For and against free trade made by Rodrik and Clausing
Kimberly Clausing, an author and an economist at Reed College, argues that the United States of America should continue embracing free trade. However, for that to happen, interventions should be made on softening the impact trade has on communities and workers. She connects global capital, free trade, and immigration and that imports benefit all types of people, more so the lower-income households’ citizens (Clausing Kimberly, 7). In United States manufacturing industries, imports generate lower cost intermediate inputs, raw materials as well as machinery which allow U.S firms to fit in the competitive world markets. According to Kimberly, expanding trade is not only a form of economic policy but also a way of facilitating peace and a prosperous world. International business indeed provides reasonable competition as Multinational Corporation makes quality products from better technological information and innovation.
Unlike Kimberly, Dani Rodrik, a Harvard economist, believes that modern free trade agreements are rampantly stuffed with protectionist measures. According to him, modern agreements facilitate some sorts of protectionism which benefit certain groups’ interest. It can either be multinational corporations, pharmaceutical companies, or international banks. And, in as much as modern agreement might result in freer or mutual trading, they are likely to reduce welfare production (Rodrik Dani, 5). Besides, they can as well necessitate purely redistributive outcomes in relation to free trade. He further argues that economists have failed in appreciating downsides associated with free trade. His latest book, Hyper-Globalization, also explains how the idea of globalization and free trade prosperity backslashes as modern trade agreements only focuses on four areas. They include intellectual property rights, cross-border capital flows rules, procedures of investor-state dispute settlements, and regulatory standards harmonization, which is often about protectionism, unlike freeing up trade.