A critical review of recent U.S. trade policies that have failed to enforce sufficient reciprocity and overall trade balance, with suggestions for policies that foster a more balanced and realistic pattern of world trade growth.

Despite the passage of NAFTA and other recent free trade victories in the United States, former U.S. trade official Alfred Eckes warns that these developments have a dark side. Opening America's Market offers a bold critique of U.S. trade policies over the last sixty years, placing them within a historical perspective. Eckes reconsiders trade policy issues and events from Benjamin Franklin to Bill Clinton, attributing growing political unrest and economic insecurity in the 1990s to shortsighted policy decisions made in the generation after World War II. Eager to win the Cold War and promote the benefits of free trade, American officials generously opened the domestic market to imports but tolerated foreign discrimination against American goods. American consumers and corporations gained in the resulting global economy, but many low-skilled workers have become casualties. Eckes also challenges criticisms of the 'infamous' protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which allegedly worsened the Great Depression and provoked foreign retaliation. In trade history, he says, this episode was merely a mole hill, not a mountain.

During the first decade of the 21st century, the world has witnessed a plethora of corporate scandals, global economic crises, and rising environmental concerns. As a result of these developments, pressure has been mounting on businesses to pay more attention to the environmental and resource consequences of the products they produce and services they deliver. The Handbook of Research on Creating Sustainable Value in the Global Economy contains a collection of pioneering research on the integration of issues of sustainability within the traditional areas of management. While highlighting topics including green marketing, circular economy, and sustainable business, this book is ideally designed for managers, executives, environmentalists, economists, business professionals, researchers, academicians, and students in disciplines including marketing, economics, finance, operations management, communication science, and information technology.

In this ambitious exploration of how foreign trade policy is made in democratic regimes, Daniel Verdier casts doubt on theories that neglect voters. Bringing the voters back in, Verdier shows that special interests, party ideologues, and state officials and diplomats act as agents of the voters. Constructing a general theory in which existing theories (rent seeking, median voting, state autonomy) function as partial explanations, he shows that trade institutions are not fixed entities but products of political competition. Verdier then offers a thorough analysis of how foreign trade policy was made in France, Britain, and the United States during the period from 1860 through 1990. He discloses a reality startlingly different from previous understandings of American and French trade policies. Challenging the conventional view that special interests have dominated American trade policy, he argues that sectoral economic weight has not been a good predictor of political power in the United States since 1888. Conversely, against the prevailing belief that French industry is controlled by an autonomous state, he reveals the existence of a privileged, collusive relationship between French industry and state officials from the 1892 Meline Tariff through the Socialist victory of 1981. The standard opinion is confirmed only in the case of Britain, where an arm's-length relationship has historically been maintained between industry and government. The book's findings make it essential reading for political scientists, political economists, and historians alike.

From acclaimed political scientist Diana Mutz, a revealing look at why people's attitudes on trade differ from their own self-interest Winners and Losers challenges conventional wisdom about how American citizens form opinions on international trade. While dominant explanations in economics emphasize personal self-interest—and whether individuals gain or lose financially as a result of trade—this book takes a psychological approach, demonstrating how people view the complex world of international trade through the lens of interpersonal relations. Drawing on psychological theories of preference formation as well as original surveys and experiments, Diana Mutz finds that in contrast to the economic view of trade as cooperation for mutual benefit, many Americans view trade as a competition between the United States and other countries—a contest of us versus them. These people favor trade as long as they see Americans as the "winners" in these interactions, viewing trade as a way to establish dominance over foreign competitors. For others, trade is a means of maintaining more peaceful relations between countries. Just as individuals may exchange gifts to cement relationships, international trade is a tie that binds nations together in trust and cooperation. Winners and Losers reveals how people's orientations toward in-groups and out-groups play a central role in influencing how they think about trade with foreign countries, and shows how a better understanding of the psychological underpinnings of public opinion can lead to lasting economic and societal benefits.