Beyond the Noise on Free Trade

By N. GREGORY MANKIW

Published: March 16, 2008

NO issue divides economists and mere Muggles more than the debate over globalization and international trade. Where the high priests of the dismal science see opportunity through the magic of the market’s invisible hand, Joe Sixpack sees a threat to his livelihood. This gap in perspective grows especially wide whenever the economy experiences short-run difficulties, as it is now. By all indications, the issue could come to dominate the presidential campaign.

Economists are, overwhelmingly, free traders. A 2006 poll of Ph.D. members of the American Economic Association found that 87.5 percent agreed that “the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

The benefits from an open world trading system are standard fare in introductory economics courses. In my freshman course at Harvard, we start studying the topic in the second week, and we return to issues of globalization throughout the year. The basic lessons can be traced back to Adam Smith of the 18th century and David Ricardo of the 19th century: Trade between two countries creates winners and losers, but it leaves both nations with greater overall prosperity.

The general public, however, is less likely to take its cue from Adam Smith than from Lou Dobbs. In December, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked Americans, “Do you think the fact that the American economy has become increasingly global is good because it has opened up new markets for American products and resulted in more jobs, or bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor?”

When this question was asked a decade ago, the public was almost evenly split. In the recent poll, however, only 28 percent endorsed globalization, while 58 percent opposed it. As the economy continues to weaken from problems in the housing and credit markets, you can expect to hear more about foreigners stealing American jobs, regardless of the true merits of the case.

This shift of public opinion toward economic isolationism may well become a political problem for John McCain. Compared with those of either of his possible Democratic rivals, his track record shows him to be a more unequivocal free trader. Here are some examples:

•

In 2002, Mr. McCain voted to give the president “trade promotion authority,” under which trade agreements were no longer subject to amendment by Congress. Barack Obama was not yet in the Senate at that time, but Hillary Rodham Clinton voted against the measure.

•

In April 2005, Mr. McCain voted to table a bill proposed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, that would have authorized a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports if China failed to revalue its currency. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama voted in support of the tariff proposal.

•

Also in April 2005, when 58 senators asked President Bush not to offer large cuts in farm subsidies as part of the Doha trade negotiations, Mr. McCain declined to put his name on the letter. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were among the signatories defending the subsidies.

•

In June 2005, Mr. McCain voted to ratify the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, which lowered trade barriers with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama voted against the treaty (although, in his most recent book, Mr. Obama wrote, “over all, Cafta was probably a net plus for the U.S. economy”).

•

In recent months Mr. McCain has expressed support for the pending free-trade agreement with South Korea, the world’s 12th-largest economy and the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama oppose it.

The most prominent recent flare-up in this debate is over the North American Free Trade Agreement. Negotiations for Nafta began under the first President Bush, and the treaty was eventually passed under (the first?) President Clinton.

Al Gore famously debated Ross Perot about the measure on “Larry King Live” on CNN. While Mr. Perot warned of a “giant sucking sound” sending American jobs south of the border, Mr. Gore gave Mr. Perot a framed portrait of Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, the congressmen responsible for the tariffs that in the 1930s helped make the Depression great. It was a fine moment, both for political theater and mainstream economics.

Today, Nafta could be hailed as a successful example of the bipartisanship that Mr. Obama promises. Most economists agree with Lawrence H. Summers, a Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, who has said that Nafta “was really a watershed as to whether America was going to stand for larger markets, was going to stand for forward defense of our interests by trying to have a more integrated global economy.”

“It contributed to the strength of our economy,” he added, “both because of more exports and because imports helped to reduce inflation.”

Instead of becoming a beacon of bipartisanship, however, Nafta is the latest whipping boy for the anti-globalization crowd. During their last debate, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama said they would withdraw from the treaty unless Canada and Mexico agreed to further concessions. Canadian authorities were quick to respond that if negotiations were reopened, they would ask for some concessions of their own. True to form, Mr. McCain offered his unconditional support for the landmark agreement.

