Globalization and Free Trade:
Who Wins? Who Loses?
28 October 2004
Beckman Center of the National Academies, UC Irvine
Sponsored by
The Canadian Consulate of Los Angeles and
the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation
Part of the Challenges
of a Transboundary World conference, 28–30 October
2004
Background
Program Planners
Participants
Preliminary Agenda
Background
In the three centuries
since John Locke developed his theory of private property, and Adam Smith
and David Ricardo extolled the benefits of free trade, a compelling
body of liberal economic theory has developed that has been, and continues
to be, highly influential in the public and private sectors, in domestic
and international policy, and in development assistance agencies and multinational
corporations.
The expansion of the market, it is widely believed, leads to
the efficient allocation of resources and maximizes growth rates, both
of which
ultimately provide great material benefits to economically open societies.
Market theory is highly sophisticated, and the market has become a truly global
system. Mechanisms exist at local, state, regional, and global levels that
are designed to facilitate trade, encourage and protect capital investment,
stabilize currencies, and settle disputes.
However, the same cannot be said
about the environment that ultimately provides much of the input into the
world’s
economic system, undergoes extensive modification to accommodate the building
of social infrastructure, and accepts the waste products of our commodity-based
global economy. Nor can the same be said for mechanisms to manage labor conditions
and immigration, among the other elements of global change.
The literature on the “Trade and its Impacts” debate has been
published steadily since the mid-1990s, with anti- and pro-free trade authors
in equal measure. While comparative research was and is a regular occurrence,
much of the
literature takes a position a priori, and objective and scientific analysis
is not extensive. Some studies are overly normative or lack sufficient nuance.
Some of the benefits of free trade are relatively easy to quantify. Assessment of other benefits and many of the costs associated with liberalized
trade poses greater challenges. This applies to objective scientific analysis
of effects, not only on the environment but also on:
- labor conditions and movements
- intellectual property and cultural values
- food and safety standards
- agricultural practices, forestry, and productivity
- employment and wealth
- scientific contributions and R & D
An analysis of physical effects of an international instrument as general
and as complex as the NAFTA side agreements, for example, must rely on approximations
and models and relationships that can be described in theory but not empirically
by means of convincing statistics. Data can be compiled, but they may say very
little about the influence of an agreement that is not specific to a particular
place or physical resources. Limited access to data and the complexities of
the interconnections may make for tentative conclusions.
Conference Focus
The goal of this conference is to go beyond ideology and theory
to communicate the best science and to address not only what we know but
also how we know
about trade and its effects and the methods used to determine that information.
This conference will include the best scientific information on the impacts
of free trade in North America and Europe and other regions using various
indicators of environmental quality, labor, and other conditions. It will also
include
a comparative assessment of North America and Europe that will allow participants
to learn from each other about the nature of the impacts within differing
institutional formats. Public Policy Significance
This conference comes at a significant time in light of the November elections
in the United States, as trade impacts are again being debated. A WTO round
of negotiations is ongoing. NAFTA is over a decade old and a free trade agreement
for the Americas
is being pursued.
However, the debate is centuries old and will continue well
beyond 2004 as nation-states consider new regional trade agreements, as the
world trade community expands the scope of liberalization attempts to open
markets in all areas, and as scholars further refine the work on analysis
of impacts.
Program Planners
Professor Joseph DiMento, Ph.D., J.D.
UC Irvine
Professor Geert van Claster, LLM
K. U. Leuven
Newkirk
Center for Science and Society’s Strategic Planning Group
Participants | 
