Economic Nationalism Breakdown

The article chosen for this essay is the New York Times' Canada Attacks U.S. Tariffs by Taking Case to World Trade Organization, by Ana Swanson and Ian Austen (Swanson & Austen, 2018). The main idea of this article is centralized around Canada's case against the U.S.'s restrictions on tariffs and imports/exports on other countries, which can lead to negative impacts for the U.S.'s relations in NAFTA and trade agreements with other countries. The authors presented a strong example of Canada's lumber dumping, which is the practice of selling national products and resources at a much lower price and in high volumes to gain an economic advantage in the global market. This case is presented to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to bring attention to what the author's call "Trump's America First" ideology, which strongly prioritizes the U.S.'s role in the global economic market (Swanson & Austen, p. 1, 2018). The international political economic theory that fits best with this article is economic nationalism, a concept introduced and defined by Friedrich List (1909). Many of the economic nationalist traits are portrayed, such as the importance of national interests; competitiveness between the U.S. and other nations; and conflicts between the U.S. and its allies as well as its opponents. The purpose of this essay is to link economic nationalism through Friedrich List's chapter of private economy and national economy, explain it through the New York Times' article, and use it to understand the deterioration of the U.S.'s position in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

For the U.S. to progress politically and economically, they operate under the economic nationalism model, which promotes structural and economic power over other nations. Countries that have economic nationalism as their model must protect their own economy, and further their own private industry (List, 1909). The case presented is due to the underlying tensions of NAFTA policies within NAFTA, and the U.S.'s inability to lift unfair and strict tariffs against certain countries in order to protect the U.S.'s economic market. Swanson and Austen detail that Canada's case is structured in a way that allows other countries to join the case (2018). Canada's perspective in this case stems from its solidarity with other countries that have faced the U.S.'s harsh punishments and restrictions from economic dumping. In the defense of the U.S. economy, dumping harms countries that promote economic nationalism because the U.S. cannot economically withstand foreign exports being sold at a much lower price in their own and other economies. The U.S. criticized Canada for two reasons: the first due to economic dumping, which deteriorates the U.S.'s position in the global economy; the second is that Canada's case against the U.S. could potentially harm the U.S.'s significant position in NAFTA. The U.S. cannot lose its partnership in the NAFTA, as it will cause severe consequences for American employment rates and continue the slow decline of its economy. Economic nationalism, as mentioned previously, heavily emphasizes the importance of power, which the U.S. relies on to stay above other nations' economy. Therefore, the U.S. strongly depends on Canadian support, and for Canada to end the case. However, in the defense of Canada, this case must continue to ensure that the market is equally competitive and equally ruled.

The best conceptual approach for this article is economic nationalism due to the of the position that the U.S. engaged in; the U.S. punished countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea for economically dumping their resources to increase their own position in the global market. The traits of economic nationalism are easy to identify: national interests of a country; competitiveness of a country; and the conflicts that arise from these two initial traits. This section will discuss the transparency and importance of a countries national interest. In the case of this article, the traits presented are the U.S.'s national interests, which promote their own manufacturing and agriculture (as per List's requirements for a productive national economy), and less emphasis for foreign imports (Swanson & Austen, 2018; List, 1909). However, other nations are economically dumping their resources can potentially harm the American economy, because American imports may be purchased less because they do not match other nations' prices and volumes. Therefore, to progress American interests both politically and economically, the U.S. must employ punitive action for countries that are found of dumping, which decrease the U.S.'s position in the global market. The importance of the link between the economic nationalisation trait of national interests for this article is for the reader to understand the reason for the U.S.'s punishments. The U.S. aims to prioritize its national interests over other countries, even over its own allies (Canada and Mexico). In chapter two of Ravenhill's Global Political Economy, Ravenhill states that political economy in a realist perspective promotes national interests and emphasizes its own interests at the expense of others (Ravenhill, 2017, p. 32). This can result in extreme punishments however, the degree of their punishments on other countries were construed as too extreme for Canada and resulted in a case presented to the WTO.

In this section, the competitiveness of the U.S.'s economy in the global market will be analyzed and explained. The U.S. assumed that other countries would not interfere in their decision to punish these countries, however Canada, after receiving a small punishment for lumber dumping, decided to end the U.S.'s unfair tactics against the countries mentioned previously. Economic nationalism, as stated above, works to provide protection for national economy in many ways, including promoting private industries and pursuing national interests. However, in Canada's standpoint, this only furthers the American economy and does