View source for Free trade

{{Short description|Absence of government restriction on international trade}}
{{Distinguish|Free market|Fair trade}}
{{Trading blocs}}
{{Liberalism sidebar|ideas}}
{{Libertarianism sidebar}}
'''Free trade''' is a [[trade policy]] that does not restrict [[imports]] or [[exports]]. In government, free trade is predominantly advocated by political parties that hold [[Economic liberalism|economically liberal]] positions, while [[economic nationalist]] political parties generally support [[protectionism]],<ref>{{cite book|title=State Aid for Newspapers: Theories, Cases, Actions|last=Murschetz|first=Paul|publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media]] |year=2013 |isbn=978-3642356902 |pages=64|quote=Parties of the left in government adopt protectionist policies for ideological reasons and because they wish to save worker jobs. Conversely, right-wing parties are predisposed toward free trade policies.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Globalization and the State: Volume II: Trade Agreements, Inequality, the Environment, Financial Globalization, International Law and Vulnerabilities|last=Peláez|first=Carlos|publisher=[[Palgrave MacMillan]]|year=2008|isbn=978-0230205314|location=United States|page=68|quote=Left-wing parties tend to support more protectionist policies than right-wing parties.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements|last=Mansfield|first=Edward|publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |year=2012 |isbn=978-0691135304|pages=128|quote=Left-wing governments are considered more likely than others to intervene in the economy and to enact protectionist trade policies.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior: A–M, Volume 1 |last=Warren |first=Kenneth |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing|Sage]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-1412954891 |pages=680|quote=Yet, certain national interests, regional trading blocks, and left-wing anti-globalization forces still favor protectionist practices, making protectionism a continuing issue for both American political parties.}}</ref> the opposite of free trade.

Most nations are today members of the [[World Trade Organization]] [[multilateral trade]] agreements. States can unilaterally reduce regulations and duties on imports and exports, as well as form bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements. Free trade areas between groups of countries, such as the [[European Economic Area]] and the [[Mercosur]] [[open market]]s, establish a free trade zone among members while creating a protectionist barrier between that free trade area and the rest of the world. Most governments still impose some protectionist policies that are intended to support local employment, such as applying [[tariff]]s to imports or [[Subsidy|subsidies]] to exports. Governments may also restrict free trade to limit exports of natural resources. Other barriers that may hinder trade include [[import quotas]], taxes and [[non-tariff barrier]]s, such as regulatory [[legislation]].

Historically, openness to free trade substantially increased from 1815 to the outbreak of [[World War I]]. Trade openness increased again during the 1920s, but collapsed (in particular in Europe and North America) during the [[Great Depression]]. Trade openness increased substantially again from the 1950s onwards (albeit with a slowdown during the [[1973 oil crisis]]). Economists and economic historians contend that current levels of trade openness are the highest they have ever been.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Federico|first1=Giovanni|last2=Tena-Junguito|first2=Antonio|date=2019|journal=Revista de Historia Economica – Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History|language=en|volume=37|issue=1|pages=9–41|doi=10.1017/S0212610918000216|issn=0212-6109|title=World Trade, 1800–1938: A New Synthesis|doi-access=free|hdl=10016/36110|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://voxeu.org/article/world-trade-historical-database|title=The World Trade Historical Database|last1=Federico|first1=Giovanni|last2=Tena-Junguito|first2=Antonio|date=2018-07-28|website=VoxEU.org|access-date=2019-10-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Bown |first1=C.P. |last2=Crowley |first2=M.A. |title=The Empirical Landscape of Trade Policy |series=Handbook of Commercial Policy |date=2016 |volume=1 |pages=3–108 |doi=10.1016/bs.hescop.2016.04.015 |hdl=10986/24161 |isbn=978-0-444-63280-7 }}</ref>

Economists are generally supportive of free trade.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Krueger|first=Anne O.|date=2020|title=International Trade: What Everyone Needs to Know|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190900465.001.0001|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/wentk/9780190900465.001.0001 |isbn=978-0190900465}}</ref> There is a broad consensus among economists that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare while free trade and the reduction of [[trade barrier]]s has a positive effect on economic growth<ref name="See P 1994">See P.Krugman, «The Narrow and Broad Arguments for Free Trade», American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 83(3), 1993; and P. Krugman, Peddling Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished Expectations, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1994.</ref><ref name="IGMFreeTrade">{{Cite web|url=http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade|title=Free Trade|date=March 13, 2012|publisher=IGM Forum|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties|title=Import Duties|date=October 4, 2016|publisher=IGM Forum|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>[[N. Gregory Mankiw]], [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html Economists Actually Agree on This: The Wisdom of Free Trade], ''New York Times'' (April 24, 2015): "Economists are famous for disagreeing with one another.... But economists reach near unanimity on some topics, including international trade."</ref><ref>[[William Poole (economist)|William Poole]], [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6958854.pdf Free Trade: Why Are Economists and Noneconomists So Far Apart], ''Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review'', September/October 2004, 86(5), pp. 1: "most observers agree that '[t]he consensus among mainstream economists on the desirability of free trade remains almost universal.'"</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe|title=Trade Within Europe|website=IGM Forum|language=en-US|access-date=2017-06-24}}</ref> and economic stability.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Tenreyro|first1=Silvana|last2=Lisicky|first2=Milan|last3=Koren|first3=Miklós|last4=Caselli|first4=Francesco|title=Diversification Through Trade|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=135|pages=449–502|language=en|doi=10.1093/qje/qjz028|year=2019|issue=1 |url=http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1388.pdf}}</ref> However, in the short run, [[liberalization of trade]] can cause unequally distributed losses and the economic dislocation of workers in import-competing sectors.<ref name="IGMFreeTrade" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite book|last=Oatley|first=Thomas|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4GJoDwAAQBAJ|title=International Political Economy: Sixth Edition|date=2019|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1351034647|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-08-20|title=What's Wrong with Protectionism?|url=https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/whats-wrong-protectionism|access-date=2021-09-24|website=Mercatus Center|language=en}}</ref>

== Features ==
* Trade of [[good (economics)|goods]] without taxes (including tariffs) or other [[trade barrier]]s (e.g., quotas on imports or subsidies for producers).
* Trade in services without taxes or other trade barriers.
* The absence of "trade-distorting" policies (such as taxes, subsidies, [[regulation]]s, or laws) that give some [[business entity|firms]], households, or [[factors of production]] an advantage over others.
* Unregulated access to [[Market (economics)|markets]].
* Unregulated access to market information.
* Inability of firms to distort markets through government-imposed [[monopoly]] or [[oligopoly]] power.
* [[Trade agreement]]s which encourage free trade.

== Economics ==
=== Economic models ===
{{Further|Supply and demand|International trade theory}}
Two simple ways to understand the proposed benefits of free trade are through [[David Ricardo]]'s theory of [[comparative advantage]] and by analyzing the impact of a tariff or import quota. An economic analysis using the law of supply and demand and the economic effects of a tax can be used to show the theoretical benefits and disadvantages of free trade.<ref name = "landsburg"/><ref name="hartmann">[[Thom Hartmann]], ''Unequal Protection'', Second Edition, Chapter 20. p. 255</ref>

Most economists would recommend that even [[developing nations]] should set their tariff rates quite low, but the economist [[Ha-Joon Chang]], a proponent of industrial policy, believes higher levels may be justified in developing nations because the productivity gap between them and developed nations today is much higher than what developed nations faced when they were at a similar level of technological development. Underdeveloped nations today, Chang believes, are weak players in a much more competitive system.<ref name="autogenerated311">Pugel (2007), ''International Economics'', pp. 311–312.</ref>{{sfn|Chang|2002|p={{pn|date=August 2025}}}} Counterarguments to Chang's point of view are that the developing countries are able to adopt technologies from abroad whereas developed nations had to create new technologies themselves and that developing countries can sell to export markets far richer than any that existed in the 19th century.

