, free trade affects macro economy. Markets become volatile due to increase in foreign investment.

Besides, it makes it possible for investors to inject into and withdraw capital from varied markets with ease. In case of financial market downturn, countries engaging in free trade suffer severely. Normally, countries engaging in free trade depend on each other financially.

Consequently, financial crisis emanating from one nation affects all the other countries. This was witnessed in Asia in 1998 where most Asian countries suffered financially due to the economic crisis in the region.

Opposing view

In spite of the above-mentioned costs of free trade and globalization, discouraging it may be detrimental to not only a country but also the citizens. Discouraging free trade and globalization encourages local industries to continue manufacturing less efficiently, thus making it hard for the respective country to witness increased economic growth.

A country suffers from economic stagnation (Milner and Kubota 107-114). Discouraging free trade deprives a country of the massive economic benefits associated with international specialization.

Contrary to the argument that free trade and globalization has contributed to unemployment, in the United States, it evident that, most of the Americans are currently employed in service-sector industries, which are emerging to serve either American exporters or foreign-owned companies.

These jobs pay well compared to the past manufacturing jobs (Milner and Kubota 115). Moreover, free trade has helped most of the America companies increase their production volumes. Currently, the country produces more planes, chemicals, and appliances that it produced in the past decade.

We are living in a world that is in the process of adapting to global free trade. It is hard to reverse this process without incurring unbelievable costs to future growth. The challenge is now to come up with a viable plan, which will help nations reap from the benefits of free trade and globalization, while at the same time cushion them from costs associated with the same.

The major hindrance to free trade and globalization among nations is fear that their local industries may suffer from completion waged by foreign products (Milner and Kubota 116-128). Hence, some countries shy away from participating in free trade to safeguard their local industries. Besides, some states impose stiff tariffs making it hard for other countries to enter into trade agreements with them.

The best way to establish free trade with other countries is to first identify the countries of interest. They have to have readily available market for the country’s products to ensure that the country benefits from the free trade (Milner and Kubota 130-135). Furthermore, the identified countries should be producing goods or services, which are required by the country wishing to engage in free trade and globalization.

Identifying the most appropriate countries, the country needs to meet them to come up with an agreement on how they will carryout trade among themselves. One of the matters that the countries ought to discuss is the types of and amount of tariffs and import quotas to impose.

The quotas and tariffs have to be put in a way that they do not discourage investors from engaging in the free trade (Milner and Kubota 137-140). For instance, the involved states ought to impose tariffs that will ensure products are sold at fair prices thus not affecting local industries.

Apart from imposing tariffs and import quotas, nations wishing to engage in free trade and globalization ought to establish fair trading rules to ensure that no country takes advantage of others.

Besides, to ensure that investors reap from the free trade, a country needs to educate its public about the benefits of participating in free trade and globalization, and help its people in identifying the available opportunities presented by the countries it intends to trade with (Milner and Kubota 141-143).

Free trade and globalization comes with numerous benefits and costs to trading nations. By engaging in free trade, nations reap from the increase in customer base, which allows local industries to specialize in one area, thus enhancing efficiency in production. In addition, countries benefits from technological spillovers.

Free trade and globalization exposes people to varied cultures thus enhancing civilization and enlightenment. Some of the costs associated with free trade and globalization include completion waged on local industries making it hard for them to grow.

Moreover, it exposes trading countries to health risks and may lead to financial hardships among the trading countries in case of financial recession. It is hard to discern the numerous benefits associated with free trade and globalization.

This underlines why most people are opposed to it. The best way to promote free trade and globalization is to come up with tariffs and import quotas that favor all stakeholders, as well as impose fair trading rules.

Bhagwati, Jagdish. In Defense of Globalization . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print.

Grisworld, Daniel. Mad About Trade: Why Main Street America Should Embrace Globalization . New York: Cato Institute, 2009. Print.

Milner, Helen, and Keiko Kubota. “Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries.” International Organization 59.1 (2005): 107-143. Print.

Urata, Shujiro. “Globalization and the Growth in Free Trade Agreements.” Asia- Pacific Review 9.1 (2002): 20-34. Print.

• International Trade - Protection of Australian Car Industry Course and Code
• Canada and Her Trading Partners
• Tariffs: Effects and Necessity
• Quotas in Improving Gender Diversity in Leadership
• Import Polices, Tariffs, and Restrictions: Kenya’s Case
• Global Economic Imbalance in Trade
• An Invisible Hand of Capitalism in the Business
• China’s Exchange Rate Policy
• Peculiarities of the Landscape of Unions within the Process of Globalization
• North American Free Trade
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 15). Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization. https://ivypanda.com/essays/costs-and-benefits-of-free-trade-and-globalization-essay/

"Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization." IvyPanda , 15 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/costs-and-benefits-of-free-trade-and-globalization-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization'. 15 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization." May 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/costs-and-benefits-of-free-trade-and-globalization-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization." May 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/costs-and-benefits-of-free-trade-and-globalization-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Costs and Benefits of Free Trade and Globalization." May 15, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/costs-and-benefits-of-free-trade-and-globalization-essay/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .