US trade policy is almost always debated in terms of economic utility: Does free trade raise or lower incomes? Does it help or hurt U.S. industry? Does it create or destroy jobs? But behind the statistics and anecdotes lie moral assumptions about human nature, the sovereignty of the individual, and the role of government in a free society. Free trade may deliver the goods and boost efficiency, but is it morally superior to protectionism?
At the Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec in April, anti-capitalist protesters answered with a loud no, condemning free trade as a tool of the rich that exploits the poor and undermines democracy. Some religious conservatives portray free trade as a tool of the devil. Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, in his 1998 book The Great Betrayal, called the doctrine of free trade “a secularist faith … born of rebellion against church and crown.” Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council and another failed aspirant to the White House, compares American trade with China with appeasement of the Soviet Union.
In a speech in May before the Council of the Americas, President Bush joined the moral debate, telling his audience: “Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative. Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world’s poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders, not always immediately, and not always smoothly, but in good time.”
Friends of free trade should not shrink from making moral arguments for their cause; those arguments have deep roots in our culture. The Greek poet Homer, in his Odyssey, waxed poetic about the influence of trade: “For the Cyclops have no ships with crimson prows, no shipwrights there to build them good trim craft that could sail them out to foreign ports of call as most men risk the seas to trade with other men. Such artisans would have made this island too a decent place to live in… .”
The Judeo-Christian Bible warns against the pride that can come with riches, but it does not condemn international trade per se. In First Kings, it reports matter of factly that trade was part of King Solomon’s splendor: “The king had a fleet of trading ships at sea along with the ships of Hiram. Once every three years it returned, carrying gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons.” In the New Testament, in the second chapter of Matthew, we read about the famous wise men of the East, who traveled from Arabia or perhaps as far away as Persia to bring gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the baby Jesus. (Thank goodness they didn’t have to contend with airport customs or the Arab boycott of Israel.)
The Old Testament prophet Ezekiel does warn the citizens of Tyre, the bustling Mediterranean port city, “By your great skill in trading you have increased your wealth, and because of your wealth your heart has grown proud.” But even when the Bible speaks harshly of the “merchants of the earth,” it is not international trade itself that comes under condemnation but the intent and character of the traders. The sin is not trade but dishonest scales, greed, indulgence in luxuries, and the temptation to pride that can come from wealth. In this respect, trade is no more sinful than technological discoveries or hard work.
A number of theologians and philosophers in the first several centuries A.D. considered trade among nations a gift of God. In his 1996 book, Against the Tide: An Intellectual History of Free Trade, Professor Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College describes this early view of trade that has come to be called the Doctrine of Universal Economy. That doctrine held that God had spread resources and goods unevenly throughout the world to promote commerce between different nations and regions.
In the fourth century A.D., the pagan writer Libanius expanded the doctrine more fully, declaring: God did not bestow all products upon all parts of the earth, but distributed His gifts over different regions, to the end that men might cultivate a social relationship because one would have need of the help of another. And so he called commerce into being, that all men might be able to have common enjoyment of the fruits of earth, no matter where produced.
Western moral thought provides a solid foundation for pursuing a policy of economic openness. Drawing on that tradition, here are seven moral arguments to support free trade among nations.
One: Free Trade Respects Individual Dignity and Sovereignty
A man or woman engaged in honest work has a basic right to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor. It is a violation of my right to property for the government to forbid me to exchange what I produce for something produced by a fellow human being, whether the person I’m trading with lives across town or across the ocean.
Protectionism is a form of stealing, a violation of the Eighth Commandment and other prohibitions against theft. It takes from one group of people, usually a broad cross section of consumers, and gives the spoils to a small group of producers whose only claim to the money is that they would be worse off under open competition.
Free trade meets the most elementary test of justice, giving to each person sovereign control over that which is his own. As Frederic Bastiat wrote in his 1849 essay, “Protectionism and Communism”:
Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option when he has committed no act contrary to public order and good morals, and solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice.
Two: Free Trade Restrains the Power of the State
Free trade is morally superior to protectionism because it places trust in what Adam Smith called “the natural system of liberty” rather than in a man-centered system of centralized industrial policy. And by doing so it allows citizens to fulfill their creative and productive potential.
