Trade and Protectionism: A Heretic’s Viewpoint

By Antoine Cerisier

In one of my colleague’s earlier contributions to this blog, I tried to define protectionism and deplored the lack of balanced and honest debate on issues surrounding international trade. I had almost forgotten my frustration during a lovely summer when I came across an online publication issued by the British Department for International Development (DFID). This collective report written by the so-called Trade Policy Unit dates back from 2009 but reflects the current fascination for free trade. Most contributors are renowned scholars and policy-makers but the tone is very much ideological – if not religious. The report’s title could be mistaken with that of a horror film (The Collapse of Global Trade, Murky Protectionism and the Crisis) and the opening paragraph sets the tone for the next 100 pages: “The Trade Policy Unit welcomes a strong academic debate on the best ways to address the dangers of protectionism, which poses a very serious threat to global prosperity”. In other words, the authors are open to debate as long as the discussion does not deviate from their ideological framework; the dangers of unimpeded trade and possible benefits of protection – addressed by a number of past and present economists including Alexander Hamilton, J.M. Keynes and Ha-Joon Chang – shall not be addressed. A very “strong academic debate” indeed!

Further down, a former IMF official – the usual suspects – praises trade liberalisation in a passionate fashion:

Since 1945, the world economy has experienced unprecedented growth [...] fuelled in significant part by the great liberalization of trade in goods and services, and by capital flows. Virtually all analysts and economic historians regard the reduction of policy trade barriers and of transport and communications costs as having been essential in spurring growth. Countries such as Korea, China and India have been able to make huge gains in living standards and the economic well-being of their people relying in significant part on the international market.

As touching as it may be, this statement is far from accurate. According to the author, free trade as promoted by the WTO and like-minded institutions since the Second World War is a powerful magic potion responsible for economic growth, employment, world peace and the alleviation of poverty. One question does come to mind: can it also cure cancer? On a more serious note, the economic history of the last sixty years is not as simple as many seem to suggest. Empirical studies on the links between trade openness and poverty show mixed results. Trade liberalisation is not always beneficial for the poor; some reckless liberalisation programmes have actually led to increased poverty and inequality in the developing world. Moreover, history teaches us that economic development and high tariff barriers can certainly coexist. In his book Bad Samaritans (which I reviewed a few months ago), Chang remarks that, despite being one of the most protectionist states in the world until the mid-20th century, “the US was also the fastest growing economy”. In fact, some countries praised in the DFID report for their trade openness – especially India and South Korea – still have particularly high tariff barriers.

A strong correlation between underdevelopment (1/GDP per capita) and protectionism (World Bank data)

What is it, then, that determines different trade policies across countries? My current dissertation research focuses on factors influencing trade restrictiveness. A simple statistical analysis demonstrates a strong positive relationship between trade openness and GDP per capita (see graph above). In other words, developing countries tend to be much more protectionist than industrialised ones. Besides, emerging economies tend to be very protectionist – especially in Latin America. Trade policy is also impacted by countries’ reliance on either imports or exports, in line with the infant industry argument developed by Hamilton, Raymond & List in the 19th century. In short, import-dependent states are more protectionist than export-led ones to shield their own industry from foreign competition; besides, government revenue from tariffs can help offset the trade deficit. The case of Nepal is particularly interesting: with its inhospitable environment and over 27 million inhabitants, this very poor country exports little else than carpets and herbs but has to import vast quantities of food, machinery and petroleum. Switzerland, on the other hand, enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world and an export-led economy with a very strong industrial sector – it’s not just chocolate and watches. As one would expect, Nepal is one of the most protectionist states while Switzerland champions free trade. Keeping this in mind, it would be senseless and certainly disastrous to advocate the same trade policies for both countries.

Nepal…

Beyond the empirical evidence, the arguments found in the DFID report and elsewhere also pose a serious logical and almost philosophical problem. Indeed, most neoliberals cannot escape their ideological framework when it comes to trade. This one-size-fits-all approach relies heavily on a dubious yet unquestioned assumption. To put it simply, free trade should be praised as virtuous per se; in that context, denouncing protectionism is as natural as combating poverty or conflict. No need then for rigorous argumentation or consistent historical evidence.

…and Switzerland. Two very different cases.

Jagdish Bhagwati’s short contribution to the DFID report epitomises this flawed logic. As one of the most respected free trade apostles in the academic world, the Columbia professor has a very broad definition of protection which apparently includes most forms of government intervention and regulation – such as the taxation of multinationals. For instance, he criticises Obama’s urge for tougher labour standards in his dealings with Mexico as a “protectionist demand that is clearly aimed at raising costs of production”. Indeed, who cares about decent wages and working conditions, as long as “murky” protection is avoided? The end justifies the means, as the saying goes. Bhagwati’s article is not only questionable but also strikingly unscientific with religious and at times ridiculous language: protectionism is a “sin” and Obama should lead a “crusade” against this “dangerous virus”. Heretics like myself often wish pure free traders such as Jagdish Bhagwati applied the same conviction to defend world peace and social justice.

About these ads
3 comments
  1. very nice piece that’s well researched, I too have questioned the merits of global capitalism and on balance have found it to be wanting and now strongly advocate protectionism. I am a member of the squeezed generation that has seen all of the values we were brought up with cast aside and squandered on the alter of ‘growth’ and liberalization of economics. No one in government seems to care about the human cost of these polices in this country or abroad, their lack of empathy borders on the psychotic. I personally feel that an economy should be sustainable and should serve all of its citizens equally. It’s clear today that the economies of most western nations including ours in the UK completely fail at this. Globalisation of money sends jobs abroad and depresses living conditions and wages at home, whilst simultaneously opening up developing countries for exploitation and economic slavery, putting them in a position which discourages the development of a decent regulatory framework that western countries developed and policed effectively (until recently) and in doing so made themselves great. If you try to do that today though they call it protectionism and claim that it will somehow harm the economy when in actual fact it only hurts the people who are presently exploiting the status quo.

    I became aware of this blog after watching the Keiser report, I think I’ll come back and visit more regularly.

    • Antoine said:

      Hi Mark,

      Thanks for your comment and support. I fully agree with your statement: reckless trade liberalisation is usually very harmful, especially in the global South. And protectionism has been a useful policy tool since the 19th century (including in Europe and the United States). However, as I point out in my article, free trade isn’t bad as such and some countries do benefit from it – mainly small, rich economies with an export-led industry. But “one-size-fits-all” policies imposed from outside (be it the IMF or the WTO) have been disastrous and always will be.

  2. Eric said:

    Hi Antoine, thanks very much for this informative post. I am a teacher and I cannot emphasize how difficult it is to find credible sources which aim to shatter the myth about America’s neo-liberal agenda, with everything from the Payne-Aldrich Bill to the ongoing legacies of Bretton Woods. It is so complex – and controversial – to share this with students but it is a pleasure. I wonder if you might be able to give me the author and source of the quote above (“”SInce 1945…”) I would like to cite it and I need a proper citation for that as I am using it in an analysis question.

    Finally, I am sorry to admit, but could you explain to me what 1/GDP is? I have never heard of this and I always refer to it as GDP/capita. Could you provide a little more info on that? Thanks very much.

    Eric

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: