The Positive Impacts of Liberal Trade Policies
Discuss about the Generation of Trade and Environment Conflicts.
Technological advancement and the advent of globalisation have shaped the course of global trade in a rapid pace. As a result of that in one hand the commercial activities are increased sporadically and on the other the ecological balances becomes affected drastically (Low 2016).). After the end of the Second World War and the growing need to communicate through a trading connection, the European countries or the Pan-Atlantic countries to be specific went to sign agreements in bi-lateral level or among more than two countries. However, there are some disadvantages that the international trade is dealing with nowadays. Adverse impact on the ecology and desperate tendencies to maximize business lead the future of corporate organisations in grave danger. In this regards, concepts like green objectives or environmental sustainability are came into relevance. Therefore, this essay covers different dimensions of trade liberalisation and in due course reflects the relevance of green objectives in this context. Also, the supplementary paragraphs will summarise various attributes of the liberal trade practices and its impact on the environmental sustainability and followed by a conclusion.
There are some positive impacts of liberal trade policies that can help a country to get developed and facilitated its future sustainability. In the past, states were more of protectionism mode of economy that means states discouraged foreign trade by either restricting market or put huge tariff on foreign business. However, the notion of protectionism is considered to be obsolete in modern times. With the growth in technology and communication the role of trade and commerce also expands its dynamics outstandingly. It is, in fact, from the 1980s onwards that most of the developing countries were seeking to reduce their import protection and liberalise trade (Gács 2013). In addition to this, during the 1960s, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan had started to initiate trade liberalisation policy in developing countries (Baier, Bergstrand and Feng 2014). The reason behind using free trade policy was that those countries perceived the importance of trade liberalisation and adopting export oriented growth strategies for the benefit of economic development. Empirical researches and studies opined that industrialisation paved the way for free trade policy across the world (Low, 2016). In fact, countries like India which was hitherto completely relied upon protectionism and inward looking economics now got the clear understanding of the necessity of liberal trade policies (Alessandria and Choi 2014). However, the relationship between growth and free trade policy has been projected as ambiguous according to the new researches (Mansfield and Reinhardt, 2015) (please specify which research, don’t just generalise (for example, 2010 study on global trade or by john suggest or provide clues that this happen) and provide reference). Nonetheless, it is beyond any debate that there is a sheer role of trade liberalisation that fosters and energises economic development of a developing country.
The Need for Green Objectives and Environmental Sustainability
Thus, the gradual expansion of international trade and its liberal approach has started It can be argued that there are a number of aspects of a nation that are affected positively by the expansion of international trade. For an instance the liberal approach of the international trade is going to influence the social dimension in terms of change the habit and needs of the citizens. Moreover, there are some environmental impacts too that are coincided with the advent of the international trade. For example, influence every aspect of states, such as, the movement of goods and services across national border without major constrains has allow multinational corporations to take advantage by investing other countries especially third world countries thus creating new environmental threat such as climate change or global warming. This process has enhanced tension global warming and debate among states. With the escalating tension of global warming and the negligence of the big companies towards economic sustainability facilitate the relevance of environment in the present case scenario (Copeland and Taylor 2013). As a result of that it becomes very imperative to understand the interconnection between international trade and the environment..
The economic approach of trade is going through a rapid transformation and shifts its graze from the economy-centrism to environmental perspectives. Since 1990s, with the advent of globalisation the developed countries put focus on the economic growth and profit percentages but no one ever concern about the ecological impact and climate change (Brack 2017). This relation between globalisation and environment is further intensified due to the expansion of trade liberalisation in a global platform. In this context, it can be argued that the ongoing trade negotiations between the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay round of General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) had come into place at a time when the entire world became concerned about sustainability and extinction (Kreickemeier and Richter 2014). Consequently, the emergence of World Trade Organisation with an agenda to make the free trade practice eco-friendly added up a new approach in it.
Thus, it can be argued that international trade allows countries to exchange services and goods globally. As a result of that international trade has become a major driving force (for the changes occurring in the environment due to promotion of free trade in the) final half of 20th century (Kraft 2017). It can also be articulated that global trend of trade and commerce can also bring an end to poverty. In this context, the discussion will go further by understanding the benefits of global trade and its liberalisation policies not only through its economic orientation but also have a social and environmental approach (Dean 2017). Abundance of raw materials is considered to be a major factor in this regard. Nations like Indonesia, Pakistan and Congo are not strong enough to bring progress to the respective countries by their own. Therefore, it is essential for them to depend on the international market and get the benefits for structuring or rebuilding their existing set up (Dimitrov 2017).