If the chief justification for a tariff is to [[Infant industry argument|stimulate infant industries]], it must be high enough to allow domestic manufactured goods to compete with imported goods in order to be successful. This theory, known as [[import substitution industrialization]], is largely considered ineffective for currently developing nations.<ref name="autogenerated311"/>

==== Tariffs ====
{{Further|Tariff}}
[[File:EffectOfTariff.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|The light red regions are the net loss to society caused by the existence of the tariff.{{citation needed|date=November 2024}}]]
The chart at the right analyzes the effect of the imposition of an import tariff on some imaginary good. Prior to the tariff, the price of the good in the world market and hence in the domestic market is P<sub>world</sub>. The tariff increases the domestic price to P<sub>tariff</sub>. The higher price causes domestic production to increase from Q<sub>S1</sub> to Q<sub>S2</sub> and causes domestic consumption to decline from Q<sub>C1</sub> to Q<sub>C2</sub>.<ref name="stockman">Alan C. Stockman, ''Introduction to Economics'', Second Edition, Chapter 9.</ref><ref name="Mankiw">[[N. Gregory Mankiw]], ''Macroeconomics'', Fifth Edition, Chapter 7.</ref>

This has three effects on societal welfare. Consumers are made worse off because the consumer surplus (green region) becomes smaller. Producers are better off because the producer surplus (yellow region) is made larger. The government also has additional tax revenue (blue region). However, the loss to consumers is greater than the gains by producers and the government. The magnitude of this societal loss is shown by the two pink triangles. Removing the tariff and having free trade would be a net gain for society.<ref name="stockman"/><ref name="Mankiw"/>

An almost identical analysis of this tariff from the perspective of a net producing country yields parallel results. From that country's perspective, the tariff leaves producers worse off and consumers better off, but the net loss to producers is larger than the benefit to consumers (there is no tax revenue in this case because the country being analyzed is not collecting the tariff). Under similar analysis, export tariffs, import quotas and export quotas all yield nearly identical results.<ref name="landsburg"/>

Sometimes consumers are better off and producers worse off and sometimes consumers are worse off and producers are better off, but the imposition of trade restrictions causes a net loss to society because the losses from trade restrictions are larger than the gains from trade restrictions. Free trade creates winners and losers, but theory and empirical evidence show that the gains from free trade are larger than the losses.<ref name="landsburg"/>

A 2021 study found that across 151 countries over the period 1963–2014, "tariff increases are associated with persistent, economically and statistically significant declines in domestic output and productivity, as well as higher unemployment and inequality, real exchange rate appreciation, and insignificant changes to the trade balance."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Furceri |first1=Davide |last2=Hannan |first2=Swarnali A |last3=Ostry |first3=Jonathan D |last4=Rose |first4=Andrew K |title=The Macroeconomy After Tariffs |journal=The World Bank Economic Review |date=9 May 2022 |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=361–381 |doi=10.1093/wber/lhab016 }}</ref>

==== Technology and innovation ====
Economic models indicate that free trade leads to greater technology adoption and innovation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Perla |first1=Jesse |last2=Tonetti |first2=Christopher |last3=Waugh |first3=Michael E. |title=Equilibrium Technology Diffusion, Trade, and Growth |journal=American Economic Review |date=January 2021 |volume=111 |issue=1 |pages=73–128 |doi=10.1257/aer.20151645 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eaton |first1=Jonathan |last2=Kortum |first2=Samuel |title=Technology, Geography, and Trade |journal=Econometrica |date=September 2002 |volume=70 |issue=5 |pages=1741–1779 |doi=10.1111/1468-0262.00352 |jstor=3082019 }}</ref>

==== Productivity and welfare ====
A 2023 study in ''Journal of Political Economy'' found that reductions in trade costs since 1980 caused increases in agricultural productivity, food consumption and welfare across the world. The welfare gains were particularly large in some developing countries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Farrokhi |first1=Farid |last2=Pellegrina |first2=Heitor S. |date=2023 |title=Trade, Technology, and Agricultural Productivity |journal=Journal of Political Economy |volume=131 |issue=9 |pages=2509–2555 |doi=10.1086/724319 }}</ref>

=== Trade diversion ===
According to [[mainstream economics]] theory, the selective application of free trade agreements to some countries and tariffs on others can lead to [[efficiency (economics)|economic inefficiency]] through the process of [[trade diversion]]. It is efficient for a good to be produced by the country which is the lowest cost producer, but this does not always take place if a high cost producer has a free trade agreement while the low cost producer faces a high tariff. Applying free trade to the high cost producer and not the low cost producer as well can lead to trade diversion and a net economic loss. This reason is why many economists place such high importance on negotiations for global tariff reductions, such as the [[Doha Round]].<ref name="landsburg">[[Steven E. Landsburg]]. ''Price Theory and Applications'', Sixth Edition, Chapter 8.</ref>

== Opinions ==
[[File: Free Trade and Protection.jpg|upright=1.35|thumb|Political poster from the British [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]] displaying their views on the differences between an economy based on free trade and [[protectionism]]. The free-trade shop is shown as full to the brim with customers due to its low prices. The shop based upon protectionism is shown as suffering from high prices and a lack of customers, with animosity between the business owner and the regulator.]]

=== Economist opinions ===
The literature analyzing the economics of free trade is rich. Economists have done extensive work on the theoretical and empirical effects of free trade. Although it creates winners and losers, the broad consensus among economists is that free trade provides a net gain for society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fuller |first1=Dan |last2=Geide-stevenson |first2=Doris |title=Consensus Among Economists: Revisited |journal=The Journal of Economic Education |date=January 2003 |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=369–387 |doi=10.1080/00220480309595230 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bhagwati |first1=Jagdish |title=The Case for Free Trade |journal=Scientific American |date=November 1993 |volume=269 |issue=5 |pages=42–49 |doi=10.1038/scientificamerican1193-42 |bibcode=1993SciAm.269e..42B }}</ref> In a 2006 survey of American economists (83 responders), "87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade" and "90.1% disagree with the suggestion that the U.S. should restrict employers from outsourcing work to foreign countries".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Whaples |first1=Robert |title=Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes! |journal=The Economists' Voice |date=17 November 2006 |volume=3 |issue=9 |doi=10.2202/1553-3832.1156 }}</ref>

Quoting Harvard economics professor [[N. Gregory Mankiw]], "Few propositions command as much consensus among professional economists as that open world trade increases economic growth and raises living standards".<ref>{{cite web|last=Mankiw|first=Gregory|title=Outsourcing Redux|date=7 May 2006|url=https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/05/outsourcing-redux.html|access-date=22 January 2007}}</ref> In a survey of leading economists, none disagreed with the notion that "freer trade improves productive efficiency and offers consumers better choices, and in the long run these gains are much larger than any effects on employment".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m|title=Poll Results|publisher=IGM Forum|access-date=1 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160622104941/http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m|archive-date=22 June 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>

