1. Home
  2. Education
  3. Economics

Does Freer Trade Mean Lower Environmental Standards?

Environmental Impact of Trade Liberalization

From

We must certainly lend credence to evidence that suggests liberalizing trade can hurt the environment. But before proposing a solution, it is necessary to examine when trade hurts and when it in fact helps the environment. Trade without accompanying environmental policy hurts the environment when it induces an increase in environmentally costly production processes. Take for example a small country that in autarky produces both sugar and rice. For whatever reason, rice production has a negative externality of soil erosion. Now assume that on the global market this country has a comparative advantage in rice production. Opening up its markets will allow the country to export rice and import sugar based on comparative advantage. The downside to this (ignoring the distributional effects) is that the country is now producing more rice, which leads to further soil erosion, making the environment worse off. The overall effect on the country's national welfare is ambiguous, depending on whether or not the gains from trade outweigh the social cost of soil erosion. (Note: Instead of leaving erosion uncontrolled, the country could internalize the externality by levying a tax or comparable regulation. With a correct level of environmental policy intervention, there would in fact be a net social gain from trade).

Now assume that this same country has a comparative advantage in sugar production. In this case liberalization will allow the country to export sugar and import rice, which cuts down on soil erosion. This scenario leads to a net benefit to the global environment, as rice farming is moved to locations that can presumably do it with less soil erosion. Here the national welfare effect is also unambiguously positive. Another potential environmental benefit of liberalization in developing economies is that they will see faster economic growth and be endowed with the resources to take appropriate environmental measures. The technology that Western firms use to reduce pollution would become more readily available to many South American countries if the FTAA goes into effect.

In order to develop rational policy suggestions, we must realize that opening markets to trade and preserving the environment are equally desirable goals. A principle of economic planning put forth by Nobel Laureate Jan Tinbergen is that each target of economic policy (in this case free trade and the environment) warrants a separate instrument aimed at it. So while environmental problems may be reinforced by trade policy, they are best resolved by environmental policy. This principle suggests the need for mutually reinforcing trade and environmental agreements between countries, which often involves tradeoffs. Sensible policy tradeoffs include "slightly less agriculture output in return for cleaner water; slightly more erosion in return for farm exports and income" (Runge, Freer Trade, Protected Environment. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1994 12). In practice, such arrangements were provided for in the environmental side agreement that was included in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This agreement insisted that the member countries adhere to certain environmental standards, and saw the formation of the trilateral Commission on Environmental Cooperation, which had the authority to oversee and enforce these regulations.

Be sure to continue to page 4

Explore Economics

About.com Special Features

A Smarter Future

Tips that will help finance your education, excel in the classroom, and advance your career. More >

How to Ace the GRE

Being well prepared is the first step; here are more essential suggestions. More >

  1. Home
  2. Education
  3. Economics
  4. Globalization & Trade
  5. Balance of Trade
  6. Does Freer Trade Mean Lower Environmental Standards?

©2009 About.com, a part of The New York Times Company.

All rights reserved.