case study free trade

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Russell A. Berman
• Robert Service
• Arun Majumdar
• H.R. McMaster
• Justin Grimmer
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

The Case for Free Trade

In international trade, Hoover fellow Charles Wolf Jr. argues above, deficits don't much matter. Here Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman discuss what does: freedom. A ringing statement of logic and principle.

It is often said that bad economic policy reflects disagreement among the experts; that if all economists gave the same advice, economic policy would be good. Economists often do disagree, but that has not been true with respect to international trade. Ever since Adam Smith there has been virtual unanimity among economists, whatever their ideological position on other issues, that international free trade is in the best interests of trading countries and of the world. Yet tariffs have been the rule. The only major exceptions are nearly a century of free trade in Great Britain after the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, thirty years of free trade in Japan after the Meiji Restoration, and free trade in Hong Kong under British rule. The United States had tariffs throughout the nineteenth century, and they were raised still higher in the twentieth century, especially by the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill of 1930, which some scholars regard as partly responsible for the severity of the subsequent depression. Tariffs have since been reduced by repeated international agreements, but they remain high, probably higher than in the nineteenth century, though the vast changes in the kinds of items entering international trade make a precise comparison impossible.

Today, as always, there is much support for tariffs--euphemistically labeled "protection," a good label for a bad cause. Producers of steel and steelworkers' unions press for restrictions on steel imports from Japan. Producers of TV sets and their workers lobby for "voluntary agreements" to limit imports of TV sets or components from Japan, Taiwan, or Hong Kong. Producers of textiles, shoes, cattle, sugar--they and myriad others complain about "unfair" competition from abroad and demand that government do something to "protect" them. Of course, no group makes its claims on the basis of naked self-interest. Every group speaks of the "general interest," of the need to preserve jobs or to promote national security. The need to strengthen the dollar vis-à-vis the deutsche mark or the yen has more recently joined the traditional rationalizations for restrictions on imports.

One voice that is hardly ever raised is the consumer's. That voice is drowned out in the cacophony of the "interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers" and their employees. The result is a serious distortion of the issue. For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.

Another fallacy seldom contradicted is that exports are good, imports bad. The truth is very different. We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

The misleading terminology we use reflects these erroneous ideas. "Protection" really means exploiting the consumer. A "favorable balance of trade" really means exporting more than we import, sending abroad goods of greater total value than the goods we get from abroad. In your private household, you would surely prefer to pay less for more rather than the other way around, yet that would be termed an "unfavorable balance of payments" in foreign trade.

The argument in favor of tariffs that has the greatest emotional appeal to the public at large is the alleged need to protect the high standard of living of American workers from the "unfair" competition of workers in Japan or Korea or Hong Kong who are willing to work for a much lower wage. What is wrong with this argument? Don't we want to protect the high standard of living of our people?

The fallacy in this argument is the loose use of the terms "high" wage and "low" wage. What do high and low wages mean? American workers are paid in dollars; Japanese workers are paid in yen. How do we compare wages in dollars with wages in yen? How many yen equal a dollar? What determines the exchange rate?

Consider an extreme case. Suppose that, to begin with, 360 yen equal a dollar. At this exchange rate, the actual rate of exchange for many years, suppose that the Japanese can produce and sell everything for fewer dollars than we can in the United States--TV sets, automobiles, steel, and even soybeans, wheat, milk, and ice cream. If we had free international trade, we would try to buy all our goods from Japan. This would seem to be the extreme horror story of the kind depicted by the defenders of tariffs--we would be flooded with Japanese goods and could sell them nothing.

Before throwing up your hands in horror, carry the analysis one step further. How would we pay the Japanese? We would offer them dollar bills. What would they do with the dollar bills? We have assumed that at 360 yen to the dollar everything is cheaper in Japan, so there is nothing in the U.S. market that they would want to buy. If the Japanese exporters were willing to burn or bury the dollar bills, that would be wonderful for us. We would get all kinds of goods for green pieces of paper that we can produce in great abundance and very cheaply. We would have the most marvelous export industry conceivable.