[[Paul Krugman]] stated that free trade is greatly beneficial to the world as a whole, and especially beneficial to people in poorer nations, since it allows them to increase their standards of living.{{ r | Krugman_2007 }}  He also stated in 2007 that, as the US trades more with less-industrialized countries whose workers are paid less than equivalent US workers (2007 wages in Mexico were 1/10 what they were in the US, and in China less than 1/20), increased trade with those countries will put downward pressure on unskilled labor rates in the US.<ref name="Krugman_2007">{{cite news |author=Paul Krugman |date=December 12, 2007 |title=The Trouble with Trade |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html}}</ref>

=== Public opinions ===
{{section update|date=April 2024}}
An overwhelming number of people internationally – both in developed and developing countries – support trade with other countries, but are more split when it comes to whether or not they believe trade creates jobs, increases wages, and decreases prices.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stokes |first1=Bruce |title=Americans, Like Many in Other Advanced Economies, Not Convinced of Trade's Benefits |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/09/26/americans-like-many-in-other-advanced-economies-not-convinced-of-trades-benefits/ |website=Pew Research Center |date=26 September 2018}}</ref> The median belief in advanced economies is that trade  increases wages, with 31 percent of people believing it does, compared to 27 percent who believe it does not. In emerging economies, 47 percent of people believe trade increases wages, compared to 20 percent who says it lowers wages. There is a positive relationship of 0.66 between the average GDP growth rate for the years 2014 to 2017 and the percentage of people in a given country that say trade increases wages.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stokes |first1=Bruce |title=4. Nearly half of adults in emerging markets say trade raises wages |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/09/26/nearly-half-of-adults-in-emerging-markets-say-trade-raises-wages/ |website=Pew Research Center |date=26 September 2018}}</ref> Most people, in both advanced and emerging economies, believe that trade increases prices. 35 percent of people in advanced economies and 56 percent in emerging economies believe trade increases prices, and 29 percent and 18 percent, respectively, believe that trade lowers prices. Those with a higher level of education are more likely than those with less education to believe that trade lowers prices.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stokes |first1=Bruce |title=5. Public views on trade and prices are at odds with economic theory |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/09/26/public-views-on-trade-and-prices-are-at-odds-with-economic-theory/ |website=Pew Research Center |date=26 September 2018}}</ref>

== History ==
{{See also|Timeline of international trade|Trade#History}}

=== Early era ===
{{Further|Anti–Corn Law League}}
[[File:David Ricardo (grey).jpg|thumb|upright=0.75|[[David Ricardo]] ]]
The notion of a free trade system encompassing multiple sovereign states originated in a rudimentary form in 16th century [[Imperial Spain]].<ref name="Arrighi1994">{{cite book|author=Giovanni Arrighi|author-link=Giovanni Arrighi|title=The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times|url=https://archive.org/details/longtwentiethcen00arri|url-access=registration|year=1994|publisher=Verso|isbn=978-1859840153|page=[https://archive.org/details/longtwentiethcen00arri/page/58 58]}}</ref> American [[jurist]] [[Arthur Nussbaum]] noted that Spanish theologian [[Francisco de Vitoria]] was "the first to set forth the notions (though not the terms) of freedom of commerce and freedom of the seas".<ref name="Nussbaum1947">{{cite book|author=Arthur Nussbaum|author-link=Arthur Nussbaum|title=A concise history of the law of nations|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TxkQAQAAMAAJ|year=1947|publisher=Macmillan Co.|page=62}}</ref> Vitoria made the case under principles of ''[[jus gentium]]''.<ref name="Nussbaum1947"/> However, it was two early British economists [[Adam Smith]] and [[David Ricardo]] who later developed the idea of free trade into its modern and recognizable form.

Economists who advocated free trade believed trade was the reason why certain civilizations prospered economically. For example, Smith pointed to increased trading as being the reason for the flourishing of not just [[History of the Mediterranean region|Mediterranean]] cultures such as [[Egypt Eyalet|Egypt]], [[Ancient Greece|Greece]] and [[Roman Empire|Rome]], but also of [[Bengal Presidency|Bengal]] ([[East India Company|East India]]) and [[Qing dynasty|China]]. [[Dutch Republic|Netherlands]] prospered greatly after [[Eighty Years' War|throwing off Spanish Imperial rule]] and pursuing a policy of free trade.<ref name="Appleby2010">{{Cite book|last=Appleby|first=Joyce|url=https://archive.org/details/relentlessrevolu00appl|title=The Relentless Revolution: A History of Capitalism|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|year=2010|location= New York|isbn=978-0393068948|author-link=Joyce Appleby|url-access=registration}}</ref> This made the free trade/mercantilist dispute the most important question in economics for centuries. Free trade policies have battled with [[Mercantilism|mercantilist]], [[Protectionism|protectionist]], [[Isolationism|isolationist]], [[Socialism|socialist]], [[Populism|populist]] and other policies over the centuries.

The [[Ottoman Empire]] had [[Economic liberalism|liberal]] free trade policies by the 18th century, with origins in [[capitulations of the Ottoman Empire]], dating back to the first commercial treaties signed with France in 1536 and taken further with [[Capitulation (treaty)|capitulations]] in 1673, in 1740 which lowered [[Duty (economics)|duties]] to only 3% for imports and exports and in 1790. Ottoman free trade policies were praised by British economists advocating free trade such as [[J. R. McCulloch]] in his ''Dictionary of Commerce'' (1834), but criticized by British politicians opposing free trade such as [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Benjamin Disraeli]], who cited the Ottoman Empire as "an instance of the injury done by unrestrained competition" in the 1846 [[Corn Laws]] debate, arguing that it destroyed what had been "some of the finest manufactures of the world" in 1812.<ref>{{cite book|title=Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes|author=Paul Bairoch|publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]]|year=1995|url=https://www.scribd.com/document/193124153/Economics-and-World-History-Myths-and-Paradoxes-Paul-Bairoch|pages=31–32|author-link=Paul Bairoch|access-date=2017-08-16|archive-date=2017-10-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012060209/https://www.scribd.com/document/193124153/Economics-and-World-History-Myths-and-Paradoxes-Paul-Bairoch|url-status=dead}}</ref>

[[File:Droits de douane (France, UK, US).png|thumb|Average tariff rates in France, the United Kingdom and the United States]]
Trade in [[British America|colonial America]] was regulated by the British mercantile system through the [[Acts of Trade and Navigation]]. Until the 1760s, few colonists openly advocated for free trade, in part because regulations were not strictly enforced (New England was famous for smuggling), but also because colonial merchants did not want to compete with foreign goods and shipping. According to historian Oliver Dickerson, a desire for free trade was not one of the causes of the [[American Revolution]]. "The idea that the basic mercantile practices of the eighteenth century were wrong", wrote Dickerson, "was not a part of the thinking of the Revolutionary leaders".<ref>Dickerson, ''The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution'', p. 140.</ref>

Free trade came to what would become the United States as a result of the [[American Revolution]]. After the British Parliament issued the [[Prohibitory Act]] in 1775, blockading colonial ports, the [[Second Continental Congress|Continental Congress]] responded by effectively declaring economic independence, opening American ports to foreign trade on 6 April 1776 – three months before declaring sovereign independence.<ref>Tyler, ''Smugglers & Patriots'', p. 238.</ref>

In March 1801, the Pope [[Pius VII]] ordered some liberalization of trade to face the economic crisis in the [[Papal States]] with the ''[[motu proprio]]'' ''[[Le più colte]]''. Despite this, the export of national corn was forbidden to ensure the food for the [[Papal States]].