With the two political parties apparently divided on trade policy, you might expect those free-trade-loving economists to be predominantly Republicans. But that’s not the case. One reason is that economists are not single-issue voters. Like everyone else, they are divided over contentious issues like health policy, the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

BUT another reason is that many economists don’t really believe the populist rhetoric coming from the Clinton and Obama campaigns. They expect that once in office, either candidate would pursue a policy more like that of Mr. Clinton, who relied heavily on the advice of economic moderates like Mr. Summers and Robert E. Rubin, another former Treasury secretary. When reports surfaced recently of an Obama economic adviser telling the Canadian government to ignore his candidate’s anti-Nafta rhetoric, some people were appalled, but many Democratic economists I know were secretly relieved.

It is hard to be confident, however, that on issues of trade policy either Democratic candidate would act like the last Democratic president. Maybe the candidates’ records as legislators are not good indicators of what their policies might be as president. Maybe campaign rhetoric about Nafta is nothing more than that. But counting on it requires, one might say, the audacity of hope.

N. Gregory Mankiw is a professor of economics at Harvard. He was an adviser to President Bush and advised Mitt Romney in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

跨越自由贸易的喧嚣

格里高利•曼昆（Gregory Mankiw）

对全球化和国际贸易问题的看法最能体现经济学家和外行人的区别。当市场经济的狂热信徒们从看不见的手的魔力中看到机会时，那些低能儿却认为这是一种威胁。这种认知的差异在目前这样经济出现短期困难的时候尤为明显。目前来看，这些问题将决定总统选举的走势。

经济学们大都是贸易自由论者。2006年美国经济学会在其博士成员中进行的一次调查显示，87.5%的被访者认为“美国应该消除关税和其他阻碍自由贸易的因素。”

国家可以从全球贸易体系中获益是经济 学的基础理论之一。我在哈佛读大一时，我们第二周就开始学习这个理论，并且学了整整一年的全球化。这些理论的发源可以追溯到18世纪的亚当•斯密 （Adam Smith）和19世纪的大卫•李嘉图（David Ricardo）：两个国家之间的贸易必然存在赢家和输家，但是贸易双方都能从中获益。

然而，普通大众宁可相信卢•道博斯（Lou Dobbs）也不愿意相信亚当•斯密。去年12月，NBC新闻网和华尔街日报在美国民众中展开调查：“你认为在全球化进程中，会因为产品面向更广阔的市场并带来更多的工作机会而使美国经济整体受益，还是会因为使美国公司陷入低价劳动力的不公平竞争而对美国经济造成损害？”

十年前问这个问题的时候，持两种意见的民众数目不相上下。然而在这次调查中，只有28%的民众赞成全球化，同时却有58%的民众反对。随着房地产和信贷市场问题导致的经济形势不断恶化，你会听到越来越多的人无视全球化的真正好处，单纯地认为是外国人偷走了美国的工作机会。

美国民众的经济孤立主义观点是约翰•麦凯恩（John McCain）需要面对的一个重要的政治问题。相对于他的民主党竞争对手们，约翰•麦凯恩在自由贸易问题上的立场非常鲜明。例如：

* 2002年，麦凯恩先生投票赞成给予总统“贸易促进授权”，使贸易协定的修订案不再需要议会的批准。巴拉克•奥巴玛（Barack Obama）当时还不是参议员，而希拉里•克林顿（Hillary Rodham Clinton）投了反对票。
* l 2005 年4月，麦凯恩先生投票反对一项由纽约州民主党参议员查尔斯•舒曼（Charles E Schumer）和南卡罗来纳州共和党参议员林赛•格拉汉姆（Lindsey Graham）共同提议的法案：如果中国在汇率政策方面不能做出重大改革，人民币不能升值，就要对中国出口到美国的产品加征27.5%的关税。克林顿夫人 和奥巴玛先生对此法案表示赞同。
* l 还是2005年4月，58位参议员发布联合声明要求布什总统不要在多哈贸易谈判中承诺大幅降低农业补贴，麦凯恩先生拒绝在该联合声明上签字，而克林顿夫人和奥巴玛先生都是该声明的发起人。
* l 2005年6月，麦凯恩先生投票赞成美国—多米尼加—中美洲自由贸易协定，该协定降低了美国与哥斯达黎加、萨尔瓦多、危地马拉、洪都拉斯、尼加拉瓜和多米尼加共和国之间的贸易壁垒。克林顿夫人和奥巴玛先生对该协定表示反对（尽管在最近的书中，奥巴玛先生写道：“总的来说，中美洲自由贸易协定对美国经济是有利的。”）

