Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby no doubt considers himself an ardent free trader. But in trying to push his case this morning, he trips over his own feet. He criticizes the suggestion by my former boss, Lawrence Mishel, and Harvard economist Dani Rodrick, that it might be desirable to have a "strategic pause" before we rush ahead with new trade agreements. Mishel and Rodrick argue that such a pause might be desirable because it would allow us to improve the safety net to ensure that the losers from trade are protected. Mr. Mallaby argues that the problem with such an approach is that other countries will continue to move ahead with trade deals, from which the United States will be excluded. Okay, what does trade theory say about this scenario? Well, according to most trade models, if other countries work out deals that make their economies stronger, while the U.S. is sitting on the sidelines, then the United States is better off than if they didn't work out deals. In general, standard trade implies that the United States economy is helped by anything that helps the economies of our trading partners. In other words, if Mallaby understood his own religion better, he would know that he is actually weakening the argument against a "strategic pause." We should be more concerned if the withdrawal of the United States as an active participant in international trade negotiations meant that all such deals would grind to a halt. Mr. Mallaby assures us that this will not be the case, therefore any possible damage from a "strategic pause" will be more limited.
--Dean Baker
