Free Trade’s virtues have been praised for three hundred years. By allowing everyone equal access to all markets, the theory goes, you guarantee the most efficient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. Can such a theory work in practice? Specifically, could it help the least developed countries of the world provide themselves with a better quality of life? Western rhetoric says it can, and points to international institutions such as the World Trade Organization to promote free trade of goods, and the World Bank to provide credit for development projects. However, so long as the West continues to protect its own agriculture and industries from the international market – either through the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, or the United States of America’s bale out of its steel industries – its position is arguably hypocritical. <BR><BR>Free trade does not promote the universal good of peace. Trading countries have gone to war against each other. If there is anything in that argument at all it holds good for any good natured trading relationship, not necessarily just a tariff free one. <BR>International economics isn’t as simple as increasing the efficiency of global resource allocation above all else. Tariff revenue is a perfectly legitimate and useful source of government income. Second, without tariffs governments cannot protect the job security of their citizens. US steel companies might not be able to provide steel as cheaply as other companies, but the US has a clear interest in protecting its own jobs.<BR><BR>Job security is a legitimate value to want to protect – the destruction of job security in such a competitive arena would be a clear case against free trade serving a “universal good.” Pro-free trade arguments which condone domestic job losses fail to factor into the equation the very real consideration of political power; a starkly utilitarian conception of the “universal good” may dictate that theoretically the best thing to do is let jobs flock to the developing world, but political action is constrained by domestic opinion and its conception of the “good” will invariably be much more localized.<BR><BR>Defending pure, unadulterated free trade is a pointless exercise. The ideas of the text-books are always mediated by practical constraints. The reality of free trade is that the conditions and criteria developing countries must meet just to join the “not quite free trade” WTO are severe and cost the equivalent of an entire humanitarian budget for a year. There are pressing priorities that must be addressed first.<BR><BR>Will free trade benefit third world countries? <BR>Does it harm developed countries? <BR>Could it serve a universal good? Is free trade a realistic goal?
<!-- -->
