Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Is trade liberalisation a panacea for poverty?

By Dionisio Da Cruz Pereira - posted Tuesday, 19 October 2010

With the inception of globalisation at the beginning of 21st century, facilitated by the discovery of fast communication systems such as the computer and internet, the world is increasingly becoming integrated. The invention of the computer and internet assist people to instantly communicate and to conduct trade with one another.

Proponents of globalisation believe that trade liberalisation is the key to fight poverty in developing countries (World Bank 2002; WTO 2000; McCulloch, Winters & Cirera 2000). Most of the experts define trade liberalisation as the total or part elimination of trade barriers such as quotas and tariffs imposed by governments on imported and exported goods (Marchant & Snell 1997). It is believed that the relaxation of trade barriers will facilitate trades and attract foreign direct investment (FDI) which in turn will boost economic growth and ultimately lead to poverty alleviation (WTO 2002).

In spite of this, reports from the UNCTAD (2001) indicate that poverty in developing countries continue to exist. The number of people living on less than one dollar a day has been increasing by almost 50 per cent in the last few years and the gap between rich and poor people in developing countries is widening. UNCTAD (2001) points out that the poorest 49 countries make up 10 per cent of the world population, but accounts for only 0.4 per cent of world trade and this disparity is continuing to grow at an alarming rate.


By using the case study of India and China, this essay will argue that trade liberalisation has contributed to increasing poverty and inequality in many developing countries. This will be supported from three main aspects: the increasing gap between rich and poor, the increase in human rights violations and the dept of environmental damage.

Arguments in favour of trade liberalisation tend to suggest that trade liberalisation is the key to fight poverty and inequality in developing countries. It is frequently argued that trade liberalisation provides opportunities for developing countries to gain access to international markets, and also allows the flow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to developing countries which in turn boosts economic growth. The arguments for this in turn contribute to reducing poverty in developing countries (WTO 2007; World Bank 2007a). For instance, the emergence of India and China as an economic powerhouse has been hailed as the major achievement brought by trade liberalisation.

The World Bank (2007a) stated that since embarking on trade liberalisation, both India and China have achieved considerable economic growth and have been able to lift millions of their people out of poverty. In addition, the improvement in education provides fundamental skills to the Indians and Chinese to enable them to compete at international levels.

While India is the leading player in information technology, business process outsourcing, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical medicines, China on the other hand is taking the lead in manufacturing various goods ranging from textiles to technological innovation. This demonstrates that since engaging in trade liberalisation, both India and China have enjoyed considerable economic growth.

It is further asserted that trade liberalisation also promotes equality to both developed and developing countries. This is because, according to its proponents, trade liberalisation encourages openness and competition for developed and developing countries alike to equally participate in the global market and contribute to poverty alleviation (WTO 2007).

Likewise, it is argued that trade liberalisation leads developing countries to further develop themselves through a market oriented economy. In such circumstance, exports and imports are seen as the two big factors to promote a country’s economic growth and lessen its dependency on foreign aid or on international assistance (CATO Institute 2005; Hirvonen 2005). Thus, proponents of trade liberalisation seem to suggest that trade liberalisation tends to bring enormous economic benefits and to raise living standards in developing countries. This also seems to indicate that trade liberalisation is an inevitable means which developing countries need to adopt in order to boost economic growth and subsequently to improve the living conditions of their people.


Despite the fact that trade liberalisation is believed by many proponents of free trade to bring substantial economic benefits, trade liberalisation remains controversial. First, arguments against trade liberalisation suggest that as trade liberalisation is intensified, poverty and inequality disturbingly increase and persist. Analyst argues that though India has been hailed by the international community for achieving considerable economic growth over the last few years, India still has the largest concentration of poverty in the world (IMF 2008, p. 3; Asian development Bank 2004, p.30).

While the opening of India to international trade has undeniably strengthened and diversified the economy benefit few Indian middle class, this positive economic growth has in fact little effect to lift millions of Indian farmers whose livelihoods are dependent on agricultural activities (Mehta 2004) out of poverty. For instance, a research conducted in the Warangal village of India, shows that the replacement of native cottons with the genetic modified Bt Cotton promoted by Monsanto Company from the USA has detrimental effects on the farmers. Many farmers in the village fall into the so called “debts traps” because they have to purchase expensive fertilisers and pesticides to sustain the crops.

The increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides consequently contribute to polluting the soils and leading to other major crop failures. Similarly, the inability to repay bank loans in turn leads to increasing suicide rates among farmers in rural India (Stone 2002, p.2; Qayum & Sakkhari 2002).

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dionisio Da Cruz Pereira is pursuing an M.Sc in International Development at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Dionisio Da Cruz Pereira

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Dionisio Da Cruz Pereira
Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy