When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

eyes on the U.S.

Not Just Trump: More Economists Questioning Free-Trade Orthodoxy

For decades, economists scorned protectionism as a losing proposition. Now some have begun to admit that not everyone benefits from open markets.

Containing enthusiasm
Containing enthusiasm
Jean-Marc Vittori

PARIS — What if Donald Trump was right to close the borders? For quite a long time, the vast majority of economists would have scoffed at this very question. Come on, the advantages of free trade are obvious! Or so most economists agreed. And yet, there are more and more studies that paint a very different picture, studies showing that competition from China, for example, could cost France more than 100 jobs a day.

So why have economists trusted free trade for so long? Some would say it's ideological conviction, a faith in the supreme efficiency of the market. But there are many other, less ideologically driven proponents of open borders as well.

Nobel Prize winner Paul Samuelson explained it half a century ago. A friend of his in mathematics challenged him to find a proposition in the social sciences that is both "true and non-trivial." Samuelson responded by citing a 19th-century theory by David Ricardo — the theory of "comparative advantage" — which holds that two countries mutually benefit from trade even if, in absolute terms, the overall productivity of one is greater than the other.

Competition from China could cost France more than 100 jobs a day.

"That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them," Samuelson said.

The superiority of free trade, in other words, is self-evident for professional economists — an answer to existential angst and proof that economics is a useful science.

For decades, international trade experts dissected this notion of comparative advantage. But in the meantime, the world changed. In 1992, business magnate Ross Perot won 20 million votes in the U.S. presidential election after warning that there would be "a giant sucking sound" as Mexico drained his country's jobs. A year later, French Senator Jean Arthuis published a report that called for higher tariffs. In 1999, tens of thousands of protesters invaded Seattle to advocate against further trade liberalization.

Trump signing steel tariff proclamation — Photo: Michael Reynolds/ZUMA

Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in 2008, argued at the time that the problems created by international trade were minor. But China's rise to power has changed the grand order of things. What was true when Malaysia or South Korea industrialized is no longer true now that the most populous country on the planet is covered with factories.

Paul Samuelson, who praised the virtues of free trade, confirmed his beliefs in 2004. With an explanation similar to that of David Ricardo, he uses two countries to illustrate that "free trade can sometimes make a technological change in the country that benefits both countries, while a boost in productivity in one country can sometimes benefit only themselves and permanently weaken the other."

Which is responsible for the loss of more jobs, computers or globalization?

Rather than rely just on their ideological convictions, many pro-free-market economists base their arguments on real-life examples. U.S.-based economists recall how protectionist policies implemented in South America — in Brazil, for example, as an attempt to coddle its nascent industries — failed spectacularly. They live too far away, it seems, to notice that places like South Korea and China were able to protect their markets efficiently, as did the U.S. for that matter — in the 19th century.

At any rate, it's been difficult for a long time now to distinguish between the effects of free trade and technological advancements. Which is responsible for the loss of more jobs, computers or globalization? Nor is it possible to say that what works for one country necessarily works for all.

Economists do at least agree now that globalization has both winners and losers. They also have new tools at their disposal allowing them to more precisely analyze the impacts of trade. And yet, the conclusions they draw are still contradictory. Renowned international trade expert Gary Hufbauer calculated that while the tariffs the U.S. imposed on Chinese tires in 2009 saved 1,200 U.S. manufacturing jobs, they destroyed three times that many jobs in other American sectors.

David Autor, a labor economist at MIT, made waves five years ago when, alongside David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, he argued that competition from Chinese imports had destroyed half-a-million U.S. industrial jobs between 1990 and 2017. But Robert C. Feenstra (of the University of California, Berkeley), Hong Ma and Yuan Xu (from Tsinghua University) used the same tools to argue that increased exports from the U.S. have created almost that same number of jobs.

Economists as a whole are hardly saying that Trump is right. They are simply now looking at international trade with less bias, therefore increasing their chances of fully comprehending the effects of globalization and solving the age-old dilemma of balancing fairness and efficiency. Samuelson made a grating comparison. "Marie Antoinette, famously said, "let them eat cake,"" he recalled. "But history shows no record of any transfer of flour or butter to her peasant subjects."

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
In The News

War In Ukraine, Day 226: 'Armageddon,' 'Preemptive Strikes'  — A New Spiral Of Nuclear Warnings

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” U.S. President Joe Biden declared.

U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 6

In less than 24 hours, new warnings and threats have heated up around the use of nuclear weapons.

U.S. President Joe Biden said during a Democratic fundraiser in New York Thursday evening that Vladimir Putin’s threats to use tactical nuclear weapons must be taken very seriously.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

“We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis,” Biden said. “He is not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological and chemical weapons, because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming. I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily [use] tactical nuclear weapons and not end up with Armageddon.”

Meanwhile, the Russian government accused Volodymyr Zelensky of trying to provoke a nuclear war after his video comments at an event at the Lowy Institute in Australia. The Ukrainian president said he believed in the need for pre-emptive strikes and stated that NATO should make it impossible for Russia to use nuclear weapons. “We need pre-emptive strikes, so that they’ll know what will happen to them if they use nukes, and not the other way around,” Zelensky said via video link. “Don’t wait for Russia’s nuclear strikes, and then say, ‘Oh, since you did this, take that from us!’”

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