Of course, the Japanese would not in fact sell us useful goods in order to get useless pieces of paper to bury or burn. Like us, they want to get something real in return for their work. If all goods were cheaper in Japan than in the United States at 360 yen to the dollar, the exporters would try to get rid of their dollars, would try to sell them for 360 yen to the dollar in order to buy the cheaper Japanese goods. But who would be willing to buy the dollars? What is true for the Japanese exporter is true for everyone in Japan. No one will be willing to give 360 yen in exchange for one dollar if 360 yen will buy more of everything in Japan than one dollar will buy in the United States. The exporters, on discovering that no one will buy their dollars at 360 yen, will offer to take fewer yen for a dollar. The price of the dollar in terms of the yen will go down--to 300 yen for a dollar or 250 yen or 200 yen. Put the other way around, it will take more and more dollars to buy a given number of Japanese yen. Japanese goods are priced in yen, so their price in dollars will go up. Conversely, U.S. goods are priced in dollars, so the more dollars the Japanese get for a given number of yen, the cheaper U.S. goods become to the Japanese in terms of yen.

The price of the dollar in terms of yen would fall, until, on the average, the dollar value of goods that the Japanese buy from the United States roughly equaled the dollar value of goods that the United States buys from Japan. At that price everybody who wanted to buy yen for dollars would find someone who was willing to sell him yen for dollars.

The actual situation is, of course, more complicated than this hypothetical example. Many nations, and not merely the United States and Japan, are engaged in trade, and the trade often takes roundabout directions. The Japanese may spend some of the dollars they earn in Brazil, the Brazilians in turn may spend those dollars in Germany, the Germans in the United States, and so on in endless complexity. However, the principle is the same. People, in whatever country, want dollars primarily to buy useful items, not to hoard, and there can be no balance of payments problem so long as the price of the dollar in terms of the yen or the deutsche mark or the franc is determined in a free market by voluntary transactions.

Why then all the furor about the "weakness" of the dollar? Why the repeated foreign exchange crises? The proximate reason is because foreign exchange rates have not been determined in a free market. Government central banks have intervened on a grand scale in order to influence the price of their currencies. In the process they have lost vast sums of their citizens' money (for the United States, close to two billion dollars from 1973 to early 1979). Even more important, they have prevented this important set of prices from performing its proper function. They have not been able to prevent the basic underlying economic forces from ultimately having their effect on exchange rates but have been able to maintain artificial exchange rates for substantial intervals. The effect has been to prevent gradual adjustment to the underlying forces. Small disturbances have accumulated into large ones, and ultimately there has been a major foreign exchange "crisis."

In all the voluminous literature of the past several centuries on free trade and protectionism, only three arguments have ever been advanced in favor of tariffs that even in principle may have some validity.

First is the national security argument--the argument that a thriving domestic steel industry, for example, is needed for defense. Although that argument is more often a rationalization for particular tariffs than a valid reason for them, it cannot be denied that on occasion it might justify the maintenance of otherwise uneconomical productive facilities. To go beyond this statement of possibility and establish in a specific case that a tariff or other trade restriction is justified in order to promote national security, it would be necessary to compare the cost of achieving the specific security objective in alternative ways and establish at least a prima facie case that a tariff is the least costly way. Such cost comparisons are seldom made in practice.

The second is the "infant industry" argument advanced, for example, by Alexander Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures. There is, it is said, a potential industry that, if once established and assisted during its growing pains, could compete on equal terms in the world market. A temporary tariff is said to be justified in order to shelter the potential industry in its infancy and enable it to grow to maturity, when it can stand on its own feet. Even if the industry could compete successfully once established, that does not of itself justify an initial tariff. It is worthwhile for consumers to subsidize the industry initially--which is what they in effect do by levying a tariff--only if they will subsequently get back at least that subsidy in some other way, through prices lower than the world price or through some other advantages of having the industry. But in that case is a subsidy needed? Will it then not pay the original entrants into the industry to suffer initial losses in the expectation of being able to recoup them later? After all, most firms experience losses in their early years, when they are getting established. That is true if they enter a new industry or if they enter an existing one. Perhaps there may be some special reason why the original entrants cannot recoup their initial losses even though it may be worthwhile for the community at large to make the initial investment. But surely the presumption is the other way.

The infant industry argument is a smoke screen. The so-called infants never grow up. Once imposed, tariffs are seldom eliminated. Moreover, the argument is seldom used on behalf of true unborn infants that might conceivably be born and survive if given temporary protection; they have no spokesmen. It is used to justify tariffs for rather aged infants that can mount political pressure.