There is no compelling moral reason why a small group of politicians should decide, on the sole basis of where things are produced, what goods and services an individual can buy with his earnings. By diffusing economic decision making as broadly as possible, free trade reduces the power of people in high places—always fallible and subject to temptation and abuse of power—to inflict damage on society.
As economists have been pointing out for two centuries now, the gains that protectionism confers on a select group of producers and the government’s coffers are almost always outweighed by the losses imposed on the mass of consumers. This dead-weight loss weakens the productive capacity of a country as a whole compared to what it would be if its citizens were allowed to engage in free trade.
Producers who seek protection are not only robbing their fellow citizens of income and freedom of choice; they are sapping the economic strength of their own society. Protectionists are prone to wrap their agenda in words of patriotism and compassion, but their aim is self-centered and self-serving.
Three: Free Trade Encourages Individuals to Cultivate Moral Virtues
To be successful in a free and open marketplace, producers must serve their fellow human beings by providing goods and services others want and need. And the most economically successful will be those who provide not just for a select few but for a broad segment of consumers.
In the 1991 papal encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II observed that a market system encourages the important virtues of “diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable risks, reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships, as well as courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful but necessary.” On addition to such character traits, trade encourages good manners and the decent treatment of others.
In the long run, trade rewards those participants who act in a trustworthy manner. A supplier who misses deadlines for shipment or a buyer whose credit is no good will soon lose business to competitors with better reputations. In other words, there is no inherent conflict between good business and good morals, and in a free and open market under the rule of law the two complement each other.
Four: Free Trade Brings People Together
Trade opens the door for relationships that transcend economic exchange. When nations trade with one another, more than material goods crosses borders. People and ideas inevitably follow through the same open doors. Fax machines, cellular telephones, and the Internet are rapidly spreading as tools of international business, but they are also tools of friendship and evangelism.
At a Cato Policy Forum in 1999, Ned Graham, son of Billy Graham and president of East Gates International, spoke about the impact of expanding trade on his organization’s missionary work in China:
Ten years ago, there was almost no information-exchange technology available to the average Chinese citizen. If we wanted to contact a friend in China, we usually had to do so by mail unless that individual had a private phone, which was extremely rare in the inland provinces… . Today, despite difficulties, much of that has changed. We routinely communicate with thousands of friends all over China via fax, cell phones, and email. The proliferation of information technology has allowed us to be much more effective in developing and organizing our work in the PRC.
Today more than 100 Western missionary groups are either working or attempting to work openly in China to spread the faith. Since 1992 Ned Graham’s organization has legally distributed more than 2.5 million Bibles to non registered believers in China. This ministry would have been impossible without China’s economic opening to the world that began 20 years ago and America’s ongoing policy response of engagement. More than 20 million Chinese are now on the Internet, and that number has been growing exponentially. The number of telephone lines and cell phones in China has grown more than tenfold in the last decade. The works of Friedrich Hayek, probably this century’s most influential defender of a free society, are now being distributed legally on the mainland. Free trade has brought new ideas and new relationships to China and other previously closed societies.
Five: Free Trade Encourages Other Basic Human Rights
This is probably the most contentious of the seven reasons, and it goes to the heart of the current debate about trade with China and the use of sanctions in the name of human rights and democracy. By raising the general standard of living, free trade helps people to achieve higher levels of education and to gain access to alternative sources of information. It helps to create a more independent minded middle class that can form the backbone of more representative kinds of government. The wealth created from expanded trade can help to nurture and sustain civil institutions that can offer ideas and influence outside of government. The emergence of civil liberties and more representative government in countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Mexico can be credited in large part to economic development spurred by free trade and market reforms.
As a general rule, nations that are more open economically tend to enjoy other liberties as well. In the last 25 years, as the world has turned away from centralized economic controls and toward a more open global market, political and civil freedoms have also spread. In 1975 the nonprofit group Freedom House classified only 42 countries as politically free, meaning that citizens enjoy full civil and political freedoms. Today the number has more than doubled to 85. The percentage of the world’s people enjoying full civil and political freedom has also more than doubled during that time, from 18 percent to 40 percent.
In his book, Business as a Calling, Michael Novak explains the linkage with what he calls “the wedge theory”:
Capitalist practices, runs the theory, bring contact with the ideas and practices of the free societies, generate the economic growth that gives political confidence to a rising middle class, and raise up successful business leaders who come to represent a political alternative to military or party leaders. In short, capitalist firms wedge a democratic camel’s nose under the authoritarian tent.
