Protectionism and Job Loss: Part Nine of a Nine Steps Series (And Last, I Think.)

This is the last installment of a series of nine short essays in which I attempted to explain a topic that is both important and misunderstood by many intelligent people: protectionism and its obverse, free trade. The first two installments were posted on November 10th 2010. You can identify every essay in this series because the word “protectionism” is somewhere in its title.

When economic actors, people and organizations, switch from doing what they don’t do very well to what they do better, production increases everywhere, the pie gets bigger. There is no injustice involved, just a general rise in the standard of living.

For such virtuous change to achieve maximum effect, there must be economies of scope and scale. It’s not always obvious in big countries such as the US which has a large internal market (many people most of whom are rich by world standards.) It’s pretty clear when you think of small prosperous countries such as Switzerland. How efficient would Nestlé be if it made chocolate only for eight million Swiss rather than for hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide? And would the smelters of Luxembourg do a good job making steel only for the half-million Luxembourgers?

So, it stands to reason that any barrier to import limits severely the benefits of switching from mediocre to good or from good to excellent. But, the basic rule of international trade is reciprocity. (It’s a little more complicated than this in everyday life but the complications do not affect the basic soundness of my reasoning.) Countries’ governments say to each other: “ If you impede the entry on your territory of stuff made by my economic actors, I will impede access of my territory of stuff made by yours.” This is no bluff. So-called “trade wars” erupt frequently, involving different kinds of tit-for-tat. The most notable thing about every round of tit-for-tat is that it impoverishes everyone. See above.

Trade barriers, different ways of impeding access, come and go. Although it’s difficult to find a coherent argument in favor of any trade barrier, governments will often yield to interest groups and provide “protection” from imports for this or that good. They do so usually not because of some abstraction such as the “national interest,” but because of political necessity or to distribute political favors. Two interesting remarks about this poisonous practice. First, more democratic governments should be expected to be more likely to yield such favors. Second, by “protecting” domestic producers, they also lower the standard of living of domestic consumers. Naturally, the two categories of consumers and domestic producers overlap somewhat which only underscores the absurdity of protectionism. Incidentally, developing and enforcing trade barriers requires a large technical and inspection apparatus. The more trade barriers, the larger the government relative to the national economy.

All this being said, it’s clear that the removal of trade barriers will cause job losses in the affected sectors of the economy. It’s also obvious that some of those who lose their jobs will not find equivalent or better jobs. Here, individual fates diverge in small but humanly significant ways from collective well-being.

Let’s take the case of Canadian vintners. Yes, they exist. Would I make up anything so absurd? Do I have sufficient imagination? As you might imagine, Canadian wine-producing firms exist inside a network of government protectionist measures. If they were left to their own devices, most would soon be swept away by the wines of thousands of producers from twenty different places, from California to South Africa. Now, imagine that the Canadian vintners lose their muscle with the Canadian federal government and that all the protective measures are withdrawn within one year.

Under such a scenario, two things would happen. First, as I have explained step by step, many Canadian resources, including labor would eventually be switched to more productive endeavors. Because of this switch, Canadians in general but also the whole world would be a tad richer. But no one would expect the switch to be instantaneous. There would be some social dislocation, for sure.

The second consequences would be, starkly, that some people working in wineries and in wine-related businesses would lose their jobs. The fifty-five year old wine-maker of a small British Columbia winery with thirty years experience in the same winery would almost certainly have to retire. It’s extremely unlikely that he would qualify for one of the many advanced jobs open in the new, and now marginally more productive Canadian economy. An old wine-maker will not become say, a software writer, under almost any imaginable circumstance. Instead, the middle-aged wine maker will either become unemployed or he will have to take one of the lower-end jobs freed by the escalators described before.

Free trade, and opposition to protectionism have acquired a bad name, I think in part because of economists’ reluctance to face squarely this particular human implication of such policies.

