Free Trade, Poverty, and Inequality (original) (raw)
Related papers
Free Trade, Poverty, and the Environment
2008
will simply assume that there is such an obligation. Poverty Every hour sixty people die of measles, 19 every minute fourteen people die of AIDs, 20 every thirty seconds malaria kills a child. 21 Many of these deaths occur among the more than 800 million people who are undernourished or who cannot secure safe water, essential drugs, basic sanitation, or adequate shelter. 22 About a third of all deaths, fi fty thousand every day, eighteen million a year, are poverty-related. 23 Much of the premature death and suffering in the world could be easily prevented. 24 So, this paper will suppose that there is an obligation to enable all people in present and future generations to avoid poverty (insofar as it is affordable to do so). 25 Henceforth, we can say simply that there is a moral obligation to reduce poverty. At least this much is required. 26 There are important questions about who should bear the burden of enabling people to avoid poverty. 27 This paper will not address these questions, however. Many people believe that a concern for the poor requires much more than reducing poverty. Some argue that there is an obligation to enable everyone to live a good human life, 28 give everyone equal opportunity, 29 or ensure that the global basic structure works to the maximal advantage of the least well off. 30 So, there are many ways that one could support the claim that there is a moral obligation to reduce poverty. In subsequent sections, however, let us simply assume that there is such an obligation.
THE ILLUSION OF FREE TRADE: FREE IS NOT ALWAYS FAIR
2019
According to Ricardo's (1817) perspective concerning comparative advantage, people would be better off if they specialize in one thing. After the World War II, many provocations concerning economic liberalization to create free world trade. Pros and cons surrounding free trade arouse. Some say that free trade is fair, but there are others who don"t agree. This essay is meant to explain the advantage and the disadvantage of free trade from developing country"s point of view. Our results show that free trade tends to be unfair because there happened to be spatial concentration in advanced countries. In this matter, we use qualitative method to prove that the illusion of free trade is true. The samples that we use for developed countries are Japan, USA, and EU. On the other side, we use South East Asian countries and Latin America as samples. We hope that there will be renegotiation in free trade agreements to create new balance and equality among countries.
International Trade and Poverty Alleviation
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate. Empirical studies suggest that trade reform has a positive effect on employment and income for the poor; however, there are winners and losers. If the transitional costs of trade liberalization fall disproportionately on the poor, trade reform can be designed to mitigate these effects. This includes making reforms as broad based as possible, sequencing and phasing them to allow for adjustment, and implementing social safety nets and other reforms that facilitate adjustment to the new trade policy. In assessing these findings, it should be borne in mind that the links between trade reform and poverty are complex, making systematic empirical investigations difficult.
The debate on the linkages between trade and growth, as well as on mechanisms that can help to create better conditions in order to increase employment and reduce poverty and inequality, is a longstanding one. Bhagwati and Srinivasan (2003, 2002) recalled that Sir Dennis Robertson (1940) described trade as an "engine of growth" many years ago. Adam Smith (1937) also discussed progress and the improvement of labour conditions. In other words, the idea that trade will promote growth, and growth will reduce poverty, has deep roots. In the twenty-first century, however, despite many factors that might be thought to contribute to a dynamic of poverty reduction through growth-the advanced state of globalization, patently greater trade openness, strong interdependence between trade and finances and increasing numbers of people enjoying the benefits of the market-it cannot be said that rising standards of living are the general rule for large numbers of citizens in many countries, especially not for those living in rural areas. Not everyone enjoys higher standards of living, because certain people and social groups have been left behind as progress marches on. Tensions between rich and poor persist in markets and society.
A note on the ethics of free trade
Arguments against free trade are often couched in ethical terms. They usually describe the plight of those who lose from free trade, but seldom consider the costs of protectionism. This essay examines free trade from the perspective of several important ethical theories and concludes that free trade is consistent with each of them.
What We Do and Don’t Know about Trade Liberalization and Poverty Reduction
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers
Strong opinions about the impact of globalization on poverty are not always backed by robust factual evidence. As argued in this paper, however, it is not all that easy to lay our hands on 'robust' facts. Quantitative analyses of trade liberalization appear highly sensitive to basic modelling and parameter assumptions. Altering these could turn the expectation that, for instance, Africa's poor stand to gain from further trade opening under the Doha Round into one in which they would stand to lose. Most studies agree though that trade opening probably adds to aggregate welfare, but gains are small and unevenly distributed.