Skip to main content
  • Sections
  • Search

Center for Strategic & International Studies

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Sign In

Topics

  • Climate Change
  • Cybersecurity and Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Governance
    • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Privacy
    • Military Technology
    • Space
    • Technology and Innovation
  • Defense and Security
    • Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
    • Defense Budget
    • Defense Industry, Acquisition, and Innovation
    • Defense Strategy and Capabilities
    • Geopolitics and International Security
    • Long-Term Futures
    • Missile Defense
    • Space
    • Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation
  • Economics
    • Asian Economics
    • Global Economic Governance
    • Trade and International Business
  • Energy and Sustainability
    • Energy, Climate Change, and Environmental Impacts
    • Energy and Geopolitics
    • Energy Innovation
    • Energy Markets, Trends, and Outlooks
  • Global Health
    • Family Planning, Maternal and Child Health, and Immunizations
    • Multilateral Institutions
    • Health and Security
    • Infectious Disease
  • Human Rights
    • Civil Society
    • Transitional Justice
    • Human Security
  • International Development
    • Food and Agriculture
    • Governance and Rule of Law
    • Humanitarian Assistance
    • Human Mobility
    • Private Sector Development
    • U.S. Development Policy

Regions

  • Africa
    • North Africa
    • Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Americas
    • Caribbean
    • North America
    • South America
  • Arctic
  • Asia
    • Afghanistan
    • Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
    • China
    • India
    • Japan
    • Korea
    • Pakistan
    • Southeast Asia
  • Europe
    • European Union
    • NATO
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Turkey
  • Middle East
    • The Gulf
    • Egypt and the Levant
    • North Africa
  • Russia and Eurasia
    • The South Caucasus
    • Central Asia
    • Post-Soviet Europe
    • Russia

Sections menu

  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
    • Blogs
    • Books
    • Commentary
    • Congressional Testimony
    • Critical Questions
    • Interactive Reports
    • Journals
    • Newsletter
    • Reports
    • Transcript
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • Web Projects

Main menu

  • About Us
  • Support CSIS
    • Securing Our Future
Photo: Adobe Stock
Newsletter
Share
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Printfriendly.com

International Business Quarterly: How Pro-Trade People Can Make Fewer Self-Defeating Arguments

October 26, 2016

The defense of free markets and international trade is often a thankless task. While the election-year rhetoric here in the United States has turned increasingly nasty, trade has never been popular with voters. Open markets require leadership, and those who continue to make the case for free trade have my admiration. But many who work to advance the cause wind up undermining their own arguments. Here is some “free advice” that I hope will help my friends score fewer “own goals.”

Context, Context, Context

Political communication at its best is concise and connects directly to the beliefs of the audience. It can, however, suffer from a lack of context, and statements that connect to misperceptions can easily lead to error. To invoke Frédéric Bastiat, arguments about trade and economics are vulnerable to misperceptions because of the effects that are seen versus those that remain unseen.

One easy way to lose an argument with a trade critic is to let audience beliefs establish the context. As an illustration, let’s unpack the statement: “bad trade deals have hollowed out U.S. manufacturing.” What does the critic mean by “hollowed out?” Last year U.S. real manufacturing output was the highest in history. Real manufacturing output is about 40 percent higher than 20 years ago. The critic’s complaint, it seems, is not manufacturing output, but manufacturing employment. U.S. manufacturing employment has been declining for around 40 years for the same reason that agriculture employment has been declining for over 100 years: productivity gains through applied technology. Enhanced productivity means we make more things and grow more food with fewer people, which is great for living standards. Are “bad trade deals” the culprit for productivity gains? No, just the scapegoat.

What is a “bad trade deal?” Consider the much-maligned North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): before NAFTA, the average U.S. applied tariff on imports from Mexico was around 4 percent, while the average Mexican tariff on U.S. imports was 13 percent. Was it a “bad deal” for the United States if both parties reduced tariffs to zero? Consider what the deal was trying to accomplish. Terms of trade before negotiation are typically an assortment of protections that are better understood as government subsidies for politically connected industries—also known as “crony capitalism.” Every trade negotiation is an exercise in pushing cronyism out of the way and freeing up space for markets to work, which is good for consumers and for economic freedom. Cronyism persists in U.S. trade law (consider the sugar program or the 32 percent tariff on brooms), but the barriers faced by U.S. exporters in other countries are generally far greater. Effective communication about trade requires that the audience be aware of the starting point (protectionist subsidies for connected firms at the expense of poorer citizens), as well as the goal (neutral, market-based, fair treatment for all products and services). Voters will only know this if we tell them.

Ease Up on the Mercantilism, OK?

