Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Do free trade agreements promote sneaky protectionism? A classical liberal perspective Cover

Do free trade agreements promote sneaky protectionism? A classical liberal perspective

By: Jürgen Wandel  
Open Access
|Sep 2019

References

  1. Bastiat, F. (1848), Government, retrieved from http://bastiat.org/en/government.html [25th March 2019].
  2. Baxter, P., Jack, S. (2008), Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 544–559.
  3. Bhagwati, J. (2002a), Free trade today, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  4. Bhagwati, J. (2002b), Going alone: the case for relaxed reciprocity in freeing trade, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  5. Bhagwati, J.N., Krishna, P., Panagariya, A. (2014), The world trade system: trends and challenges, 3 May. Unpublished Paper, Department of Economics, Columbia University, retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/papers/pdf/paper1-the_world_trading_system.pdf [18th March 2019].
  6. Böhm, F. (1961), Demokratie und ökonomische Macht, in: Institut für ausländisches und internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, (Ed), Kartelle und Monopole im modernen Recht, Müller, Karlsruhe, pp. 1–24.
  7. Boldrin, M., Levine, D.K. (2008), Against intellectual monopoly, Cambridge University Press, New York.
  8. Butler, E. (2010), Austrian economics: a primer, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
  9. Butler, E. (2015), Classical liberalism: a primer, Institute of Economic Affairs, London.
  10. Ciuriak, D., Xiao, J., Dadkhah, A. (2017), Quantifying the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership, East Asian Economic Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 343–384.10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.4.334
  11. Cobden, R. (1919), The international man, Holt, New York.
  12. Confederation of Swedish Enterprise. (2018), The importance of level-playing field in international trade and investment, retrieved from https://www.svensktnaringsliv.se/Bilder_och_dokument/importancelevelplayingfield_180620pdf_714286.html/BINARY/ImportanceLevelPlayingField_180620.pdf [22nd March 2019].
  13. Edgeworth, F.Y. (1908), Appreciations of mathematical theories, Economic Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 541–556.10.2307/2220622
  14. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532–550.10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
  15. EU Commission. (2017a), Reflection paper on harnessing globalization, European Commission, Brussels, retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/reflection-paper-globalisation_en.pdf [25th March 2019].
  16. EU Commission. (2017b), Guide to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA), Luxembourg, retrieved from http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156062.pdf [15th March 2019].
  17. EUR-Lex. (2019), Economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:4298972 [25th March 2019].
  18. Hayek, F.A. (1973), Law, legislation and liberty, Vol. 1: rules and order, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  19. Hayek, F.A. (1978), Competition as a discovery procedure, in: F.A. Hayek, (Ed), New studies in philosophy, politics, and economics and the history of ideas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 179–190.
  20. Helble, M. (2017), Salvaging the trans-pacific partnership: building blocks for multilateral trade opening? ADBI Working Paper 695, Asian Development Bank Institute, Tokyo, retrieved from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/234081/adbi-wp695.pdf [18th March 2018].
  21. Ikenson, D. (2018), NAFTA 2.0: the best trade agreement ever negotiated (except for all of the others), Cato at Liberty, October 8 2018, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://www.cato.org/blog/nafta-20-best-trade-agreement-ever-negotiated-except-all-others; https://fee.org/articles/nafta-20-the-best-trade-agreement-ever-negotiated-except-for-all-of-the-others/ [25th March 2019].
  22. Ikenson, D., Lester, S., Hannan, D. (2018), The ideal U.S.-U.K. free trade agreement. A free trader’s perspective, Cato Institute and Initiative for Free Trade, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/ideal-us-uk-free-trade-agreement-free-traders-perspective, [15th March 2019].
  23. Ikenson, D.J., Lester, S., Lincicome, S., Pearson, D.R., Watson, K.W. (2016), Should free traders support the transpacific partnership? An assessment of America’s largest preferential trade agreement, Cato Working Paper No. 39, September 12, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-39_3.pdf [18th March 2019].
  24. Irwin, D. (2015), Free trade under fire, 4th edn, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  25. Klein, P. (2017), Free trade versus “free trade”, Mises Wire, (23 January 2017), Ludwig Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, retrieved from: https://mises.org/wire/free-trade-versus-free-trade.
  26. Krugman, P. (1997), What should trade negotiators negotiate about? A review essay, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 113–120, retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html [19th March 2019].
  27. Lemieux, P. (2016), Free trade and TPP, retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2016/Lemieuxtpp.html.
  28. Lemieux, P. (2017a), Free trade agreements v unilateral free trade, retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/12/free_trade_agre.html.
  29. Lemieux, P. (2017b), Taking comparative advantage seriously, retrieved from http://www.econlib.org/archives/2017/11/taking_comparat.html.
  30. Lemieux, P. (2018a), What’s wrong with protectionism? Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
  31. Lemieux, P. (2018b), Is NAFTA 2.0 better than nothing? Regulation, Winter 2018–2019, Vol. 41, No. 4 pp. 12–15. Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2018/12/regulation-v41n4-3.pdf. [19th March 2019].
