For This Assignment, Write An Essay That Addresses Each Of T ✓ Solved

For this assignment, write an essay that addresses each of t

For this assignment, write an essay that addresses each of the following points: Choose five U.S. government policies that affect trade with foreign nations; identify three factors of production and describe how their mobility is good or bad for U.S. trade; distinguish between absolute advantage and comparative advantage trade theories and give examples; choose either the TPP or the TTIP free trade agreement, describe which other countries have signed on and explain whether the U.S. Senate should ratify the agreement; and explain how regional trading groups influence organizations. The essay should be a minimum of three pages in APA style (no title page, running head, or abstract required). Use at least two scholarly sources. Responses must be in paragraph form and include proper APA citations and references.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

International trade is shaped by a mix of government policies, the mobility of production factors, and the comparative strengths of economies. This essay examines five U.S. government policies that affect trade, analyzes three factors of production and their mobility implications for U.S. trade, distinguishes absolute and comparative advantage with examples, evaluates the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) signatories and whether the U.S. Senate should ratify it, and considers how regional trading groups influence organizations.

Five U.S. Government Policies That Affect Trade

Tariffs are taxes on imported goods that raise domestic prices and protect some industries but can reduce consumption and invite retaliation (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009). Import quotas or voluntary export restraints limit quantities that can enter the U.S., constraining supply and often raising domestic prices while protecting specific sectors. Export subsidies and tax incentives aim to make domestic firms more competitive abroad; these can expand market share but may invite countervailing duties from trading partners (USITC, 2016). Anti-dumping and countervailing duties respond to perceived unfair pricing or foreign subsidies, protecting domestic producers but potentially raising downstream costs for U.S. consumers and firms (WTO, 2020). Finally, trade agreements and tariffs reductions—through bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements—alter market access, rules of origin, and regulatory alignment, substantially influencing trade flows and investment decisions (Baier & Bergstrand, 2007).

Three Factors of Production and Mobility Implications

Three classical factors of production are land (natural resources), labor, and capital. Land is largely immobile internationally; natural resources remain tied to geography, which affects comparative advantage in commodities but limits firms’ ability to relocate resource endowments (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009). Labor mobility across borders is constrained by immigration law and social factors; limited labor mobility can mean that adjustment to trade shocks occurs through wage changes or internal migration rather than cross-border worker flows (Autor, Dorn, & Hanson, 2013). Capital, by contrast, is relatively mobile: foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows allow firms to shift production and finance across borders quickly, enhancing responsiveness to trade opportunities but also exposing domestic economies to capital flight and rapid changes in global supply chains (Helpman, Melitz, & Yeaple, 2004). Overall, high capital mobility tends to amplify trade and integration, limited labor mobility can exacerbate local adjustment costs, and immobile land anchors resource-based patterns of trade.

Absolute Advantage versus Comparative Advantage

Absolute advantage occurs when a country can produce more of a good with the same resources than another country. For example, if the United States can produce both aircraft and corn with fewer inputs than another country, the U.S. has an absolute advantage in both (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009). Comparative advantage, the cornerstone of Ricardo’s trade theory, arises when a country can produce a good at a lower opportunity cost than another. Even if one country is absolutely more efficient at producing all goods, mutual gains from trade exist if countries specialize according to comparative advantage (Ricardo, 1817). A modern example is that advanced economies like the United States may have a comparative advantage in high-tech services and specialized manufacturing, while other countries may have comparative advantages in labor-intensive manufacturing; specialization and trade improve overall welfare, though distributional impacts can be uneven (Bhagwati, 2004).

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Signatories and Ratification Considerations

The Trans-Pacific Partnership initially included Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States as a negotiating partner during the signature of the original agreement (USTR, 2015). Following the U.S. withdrawal in 2017, the remaining countries renegotiated and formed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) without the U.S. (Congressional Research Service, 2016). Supporters of U.S. ratification argued that TPP would open markets for U.S. exporters, set high-standard rules on labor and environment, and shape regional norms in ways favorable to U.S. firms (USTR, 2015). Critics warned of potential job displacement, pressure on wages in exposed sectors, and concerns about investor-state dispute settlement and sovereignty (Autor et al., 2013). On balance, the case for ratification rests on rigorous domestic adjustment policies: ratification combined with targeted worker retraining, transitional assistance, and enforcement of labor and environmental provisions could capture benefits while mitigating harms (USITC, 2016). Thus, a conditional recommendation is that the Senate consider ratification if accompanied by credible domestic measures to support displaced workers and strong enforcement mechanisms for agreement standards.

How Regional Trading Groups Influence Organizations

Regional trading groups such as NAFTA/USMCA, the EU, ASEAN, and CPTPP influence organizations by shaping market access, regulatory harmonization, and supply-chain design. Firms inside a regional bloc often gain predictable rules of origin, lower tariffs, and common regulatory standards that reduce transaction costs and encourage regional supply-chain integration (Baier & Bergstrand, 2007). Organizations adjust production location, procurement, and investment decisions to exploit preferential access, which can create regional hubs for particular industries (Helpman et al., 2004). Additionally, regional agreements often require compliance with labor, environmental, and intellectual property norms, prompting organizational changes in corporate governance, compliance systems, and strategy to meet new standards (WTO, 2020).

Conclusion

U.S. trade is shaped by a mixture of policy instruments, the mobility of factors of production, and the specialization incentives implied by comparative advantage. Tariffs, quotas, subsidies, anti-dumping measures, and trade agreements each have distinct effects on prices, output, and global integration. Land, labor, and capital differ in mobility, producing varied adjustment patterns; capital’s mobility accelerates trade-linked restructuring, while limited labor mobility intensifies adjustment costs locally. Comparative advantage explains gains from specialization even when absolute advantages differ, and regional agreements such as the TPP/CPTPP materially influence organizational strategies and regional economic structures. Policy choices—especially whether to ratify comprehensive agreements—should balance gains from market access and rule-setting with effective domestic policies to assist adjustment and enforce standards (Krugman & Obstfeld, 2009; USTR, 2015; USITC, 2016).

References

• Autor, D., Dorn, D., & Hanson, G. (2013). The China shock: Learning from labor-market adjustment to large changes in trade. Annual Review of Economics, 8, 205–240.
• Baier, S. L., & Bergstrand, J. H. (2007). Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international trade? Journal of International Economics, 71(1), 72–95.
• Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
• Congressional Research Service. (2016). The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): In Brief. Congressional Research Service.
• Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94(1), 300–316.
• Krugman, P. R., & Obstfeld, M. (2009). International Economics: Theory and Policy (8th ed.). Addison-Wesley.
• Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2015). Trans-Pacific Partnership: Agreement details and benefits. USTR. https://ustr.gov/
• Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. John Murray.
• U.S. International Trade Commission. (2016). Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures, 2016 Report. USITC.
• World Trade Organization. (2020). World Trade Report 2020. WTO.