Global Expansion of Trade and Sustainable Development

By Ws Hag

Whatever the balance of threats or opportunities, the reality of global trade expansion is beyond dispute. To this effect, I will discuss how trade expansion affects, both positively and negatively, on sustainable development.

Expansion of global trade can be seen as an affirmative end in terms of its economic and political impacts. This is factual as such expansion leads to economic growth through creating larger markets and introducing competition (Snarr & Snarr, Introducing Global Issues, p.245). Supplies of commodities also find their ways worldwide without much difficulty. Moreover, developing countries may have the opportunity to use foreign standards as an incentive to make new investments and implement new systems.

Likewise, the political force of global trade increases mutual dependence and encourages cooperation among nations (Aaron Cosbey, Lessons Learned on Sustainable & Development, p.9). This cooperation paves a way in lessening the degree of conflict and increases peaceful solutions to differences. As a result, both individuals and governments could enjoy the advantage of such composure for their progress.

Today’s scale of modern urbanization, transfer of technology, knowledge as well as idea, and employment opportunity are the result of such expansion (Review of “The Environmentalism of the Poor”, Journal of Agrarian, p.432). The awareness constructed by the global trade has a massive influence in the development of the people and societies as a whole. Accordingly, the part of social responsibility to tackle various issues related to development will rise concurrently.

The negativity of trade expansion globally can be described in terms of the range of technical requirements imposed by developed countries. Though the standards and technical specifications have positive impact, they will affect the progress of developing nations, as the conditions can be more burdensome (NIS Project, Globalization, Trade and Sustainable Development, P.11). This could develop in to constructing a complex system that distinguishes seriously among countries on the basis of their level of development (e.g. EU regulation on consumer health protection, US shrimp harvesting methods, labeling requirements, etc.). Hence, it can be explained as the potential tension that could frustrate the sustainable growth in developing countries, though attempts has been made to address their concern.

The effect in environment is another point which I refer to as appalling aspect. Global trade pushes environmental standards lower by allowing competition from firms that pollute more than expected (Louise Takeda, Political Ecological Economics: An Emerging Transdisciplinary Approach to Sustainability, p.43). The products themselves may be a cause for environmental damage in the process (e.g. energy efficiency, recyclability, etc.). Often, pollution from the products contributes to global environmental problems such as ozone layer destruction, biodiversity loss or global warming.

In fairness terms, the expansion by itself is not well distributed and inequality between nations is reflected (J. Martinez-Alier, Metabolic Profiles of Countries And Ecological Distribution Conflicts, p.11. The most benefited part of such global trade is the wealthy actors of the developed world. Hence, the development in such areas meets the needs of the people with the ability of future thought. However, the other part of the world is becoming victim of such unequal distribution of resources and forced them to stay behind with limited opportunities for development.

To sum up, global expansion of trade can be both good and bad to sustainable development. The challenge is to adapt our institutions so as the force of such trade expansion is channeled in to ways that contribute to sustainable development. Whether trade expansion advances or undermines sustainable development depends on how policies are crafted and linked case-by-case to get a win-win solution.