Religiously motivated conservatives who want to repeal normal trade relations with China would undermine progress on human rights by removing one of the most positive influences in Chinese society. Granted, the Chinese government today remains an oppressive dictatorship, a bad regime that jails its political opponents and interferes in the private lives of citizens. But for all its unforgivable faults, the Chinese government today is not nearly as bad as the government was during the totalitarian rule of Mao Tse-tung, when millions were killed and the entire social order was convulsed by the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The people of China do not yet enjoy the range of political and civil rights we do in the West, but they are freer and materially better off than they were three decades ago. For that they can thank economic and trade liberalization.
Six: Free Trade Fosters Peace
In an 1845 speech in the British House of Commons, Richard Cobden called free trade “that advance which is calculated to knit nations more together in the bonds of peace by means of commercial intercourse.” Free trade does not guarantee peace, but it does strengthen peace by raising the cost of war to governments and citizens. As nations become more integrated through expanding markets, they have more to lose should trade be disrupted.
In recent years, the twin trends of globalization and democratization have produced their own “peace dividend”: since 1987 real spending on armaments throughout the world has dropped by more than one-third. Since the end of the Cold War, the threat of major international wars has receded. In fact, today, virtually every armed conflict in the world is not between nations but within nations.
During the 1930s the industrialized nations waged trade wars against each other. They raised tariffs and imposed quotas in order to protect domestic industry. The result, however, was that other nations raised their barriers even further, choking off global trade and deepening and prolonging the global economic depression. Those dark economic times contributed to the conflict that became World War II. America’s postwar policy of encouraging free trade through multilateral trade agreements was aimed at promoting peace as much as prosperity.
Seven: Free Trade Feeds and Clothes the Poor
Free trade and free markets empower poor people by giving them greater opportunity to create wealth and support their families. By dispersing economic power more widely, free trade and free markets undercut the ability of elites in less-developed countries to pillage a nation’s resources at the expense of its poor. Proof can be found in the immigration patterns of poor people throughout the world. By the millions, they seek to leave closed and centrally controlled economies for those that are more open and less controlled. Poor people themselves understand that a free economy serves their interests, even if many of their self-appointed intellectual advocates in the West do not.
Nations open to trade tend to be more prosperous, just as cities along coastlines and navigable rivers tend to be wealthier than those in more remote, inland locations. The most recent Economic Freedom of the World study, by James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, found that the nations that were most open economically from 1980 through 1998 grew nearly five times faster than those that were most closed. And that trade-related growth lifts the lot of the poor. To cite the most dramatic example of this, the World Bank estimates that the number of Chinese citizens living in absolute poverty— that is, on less than $1 per day—has fallen since 1978 by 200 million. Revoking China’s normal trade status, among all its other negative consequences, would set back one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the history of mankind. In contrast, those regions of the world where poverty has been the most intractable, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, have been the least open to trade and foreign investment.
For all those reasons, trade sanctions fall heaviest on the poor of the target nation. Political rulers have the power to protect their pampered lifestyles, while the poor are left to suffer the consequences of U.S. policies that were enacted in the name of helping the very people they victimize. You can be sure that the communist leaders in Cuba and the ruling junta in Burma will continue to enjoy their fine, catered meals and chauffeur-driven cars while the millions of poor people they oppress are made even more miserable by U.S. trade and investment sanctions.
When all of the arguments are weighed, it should become clear that a policy of free trade is moral as well as efficient. Free trade limits the power of the state and enhances the freedom, autonomy, and self-responsibility of the individual. It promotes virtuous and responsible personal behavior. It brings people together in “communities of work” that cross borders and cultures. It opens the door for ideas and evangelism. It undermines the authority of dictators by expanding the freedom, opportunity, and independence of the people they try to control. It promotes peace among nations. It helps the poor to feed and care for themselves and creates a better future for their children. For which of these virtues should we reject free trade?
This essay originally appeared in the July/August 2001 issue of Cato Policy Report.