I defend free trade while recognizing the wine-maker’s painful problem by pointing to the overall, collective consequences of protectionism: It’s always an economic disaster. We know this from two different sets of observations, First, other things being equal, countries that follow national policies of free trade grow faster than those that don’t. That’s true equally for poor countries and for rich countries. Similarly, when countries that have implemented protectionist policies open up even a little, they experience a quick surge in their GDP. Second, there is no part of the world where unemployment figures track free trade’s ups and downs. As an example, the sudden upsurge of unemployment in the US 2007-2009 had nothing to do with any increase in imports. This tells me that the sad middle-aged Canadian vintner’s case does not account for much of unemployment.

Other things being equal, I think it’s better to be unemployed in a relatively more prosperous country that in a poor one. The benefits are more generous, and the next job opportunities richer and more varied. Training programs are also more common and more accessible in richer than in poorer countries. And capital to start one’s own business is normally cheaper and more accessible, the more prosperous the country. I will go further: Economically, it’s better to be unemployed in a rich country than employed in a poor country. (I understand there are non-economic downsides to unemployment. This is another topic I can’t deal with here. A single thread, the economic thread, is difficult enough to follow.)

In conclusion to this whole series on free trade and protectionism in nine small steps: protectionism remains the royal road to collective poverty and it does not do much for anyone, not even for those who stand to lose their jobs when national borders open.

About Jacques Delacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Socio-Political Essays and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Protectionism and Job Loss: Part Nine of a Nine Steps Series (And Last, I Think.)

  1. Ron says:

    Re: Your first paragraph: “people and organizations switch from doing what they don’t do very well to what they do better,”
    It’s not that they have to quit doing what they “don’t do very well”; it’s that they have to do what they do best to find the benefit.
    Example: A doctor may find that s/he is an excellent house-painter; careful, go0od preparation, etc. on top of being a good medical practitioner.
    OTOH, I’m a miserable doctor, and only semi-skilled as a house-painter. Society still benefits if the doctor doctors and leaves me to provide houses with not-so-hot paint jobs.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Sorry, Ron, you got it wrong. (Blame your teachers, they do it all the time.) If you switch from doing what you do extremely badly to what you do merely badly, you become more productive. (I assume that “extremely badly” is worse than “very badly.”) This relaxed explanation matters a great deal in the real world because hardly any economic actor ever has a chance to switch to what it does “best.”

      Go back to my third sentence above. It’s either true or it’s not. There is no in-between.

  2. THOMAS H says:

    Sir:

    You have formulated a fascinating essay, and with respect to this your writing here reflects a studied and classical attitude about how “it” works. People like me do not want to change classical ideas, so will just state for sake of argument here, free – trade conditions are not necessarily those without trade restrictions if they take away from my own freedoms to pursue a profession or employment through business and commercial activities, and within the rules as set down by national authorities. In the event not just my version of favourable trade terms, essentially open commercial enteprise, but the trade terms with people and parties I do business with are / become limited because of deregulation of the markets, this is a break with what I know to be free commercial and economic enterprise, and any deregulation or new rules need be examined by economists and legalists to re – regulate the market and re – establish market equilibrium(s.) An example of this difficulty is the agricultural sales to the soviets during the 1970’s and after. Rules were made allowing this as a constructive process in open markets, but all of this damaged agricultural markets due to the mechanism it removed and the processes it created. That’s just one example, and I do not refute your argument that trade needs be more “laissez – faire,” to use a term, though this often is used to promote the schemes of people and parties claiming the portions of other persons’ economic and other activities, and is akin to wanton stealing pie from the table. Good day.

  3. schwindt says:

    Facts matter, and your description of the Canadian wine industry is, well, simply not factual. More rudely, you are dead wrong. More charitably, you are a quarter of a century out of date.

    The Canadian wine industry was heavily protected up until the late 1980s. Protection involved tariffs at the federal level and, more importantly, discriminatory provincial distribution policies at the provincial level. In most provinces the provincial government was the sole distributor of wine and many used differing mark-ups and shelf space allocation to favour local production. The results were predictable. Growers favoured lubrusca varieties with high sugar content (for a big alcohol kick), and mark-ups and shelf space favoured, in descending order, provincially produced wines, Canadian wines, Commonwealth wines (which was ok because Australia, and earlier S. Africa, qualified) and then everybody else, California included.