The Role of Trade Liberalisation in Economic Development
Besides this, it is also been argued that international trade puts a great impact on the availability of goods. Due to the trade relations among different countries, it will be beneficial for the nations to import the required products and export the surplus ones. In return, it ushers a great deal of aid to the countries in order to keep the pace of their development (Alessandria and Choi 2014). Furthermore, utilization of resources also considered to be a positive impact of international trade liberalisation (Kohler 2013). It is primarily based on the comparative advantage theory. According to this theory, every country possesses some specialisation in production and manufacturing those products generates relatively lower absolute cost. For instance, in India due to have cheap labour intensive production it will be beneficial to manufacture clothing and call centres where enormous working force is needed. On the contrary, in UK production in education and video game production will be favourable (Dean 2017).
As a matter of fact, international trade practice facilitates the country to generate more employment. Subsequently, it drives an economic stability inside the global economy. Due to enormous demand and dynamic nature of global market it renders stability not stagnation in the economic spectrum internationally (Chasek 2018). In core of this, the global scenario has become strong and able to reduce the trade fluctuations.
In course of the discussion, the connection between environment and prevalence of international trade becomes very relevant from the first of the 21st century. According to the World Trade Organisation report it can identified that since inception the international trade has raised in a rapid manner from 5.5 per cent in 1950 to 20.5 in 2016 (Mansfield and Reinhardt 2015). In this regards, the growing intensity of free trade and its adverse impact over the environment can be traced back to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Hallegatte, Fay and Vogt-Schilb 2013). This framework categorises the trade liberalisation into three distinctive effects in the form of scale, composition and techniques. The scale effect is related to the greenhouse gas emission (Kohler 2013). Henceforth, it pressurises countries to install a new framework that increases the possibility of pollution (Hallegatte, Fay and Vogt-Schilb 2013).In addition to this, the technique effect deals with the energy efficiency and measures the methods through which it can be calculated the emission of greenhouse gases.
Gradually, the practice of international trade and globalisation renders non-economic impacts on the global aspect. It incorporates the studies of labour rights, national sovereignty and environment (Dauvergne and Clapp 2016). The recent studies put emphasis on the pivotal role of trade liberalisation on the environmental sustainability that can be classified by the economists as externality. It defines the lack of understanding by the people and firms narrowly and in the wider dimension it is referred to as the inability of the countries to perceive an idea about environmental degradation and its origin (Carmichael, Brulle and Huxster 2017). In this regards, the economists and environmentalists stated that the prevalence of trade liberalisation facilitates pollution around the globe. The intense focus of the corporate organisations to yield more profits creates an environmental menace that leads to the disaster and destruction of life in earth (Jang and Hart 2015).A recent report reflects that nearly 7 lakhs people are died in the developed regions that import goods and services like USA and Western Europe (Gács 2013). In fact, the death toll also increases in the producing countries as well. It is also been seen that wastes developed by the international trade are blamed for 90% of the premature deaths from air pollution (Dunlap 2014). In fact, 2.52 million of the deaths are caused by production activities like manufacturing, transportation and agriculture (Wu and Salzman 2013).
The Interconnection between International Trade and the Environment
From the above discussion it can be articulated that there are some positive and negative impacts of international trade liberalisation. However, with the expansion of liberal trade the negative impacts of international trade become intensified and gradually it fades away the achievements that international trade has achieved till today (Dauvergne and Clapp 2016). In this context, the environmental issues are considered to be imperative and relevant that directly connotes the detrimental activities of international trade (Dunlap 2014). Therefore, it can be concluded that the countries have to develop an understanding regarding the positive and negative impacts of trade liberalisation and in combating this issue proper regulations and restrictions are put to be implemented.
The gradual change in the environment increases tension among the concerned people across the world. With a massive amount of natural disasters and global warming the seasonal occurrence has also changed its course. In this regards, global warming is posing a serious threat to the sustainability of life in earth. In fact, the political discourses around the vitality and intensity of environmental problems further heighten the situation and perturb the stability of the ecology (Carmichael, Brulle and Huxster 2017). Hence, the purpose of this discussion is to highlight the facts regarding environmental degradation and the way to prevent this ecological imbalance. Furthermore, the role of politics in conserving the environmental condition is also included in course of the discussion.
