Argument: Free trade reduces poverty.

Free trade reduces poverty for two reasons. First, it creates direct "pull up" as Columbia economist, Jagdish Bhagwati calls it because it creates demand for a country's good and industry and thus employs the poor and expands jobs1. Additionally it creates more revenue for government that can be directly targeted towards anti-poverty programs. Independent research Xavier Sala-i-Martin at Columbia University estimates that poverty has been reduced by 50 million people in the developing world during the era of free trade, since 19871. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have been liberalizing trade for the past 40 years and have not suffered from one-dollar-per-day poverty in the last 20 years1. If agricultural subsidies were removed from developed countries, food would become more expensive as there would be fewer producers, and poor farmers would have a better shot at competing and making a living. Free trade promotes the necessary monetary flow and demand for goods to increase jobs and sustainably grow an economy to reduce poverty. Prices are lower, more products are available, and the poor are able to achieve a higher standard of living.

1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

Candidate 1: "For countries that are dependent on their resources and lack developed industries, free trade does not promote efficiency. Free trade makes them overly dependent on their resources, which other countries are coming in and buying. This is because their domestic industries cannot compete with those of the developed world, so they have difficulty fostering sectors besides raw goods. They are forced to rely on supplying materials, rather than being able to build innovative industries. That does not offer efficiency, it just suppresses economies. For example Nigeria is dependent on oil for 95% of foreign exchange earnings and 80% of their budget money1. Trading oil is not making it a more diversified, sophisticated economy. 1 CIA World Fact Book, "Nigeria", CIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage"
Candidate 2: "Free trade jeopardizes countries' security.

If a country goes to war with one of its trading partners, it needs to have the capacity to produce all of the necessary tools for war domestically, and not depend on other countries for supplies and parts. Additionally there is fear that disease-causing agents and bioterrorism can enter countries through the trade of poorly inspected food1. For reasons of national security it makes sense to retain the capacity to produce what is necessary to win a war and to protect the domestic population. This is one of the reasons why countries—such as the US1—like to protect their agricultural industry. Free trade is a threat to global security. For countries to stay safe, they need to retain some protectionism in their international trade policy.

1 George W. Bush, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9: Defense of United States Agriculture and Food,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accessed July 15, 2011"
Candidate 3: "Free trade hurts the world's poor

Free trade creates demand for extremely cheap products produced by poor people in terrible conditions in third world countries. In Indonesia, there are people working in sweatshops for 60 cents an hour1. It is estimated that there are 158 million child workers around the world2. Free trade creates demand for the products produced by this modern day form of child and adult slavery. The governments of the countries where this takes place do nothing to improve the working conditions. Sweatshops are produced by free trade and demand for cheap goods, and the way that workers are treated is inherently wrong. Therefore free trade is not a force for global betterment, but instead hurts the cause of the poor and their standard of living.

1 Krugman, Paul (1997), "In Praise of Cheap Labor", Slate.com,

2 UNICEF, "Child Labor","
Candidate 4: "Implementing true free trade is unfeasible because it is unreasonable

An increasing number of countries are looking to bilateral Free Trade Agreements that will help them specifically. They are not directly open to free trade with all countries. These FTAs are undermining the position of the World Trade Organization which is meant to push countries towards economic liberalization1. Countries have no reason to start trading freely with everyone, if they already have FTAs with the most beneficial trading partners. The Doha round seeks to reduce trade barriers in industry and agriculture has been going on for ten years, but there is still no agreement. Disputes are becoming more common when it comes to trade. In 2009, there was a dispute over the US putting tariffs on Chinese tires that has created tension in the trade relationship between those two countries2. Considering that the WTO countries have been debating the Doha round for ten years, it is unreasonable to think that countries are going to adopt free trade policies with the whole world. It is much more likely they will concede to bilateral free trade agreements that specifically help themselves. Since it is unlikely for free trade to become a universal policy it is not beneficial for all countries.

1 Meltzer, Joshua (2011), "The Future of Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,

2 Bradsher, Keith (2009), "China-US Trade Dispute Has Broad Implications", ."
Candidate 5: "Although free trade may promote innovation and growth, because of issues like dumping (where rich countries sell their products very cheaply in poorer countries and make it impossible for local industry to compete), or jobs being exported to places where labor is cheaper, free trade has significant costs and does not necessarily foster benefits for all. It is necessary to grow infant industries and create jobs, and free trade hurts both."
Candidate 6: "Therefore, there is no empirical evidence that proves that poverty is reduced. If countries removed all agricultural subsidies domestic production would decrease and world food prices would increase. Poor countries that import food will suffer from increased food prices due to trade liberalization. 45 of the least-developed countries on earth imported more food than they exported in 1999, so there are many countries that could be severely harmed by increasing food prices1.

1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,"
Candidate 7: "Free trade is the economic policy that many liberal countries—who are less likely to go to war with each other—have chosen. It’s not the policy that makes them liberal. These studies show such a strong correlation, because the countries that have chosen free trade are largely a huge block of countries that already get along, particularly the EU countries and the US. These countries already have the productive relationships necessary for peace. And history has shown that those relationships can be fostered without resorting to free trade. For example, for many years after World War II, Japan protected many national industries, but it was a peaceful country with a productive relationship with the West. Therefore, the costs of free trade are not necessary to achieve that benefit since it can be fostered under different conditions.

1 Paul W. Kuznets, “An East Asian Model of Economic Development: Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 35, no. 3 (April 1988)"
Candidate 8: "It is just to protect industry and jobs.

When countries dump their products in other markets without barriers, they undercut the ability for local industries to compete. If those local industries try to compete, large foreign or multinational companies can use extremely low predatory pricing to make it impossible for the smaller industries to break into the market. The fully developed industries in rich countries are almost impossible for poorer, still developing economies to compete with. If they are not given the chance and have to compete with large international industries from the beginning, domestic industry in poor countries will have a hard time. The overall economic development of the country will thus be inhibited1. Additionally, competition can cost jobs, as industries become less profitable and labor is outsourced, so there is reason to retain protectionism as countries put their economic health first. For example, America has long protected its steel industry, as in 2002 when it adopted a controversial 40% tariff, because it was thought that competition put 600,000 jobs at risk2. Since 1977, 350,000 steel jobs have been shed, so these tariffs are justified3. Countries should put their economies and jobs first and therefore protectionism is warranted.

1 Suranovic, Steven, "The Infant Industry Argument and Dynamic Comparative Advantage", International Economics,

2 http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0307-05.htm "&gt; Flanders, Lauren (2002), "Unfair Trade", CommonDreams.org,

3 Wypijewski, JoAnn (2002), "Whose Steel?", The Nation,"

Therefore, there is no empirical evidence that proves that poverty is reduced. If countries removed all agricultural subsidies domestic production would decrease and world food prices would increase. Poor countries that import food will suffer from increased food prices due to trade liberalization. 45 of the least-developed countries on earth imported more food than they exported in 1999, so there are many countries that could be severely harmed by increasing food prices1.

1 Panagariya, Arvind (2003), "Think Again: International Trade", Foreign Policy Magazine,