[[File:British ships in Canton.jpg|thumb|Britain waged two [[Opium Wars]] to force China to legalize the [[opium trade]] and to open all of China to British merchants.]]
In Britain, free trade became a central principle [[Economic history of the United Kingdom#Free trade|practiced by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846]]. Large-scale agitation was sponsored by the [[Anti–Corn Law League]]. Under the [[Treaty of Nanking]], China opened five [[treaty ports]] to world trade in 1843. The first free trade agreement, the [[Cobden-Chevalier Treaty]], was put in place in 1860 between Britain and France which led to successive agreements between other countries in Europe.<ref>{{cite book|last1=International Monetary Fund Research Dept.|title=World Economic Outlook, May 1997: Globalization: Opportunities and Challenges|date=1997|publisher=International Monetary Fund|isbn=978-1455278886|page=113|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JCOzhl3848MC&pg=PA113}}</ref>

Many [[History of liberalism#Classical liberalism|classical liberals]], especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. [[John Stuart Mill]]) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g. [[Henry Ford]] and Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]]), believed that free trade promoted peace. [[Woodrow Wilson]] included free-trade rhetoric in his "[[Fourteen Points]]" speech of 1918:

{{blockquote|The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this: [...]

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.<ref>[[s:Fourteen Points Speech|Fourteen Points]]</ref>}}

According to economic historian [[Douglas Irwin]], a common myth about United States trade policy is that low tariffs harmed American manufacturers in the early 19th century and then that high tariffs made the United States into a great industrial power in the late 19th century.<ref name=":5">{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21731616-douglas-irwin-agrees-trade-policy-important-all-manner-powers-are-wrongly|title=A historian on the myths of American trade|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2017-11-26|language=en}}</ref> A review by the ''Economist'' of Irwin's 2017 book ''Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy'' notes:<ref name=":5"/>

<blockquote>Political dynamics would lead people to see a link between tariffs and the economic cycle that was not there. A boom would generate enough revenue for tariffs to fall, and when the bust came pressure would build to raise them again. By the time that happened, the economy would be recovering, giving the impression that tariff cuts caused the crash and the reverse generated the recovery. Mr Irwin also methodically debunks the idea that protectionism made America a great industrial power, a notion believed by some to offer lessons for developing countries today. As its share of global manufacturing powered from 23% in 1870 to 36% in 1913, the admittedly high tariffs of the time came with a cost, estimated at around 0.5% of GDP in the mid-1870s. In some industries, they might have sped up development by a few years. But American growth during its protectionist period was more to do with its abundant resources and openness to people and ideas.</blockquote>

According to [[Paul Bairoch]], since the end of the 18th century, the United States has been "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism". In fact, the United States never adhered to free trade until 1945. For the most part, the [[Democratic-Republican Party|Jeffersonians]] strongly opposed protectionism. In the 19th century, statesmen such as Senator [[Henry Clay]] continued [[Alexander Hamilton]]'s themes within the [[Whig Party (United States)|Whig Party]] under the name [[American System (economic plan)|American System]]. The opposition [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] contested several elections throughout the 1830s, 1840s and 1850s in part over the issue of the tariff and protection of industry.<ref>[[Larry Schweikart]], ''What Would the Founders Say?'' (New York: Sentinel, 2011), pp. 106–124.</ref> The Democratic Party favored moderate tariffs used for government revenue only while the Whigs favored higher protective tariffs to protect favored industries. The economist [[Henry Charles Carey]] became a leading proponent of the American System of economics. This mercantilist American System was opposed by the Democratic Party of [[Andrew Jackson]], [[Martin Van Buren]], [[John Tyler]], [[James K. Polk]], [[Franklin Pierce]] and [[James Buchanan]].

The fledgling [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] led by [[Abraham Lincoln]], who called himself a "Henry Clay tariff Whig", strongly opposed free trade and implemented a 44% tariff during the [[American Civil War|Civil War]], in part to pay for railroad subsidies and for the war effort and in part to protect favored industries.<ref>{{cite web|last=Lind|first=Matthew|title=Free Trade Fallacy|url=http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080 |publisher=Prospect|access-date=3 January 2011 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060106154801/http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080 |archive-date = 6 January 2006}}</ref> Congressman [[William McKinley]] (later to become President of the United States) introduced tariffs in 1890 which raised the average duty on imports to almost 50%, an increase designed to protect domestic industries and workers from foreign competition, as promised in the Republican platform.<ref>{{cite book |last=Reitano |first=Joanne |title=The Tariff Question in the Gilded Age: The Great Debate of 1888 |location=University Park, PA |publisher=The Pennsylvania State University |year=1994 |page=[https://archive.org/details/tariffquestionin0000reit/page/129 129] |isbn=0-271-01035-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/tariffquestionin0000reit/page/129 }}</ref> It represented [[protectionism]], a policy supported by Republicans and denounced by Democrats. It was a major topic of fierce debate in the [[1890 United States elections|1890 congressional elections]], which gave a Democratic landslide. Democrats replaced the McKinley Tariff with the [[Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act]] in 1894, which lowered tariff rates.<ref>{{cite book |last=Taussig |first=F. W. |author-link=Frank William Taussig |title=The Tariff History of the United States |url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924100373475 |edition=8th |location=New York|publisher=G.P. Putnam's Sons |year=1892 |page=[https://archive.org/details/cu31924100373475/page/n312 291] }}</ref>

During the interwar period, [[economic protectionism]] took hold in the United States, most famously in the form of the [[Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act]] which is credited by economists with the prolonging and worldwide propagation of the [[Great Depression]].<ref name="Eun & Resnick 2011">{{Cite book | title = International Financial Management, 6th Edition | author = Eun, Cheol S. | author2 = Resnick, Bruce G. | year = 2011 | publisher = McGraw-Hill/Irwin | location = New York | isbn = 978-0078034657}}</ref>{{rp|33}}<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/steve-bannons-bad-history-1505861920|title=Steve Bannon's Bad History|last=Irwin|first=Douglas A.|date=2017-09-19|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2017-09-20|language=en-US|issn=0099-9660}}</ref> From 1934, trade liberalization began to take place through the [[Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act]].

=== Post–World War II ===
Since the end of [[World War II]], in part due to industrial size and the onset of the [[Cold War]], the United States has often been a proponent of reduced tariff-barriers and free trade. The United States helped establish the [[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]] and later the [[World Trade Organization]], although it had rejected an earlier version in the 1950s, the [[International Trade Organization]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/pera9707.pdf |title=The New Liberallism : Trade Policy Developments in Emerging Markets|date=January 1997|website=Wto.org|access-date=2 March 2022}}</ref> Since the 1970s, United States governments have negotiated managed-trade agreements, such as the [[North American Free Trade Agreement]] in the 1990s, and the [[Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement]] in 2006.