Free trade is a trade where countries carries out economic activities 'without restrictions or barrier such as import and export tariffs', barrier to market entry and policies (Johnston, Gregory, & Smith, 2011, free trade). Many countries have reaped benefits from free trade and especially developing countries. Some benefits include improvement in infrastructures, expanded markets, access to technologies, free movement of labour and capital, investment, and political relations in form of integrations. These benefits have played a major role in the economic developments of developing countries. However, some countries argue against free trade claiming that it is a burden to developing countries and they object it. Some arguments against include exploitation of developing countries by industrialised, environmental pollution, unemployment of domestic workers, and underperformance of domestic industries thus affecting the country's economic growth. Free trade has positively impacted to developing countries by stimulating their economic development goals such as millennium development goals thus it can be said to be realistic in the real world.
Free trade was found to work out for countries such as Japan, South Korea, China, other East Asia countries, and most of the developed countries in the world. Trade liberalization led to development of these countries and to attainment of their current level of 'developed countries' in the world. The countries formed 'free trade and economic partnership agreements that helped in negotiations of trade across borders was important in facilitating trade,' technical support, services, environmental and social issues (Zeng, 2010 p. 651). The guidelines helped countries to carry out trade in a defined environment that prevented them from exploiting each other in terms of natural resources. As a result, the countries realised developments. This has also worked out for developing countries such as those in sub-Sahara Africa for example Egypt. Moreover, free trade agreements encourage foreign direct investments in developing countries increasing inward revenues to these countries. The increased revenues to these countries are channelled to development projects such infrastructures and improving social amenities to citizens. In addition, foreign direct investments create employment for domestic workers thus helping developing countries to lower their unemployment rates. This is one of the achievements that have contributed greatly to shifting of countries from undeveloped cycles to becoming developed. For example, foreign direct investment has contributed to development of China. China is among the developing countries that' has the largest reserve of foreign direct investments' (Chen, & Emile, 2013 p. 120). China has attracted many foreign investors due to reduced market barriers such as 'uniform tax for both domestic and foreign investors' and trade liberalization resulting to increase in its gross domestic product (Davies, 2013 p. 11). As a result, China's economy has continuously grown making it among the most developed countries. This has shown how trade liberation impacted on the development of countries through trade agreement that encourages foreign direct investment.
Free trade allows free movement of labour and capital across countries and regions. Free movements of labour and capital ensure that countries under the trade treaties are able to acquire the necessary factors of production for their businesses that will help them to improve their productivity and output. In late 1950, some of the countries in Europe suffered shortage of labour while other experienced high levels of unemployment. For example, Italy experienced economic problems such as high levels of unemployment while other countries such as Germany were lacking different types of labour and shortage on experts (Zaiceva, & Zimmermann, 2008 p. 429). Presence of free trade that was steered by European Economic Community ensured that Germany could be able to get labour from Italy at no cost. As a result Germany was able to get experts that it lacked while Italy benefitted from reducing the level of unemployment. Free trade helps to settle unemployment problems in developing countries as it allow free movement of people from their countries to more developed ones where they are able to get employments. This in turn helps them to reduce unemployment rates and realise their economic goals from increased income from abroad. Consequently, the income of people increases resulting in improved standards of living for the people in developing countries. Free movement labour created employment raising the economic status of people, which was a greater achievement towards country economic goals on reduction of unemployment (Nicoleta, & Camelia-Daniela, 2011 p. 303). As a result poverty is reduced in these countries, which is one of the millennium development goals for them. Movement of highly skilled labour to developed countries also results in high performance of domestic industries thus increasing their productivity, which in turn contribute to economic growth of the recipient country. The initiative was purely inclined to economic gains and there was no any political involvement or interference during the whole process. Moreover, the policy saw drastic improvement of the economy in the region. From this literature, it can be noted that free trade provision to free movement of labour contributed both to reduction of unemployment and poverty, increased productivity, and increased living standard of citizens in developing countries thus fostering the economic developing goals of the countries.
