Other Arguments in Favour of a North American Free Trade Zone

In addition to the standard economic arguments, policy makers, and politicians have offered a number of other arguments in favour of free trade agreements. In fact, some of the strongest arguments offered by non-economists (and also by some economists) in favour of the FTA and NAFTA were of a non-economic nature. These arguments reflect the sentiment expressed by Krugman in a quotation cited earlier: that "[free] trade can serve as a focal point on which countries can agree to avoid trade wars" and that it "can also serve as a simple principle with which to resist pressures of special-interest politics."

Without doubt, one of Canada's main motivations for seeking a free trade agreement with the United States was growing protectionist sentiment in the United States and the adverse effects of "politicized" trade policies on the Canadian economy (Lipsey and Smith 1985; Grey 1981). A free trade agreement was one way Canada could defend itself against the growing arsenal of non-tariff barriers imposed by the United States on imported goods. Indeed, the failure of the GATT to deal effectively with the issue of non-tariff barriers constituted a major rationale for a comprehensive free trade deal with the United States. By pursuing a binding free trade deal, trade policy becomes more independent of the political process because politicians' hands are tied. A free-trade agreement, therefore, establishes a commitment that prevents politicians from using trade policy to serve special interests at the expense of general economic welfare. The result is that a greater degree of stability and certainty is thereby introduced into the trading environment.