l 最近几个月，麦凯恩先生对尚未签订的与韩国的自由贸易协定表示了支持，韩国是世界第12大经济体，也是美国第7大贸易伙伴。克林顿夫人和奥巴玛先生再次表示了反对。

双方最显著的分歧体现在最近争论激烈的北美自由贸易协定上。该协定的谈判始于老布什总统时期，直到克林顿总统（会不会有第二个克林顿总统？）时期才获准通过。

阿尔•戈尔（Al Gore）与罗斯•佩罗特（Ross Perot）在“拉里•金现场”节目上就该协定进行了一场著名的辩论。佩罗特先生警告说“一张大嘴”正在吸走美国的工作机会，而戈尔先生给佩罗特 先生看了一张里德•斯穆特（Reed Smoot）和威利斯•霍里（Willis C Hawley）的漫画像，正是这两位众议员在1930年代联合提出的关税法案导致了大萧条。对于政治和主流经济来说，这都是有趣的一幕。

应该说，北美自由贸易协定是美国两党合作的一次成功的尝试。大多数的经济学家都赞同克林顿时期的财政部长劳伦斯•萨莫斯（Lawrence H Summers）的观点：“北美自由贸易协定是一个分水岭，它意味着美国进入了更广阔的市场，努力建立一个更加一体化的全球经济体系来保护自身的利益。”

“它给美国经济带来了活力，”他补充道，“不仅因为它促进了商品出口，还通过促进商品的进口降低了通货膨胀。”

然而，北美自由贸易协定并没有成为两 党合作的范例，反倒成为反对全球化的替罪羊。在最近的一次辩论中，克林顿夫人和奥巴玛先生都表示美国应该退出该协定，除非加拿大和墨西哥做出更多让步。加拿大当局立即做出回应：如果要重新谈判，他们会努力争取更多的利益。而麦凯恩先生对这一标志性的协定一如既往地无条件支持。

在两党的贸易政策存在明显分歧的情况下，你可能觉得这些热爱贸易自由的经济学家都是共和党人，但事实并非如此。一个原因是经济学家们并非单纯地支持或反对某一观点。像所有人一样，经济学家们在医疗政策、布什的减税政策和伊拉克战争等许多有争议的问题上还存在着分歧。

另外一个原因是许多经济学家并非真的 相信克林顿和奥巴玛的平民主义论调。他们认为二者任何一位当选之后，都将延续克林顿的政策，坚定地支持稳健派经济学家的观点，例如萨莫斯先生和另一位前财政部长罗伯特•鲁宾（Robert E Robin）。最近的一份报告指出，奥巴玛的一位经济顾问希望加拿大政府不要在意奥巴玛反对北美自由贸易协定的观点。一些民众对该报告感到惊讶，但是我了 解的许多民主党经济学家私下对此却并不在意。

然而，民主党候选人一定会延续上一任民主党总统的贸易政策这种观点本身就不能让人信服。也许根据候选人以往作为立法者的记录很难预测其成为总统之后所施行的政策。可能关于北美自由贸易协定的竞选宣言不过是随便说说，但是指望这个来获胜，这想法未免太疯狂了。

格里高利•曼昆是哈佛大学经济学教授。他是布什总统的经济顾问，同时也是共和党总统候选人米特•罗姆尼（Mitt Romney）的顾问。