Due to the indiscriminate use of environmental productions and the rampant exploitations of the mineral resources pave the way for ecological degradation. As a result of that the issue of climate change has become a matter of concern among people. Recently, the environmentalists have opined that due to the indiscriminate use of natural resources will lead to natural disaster where within the next 55 years 90% of the predators live in ocean will be wiped out (Jang and Hart 2015). Moreover, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will escalate to 2.3 trillion in the next 200 years (Kim and Wolinsky-Nahmias 2014). It can be argued that there are plenty of factors indicating the environmental deterioration. For an instance, pollution, global warming, over population, depleted condition of the natural resources, climate change are considered to be the principle features. Besides this, waste disposal, loss of biodiversity, deforestation and exhaustion of the ozone layer are also referred as important factors indicating environmental hazards.
In this regards, environmental pollutions are defined as the most serious threat to existence of life. People know about the nature of pollution in terms of air, water, noise and soil but have little willingness to take steps in order to prevent the environmental hazards. It can be argued that human activities are primarily responsible for pollution. As a matter of fact, water pollution is the result of oil spills, urban runoff and ocean dumping. Moreover, air pollution is caused by burning of fossil fuels and gases emitting from vehicles and industries. Therefore, it can be attributed that water and soil pollution are the major result of industrial waste.
The Effect of International Trade on Employment and Economic Stability
The second aspect is dealing with the climate change. It becomes a common phenomenon for the environment to get affected by the change in climate. The reason behind this emphatic transformation in climate regards to the global warming, greenhouse effect, urban heat and coal industry. There are some instances of harmful impacts of climate change in the form of melting of Polar Regions, eruption of new diseases and permanent annihilation in growth of certain plants that are essential for human survival (Hamilton and Safford 2015).
In course of the discussion about the major pollution problems in recent times global warming has played a pivotal role. It defines as increasing the temperature of the world in a rapid pace that can pave the way of extinction. The sole factor responsible for the global warming is identified as greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour and other gases. During the past several decades, the accumulation of greenhouse gases is growing in such a pace that the temperature of the earth is escalated in an astonishing way. The Environmental protection Agency (EPA) report has been stated that the due to the escalating trend of global warming the temperature of earth is increased by 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century (Yearley 2014). Furthermore, there are some issues related to public health and environmental concern which are also resulted by global warming. As a result of that, frequent natural calamities like drought, diseases and hurricanes are occurred in a continuous way.
Overpopulation is considered to be another major instance of pollution problem. It can be argued that earth is destined to be the inhabitants of people. However, it has to be kept in mind that there is a limitation even for earth to provide habitation for people. As a matter of fact, events like water pollution, resources crisis, gender imbalances and deforestation are some common example of overpopulation. The governmental initiatives and organisational concerns are affecting the nature of population. In this regards, in present times the governments reflects their anxiety over this growing trend. In fact, a number of steps have been taken in order to deal with this issue but all of these initiatives are proven wrong to stop rapid growth in population.
The role of globalisation also directly and indirectly affects environment. In this context it can be argued that the advent of globalisation increases the trading activity across the world. The dynamic nature and strong influence on the economy solidify the position of globalisation and international trade. In fact, the dynamic activity of the globalisation renders the corporate organisations to move independently. It also generates a great deal of profit for the business giants. This lucrative feature of globalisation encourages the business organisations to follow an aggressive market orientation in order to generate more profits. However, this aggressiveness makes the business companies to implement different approaches without concerning the impact of those initiatives over ecology. In this regards, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reveals that around 7.3 million hectares of forest are lost each year because of the gradual enhancement in trade (Yearley 2014).
The Adverse Impact of Trade Liberalisation on the Environment
Henceforth, it is evident to address the question of government initiative to resolve the endangering situation of environment. As a result of that scholars and researchers coin a new term as the Global Environmental Politics which encompasses a detailed understanding of the political proceedings and the environmental condition prevail in the 21st century. According to the studies and researches it can be estimated that the global environmental politics is comprised with different political framework in terms of complex, multi-scale and multilevel global governance disciplines. In the context of the developed countries, the discussion encapsulates the initiatives taken by the developed countries in order to set up a connection between politics and environment. The discussion puts focus on the environment policies of Untied States and draws comparison between the Obama and the George Bush Jr. administration. The treatment towards environment has been shifted a lot from the Bush government to the Obama administration. Environmentalists strongly criticised the Bush government because of reluctance in tackling the global climate change and continuing the malpractices of science which affected the environment in many ways. However, in the early phase of his administration Obama faced severe challenges to set an effective environmental policy but gradually the White House introduced new policies like establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Chasek 2018).