The third argument for tariffs that cannot be dismissed out of hand is the "beggar-thy-neighbor" argument. A country that is a major producer of a product, or that can join with a small number of other producers that together control a major share of production, may be able to take advantage of its monopoly position by raising the price of the product (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel is the obvious example). Instead of raising the price directly, the country can do so indirectly by imposing an export tax on the product--an export tariff. The benefit to itself will be less than the cost to others, but from the national point of view, there can be a gain. Similarly, a country that is the primary purchaser of a product--in economic jargon, has monopsony power--may be able to benefit by driving a hard bargain with the sellers and imposing an unduly low price on them. One way to do so is to impose a tariff on the import of the product. The net return to the seller is the price less the tariff, which is why this can be equivalent to buying at a lower price. In effect, the tariff is paid by the foreigners (we can think of no actual example). In practice this nationalistic approach is highly likely to promote retaliation by other countries. In addition, as for the infant industry argument, the actual political pressures tend to produce tariff structures that do not in fact take advantage of any monopoly or monopsony positions.

A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions.

We are a great nation, the leader of the world. It ill behooves us to require Hong Kong and Taiwan to impose export quotas on textiles to "protect" our textile industry at the expense of U.S. consumers and of Chinese workers in Hong Kong and Taiwan. We speak glowingly of the virtues of free trade, while we use our political and economic power to induce Japan to restrict exports of steel and TV sets. We should move unilaterally to free trade, not instantaneously but over a period of, say, five years, at a pace announced in advance.

Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade. Instead of making grants to foreign governments in the name of economic aid--thereby promoting socialism--while at the same time imposing restrictions on the products they produce--thereby hindering free enterprise--we could assume a consistent and principled stance. We could say to the rest of the world: We believe in freedom and intend to practice it. We cannot force you to be free. But we can offer full cooperation on equal terms to all. Our market is open to you without tariffs or other restrictions. Sell here what you can and wish to. Buy whatever you can and wish to. In that way cooperation among individuals can be worldwide and free.

Adapted from "The Tyranny of Controls" in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, © 1980. To order, call 800-543-1918. Available from the Hoover Press is The Essence of Friedman , edited by Kurt R. Leube. To order, call 800-935-2882.

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

International Trade

The teaching cases in this section invite discussion on such topics as economics, security, and policy-making with a particular focus on international relations and diplomacy.

Leadership and Negotiation: Ending the Western Hemisphere’s Longest Running Border Conflict

Publication Date: October 4, 2022

For centuries, Ecuador and Peru each claimed sovereignty over a historically significant, but sparsely inhabited tract of borderland in the Amazonian highlands. The heavily disputed area had led the two nations to war—or the brink of...

Solar Panels and Safeguards: Rising Tensions in the Global Trading System

Publication Date: June 30, 2020

In January 2018, President Donald Trump announced steep tariffs on solar imports, at once plunging the US solar industry into uncertainty and deeply angering vital trade partners such as China, South Korea, and the European Union.The tariffs...

Setting the Standard in Free Trade: The Making of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Publication Date: August 20, 2015

In July 2013, more than 150 negotiators from the European Union and the United States converged in Washington, D.C. to begin crafting what could become the world's largest free trade agreement--the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership...

Nuclear Power & the Language of Diplomacy: Negotiating a Game-Changing Nuclear Trade Agreement with India (Sequel)

Publication Date: June 18, 2014

This sequel accompanies case number 2023.0. This decision-forcing case focuses on a diplomatic challenge faced by US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran between April and July...

Nuclear Power & the Language of Diplomacy: Negotiating a Game-Changing Nuclear Trade Agreement with India

This decision-forcing case focuses on a diplomatic challenge faced by US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran between April and July 2005: the writing of a 400-word joint statement...

Target of Opportunity: South Africa's Western Cape Seeks a Role in the African Oil Boom

Publication Date: March 05, 2014

This strategy case describes an initiative in the Western Cape province of South Africa to capitalize on an oil boom off the western coast of Africa by cultivating an industrial cluster of complementary businesses with the capacity to service,...