In Europe, [[Inner Six|six countries]] formed the [[European Coal and Steel Community]] in 1951 which became the [[European Economic Community]] (EEC) in 1958. Two core objectives of the EEC were the development of a common market, subsequently renamed the [[single market]], and establishing a [[customs union]] between its member states. After expanding its membership, the EEC became the [[European Union]] in 1993. The European Union, now the world's largest single market,<ref>{{cite web|title=EU position in world trade|url=http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/|publisher=European Commission|access-date=24 May 2015}}</ref> has [[European Union free trade agreements|concluded free trade agreements]] with many countries around the world.<ref>{{cite web|title=Agreements|url=http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/agreements/|publisher=European Commission|access-date=17 March 2016}}</ref>

=== Modern era ===
{{Main|World Trade Organization|List of multilateral free trade agreements|List of bilateral free trade agreements}}
[[File:1 singapore city skyline dusk panorama 2011.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.0|[[Singapore]] is the top country in the [[Global Enabling Trade Report|Enabling Trade Index]].]]
{{neoliberalism sidebar}}

Most countries in the world are members of the [[World Trade Organization]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Members and Observers|url=http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm|publisher=World Trade Organisation|access-date=3 January 2011}}</ref> which limits in certain ways but does not eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. Most countries are also members of regional free trade areas that lower trade barriers among participating countries. The European Union and the United States are negotiating a [[Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership]]. in 2018, the [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership]] came into force, which includes eleven countries that have borders on the [[Pacific Ocean]].

==== Degree of free trade policies ====
Free trade may apply to trade in [[goods and services]]. Non-economic considerations may inhibit free trade as a country may espouse free trade in principle but ban certain drugs, such as [[ethanol]], or certain practices, such as [[prostitution]], and limiting international free trade.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ditmore|first1=Melissa Hope|title=Encyclopedia of prostitution and sex work|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SLpZAAAAYAAJ|publisher=Greenwood Press|date=2006|page=581|isbn=978-0313329685|access-date=1 June 2018|quote=Let us by all means apply the sacred principles of free trade to trade in vice, and regulate the relations of the sexes by the higgling of the market and the liberty of private contract.}}</ref>

Some degree of protectionism is nevertheless the norm throughout the world. From 1820 to 1980, the average tariffs on manufactures in twelve industrial countries ranged from 11 to 32%. In the developing world, average tariffs on manufactured goods are approximately 34%.{{sfn|Chang|2002|p=66}} The American economist [[C. Fred Bergsten]] devised the bicycle theory to describe [[trade policy]]. According to this model, trade policy is dynamically unstable in that it constantly tends towards either liberalization or protectionism. To prevent falling off the bike (the disadvantages of protectionism), trade policy and [[multilateral trade negotiations]] must constantly pedal towards greater liberalization. To achieve greater liberalization, decision makers must appeal to the greater welfare for consumers and the wider national economy over narrower parochial interests. However, Bergsten also posits that it is also necessary to compensate the losers in trade and help them find new work as this will both reduce the backlash against globalization and the motives for trades unions and politicians to call for protection of trade.<ref>Destler, Mac and Noland, Marcus (July 2, 2014). [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237246444_Constant_Ends_Flexible_Means_C_Fred_Bergsten_and_the_Quest_for_Open_Trade Constant Ends, Flexible Means: C. Fred Bergsten and the Quest for Open Trade]. [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]].</ref>

[[File:20041120-1 bushchinamtg-1-515h.jpg|thumb|[[George W. Bush]] and [[Hu Jintao]] of China meet while attending an [[Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation|APEC]] summit in Santiago de Chile, 2004.]]

In ''Kicking Away the Ladder'', development economist [[Ha-Joon Chang]] reviews the history of free trade policies and economic growth and notes that many of the now-industrialized countries had significant barriers to trade throughout their history. The United States and Britain, sometimes considered the homes of free trade policy, employed protectionism to varying degrees at all times. Britain abolished the [[Corn Laws]] which restricted import of grain in 1846 in response to domestic pressures and reduced protectionism for manufactures only in the mid 19th century when its technological advantage was at its height, but tariffs on manufactured products had returned to 23% by 1950. The United States maintained weighted average tariffs on manufactured products of approximately 40–50% up until the 1950s, augmented by the natural protectionism of high transportation costs in the 19th century.{{sfn|Chang|2002|p=17}} The most consistent practitioners of free trade have been Switzerland, the Netherlands and to a lesser degree Belgium.{{sfn|Chang|2002|p=59}} Chang describes the [[export-oriented industrialization]] policies of the [[Four Asian Tigers]] as "far more sophisticated and fine-tuned than their historical equivalents".{{sfn|Chang|2002|p=50}}

===== Free trade in goods =====
{{Main|Global Enabling Trade Report}}

The Global Enabling Trade Report measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destinations. The index summarizes four sub-indexes, namely market access; border administration; transport and communications infrastructure; and business environment. As of 2016, the top 30 countries and areas were the following:<ref>[http://reports.weforum.org/global-enabling-trade-report-2016/enabling-trade-rankings/ "Global Enabling Trade Index"].</ref>

{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
# {{SIN}} 6.0
# {{flag|Netherlands}} 5.7
# {{flag|Hong Kong}} 5.7
# {{LUX}} 5.6
# {{SWE}} 5.6
# {{FIN}} 5.6
# {{AUT}} 5.5
# {{UK}} 5.5
# {{GER}} 5.5
# {{BEL}} 5.5
# {{SUI}} 5.4
# {{DEN}} 5.4
# {{FRA}} 5.4
# {{EST}} 5.3
# {{ESP}} 5.3
# {{JAP}} 5.3
# {{NOR}} 5.3
# {{flag|New Zealand}} 5.3
# {{flag|Iceland}} 5.3
# {{flag|Ireland}} 5.3
# {{CHI}} 5.3
# {{USA}} 5.2
# {{UAE}} 5.2
# {{CAN}} 5.2
# {{CZE}} 5.1
# {{AUS}} 5.1
# {{KOR}} 5.0
# {{POR}} 5.0
# {{LIT}} 5.0
# {{ISR}} 5.0
}}

== Politics ==
{{Organize section|date=February 2019}}
{{More citations needed|section|date=November 2019}}

Academics, governments and interest groups debate the relative [[social cost|costs]], benefits and beneficiaries of free trade.

Arguments for [[protectionism]] fall into the economic category (trade hurts the economy or groups in the economy) or into the moral category (the effects of trade might help the economy but have ill effects in other areas). A general argument against free trade is that it represents [[neocolonialism]] in disguise.{{sfn|Chang|2002|p={{pn|date=August 2025}}}} The moral category is wide, including concerns about:<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Divide: Global Inequality from Conquest to Free Markets|first1=Jason|last1=Hickel|date=February 13, 2018|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company|url=https://www.amazon.com/Divide-Global-Inequality-Conquest-Markets-ebook/dp/B073SG4L8T/ref=sr_1_2?crid=FYECG8VZRZ61&keywords=the+divide+jason+hickel&qid=1692054298&s=books&sprefix=the+divide+jason+hickel%2Cstripbooks%2C133&sr=1-2}}</ref>

* [[Infant industry argument|destroying infant industries]]
* undermining long-run economic development
* promoting [[income inequality]]
* tolerating [[environmental degradation]]
* supporting [[child labor]] and [[sweatshops]]
* creating a [[race to the bottom]]
* accentuating poverty in poor countries
* harming [[Defense (military)|national defense]]
* forcing [[cultural change]]

Economic arguments against free trade criticize the assumptions or conclusions of economic theories. 

