Equity worries cannot be delegated to tax-and-transfer because no global redistribution institutions exist

Evidence

Finally, the fact that overall welfare gains may be expected to fl ow from appropriately regulated trade liberalization remains an important argument in its favor, albeit one that requires much more vigilant qualifi cation than it tends to receive in free trade debates. Those who believe that the distributive impact of economic activity deserves close attention within policy formation cannot ignore the capital mobility wrinkle in the way that the most ardent proponents of free trade have. Nor can they be satisfi ed in this context with the conventional welfare economic response of relegating equity considerations to the taxandtransfer system. In light of the absence of strong representative institutions of redistribution at the global level— and in light of the relatively meager amount of voluntary redistribution that tends to occur in the place of such institutions— they must feel at least somewhat ambivalent toward trade liberalization when it occurs under conditions of international capital mobility, an ambivalence that would place them in the illustrious company of not only Ricardo and Samuelson, but also Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 340

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to the polyad thread on law’s relationship to justice/equality and to welfare economics critiques in earlier chapters. — connects to: Meanwhile mobile capital can undermine national production standards including environmental ones — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 341; The stringent Pareto criterion is practically pointless once real-world frictions are counted. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 276; Distributional equity cannot be achieved without prior recognition and participation — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 267 (+1 more)

Broader Connections