Shaping the Future of Solar Power: Climate Change, Industrial Policy and Free Trade (B)

Publication Date: December 04, 2013

Shaping the Future of Solar Power: Climate Change, Industrial Policy and Free Trade (Part B), is the second of a two part case but may also be taught on its own. In May 2013, European Union Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht faced a...

Sea Change: Re-Writing the Rules for Port Security

Publication Date: February 15, 2012

Consisting of a 30-min. video mini-documentary and an 11-page backgrounder, this case explores the innovative approach used by the Coast Guard to manage the process of developing new regulations that would increase port security in the wake of...

Protecting the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 (Epilogue)

Publication Date: February 06, 2009

On one side, a loose network of protesters made arrangements for dramatizing their opposition to the WTO and international trade practices. At the same time, public safety officials from local, state, and federal agencies developed security...

Protecting the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999

TRIPS Part II: International Trade meets Public Health: TRIPS and Access to Medicines (Abridged)

Publication Date: March 07, 2008

This is an abridged version of case NR15-04-1736.0. The Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) at the World Trade Organization (WTO) was the most comprehensive and far-reaching international agreement on intellectual property...

The Eagle and the Dragon: The November 1999 US-China Bilateral Agreement and the Battle over PNTR (Abridged)

This is an abridged version of note NR14-04-1771.0. On December 11, 2001, China became a member of the World Trade Organization. Many say the 1999 US-China bilateral trade agreement and the vote in Congress to permanently establish normal trade...

November 1, 1993

The Case for Free Trade

Environmentalists are wrong to fear the effects of free trade. Both causes can be advanced by imaginative solutions

By Jagdish Bhagwati

Advertisement

Supported by

Economic Scene; A case study in free trade: American incomes converge, but not at the bottom.

• Share full article

By Virginia Postrel

• Feb. 26, 2004

Correction Appended

SUPPOSE we lived in an economic world with no borders, where goods, capital and people could move anywhere.

We've all heard the dire predictions of what would happen. All the businesses and jobs would rush to the places with the lowest wages. The poor countries would get richer, but only by making rich countries poorer.

Eventually we'd all be roughly equal, but formerly well-to-do Americans would be a lot worse off. Many Americans are afraid that globalization and free trade will have exactly this effect.

We rarely realize that we already live in a version of that theoretical world. The United States is one giant free trade zone. Businesses can move their plants, investors can move their money and workers can move themselves from region to region without government permission.

Over the last century, a lot of that movement has occurred. Rich and poor regions have converged to about the same standard of living. But the results haven't been anything like the ''race to the bottom'' of protectionist imaginations.

Incomes still vary widely across regions. Income per capita in Connecticut, the richest state, was about $42,000 in 2002, compared with $24,000 in New Mexico, the poorest. (These figures aren't adjusted for price variations between regions.)

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences
• Behavioral economics
• Economic cycles and trends
• Economic systems
• Emerging markets

We Don't Need Political Solutions for Global Trade - We Need Practical Ones

• March 09, 2017

Why Health Care May Finally Be Ready for Big Data

• Jyotishman Pathak
• Nilay D Shah
• December 03, 2014

The U.S.-India Relationship Is Key to the Future of Tech

• Hemant Taneja
• Fareed Zakaria
• April 17, 2023

The Exploding Business of Bartering

• Tracey Keys and Thomas Malnight
• September 12, 2012

Learning the Tricks of the Trade

• Marc Abrahams
• From the April 2006 Issue

Banana War Maneuvers

• Marcelo Bucheli
• From the November 2005 Issue

Tariffs Are the Wrong Way to Fight Unfair Trade Practices

• Sherman Katz
• March 08, 2018

If the U.S. Gets into a Trade War with the EU, It Will Lose an Ally in Pressuring China

• July 24, 2018

What Trump's Trade War Could Mean for the WTO and Global Trade

• Marc L Busch
• June 07, 2018

Executives Need to Know How Trade Deals Shape Their Markets

• October 13, 2016

Trade Regionalization: More Hype Than Reality?

• Steven A. Altman
• Caroline R. Bastian
• May 31, 2022

Folly of Free Trade

• John M. Culbertson
• From the September 1986 Issue

Has Trade with China Really Cost the U.S. Jobs?