Domestic industries often oppose free trade on the grounds that lower prices for imported goods would reduce their profits and market share.<ref>[[William Baumol]] and [[Alan Blinder]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=NNRU3b_tE7cC&pg=PA761 Economics: Principles and Policy], p. 722.</ref><ref name='brakman'>{{Cite book| last = Brakman | first = Steven |author2= Harry Garretsen |author3= Charles Van Marrewijk |author4= Arjen Van Witteloostuijn  | title = Nations and Firms in the Global Economy : An Introduction to International Economics and Business | publisher = Cambridge University Press | year = 2006 | location = Cambridge | isbn = 978-0521832984}}</ref> For example, if the United States reduced tariffs on imported sugar, sugar producers would receive lower prices and profits, and sugar consumers would spend less for the same amount of sugar because of those same lower prices. The economic theory of [[David Ricardo]] holds that consumers would necessarily gain more than producers would lose.<ref>[[Richard L. Stroup]], James D. Gwartney, Russell S. Sobel, [https://books.google.com/books?id=1cklAwAVAgkC&pg=PA45 Economics: Private and Public Choice], p. 46.</ref><ref name='pugel'>{{Cite book | last = Pugel | first = Thomas A. | title = International economics | publisher = McGraw-Hill | year = 2003 | location = Boston | url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780071198752 | isbn = 978-0071198752 | url-access = registration }}</ref> Since each of the domestic sugar producers would lose a lot while each of a great number of consumers would gain only a little, domestic producers are more likely to mobilize against the reduction in tariffs.<ref name='brakman'/> More generally, producers often favor domestic subsidies and tariffs on imports in their home countries while objecting to subsidies and tariffs in their export markets.

[[File:Real Wages vs Trade Percent of GDP.svg|thumb|United States real wages vs. trade as a percent of GDP<ref>{{cite web|title= Earnings – National|url= http://bls.gov/data/#wages|work= Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject|publisher= Bureau of Labor Statistics|access-date= 16 March 2012|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120315185503/http://www.bls.gov/data/#wages|archive-date= 15 March 2012|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title= Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product|url= https://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid|archive-url= http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120911022000/http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2011&3Place=N&AllYearsChk=YES&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid|work= National Income and Product Accounts Table|publisher= U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis|access-date= 16 March 2012|archive-date= 2012-09-11|url-status= dead}}</ref>]]

[[Socialists]] frequently oppose free trade on the ground that it allows maximum [[Exploitation of labour|exploitation]] of [[Labor movement|workers]] by [[Capital (economics)|capital]]. For example, [[Karl Marx]] wrote in ''[[The Communist Manifesto]]'' (1848): "The bourgeoisie [...] has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – free trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation".  Marx supported free trade, however, solely because he felt that it would hasten the social revolution. He also viewed the tendency to support protectionism out of spite for free trade to be unsound. That is because Marx viewed protectionism as a means for domestic firms to establish "large-scale" industry within its borders, which would inevitably make it dependent on the world market so that it could make more revenue for example. He also argues that protectionism does not stop a country from developing a domestic economic system that ironically mirrors competitive free trade.<ref>"It is in this revolutionary sense ''alone'', gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." Marx, Karl [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx On the Question of Free Trade] Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848</ref>

Many [[anti-globalization]] groups oppose free trade based on their assertion that free-trade agreements generally do not increase the [[economic freedom]] of the [[poor]] or of the [[working class]] and frequently make them poorer.

Some opponents of free trade favor free-trade theory but oppose free-trade agreements as applied. Some opponents of [[NAFTA]] see the agreement as materially harming the common people, but some of the arguments are actually against the particulars of government-managed trade, rather than against free trade ''per se''. For example, it is argued that it would be wrong to let [[agricultural subsidy|subsidized]] corn from the United States into Mexico freely under [[NAFTA]] at prices well below production cost ([[dumping (pricing policy)|dumping]]) because of its ruinous effects to Mexican farmers.

Research shows that support for trade restrictions is highest among respondents with the lowest levels of education.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last1=Hainmueller |first1=Jens |last2=Hiscox |first2=Michael J. |title=Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade |journal=International Organization |date=April 2006 |volume=60 |issue=2 |doi=10.1017/S0020818306060140 }}</ref> Hainmueller and Hiscox find:

<blockquote>that the impact of education on how voters think about trade and globalization has more to do with exposure to economic ideas and information about the aggregate and varied effects of these economic phenomena, than it does with individual calculations about how trade affects personal income or job security. This is not to say that the latter types of calculations are not important in shaping individuals' views of trade – just that they are not being manifest in the simple association between education and support for trade openness<ref name=":0" /></blockquote> A 2017 study found that individuals whose occupations are routine-task-intensive and who do jobs that are [[offshoring|offshorable]] are more likely to favor protectionism.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Owen |first1=Erica |last2=Johnston |first2=Noel P. |title=Occupation and the Political Economy of Trade: Job Routineness, Offshorability, and Protectionist Sentiment |journal=International Organization |date=2017 |volume=71 |issue=4 |pages=665–699 |doi=10.1017/S0020818317000339 }}</ref>

Research suggests that attitudes towards free trade do not necessarily reflect individuals' self-interests.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mansfield |first1=Edward D. |last2=Mutz |first2=Diana C. |title=Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety |journal=International Organization |date=July 2009 |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=425–457 |doi=10.1017/S0020818309090158 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rho |first1=Sungmin |last2=Tomz |first2=Michael |title=Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-interest? |journal=International Organization |date=2017 |volume=71 |issue=S1 |pages=S85–S108 |doi=10.1017/S0020818316000394 |jstor=44651965 }}</ref>

=== Colonialism ===
{{Further|Dependency theory}}
[[File:Colonization 1945.png|thumb|upright=1.25|Map of [[colonial empire]]s in 1945]]

Various proponents of [[economic nationalism]] and of the school of [[mercantilism]] have long portrayed free trade as a form of colonialism or imperialism. In the 19th century, such groups criticized British calls for free trade as cover for [[British Empire]], notably in the works of American [[Henry Clay]], architect of the [[American System (economic plan)|American System]].<ref>{{Cite book | title = The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101013125040&view=1up&seq=7&skin=2021 | volume = II | first = Henry | last = Clay | year = 1843 |chapter=In Defense of the American System: In the Senate of the United States, February 2d, 3d, and 6th, 1832 |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Biyh3OmxhOMC&pg=PA23 | pages= 23–24 | publisher = Greeley & McElrath | hdl = 2027/njp.32101013125040 | hdl-access = free |quote=Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is, in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead, substantially, to the recolonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.}}</ref>

Free-trade debates and associated matters involving the colonial administration of [[Ireland]]<ref>
{{cite book
 | last1 = Hechter
 | first1 = Michael
 | year = 1999
 | title = Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=2iExDwAAQBAJ
 | edition = 2
 | publisher = Routledge
 | publication-date = 2017
 | isbn = 978-1351511926
 | access-date = 4 August 2019
 | quote = After the Corn Laws were repealed, ending Ireland's virtual monopoly of the British grain market, the Irish land system changed radically.
}}
</ref>
have periodically (such as in 1846 and 1906) caused ructions in the [[Conservative Party (UK)|British Conservative]] ([[Tories (British political party)|Tory]]) Party ([[Corn Laws|Corn Law]] issues in the 1820s to the 1840s, [[Irish Home Rule movement|Irish Home Rule]] issues throughout the 19th and early-20th centuries).

