The author is researching on the real cause of opposition to openness to trade, why some people are anti-free trade and economic globalization integration. Other people have been perceived as losers from open trade while others are perceived winners. It is a common idea across countries that some individuals including the political class are opposed to their nations removing any barriers so that the trade becomes open and free where people can freely move and do business in any country regardless of their origin. While the liberalization of global economies and creating openness to international trade have yielded gains to many, it is also evident that a deep discontent has been generated among many other people. So many researchers have come up with various theories and views on why there is this opposition to trade openness. Others argue that the perceived loss due to the liberalization of global economies is due to the exposure of people’s employment sector to foreign competition and the attitude towards international trade. However, data shows a weak association between the two, eliminating any possibility of this being the cause of discontent and opposition to international trade. The author’s question is, therefore, to research on the cause of this opposition to trade openness.
According to the author, people are afraid of not only the material consequences of openness to trade such as unemployment, job security and loss of income but also the perceived cultural and social effects. Many people feel discontent in the global economic integration because of the consequences it will have on the social and cultural diversity of the region. With free trade, people feel many foreigners will invade their region, and their social as well as cultural activities will be adversely affected. As a result, they seek protectionism from the political class to avoid global economic integration. Also, the author argues that the level of education plays a role in opposition to global trade. The less educated persons are more trade protectionists than the more educated.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The author did a survey to prove his argument. In the experiment to identify how education level, attitudes as well as socio-cultural factors affect opposition to trade openness, the result offered proof and evidence in support of the hypothesis that cultural and social change that individuals are associated with influence their view on the global integration. Individuals who are apprehensive about socio-cultural consequences of trade openness are more likely to see global trade as a dangerous thing. The analysis also shows that the relationship between socio-cultural view and the economic globalization attitude holds across different countries and geographical locations. Significantly, the experiment shows a connection between economic and cultural aspects of trade openness to be more pronounced in the less educated individuals.
The findings show support to scholars’ view that global trade can have acute distributive effects with both winners and losers. It is argued that the surplus can be used to compensate those who lose from the international trade. Previous scholars, as well as literatures have supported this idea that in international trade, there are always losers and gainers. But they claim this can be solved by using the surplus to compensate those who lose. This finding can be used to change the knowledge of people who are opposed to global trade and make them view it as an activity that is of economic benefit to both parties. The findings are hence significant to the international trade as they advocate for an end in opposition to open trade and the need to have a free global business environment where people do trade across the borders.
If I were the respondent, I would have given my opinion that the main cause of opposition to trade openness is fear for the economic consequences such as competition, loss of income as a result of this competition and job security as well as unemployment. This is because as foreign business people invade into the local market, the local business people always develop the fear of stiff competition that would result to drop in their income especially when the foreign products are priced lower than the local.
