The paper "Government Trade Interventions" is a wonderful example of a report on macro and microeconomics. Free trade occurs when the pattern of exports and imports take place devoid of any barriers in trade. Although free trade is quite advantageous, there have always been interventions by the national governments on the trade of goods as well as services. There are various reasons why national governments restrict free trade among nations. The main motives for trade restrictions by the government are cultural, economical and political and sometimes a combination of them all.
Governments mainly intervene in international trade by offering support to the exporting activities of the local industries. At the same time, all the more sincerely charged exchange intercession happens when a country's economy is failing to meet expectations. In intense monetary times, organizations and labourers regularly campaign their administrations to be guarded against imports that decrease work and eradicate employments in the domestic market. This paper will discuss the involvement of government in trade through analysing the economic, cultural and political motives for trade intervention as well as the advantages and disadvantages of these motives. Political motives Government authorities regularly put together trade-related choices in view of political intentions.
Reason being, a legislator’ s exceptionally survival may rely on upon satisfying electorate and getting elected again (Rodrik, 2005). However, a policy on trade founded simply in light of political thought processes is sometimes astute over the long haul (Hoekman and Kostecki, 2009). The primary political thought processes behind government involvement in exchange incorporate securing employments, protecting national security, reacting to other countries' unjustifiable trade exercises, and picking up impact over different countries (Antrà s and Staiger, 2012; Rodrik, 2005). Secure Jobs Shy of a disliked war, no one thing will remove a legislature quicker than high unemployment rates.
Along these lines, all legislatures get to be included when trade undermines occupations within the country (Hoekman and Kostecki, 2009).
Antràs, P. and Staiger, R. (2012). Offshoring and the Role of Trade Agreements. American Economic Review, 102(7), pp.3140-3183.
Hill, C. (2005). International business. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hoekman, B. and Kostecki, M. (2009). The political economy of the world trading system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knudsen, J. and Brown, D. (2014). Why governments intervene: Exploring mixed motives for public policies on corporate social responsibility. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), pp.51-72.
Levy, D. and Newell, P. (2005). The business of global environmental governance. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lincoln, E. (2010). Troubled times. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Inst. Press.
Reinert, E. (2007). How rich countries got rich-- and why poor countries stay poor. New York: Carroll & Graf.
Rodrik, D. (2005). Why we learn nothing from regressing economic growth on policies. Mimeo, Kennedy School of Government.
Trebilcock, M. and Howse, R. (2005). The regulation of international trade. London: Routledge.
Wild, J., Wild, K. and Han, J. (2008). International business. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Woll, C. and Artigas, A. (2007). When trade liberalization turns into regulatory reform: The impact on business?government relations in international trade politics. Regulation & Governance, 1(2), pp.121-138.