A-Level Economics May/June 2025 Q4(b): Assess whether the potential benefits of free trade always outweigh the arguments for p…

1 answer

• ▲0
  accepted ✓

  Free trade refers to the international exchange of goods and services without the imposition of artificial barriers such as tariffs, quotas, or subsidies. In contrast, protectionism involves the use of these barriers to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. While economic theory strongly advocates for the benefits of free trade, this essay will assess whether these benefits always outweigh the arguments for protectionism.

  The primary argument for free trade is rooted in the theory of comparative advantage. This theory posits that if countries specialise in producing goods and services where they have a lower opportunity cost and then trade, total world output will increase. This leads to a more efficient allocation of global resources. For consumers, the benefits are significant: increased competition from abroad drives down prices, improves quality, and widens the range of available products, thereby increasing consumer surplus and living standards. For firms, free trade opens up larger export markets, allowing them to exploit economies of scale, and provides access to cheaper imported raw materials, lowering production costs. The removal of a tariff, for instance, can be shown to lower the domestic price from the world price plus tariff (Pw+t) to the world price (Pw), increasing the quantity consumed and generating a net welfare gain by eliminating the deadweight loss associated with the tariff.

  However, there are several compelling arguments for protectionism that challenge the universal applicability of free trade. The most prominent is the infant industry argument, which suggests that developing countries should temporarily protect new industries from established foreign competitors until they can grow, achieve economies of scale, and become competitive on the global stage. For example, South Korea successfully used protectionist measures in the 20th century to nurture its automotive industry, which is now a major global exporter. Other arguments include protecting strategic industries vital for national security (e.g., defence, food supplies), preventing 'dumping' (where foreign firms sell goods below cost to eliminate domestic rivals), and attempting to correct a large current account deficit by curbing imports. Furthermore, protectionism is often used to manage the decline of old industries and mitigate the resulting structural unemployment, which can cause significant social and economic disruption.

  In assessing whether the benefits of free trade always outweigh these arguments, the answer must be no. The validity of protectionism is highly contextual. The infant industry argument holds significant weight for a developing economy seeking to diversify and industrialise, but it is far less justifiable for a mature, developed economy. Similarly, short-term protection might be a pragmatic response to a sudden surge in unemployment in a key region or to proven cases of predatory dumping by a trade partner. The key issue is that the benefits and costs of trade policies are not evenly distributed. While free trade may increase total welfare, it can harm specific domestic industries and their workers, creating 'losers' who face unemployment and require significant retraining and support.

  Ultimately, the long-term, dynamic gains from competition, innovation, and efficiency spurred by free trade are generally considered to be greater than the static, and often temporary, benefits of protection. The significant danger of protectionism is that it can foster inefficiency and complacency in domestic firms and, most critically, provoke retaliation from trade partners. A retaliatory cycle of trade barriers, or a 'trade war', can lead to a contraction in world trade that harms all participating countries, resulting in a negative-sum game. Therefore, while the potential benefits of free trade do not always outweigh the arguments for protectionism in every specific circumstance—particularly for developing nations or in the short term—a general commitment to free trade, tempered by targeted and time-limited exceptions, remains the most effective path to long-run global prosperity. The absolutism of 'always' is incorrect; a nuanced approach is required.

  ---

  How it reaches the top band

  • Knowledge / Analysis / Evaluation — The essay demonstrates detailed knowledge by accurately defining free trade and protectionism and explaining a range of specific arguments for both, such as comparative advantage, infant industries, and anti-dumping. Analysis is clear and developed, for instance, by explaining the mechanism of comparative advantage leading to efficient resource allocation and by describing in words the welfare effects of removing a tariff (lower price, increased consumer surplus, reduced deadweight loss). The evaluation is the strongest element, directly tackling the word 'always' in the question. It achieves this by contextualising the arguments (e.g., infant industry for LDCs vs MDCs), considering different timeframes (short-term job protection vs long-term efficiency), and weighing the risks of protectionism (retaliation) against its purported benefits. The conclusion provides a justified and balanced judgement, arguing that while free trade is not always superior in every single case, it is generally the better long-term strategy, thus avoiding a simplistic or one-sided answer.

  Common ways to drop marks

  • Providing a 'list-like' answer that describes the pros of free trade and the pros of protectionism but fails to weigh them against each other to form an assessment.
  • Ignoring the keyword 'always' in the question, leading to a generic conclusion that does not address the absolute nature of the statement.
  • Failing to use economic theory, such as comparative advantage or a description of welfare effects, to support analytical points, resulting in a series of assertions.
  • Concluding with a simple 'it depends' without explaining what it depends on (e.g., the country's stage of development, the specific industry, the risk of retaliation).

  Examiner tip: For 'assess' questions, always challenge absolute terms like 'always' or 'never' by considering different contexts, timeframes, and stakeholder perspectives to build a nuanced and well-supported judgement.

  ---

  AI-generated exemplar, grounded in the official Cambridge assessment bands and reviewed by the MarkScheme team. Mark your own answer →

  @markscheme_answers

Your answer

Sign in to answer this question.