  32. Mill, J. (1821), Elements of political economy, Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, London, retrieved from https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-elements-of-political-economy-3rd-ed-1844 [29th March 2019].
  33. Obama, B. (2016), The TPP would let America, not China, lead the way on global trade. Opinion article in The Washington Post, (May 2, 2016), retrieved from https://wita.org/article/the-washington-post-president-obama-the-tpp-would-let-america-not-china-lead-the-way-on-global-trade/ [18th March 2019].
  34. Owen, J., Stojanovic, A., Rutter, J. (2017), Trade after Brexit. Options for the UK’s relationship with the EU, Institute for Government, London, retrieved from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IFGJ5896-Brexit-Report-171214-final_0.pdf#page=15, [19th March 2019].
  35. Pareto, V. (1901), Traités de commerce, in: L. Say, de J. Chailley, (Eds), Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Economie Politique, Paris: Guillaumin et Cie, Vol. II, pp. 1046–1050.
  36. Peterson Institute for International Economics. (2016a), Assessing the trans-pacific partnership, volume 1: market access and sectoral issues, PIIE Briefings, No PIIEB16-1, February 2016, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/assessing-trans-pacific-partnership-volume-1-market-access-and-sectoral [19th March 2019].
  37. Peterson Institute for International Economics. (2016b), Assessing the trans-pacific partnership, volume 2: innovations in trading rules, PIIE Briefings, No PIIEB16-4, March 2016, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C., retrieved from https://piie.com/publications/piie-briefings/assessing-trans-pacific-partnership-volume-2-innovations-trading-rules [19th March 2019].
  38. Ricardo, D. (1817), The principles of political economy and taxation, John Murray, London.
  39. Robertson, J. (2018), What is a ‘Canada-style’ trade deal? BBC World News, (September 25 2018), retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45633592 [19th March 2019].
  40. Robinson, J. (1947), Essays in the theory of employment, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  41. Rodrik, D. (2011), The globalization paradox: why global markets, states, and democracy can’t coexists, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  42. Rodrik, D. (2018a), What do trade agreements really do? Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 73–90, retrieved from https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/files/dani-rodrik/files/what_do_trade_agreements_really_do.pdf [15th March 2019].10.1257/jep.32.2.73
  43. Rodrik, D. (2018b), Straight talk on trade: ideas for a Sane world economy, Princeton University Press, Oxford.
  44. Rönnbäck, K. (2015), Interest-group Lobbying for free trade: an empirical case study of international trade policy formation, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 281–293.10.1080/09638199.2014.884154
  45. Rothbard, M.N. (1970/2018), Freedom, inequality, primitivism, and the division of labor, The Misis Institute, Auburn, AL, retrieved from https://mises.org/library/freedom-inequality-primitivism-and-division-labor [19th March 2019].
  46. Rothbard, M.N. (1995), The NAFTA myth, in: M.N. Rothbard, (Ed), Making economic sense, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, 2nd edn, 2006, pp. 375–378, retrieved from http://austrianeconomics.org/sites/default/files/Making%20Economic%20Sense_3.pdf, reprinted 2013 in https://mises.org/library/nafta-myth [20th March 2019].
  47. Sally, R. (2008), Trade policy, new century: the WTO, FTAs and Asia rising, The Institute of Economic Affairs, London, retrieved from http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook432pdf.pdf [25th March 2019].
  48. Say, J.-B. (1855), A treatise on political economy, Lippincott, Grambo & Co, Philadelphia, retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/library/Say/sayT.html?chapter_num=17#book-reader [29th March 2019].
  49. Shaffer, B. (2013), A libertarian critique of intellectual property, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL, retrieved from https://mises.org/library/libertarian-critique-intellectual-property [19th March 2019].
  50. Stiglitz, J.E. (2017), Globalization and its discontents revisited: anti-globalization in the era of trump, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
  51. Torrey, Z. (2018), TPP 2.0: the deal without the US, The Diplomat, (February 3, 2018), retrieved from https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/tpp-2-0-the-deal-without-the-us/ [22nd March 2019].
  52. U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2017), Level the playing field for trade, retrieved from https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/level-playing-field-trade [13th July 2019].
  53. Wang, H. (2019), The future of deep free trade agreements: the convergence of TPP (and CPTPP) and CETA, Journal of World Trade, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 317–342.
  54. Whiting, T.K., Beaumont-Smith, G. (Eds) (2019), An analysis of the United States–Mexico–Canada agreement. Heritage Foundation. Backgrounder No. 3379, (January 28, 2019), The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C, retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/BG3379_0.pdf [19th March 2019].
  55. WTO – World Trade Organization. (2019), Regional trade agreements, retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm [29th March 2019].
  56. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case study research. Design and methods, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousands Oaks.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2019-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2543-5361 | Journal ISSN: 2299-9701
Language: English
Page range: 185 - 200
Submitted on: May 21, 2019
Accepted on: Jul 16, 2019
Published on: Sep 30, 2019
Published by: Warsaw School of Economics
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2019 Jürgen Wandel, published by Warsaw School of Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.