Mercantilism is the theory that state power is enhanced by the accumulation of positive trade balances. Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith and David Ricardo demonstrated this theory is not just wrong but harmful to societal welfare. Yet today, almost every argument from proponents of free trade relies upon a mercantilist rationale: “if free trade agreement (FTA) z is approved, industry x will be able to boost exports by y.”

I fully understand the temptation. Industry associations whose members benefit from higher exports are careful about making accurate claims concerning their business interests, and exports are measurable. But selling trade liberalization policies on the basis of export performance creates as many problems as it solves. First, the audience is likely to perceive that the only reason to pursue trade liberalization is to generate U.S. exports. Imports are, by extension, viewed with suspicion, which feeds the mercantilist argument that somehow imports shrink economic output and cost jobs. In fact, imports are not just beneficial to consumer welfare, but greatly enhance the global competitiveness of U.S. products. Fully half of U.S. imports are raw materials and intermediate goods used as inputs to U.S. manufacturing.

Overreliance on export performance feeds the mistaken notion that the trade balance is a handy scoreboard for gauging the effectiveness of U.S. trade policy; in fact, changes in the balance of trade have almost no connection to changes in trade policy. Finally, forecasts of future export performance are worse than simply boring—the numbers are nearly impossible to get right. Trade flows and national economic performance are driven by factors that have little to do with trade policy. When (as usually happens) numerical promises fail to materialize, the “error” gives critics a handy club with which to bash estimates for new agreements.

Put Away the Charts and Make the Case for Freedom

In politics, winning arguments are stories, while losing arguments sound like lectures. Free traders need to up their game with stories that make the moral case for trade: the story of individual freedom. At a recent public event, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) made his convictions clear:
Free trade isn’t about China, or Mexico, or Britain. It’s about America—and guaranteeing Americans their economic freedom. This is protecting our freedom against those who would tell you which smart phone you can buy, what car you can drive, what groceries you can choose, and at what price. This is freedom against Washington dictating where your business can sell its legal products and how much you can charge. This is freedom against “Washington knows best.”

Yes, trade agreements are imperfect and can be improved. And twentieth century worker adjustment policies have failed to keep pace with twenty-first century realities. But the freedom to engage in mutually beneficial exchange with minimal interference from governments—the freedom to improve our own lives—ought to be the centerpiece of pro-trade arguments.

International Business Quarterly is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2016 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Written By
Scott Miller
Senior Adviser, Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Related
Economics, International Business Quarterly Newsletter, Scholl Chair in International Business, Trade and International Business

Most Recent From Scott Miller

In the News
Biden Orders Review to Shore Up Supply Chain Resiliency
Voice of America | Patsy Widakuswara
February 24, 2021
On Demand Event
Online Event: Toward a New Global Trade Framework
February 2, 2021
Report
Toward a New Global Trade Framework
By William Alan Reinsch, Matthew P. Goodman, Scott Miller
February 2, 2021
Report
Sharpening America’s Innovative Edge
By Matthew P. Goodman, Dylan Gerstel, William Alan Reinsch, Scott Miller
October 16, 2020
Report
Preparing the Workforce for 2030: A Pillar of Trade Leadership
By William Alan Reinsch, Matthew P. Goodman, Scott Miller
October 2, 2020
Report
Key Trends in the Global Economy through 2030
By William Alan Reinsch, Matthew P. Goodman, Scott Miller
September 16, 2020
Commentary
Covid-19 and Value Chains: Diminishing Returns from Trade Policy
By Scott Miller
April 3, 2020
Commentary
Why Is Federal Government Action Not Shoring Up Markets? Alternative Explanations
By Scott Kennedy, William Alan Reinsch, Scott Miller, Stephanie Segal, Matthew P. Goodman, Daniel H. Rosen
March 17, 2020
View all content by this expert
Footer menu
  • Topics
  • Regions
  • Programs
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Analysis
  • Web Projects
  • Podcasts
  • iDeas Lab
  • Transcripts
  • About Us
  • Support Us
Contact CSIS
Email CSIS
Tel: 202.887.0200
Fax: 202.775.3199
Visit CSIS Headquarters
1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Media Queries

Contact H. Andrew Schwartz
Chief Communications Officer
Tel: 202.775.3242

Contact Caleb Diamond
Media Relations Manager and Editorial Associate
Tel: 202.775.3173

Daily Updates

Sign up to receive The Evening, a daily brief on the news, events, and people shaping the world of international affairs.

Subscribe to CSIS Newsletters

Follow CSIS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

All content © 2021. All rights reserved.

Legal menu
  • Credits
  • Privacy Policy
  • Reprint Permissions