Ecuadorian President [[Rafael Correa]] (in office from 2007 to 2017) denounced the "sophistry of free trade" in an introduction he wrote for a 2006 book, ''The Hidden Face of Free Trade Accords'',<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I3TSD9Y1VmQC|title=El rostro oculto del TLC|first1=Alberto|last1=Acosta|first2=Rafael|last2=Correa|year=2006|publisher=Editorial Abya Yala|isbn=978-9978226100|access-date=2 March 2022|via=Google Books}}</ref> which was written in part by Correa's Energy Minister Alberto Acosta. Citing as his source the 2002 book ''Kicking Away the Ladder'' written by [[Ha-Joon Chang]], Correa identified the difference between an "American system" opposed to a "British System" of free trade. The Americans explicitly viewed the latter, he says, as "part of the British imperialist system". According to Correa, Chang showed that Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]] (in office 1789–1795), rather than List, first presented a systematic argument defending industrial protectionism.{{fact|date=August 2025}}

== Major free trade areas ==
[[File:Press conference EU-Mercosul on June 26, 2019 (VII).jpg|thumb|The [[European Union–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement]] would form one of the world's largest free trade areas.]]

=== Africa ===
{{Main|African Continental Free Trade Area}}

=== Europe ===
{{Main|European Union|European Free Trade Area}}

=== Americas ===
{{Main|North American Free Trade Agreement|United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement}}

== Alternatives ==
{{Main article|Protectionism|Imperialism}}
{{Expand section|date=February 2019}}

The following alternatives to free trade have been proposed: [[protectionism]],<ref>{{Cite web|title=protectionism {{!}} Definition, Examples, & Facts|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/protectionism|access-date=2020-10-14|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|language=en}}</ref>  [[imperialism]],{{fact|date=August 2025}} [[balanced trade]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Balanced Trade - Explained |url=https://thebusinessprofessor.com/economic-analysis-monetary-policy/balanced-trade-definition |access-date=2022-10-18 |website=The Business Professor, LLC}}</ref> [[fair trade]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Geoff |title=The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |date=August 2004 |volume=53 |issue=1–2 |pages=73–86 |doi=10.1023/B:BUSI.0000039400.57827.c3 |jstor=25123283 |url=https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1631065 }}</ref> and [[industrial policy]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cimoli |first1=Mario |last2=Dosi |first2=Giovanni |last3=Landesmann |first3=Michael A. |last4=Mazzucato |first4=Mariana |last5=Page |first5=Tim |last6=Pianta |first6=Mario |last7=Stiglitz |first7=Joseph E. |last8=Walz |first8=Rainer |date=2015 |title=Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need? |url=https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2015/number/3/article/which-industrial-policy-does-europe-need.html |journal=Intereconomics |language=en |volume=2015 |issue=3 |pages=120–155}}</ref>

Under balanced trade, nations are required to provide a fairly even reciprocal trade pattern; they cannot run large [[trade deficit]]s or trade surpluses. Fair trade involves allowing trade but taking into account other interests, such as [[dirigisme]], protecting [[labor rights]], [[environmentalism]], etc.

=== Protectionism ===
Protectionism involves [[tariffs]] to protect domestic goods and industry from international competition, and to raise government revenue in lieu of other forms of [[taxation]].

In 1846, the United Kingdom abolished the [[Corn Laws]] (which had restricted import of grain), in response to the [[Great Famine (Ireland)|famine in Ireland]] and other domestic pressures over food prices. It also reduced protectionism for manufactures, but only in the mid 19th century when its technological advantage was at its height. Tariffs on manufactured products had returned to 23% by 1950.{{fact|date=August 2025}} 

The United States maintained weighted average tariffs on manufactured products of approximately 40–50% up until the 1950s, augmented by the natural protectionism of high transportation costs in the 19th century.{{sfn|Chang|2002|p=17}} The [[2016 United States presidential election|2016 presidential election]] marked the beginning of the trend  of returning to protectionism in the United States, an ideology incorporated into Republican president [[Donald Trump]]'s platform and largely maintained by his successor [[Joe Biden]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Swedberg |first1=Richard |title=Folk economics and its role in Trump's presidential campaign: an exploratory study |journal=Theory and Society |date=February 2018 |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=1–36 |doi=10.1007/s11186-018-9308-8 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/biden-struggles-to-push-trade-deals-with-allies-as-election-approaches-fc512595?mod=RSSMSN|title=Biden Struggles to Push Trade Deals with Allies as Election Approaches|website=The Wall Street Journal|first=Yuka|last=Hayashi|date=December 28, 2023}}</ref>

=== Imperialism ===
Imperialism entails [[unequal exchange]] for the benefit of the [[mother country]], often at the expense of the colonies. The imperial trade practices of the [[British Empire|British]] and [[Spanish Empire]]s were contributing factors to the [[American Revolution]] and the [[Spanish American Wars of Independence]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Miller |first=John C. |title=Origins of the American Revolution |url=https://archive.org/details/originsofamerica00mill |url-access=registration |location= Boston |publisher= Little, Brown and company |date= 1943 |ol=6453380M }}, pp. 95–99</ref><ref>Lynch, ''Spanish American Revolutions'', 27–34</ref><ref>Rodríguez, ''Independence of Spanish America'', 14–18</ref><ref>Kinsbruner, ''Independence in Spanish America'', 14–17, 23.</ref>

[[Belgian Empire|Belgium]] also engaged in unequal exchange, most notoriously in the [[Congo Free State]] (CFS) under [[Leopold II of Belgium|King Leopold II]]. In direct violation of his promises of free trade within the CFS under the terms of the [[Berlin Conference|Berlin Treaty]], not only did the CFS become a commercial entity directly or indirectly trading within its dominion, but Leopold had also been slowly monopolizing a considerable amount of the ivory and rubber trade by imposing export duties on the resources traded by other merchants within the CFS.<ref>{{cite book |first=Adam |last=Hochschild |author-link=Adam Hochschild |title=King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa |title-link=King Leopold's Ghost |year=2006 |publisher=Pan Macmillan UK |isbn=978-1-74329-160-3}}{{pn|date=August 2025}}</ref>

== In literature ==
The value of free trade was first observed and documented in 1776 by [[Adam Smith]] in ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', writing:<ref>Bhagwati (2002), ''Free Trade Today'', p. 3</ref>

{{Blockquote|It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. [...] If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.<ref>Smith, ''Wealth of Nations'', pp. 264–265.</ref>|sign=|source=}}

This statement uses the concept of [[absolute advantage]] to present an argument in opposition to [[mercantilism]], the dominant view surrounding trade at the time which held that a country should aim to export more than it imports and thus amass wealth.<ref>Pugel (2007), ''International Economics'', p. 33</ref> Instead, Smith argues, countries could gain from each producing exclusively the goods in which they are most suited to, trading between each other as required for the purposes of consumption. In this vein, it is not the value of exports relative to that of imports that is important, but the value of the goods produced by a nation. However, the concept of absolute advantage does not address a situation where a country has no advantage in the production of a particular good or type of good.<ref>Pugel (2007), ''International Economics'', p. 34</ref>