Free trade policies enhanced trade, transport, agriculture, manufacturing industries, imports and exports in developing countries. 'Free trade area covers all manufactured and agricultural products, although the timetables for reducing tariffs and removing quantitative restrictions and other non-tariff barriers differ, (Association of South Asian Nations, 2009 update on free trade). Due to entry of various industries in the market, infrastructures are improved in collaboration of state's government and the industries for their market accessibility. Improvement of infrastructures such as roads, railways, communication, electricity, and social amenities by these industries serves as a gateway to developments in these countries. Increased developments results to increase in investments and thus a country realize its development goals of. Although a country does not benefit directly through revenues from tariffs and taxes, the industries help it to meet its development goals. , its development vision is addressed. Improvements of infrastructure such as transport, electricity and social amenities results to improvement of investment capacities of regions and countries, which in turn contribute to economic growth (Jovanovic??, 2013 p. 971). Policies that lift barriers on export and imports by lowering or elimination tariffs and duties encourage export and import of both goods and services to across the region. Developing countries are able to gain revenues from exports while imports supply them with necessary services and goods that are important in steering economic development. For example the European Economic Community elimination of import and export tariffs for its member states encouraged free movement of goods and services across the region in a common market (Bento, 2009 p. 73). Therefore, free trade has contributed greatly to development of small nations through improved trade that encourages export of goods and services without barriers.
Trade liberalization has increased countries integrations and as a result aid to trade inflow to developing countries in terms of technologies and capital has been increased. This has led to strong economic growth, which has been reflected by the increasing gross domestic product and exports for developing countries in East Asia, Africa and Latin America. For example, most of Latin America middle income level countries have integrated with developed countries such as china resulting to improvements of their financial system and consecutive developments (Chen, & Emile, 2013 p. 118). Consequently, technology transfer has led to shift to manufacturing industries, which has attracted investors to the countries. Technology has resulted to increase of improved productivity through lowered cost of production by lowering the cost of labour and increasing relative labour productivity. According to comparative advantage theory by Ricardo, a 'country should concentrate on production of goods that is best suited at lowered cost in order to improve productivity and economy through export to a second country that is not good in production' (Bento, 2009 p. 28). Developing countries have been able to achieve improved productivity and specialization through adoption of technologies that have been introduced in their countries by other developed countries through trade liberalization. For example, India has evidenced comparative advantage by employing labour intensive production skills in manufacturing and services that employs intensive skills as in software industries. This has led to its increased exports in its production to other Asians countries thus increasing its revenues and gross domestic income that has played a major role in its economic development. High technologies attract foreign investors and investments increase. Increased investments in the developing countries also results to significant decrease in levels of unemployment. Consecutive increase in exports from developing countries has been due to decreased barrier and reduced tariffs (Johnston, et al 2011, free trade). Therefore, it can be concluded that free trade is has helped countries to advance economically and realise their economic goals such as millennium development goals.
Free trade has led increased access of economic resources to developing countries and utilization of limited available resources thus stimulating their economic and social development. Small developing countries struggle with scarce and underutilised resources. Free trade allows free entry of other countries and investors to small developing countries and as a result, they participate in conversation of the available resources to economic development resources through 'mobilization of capital and labour thereby improving the status of the country in the economy' (Unger, 2010 P 171). Moreover, free trade gives small developing nations chances to obtain resources such as capital from already developed countries that assist them to attain economic development resources or utilize what they have. For example, countries from Asia such as India have developed due to trade liberalization where they have been able to obtain capital, labour and other necessary resources from already developed countries. If there were restriction and barriers between countries, it would have been very difficult for countries like India to realize their development. Therefore, free access to economic resources by developing countries have shaped their economies and helped in consecutive developments.
However, free trade has been argued to be unrealistic to small developing countries and instead it is detrimental to its economy by increasing level of unemployment, exploiting domestic companies, increasing pollution and lowering people's standard of living.
Free trade is viewed as means by which developed countries exploit domestic industries of developing countries thus affecting their economic development. Multinational companies such as Nike have been reported to exploit developing countries, (for example Asian countries) by recruiting cheap labour and taking advantage of reduced barriers to maximise on their profits (Irwin, 2009 p. 204). Free trade causes increased influx of imports in a country resulting to increased supply of goods in the market. This causes decrease in prices of goods and services causing domestic companies and industries to reduce their prices, which may result loss and reduced share of the market. Therefore, they become less competitive. This may affect the domestic industries by causing decreased growth and as a result crippling. Hence, for countries to protect their domestic industries, they 'impose taxes on imports and policies that restrict imports' that may cause price fluctuations in the market (Hanson, 2010 p. 204). For example, increased steel import to UK from Asia resulted in 'decreased prices of motor vehicles and thus the car manufacturers and sellers experienced reduced prices thus making losses' (Verband der Automobilindustrie, 2005 p. 34). The imposition of tariffs on imports decreases entry into a country market thus increasing the prices and the supply of goods by domestic companies. On the other hand, free trade has increased imports resulting reducing the price of good in the market, thus increasing the demand of imported goods and decreasing demand of domestic products thus affecting domestic industries economic growth and that of the host country.