• Scott Kennedy
• Ilaria Mazzocco
• November 10, 2022

The Radical Reshaping of Global Trade

• Rita McGrath
• November 01, 2023

Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer: Biggest Threat to World Is Rogue Actors – From Putin to Musk

• January 19, 2023

Corporate Boards Are Pessimistic About Trade Between the U.S. and China

• Michael Witt
• March 29, 2019

Is China’s Economic Dominance at an Inflection Point?

• Allen J. Morrison
• J. Stewart Black
• February 13, 2024

Will the Huawei Arrest Influence the U.S.-China Trade Talks?

• Clyde Prestowitz
• December 19, 2018

The Trade War with China Could Accelerate 3-D Printing in the U.S.

• Richard A. D'Aveni
• October 18, 2018

How the War in Ukraine Is Further Disrupting Global Supply Chains

• David Simchi-Levi
• Pierre Haren
• March 17, 2022

• Sheila Melvin
• November 28, 2018

The Sino-Russian Rapprochement: Energy Relations in a New Era

• Rawi Abdelal
• Morena Skalamera
• Sogomon Tarontsi
• March 30, 2015

Accounting for Productivity Growth

• Forest L. Reinhardt
• October 13, 1993

To Reduce Unemployment, French President Macron Reforms the Labour Market

• Morten Bennedsen
• Brian Henry
• Alexandra Roulet
• Mark Stabile
• January 29, 2018

Food Fight: The US, Europe, and Trade in Hormone-Treated Beef (Abridged)

• Charan Devereaux
• Robert Lawrence
• Michael Watkins
• August 31, 2007

Levi Strauss & Co.: Global Sourcing (A)

• Lynn Sharp Paine
• Jane Palley Katz
• November 29, 1994

Pressure Makes Diamonds: Investing in Copper Mining in Laos (B)

• Philippe Versijp
• Philip Lazar
• Wouter Jacobs
• December 31, 2020

General Mills Board and Strategic Planning

• Jay W. Lorsch
• James E. Sailer
• March 26, 1991

Grupo Beta San Miguel

• David E. Bell
• Natalie Kindred
• December 13, 2013

Viva Macau (A)

• Dante Roscini
• G.A. Donovan
• December 20, 2013

Australia: The Riches and Challenges of Commodities

• Laura Alfaro
• June 18, 2009

Note on Foreign Direct Investment

• Debora L. Spar
• January 04, 1995

United States Sugar Program

• F.M. Scherer
• January 01, 1992

Ernesto Tornquist: Making a Fortune on the Pampas

• Geoffrey G. Jones
• Andrea Lluch
• May 01, 2007

Fair Trade USA: Innovating for Impact

• Davina Drabkin
• April 26, 2012

Sasol: U.S. Growth Program

• Richard H.K. Vietor
• May 27, 2014

TRIPS Part II: International Trade Meets Public Health: TRIPS and Access to Medicines

• Robert Z. Lawrence
• Michael D. Watkins
• March 22, 2004

Gazprom (C): The Ukrainian Crisis and Its Aftermath

• Alexander Jorov
• August 26, 2008

Ten Thousand Villages in Crisis: Can the Fair Trade Pioneer Survive and Flourish in an Economic Downturn?

• Cecilia Renaud
• August 28, 2018

Balance of Payments: Accounting and Presentation

• David B. Yoffie
• Jane K. Austin
• August 08, 1983

How to Compete Against the New Breed of National Champions

• Sharon Poctzer
• Aldo Musacchio
• Sergio G. Lazzarini
• July 01, 2018

Popular Topics

Partner center.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

• 23 Jul 2024
• In Practice

The New Rules of Trade with China: Navigating Tariffs, Turmoil, and Opportunities

Trade tensions between the US and China have continued well beyond the Trump Administration's tariffs. Harvard Business School faculty offer insights for leaders managing the complexities of doing business with the world's second-largest economy.

• 01 Sep 2022
• What Do You Think?

Is It Time to Consider Lifting Tariffs on Chinese Imports?

Many of the tariffs levied by the Trump administration on Chinese goods remain in place. James Heskett weighs whether the US should prioritize renegotiating trade agreements with China, and what it would take to move on from the trade war. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 Jul 2022

Have We Seen the Peak of Just-in-Time Inventory Management?

