This essay explores the ongoing debate between free trade advocates and protectionists by examining arguments from both sides. It considers evidence from U.S.–China trade relations, public opinion surveys, and the experiences of workers in maquiladora factories along the U.S.–Mexico border. While proponents argue that free trade opens markets, raises living standards, and creates entrepreneurial opportunity globally, critics highlight growing corporate power, environmental degradation, job insecurity, and unequal distribution of benefits. The essay ultimately argues that international trade agreements, when properly enforced, can provide the regulatory framework needed to realize free trade's potential benefits while guarding against its documented harms.
Advocates of free trade claim benefits to both individuals and society, while protectionists argue that people need protection from free trade. There is no doubt that business is becoming increasingly global, and it seems free trade will define the future of international business. By considering both sides of the argument, a balanced view of the issue can be obtained. It may even be possible to combine both perspectives to give a fuller account of the true impact of free trade.
There is no doubt that an international environment based on truly global free trade is becoming a reality. President George W. Bush travelled to China and met with Chinese officials to discuss free trade. In a press conference following the meeting, he is quoted as saying: "China, as a full member of the WTO, will now be a full partner in the global trading system and will have the right and responsibility to fashion and enforce the rules of open trade" (Savadove). This event represents significant progress for the free trade movement, with China's formal joining being a process fifteen years in the making.
President Bush made his status as a free trade advocate clear, saying, "it is in our nation's interest that we trade with China" (Savadove). While Bush's position is unambiguous, the American public appears divided. A recent survey showed that 45 percent support free trade, while 46 percent support protectionism (Vieira).
The same survey also showed that an increasing number of people are enjoying greater freedom in their shopping choices. It was reported that 49 percent of respondents believe having the products of multinational companies available to purchase is a "good thing," while 17 percent believe it is a "bad thing" and 33 percent are indifferent (Vieira). While consumers may not be in agreement on their overall stance, many are already enjoying the benefits of greater product choice that free trade produces.
It is also argued that the benefits to society as a whole are significant. Micklethwait and Wooldridge argue for free trade, stating that "globalization is not something that has a positive effect only on the wealthier countries in the west — it is in the less-developed economies where individuals stand to benefit the most from globalization" (Wharton). They also cite "new opportunities, better education, improved health care and an overall better standard of living" as additional benefits (Wharton).
Micklethwait and Wooldridge further refute one of the common justifications for protectionism — that free trade results in large corporations dominating the world and leaving individuals powerless. They suggest instead that globalization simply opens up markets: "globalization opens new opportunities for the entrepreneur from any village, and country and any culture to engage in business across town or across the world" (Wharton).
The Global Issues website provides a thorough explanation of the arguments against free trade, listing five major concerns and criticisms (Shah):
The corporate power argument and the decision-making argument are closely linked. Micklethwait and Wooldridge acknowledge these issues, noting that "companies and government must have a responsibility that goes beyond pumping up the bottom line or fattening top management pockets" (Wharton). The benefit of a formal free trade agreement is that this "responsibility" becomes a "necessity" — it is not left to the goodwill of governments or organizations, but is instead required by a signed agreement that demands fairness.
President Bush reinforced this point, stating, "it is in our nation's interest that China adhere to the rules of the World Trade Organization" (Savadove). In this way, a real global system with binding agreements between nations actually allows the trading system to be controlled in order to prevent the misuse of power.
The questions of environmental impact, job stability, and whether only wealthy nations benefit are more difficult to counter. It has been noted that those who were once protectionists have shifted their focus to the broader issue of workers' lives (Wharton).
One of the most visible areas where concerns about free trade are grounded in reality is the case of the maquiladora factories. These factories are frequently cited as an illustration of what free trade can produce in practice: "the US-Mexico border is a microcosm of North-South relations in a global economy where corporations call the shots, and poor nations sell off labor rights and the environment to the highest bidder" (Light). A maquiladora is a special Mexican industrial program that allows mostly non-Mexican operations to establish manufacturing or assembly plants in Mexico. Critics of free trade warn that this model could spread to other regions of the globe.
It is reported that workers in these factories labor in poor conditions and for wages roughly a quarter of what is needed to cover the basic needs of a four-person family. The factories operate without enforced environmental or occupational health and safety laws, meaning that employees, the surrounding community, and the environment all suffer as a result (Light).
"Labor and environmental abuses in Mexican border factories"
"Agreements as regulatory tools to control trade's downsides"
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. "The Challenges and Promise of Globalization." CNET News.com. July 1, 2000.
Vieira, Paul. "Young and Educated Back Free Trade." Financial Post. February 21, 2002.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.