Free trade has also been argued to be the cause of unemployment to domestic developing countries. Free trade does not limit both the entry of entrepreneurs and labour in a countries. This means that there will be transfer of skilled labours from different countries coming together with their manufactures and other entrepreneurs in the country to carry out their operations. This limits the country's domestic workers from getting such employments and hence increasing the levels of unemployment to developing countries (Trentmann, 2008 p. 73). This increases dependency ratio to these countries and hinders them from realizing developmental goals such as decreasing unemployment rates. Similarly, due to lack of tariffs and barriers to market, many industries are established in the developing countries resulting to losses of some of the industries due to competition and hence the industries move to other countries leaving a gap in employment in the previous country. According to Isis Women, (2014 Free Trade Causes Massive Unemployment) free trade caused massive unemployment in Philippines in 1995 to 2001 with 53 firms being closed down resulting in loss of jobs for 80,319 workers as 29 downsized their human resource causing unemployment of 4,019 jobs. Similarly, free trade in US has led to relocation of most of companies to Mexico, India and other place of the world where tariffs could restrict industries from entry and thus enjoying a stable market. This led to mass unemployment in US.
Free trade has been argued as form of colonialism and imperialism in disguise and instead of contributing to developments it results in exploitation of small developing countries (Igwe, 2013 p. 113). Free trade is believed to benefit industrialized countries because of their capital potential. Most developed countries target the third world countries as the host countries where they carry their investment through exploitation of their resources. They dominate in the economy of the host country ending up controlling most of its resources, revenues, and most development projects. In 19th century, free trade helped European countries such as 'Britain to obtained natural resources from small developing countries and this became disadvantageous to colonized countries over years, creating a gap development between the countries' (French, 2008 p. 13). This may lead to industries or companies controlling the government though being independent. Therefore, for government to avoid this problem, it imposes barriers, taxes and customs duties so that it can limit industries and also control their operations within the country (Hanson, 2010 p. 204). This has seen countries deviating from policies of free trade and moving back to controlled trade with little free trade that is allowed to the level of regions where countries have similar economic capacities and so there would be no likelihood of exploiting each other or feeling of unfairness for example in European union.
Countries argue that free trade deny them access to sources of revenue from foreign investors that could otherwise be used in their development projects. The argument is laid on the fact that 'free trade allows trade between countries without imposing tariffs and taxes' (Wacziarg, & Welch, 2008 p. 197). Hence, the trade is exploitive to the developing countries. Most governments and particularly those from developing countries steer their economic development projects and caters for wages from revenues that they get from tariffs, taxes and licensing of businesses that operates within its territories and so, free trade deny them from accessing these funds. Hence, their development projects may end up taking time and making a country poorer as most of its resources are utilized at no benefits.
From the discussion, it can be concluded that free trade has been a reality to developing countries since it contributed greatly to development of current developed countries such as china, South Korea, and other European countries such as Germany and Britain. For example, China is one of the developed countries that have achieved its developments through taking advantage of free trade to attract investors to its country and it investing in small countries such as those in Latin America thus boosting its developments. Although free trade has been attributed by negative impacts on small developing countries, positive impact surpasses the negative one and thus contributing to most of developments in the small countries. Therefore, based on my opinion, I think that free trade has positively impacted to developing countries as it has stimulated their economic development goals such as millennium development goals. Hence free trade has been a realistic aspect to developing countries.
Source: Essay UK - http://www.essay.uk.com/free-essays/economics/free-trade.php
Not what you're looking for?
If this essay isn't quite what you're looking for, why not order your own custom Economics essay, dissertation or piece of coursework that answers your exact question? There are UK writers just like me on hand, waiting to help you. Each of us is qualified to a high level in our area of expertise, and we can write you a fully researched, fully referenced complete original answer to your essay question. Just complete our simple order form and you could have your customised Economics work in your email box, in as little as 3 hours.