It is, in fact, during the Paris Agreement of 2015 a global summit had been arranged by the concerned countries in order to prepare a proper plan to prevent the world from extinction. The Paris agreement puts some obligations on the international trade liberalisation in order to impose restriction on laissez-faire. It can also be argued that the agreement implements the international regulations but in relation with the domestic policies of respective countries. The Paris Agreement follows a hybrid mechanism which incorporates both the bottom up and top down approaches to global climate governance. However, in the global platform US showed the concerned approach about the global climate governance but in the bilateral consultations they continuously opposed the legal binding mitigations (Brack 2017). As a result of that the relevance of the Paris Agreement became irrelevant because of the reluctance of the big powers like United States to set global climate governance (Kraft 2017).
It can be argued that despite of having some positive impacts on the global spectrum not only in the economic dimension but also in the social context, the adverse implications curtail the positive resonance of international liberal trade. The positive impacts are identified in the habit and structural change in the society as well as in the dynamic trade liberalisation. However, the environmental approach is considered to be a pivotal aspect in this regards. It is therefore, can be concluded that the world is going to be in a grave danger because of reluctance of the people and multinational companies to make the environment worth of living. Perhaps, it should be the initiatives of each country to step forward in making a better world. Global climate governance and the role of the international agreements like Paris Agreement are significant and necessitated for a sustainable world.
The Non-Economic Impacts of Globalisation and Trade Liberalisation
Reference
Alessandria, G. and Choi, H., 2014. Establishment heterogeneity, exporter dynamics, and the effects of trade liberalization. Journal of International Economics, 94(2), pp.207-223.
Baier, S.L., Bergstrand, J.H. and Feng, M., 2014. Economic integration agreements and the margins of international trade. Journal of International Economics, 93(2), pp.339-350.
Beck, S., Borie, M., Chilvers, J., Esguerra, A., Heubach, K., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., Lövbrand, E., Marquard, E., Miller, C. and Nadim, T., 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(2), pp.80-87.
Brack, D., 2017. International trade and the Montreal Protocol. Routledge.
Carmichael, J.T., Brulle, R.J. and Huxster, J.K., 2017. The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141(4), pp.599-612.
Chasek, P.S., 2018. Global environmental politics. Routledge.
Copeland, B.R. and Taylor, M.S., 2013. Trade and the environment: Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press.
Dauvergne, P. and Clapp, J., 2016. Researching global environmental politics in the 21st century. Global Environmental Politics, 16(1), pp.1-12.
Dean, J.M. ed., 2017. International Trade and the Environment. Routledge.
Dimitrov, R.S., 2016. The Paris agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), pp.1-11.
Dunlap, R.E., 2014. American environmentalism: The US environmental movement, 1970-1990. Taylor & Francis.
Gács, J. ed., 2013. International Trade and Restructuring in Eastern Europe. Springer Science & Business Media.
Hallegatte, S., Fay, M. and Vogt-Schilb, A., 2013. Green industrial policies: When and how.
Hamilton, L.C. and Safford, T.G., 2015. Environmental views from the coast: Public concern about local to global marine issues. Society & Natural Resources, 28(1), pp.57-74.
Jang, S.M. and Hart, P.S., 2015. Polarized frames on “climate change” and “global warming” across countries and states: Evidence from Twitter big data. Global Environmental Change, 32, pp.11-17.
Kim, S.Y. and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y., 2014. Cross-national public opinion on climate change: The effects of affluence and vulnerability. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), pp.79-106.
Kohler, M., 2013. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: A South African perspective. Energy Policy, 63, pp.1042-1050.
Kraft, M.E., 2017. Environmental policy and politics. Taylor & Francis.
Kreickemeier, U. and Richter, P.M., 2014. Trade and the environment: The role of firm heterogeneity. Review of International Economics, 22(2), pp.209-225.
Low, P., 2016. International trade and the environment. UNISIA, (30), pp.95-99.
Mansfield, E.D. and Reinhardt, E., 2015. International institutions and the volatility of international trade. In The Political Economy Of International Trade (pp. 65-96).
Wu, M. and Salzman, J., 2013. The next generation of trade and environment conflicts: The rise of green industrial policy. Nw. UL Rev., 108, p.401.
Yearley, S., 2014. The Green Case (routledge Revivals): A Sociology of Environmental Issues, Arguments and Politics. Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