Toyota and other companies have harnessed just-in-time inventory management to cut logistics costs and boost service. That is, until COVID-19 roiled global supply chains. Will we ever get back to the days of tighter inventory control? asks James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 05 May 2020
• Research & Ideas

China Tariffs and Coronavirus a Double Hit to American Retailers

American retailers have yet to pass along higher prices caused by Chinese tariffs, but shrinking product demand caused by the coronavirus could change that, warns Alberto Cavallo. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 16 Apr 2020

Has COVID-19 Broken the Global Value Chain?

4Questions Companies and consumers depend on the global value chain to create and distribute products around the world. What happens when the chain breaks? Insights from Laura Alfaro and Ester Faia. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 17 Mar 2020
• Cold Call Podcast

Is There a Winner in Huawei’s Digital Cold War with the US?

Bill Kirby discusses his case study of China-based Huawei’s growth and ultimate confrontation with the United States government, and China's response to the coronavirus. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 17 Feb 2020
• Working Paper Summaries

The Impact of Technology and Trade on Migration: Evidence from the US

Labor mobility can re-equilibrate local labor markets after an economic shock. Both robot adoption and Chinese import competition between 1990 and 2015 caused large declines in manufacturing employment across US local labor markets (commuting zones, CZs). However, only robots were associated with a decline in CZ population, which resulted from reduced in-migration rather than by increased out-migration.

• 12 Nov 2019

Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from US Trade Policy

Collecting and analyzing microdata on prices and the reaction of importers, retailers, and exporters to US trade policy since 2018, this study finds most of the tariffs’ incidence rests with the US firms.

• 26 Jun 2019

Why the US-China Tariff Standoff Hurts American Companies More

US exporters have been slashing the prices of goods they sell to China to offset higher trade costs, but Chinese exporters are passing those costs to American companies, research by Alberto F. Cavallo says. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 11 Dec 2018

Free Trade Needs Nurturing—and Other Lessons from History

Global free trade is not the natural order of things, so it needs to be carefully tended to and maintained. Sophus Reinert and Dante Roscini discuss trade over time and what history teaches. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 01 Aug 2018

Are Free Trade and Free Markets Quaint Ideas From the Past?

SUMMING UP: Free trade and free markets are great concepts but are often corrupted by politics, globalization, and the relative power of consumers and workers, our readers suggest. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 30 May 2018

Should Intellectual Property be Protected in International Trade?

SUMMING UP To do business in China, American firms often lose some of their intellectual property. James Heskett's readers think that price is too high. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 12 Apr 2018

Op-Ed: The Trouble with Tariffs

The world's economies are interconnected by globalization, which makes threats of tariff wars doubly dangerous, says Willy Shih. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Mar 2018

Op-Ed: Trump’s Tariffs Could Harm Allies as Much as Opponents

President Trump's duties on steel and aluminum could produce immediate political gain but long-term economic pain for some American industries and global allies, says Dante Roscini. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 23 Feb 2018

Trade Creditors' Information Advantage

Trade credit represents about a quarter of the liabilities of US firms. There are several theories explaining this fact. This study reexamines whether suppliers hold private information about their trade partners, by analyzing their behavior in bankruptcy.

• 02 Mar 2017

Is China About to Overtake the US for World Trade Leadership?

SUMMING UP. It's better for the United States if China is an economic ally rather than a competitor for world trade leadership, James Heskett's readers conclude. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 24 Jun 2016

Why Brexit is a Big Deal

The consequences of Britain's vote to leave the European Union will be far-reaching. John Quelch shares his thoughts on the ramifications of Brexit. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 22 Feb 2016

The ‘Mother of Fair Trade’ was an Unabashed Price Protectionist

Historian Laura Phillips Sawyer unearths the story of little-known drug store owner Edna Gleason who, in a man’s world, helped fire a progressive movement to protect small-business owners from price-slashing chains. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Oct 2014

The Coffee Economy That Bloomed Out of Nowhere

How did a world-class coffee region arise out of a land once decimated by smallpox and measles? Casey Lurtz discusses the rise of a coffee economy in a desolate region of Mexico. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 16 Dec 2009

The End of Chimerica

Economic historians Niall Ferguson and Moritz Schularick of Freie Universität Berlin consider the problem of global imbalances and try to set events in a longer-term perspective. First published in 2009. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.