    This all ended in the late 1980s. Canada entered into a free trade agreement with the U.S. and many predicted the death of the Canadian industry. But, like Samuel Clemens, the obituaries were much exaggerated. Growers and governments responded to the warnings. The lubrusca vines were pulled and replaced with viniferas (albeit, some of this was subsidized by government). Additionally at about the same time, the EU filed complaints with the GATT over provincial distribution policies and won.

    Today the industry is ok. Canada imports a lot of wine, but domestic production, without protection, accounts for about a third of consumption while France, Australia, Italy, Chile and the United States account for most of the other two-thirds.

    In fact, the Canadian wine industry is an example of the success of free trade (the quality of domestic production went up, prices of imports came down, the Canadian wine consumer was better off).

    Get your facts straight.

    http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1172244915663&lang=eng

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      The comment is from a Canadian professor of economics who usually knows what he is talking about. I accept his corrections. They show that, contrary to widespread fears, the removal of trade barriers does not necessarily destroy protected industries. In this case, the removal of trade barriers led to a big improvement in the local product. Canadian consumers now enjoy a wider choice of higher quality products. Their standard of living has improved as a result of free trade. As I explain elsewhere in this series of essays, it’s possible that some Canadians lost their job as a result of this increase in free trade.

      The part of the story above that stages the Canadian wine industry must have been around 1975.

      I have no vested interest in insisting that Canadian wines are inferior (but I know what I know!)

      It does not matter much for my story.

  4. Martin Anding says:

    I admire your attempt to prove that various restrictions of free trade are a net reduction in the standard of living of all parties. This position has been argued for centuries from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” in 1776 through Haziltt’s “Economics in One Lesson” in 1946 plus many other books in between and after. (Mises, Rothbard, Woods). It was true then and is still true now.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Sure thing. I tried to do it i a way that does not put off contemporaries. I think the principle of comparative advantage and its international trade implications are the subjects worst taught in our universities. It’s difficult because it’s counterintuitive and tremendously important in the real world.

  5. Pingback: Protectionism and Job Loss: Part Nine of a Nine Steps Series (And Last, I Think.) « Notes On Liberty

  6. Fred Foldvary has some great comments:

    One of the best arguments for Free Trade was made by Henry George in his book Protection or Free Trade. But George pointed out that the reason some workers may not be enthusiastic for free trade is when most of the gains go to profits and higher land rent rather than higher wages. Production could shift to more capital and land intensive products, and the greater productivity could be captured by higher land rent rather than higher marginal products of labor. Moreover, George pointed out that the USA has imposed high domestic tariffs in the form of taxes. The California sales tax is a domestic tariff on exchange. Thus true free trade requires the abolition of all taxes on goods, not just tariffs, as well as the removal of taxation from production. Public revenue from land rent would not affect the prices of goods, while equalizing the benefits of greater land rent.

    I don’t know if there is much more to add to this, but I thought it was a great compliment to your post…

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      Many “workers” are not enthusiastic about free trade for reasons I have pointed out clearly several times: Some domestic workers loose their jobs when protection for their industry is removed. That will piss off people every time! Economists I read and reports from students have contributed to my impression that economists do not like to talk about specific job loss resulting from freer trade, as if it were a dirty family secret.

      Many people, including “workers” do not appreciate at all that thanks to the relatively free trade of the past thirty years, they have benefited by huge hidden wage increases because their money buys much more than it used to and it buy better products. I think I remember that in 1980, the cheapest TV set was $300, just like now. Ignoring inflation on purpose, there as as much qualitative difference between a TV set now and a TV set then as there is between a cell-phone of now and two kids using two empty cans connected by a string to communicate. OK, I am exaggerating but not by much.

      And then, there are the fresh mangoes!

      Free trade produced creeping progress. It’s hard to notice until you stop for real and look back at the horrible good old times of protectionism.

      I

  7. Pingback: Romney on China (In The Last Presidential Debate of 2012) | FACTS MATTER

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s