Economists have faced criticism for focusing too heavily on theoretical frameworks while neglecting the gritty realities of economic life. While such criticisms can be warranted, they often overlook the foundational truths embedded in economic theory itself.
The crux of Dyer’s argument revolves around David Ricardo, who, in Chapter 7 of his seminal work, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, articulated the principle of comparative advantage using the example of England and Portugal. According to Ricardo, if England specializes in cloth production while Portugal focuses on wine, both countries can trade and enjoy more of both goods than if they attempted to produce everything domestically. This principle suggests that through specialization and exchange, both nations can enhance their overall wealth.
Dyer critiques this analysis, claiming it glosses over the intricate historical realities of English-Portuguese trade and the broader political economy of imperialism. He cites Matthew Watson from Warwick University, who contends that Ricardo’s theory serves as “a mathematical façade” that conveniently omits the oppressive social relations rooted in slave labor and imperial domination. For Dyer and Watson, Ricardo’s ignorance—or willful neglect—of these political intricacies undermines not just his findings but those of many economists who have followed his lead.
While I admit to lacking expertise in the historical nuances of English-Portuguese trade relations, I firmly believe that these complexities do not diminish the analytical value of the comparative advantage principle. This principle remains crucial for understanding trade dynamics, regardless of one’s political stance.
“The principle of comparative advantage as it has come to be taught in standard economics courses is less grandiose than its critics think.”
The principle of comparative advantage, as typically presented in economics courses, is not the monumental theory detractors often portray. It does not provide a comprehensive account of international trade mechanics, nor does it encompass theories of international relations or serve as a political manifesto. Instead, it explains why two individuals—or two nations—might choose to engage in trade, even when it seems counterintuitive. And the beauty of this principle? It relies on simple arithmetic.
Consider a hypothetical scenario where David needs to repair his car. He could complete the task himself in three hours, which would cost him $150 in lost wages from his accounting job. Meanwhile, his neighbor’s college-aged son, Adam, offers to handle the repairs, albeit taking five hours. Adam earns $20 per hour at a local café, so David would need to pay him at least $100 for the job. Despite being a slower mechanic, Adam holds a comparative advantage in fixing the car because he sacrifices less in earnings ($100) than David ($150). By hiring Adam, David saves money while Adam benefits from earning more than he would at the café. This arrangement allows both parties to boost their incomes.
However, the principle of comparative advantage doesn’t delve into every facet of David and Adam’s situation. It doesn’t clarify how David came to own his car or whether he enjoys the process of fixing it. It ignores the potential mistreatment Adam might suffer from his father or the working conditions of both the garage and café. It also leaves out any family dynamics between David’s clan and Adam’s. These details, while ethically significant, are irrelevant to the principle of comparative advantage itself. This principle simply shows that David can enhance his income by hiring Adam, even if Adam is less skilled, and that Adam too gains from this arrangement.
What Dyer truly contests in his rejection of the comparative advantage principle is the leap from this principle to the conclusion that free trade promotes a collective societal benefit. Ricardo articulated this inference succinctly:
- Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole.
Challenging Ricardo’s logic stems from moral convictions regarding historical injustices and perceived ongoing power imbalances. Dyer states: “All major economic powers—Britain, Germany, the USA, and China—rose to their position while protecting their industries with high tariffs.”
Moral frameworks and perceptions of power dynamics should undoubtedly inform our views on trade policy. Such considerations may sway opinions toward or against trade liberalization and traditional Ricardian principles. However, they do not negate the analytical validity of the comparative advantage principle.
Proclaiming the demise of Ricardo, as Peter Navarro did in 2019, does not alter the enduring insights Ricardo provided. Acknowledging the complexities of trade practices does not erase the fundamental truth that every economic decision carries a cost—specifically, the opportunity cost of what one could have achieved instead. Specialization and exchange enable both individuals and nations to maximize their productivity, and this is grounded in straightforward logic and arithmetic.
For further exploration of these themes, see
One could argue there are compelling reasons to favor protectionism (I, for one, do not). Nevertheless, serious discourse on protectionism or a “genuinely progressive economics” must reckon with the principle of comparative advantage, just as one must regard arithmetic as a fundamental truth. This acknowledgment means recognizing that restricting trade invariably incurs clear costs—material benefits sacrificed—that historical and political complexities cannot obscure, much like the unyielding reality that water flows downhill.
