Events of the past few years, including the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and the demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and election of Donald Trump as president in the United States, have reignited debates about the global trade regime. With anti-trade populism seemingly on the rise in Europe and the United States, many have begun to question whether the trade regime has done enough for those who feel left behind by globalization. 1 While some have held fast to the view that redistribution of trade's gains is primarily a matter of domestic policy, 2 others have suggested tweaks to international trade agreements aimed at better spreading the wealth. 3 But what if the problem is not policy, but principle? The major international economic institutions of the last few decades have been based on and around a normative principle of "growing the pie" and "raising all boats." 4 Free-er trade will make every state better off, we explain and are told. Most policy tweaks that have been suggested assume this neoliberal principle, even while trying to soften its harder edges. 5 But it is not clear that those in the United States and Europe voting against trade agreements agree.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harlan Grant Cohen (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: