Does Trade Protection Help or Hurt International Business?

Because of the dynamic nature of international business, due in large part to advances in technology, logistics, and communications, the world trade markets consist of countries that virtually have no borders. Trade agreements between various nations have created an interesting mosaic of trade activity, which is supposed to benefit both parties in the trade agreement. However, this has not happened in all cases since international trade began booming in the early 1960's (Taussig). Because of a variety of reasons, trade agreements have hurt many nations large and small. One of the nations that has been particularly hurt is Canada.

The thesis that the researcher would like to put forth in this paper is the assertion that protectionist measures are appropriate for a given nation to protect their own interests in the realm of international trade, but not across the board; for example, evidence of the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for Canada will be shown. With this thesis in mind, relevant literature will be discussed and cited and discussion will be presented to support the argument that the researcher has made. Upon the conclusion of this paper, the reader will have a rational, logical understanding of the validity of this argument.

Despite being the largest trade partner to its mega-neighbor to the south, the United States (McLaughlin), Canada has gotten the short end of many of the larger trade agreements that have emerged in recent years. In contrast, however, the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, has lived up to its promises to Canada that were made when the agreement was first authored in the 1990s (Howell). In an effort to gain some rights and benefits in the international trade agreements that have come to fruition over the past several decades, Canada, among other nations, has taken protectionist steps to preserve their own best interests, lest they be pressured by unfair trade reform.