This theoretical shortcoming was addressed by the theory of comparative advantage. Generally attributed to [[David Ricardo]], who expanded on it in his 1817 book ''[[On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation]]'',<ref>Ricardo (1817), ''On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'', Chapter 7 "On Foreign Trade"</ref> it makes a case for free trade based not on absolute advantage in production of a good, but on the relative [[opportunity cost]]s of production. A country should specialize in whatever good it can produce at the lowest cost, trading this good to buy other goods it requires for consumption. This allows for countries to benefit from trade even when they do not have an absolute advantage in any area of production. While their gains from trade might not be equal to those of a country more productive in all goods, they will still be better off economically from trade than they would be under a state of [[autarky]].<ref>Bhagwati (2002), ''Free Trade Today'', p. 1</ref><ref>Pugel (2007), ''International Economics'', pp. 35–38, 40</ref>

Exceptionally, [[Henry George]]'s 1886 book ''[[Protection or Free Trade]]'' was read out loud in full into the [[Congressional Record]] by five [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressmen.<ref>Weir, "A Fragile Alliance," 425–425</ref><ref>Henry George, [https://books.google.com/books?id=7qlMAAAAMAAJ&q=protection+or+free+trade ''Protection or Free Trade: An Examination of the Tariff Question, with Especial Regard to the Interests of Labor''](New York: 1887).</ref> American economist [[Tyler Cowen]] wrote that ''Protection or Free Trade'' "remains perhaps the best-argued tract on free trade to this day".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Cowen|first1=Tyler|title=Anti-Capitalist Rerun|journal=The American Interest|date=May 1, 2009|volume= 4|issue= 5|url=http://www.the-american-interest.com/2009/05/01/anti-capitalist-rerun/|access-date=15 November 2014}}</ref>'' Although George is very critical towards protectionism, he discusses the subject in particular with respect to the interests of labor:

<blockquote>We all hear with interest and pleasure of improvements in transportation by water or land; we are all disposed to regard the opening of canals, the building of railways, the deepening of harbors, the improvement of steamships as beneficial. But if such things are beneficial, how can tariffs be beneficial? The effect of such things is to lessen the cost of transporting commodities; the effect of tariffs is to increase it. If the protective theory be true, every improvement that cheapens the carriage of goods between country and country is an injury to mankind unless tariffs be commensurately increased.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.truefreetrade.org/pft3.htm|title=Protection or Free Trade – Chapter 3|publisher=Truefreetrade.org|access-date=2 March 2022}}</ref></blockquote>

George considers the general free trade argument inadequate. He argues that the removal of protective tariffs alone is never sufficient to improve the situation of the working class, unless accompanied by a shift towards a "single tax" in the form of a [[land value tax]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.truefreetrade.org/pft16.htm|title=Protection or Free Trade – Chapter 16|publisher=Protection or Free Trade}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{Portal|Business and economics}}
; Concepts/topics
* {{Annotated link |Economic globalization}}
* {{Annotated link |Economic sanctions}}
* {{Annotated link |Fair trade}}
* {{Annotated link |Free market}}
* {{Annotated link |Free-trade area}}
* {{Annotated link |Free-trade zone}}
* {{Annotated link |Freedom of choice}}
* {{Annotated link |Non-tariff barriers to trade}}
* {{Annotated link |Outsourcing|Offshore outsourcing}}
* {{Annotated link |Offshoring}}
* {{Annotated link |Peace economics}}
* {{Annotated link |Trade Adjustment Assistance}}
* {{Annotated link |Trade bloc}}
* {{Annotated link |Trade war}}
; Trade organizations
* {{Annotated link |European Economic Area}}
* {{Annotated link |Free Trade Area of the Americas}}
* {{Annotated link |World Trade Organization}}

== Citations ==
{{Reflist}}

== General and cited references ==
* Bannerman, Gordon, [http://ieg-ego.eu/de/threads/hintergruende/wirtschaft-handel/free-trade-free-trade-be-freigabe ''Free Trade''], [http://www.ieg-ego.eu/ EGO – European History Online], Mainz: [http://www.ieg-mainz.de/likecms/index.php Institute of European History], 2015, retrieved: March 8, 2021 ([https://d-nb.info/1125549289/34 pdf]).
* [[Jagdish Bhagwati|Bhagwati, Jagdish]]. ''Free Trade Today''. Princeton: Princeton University Press (2002). {{ISBN|0691091560}}.
* {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Blinder |first1=Alan S. |author-link1=Alan Blinder |editor= [[David R. Henderson]]|encyclopedia=[[Concise Encyclopedia of Economics]] |title=Free Trade|year=2008 |edition= 2nd |publisher=[[Library of Economics and Liberty]] |location=Indianapolis |isbn=978-0865976658 |oclc=237794267}}
* {{cite book |last1=Chang |first1=Ha-Joon |authorlink1=Ha-Joon Chang |title=Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective |date=2002 |publisher=Anthem Press |isbn=978-1-84331-027-3 }}
* [[Oliver Morton Dickerson|Dickerson, Oliver M.]] ''The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution''. New York: Barnes (1963). {{ISBN|978-0374921620}} {{OCLC|490386016}}.
* [[Thomas Pugel|Pugel, Thomas A.]] ''International Economics'', 13th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin (2007). {{ISBN|978-0073523026}}.
* [[David Ricardo|Ricardo, David]]. ''On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'', Library of Economics and Liberty (1999).
* [[Adam Smith|Smith, Adam]]. ''[[An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations]]'', Digireads Publishing (2009), {{ISBN|1420932063}}.
* Tyler, John W. ''Smugglers & Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution''. Boston: Northeastern University Press (1986). {{ISBN|0930350766}}.

== Further reading ==
{{Library resources box}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Galiani |first1=Sebastian |last2=Schofield |first2=Norman |last3=Torrens |first3=Gustavo |title=Factor Endowments, Democracy, and Trade Policy Divergence |journal=Journal of Public Economic Theory |date=February 2014 |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=119–156 |doi=10.1111/jpet.12057 }}
* {{cite book |title=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter=Free Trade |date=2008 |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n115 |isbn=978-1-4129-6580-4 }}
* {{cite book |last=Medley |first=George Webb |date=1881 |title=England Under Free Trade|location=London |publisher=Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Co.|title-link=s:England under free trade }}
* World Trade Organization (2018). [https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/history_e/history_e.htm "History of the multilateral trading system"].

== External links ==
{{Wikiquote}}
* [http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2092 The Online Library of Liberty] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128063834/https://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2092 |date=2021-01-28 }}
** [http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/cobden-and-the-anti-corn-law-league  66 contemporary British illustrations about free trade, 1830s–1910s]

{{Globalization}}
{{International trade}}
{{liberalism}}
{{Libertarianism|state=autocollapse}}
{{Neoliberalism}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Free Trade}}
[[Category:Free trade| ]]
[[Category:Commercial policy]]
[[Category:Conservatism in the United States]]
[[Category:Conservatism in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Economic policy]]
[[Category:Globalization]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Neoliberalism]]