It should serve as a warning. Not just by the, but for the political opportunity it offers. Instead of a protocol indignation, it would be the time to seriously discuss the role of commercial opening in the development strategy. This discussion, once again, is being avoided.
President Trump’s measure is explicitly political. , asking for the filing of Bolsonaro’s judgment, it opens the use of tariffs as an instrument of diplomatic pressure. But the impact goes beyond the symbolic dispute. This offensive could be used as an impulse to a clearer defense of broad and coordinated international insertion.
Evidence on trade gains are consistent. Countries that have reduced barriers in a structured way often register increased productivity, drop in price and greater access to inputs and technologies.
Opening expands the variety of products, accelerates the diffusion of innovations and works as an economic discipline. When combined with stable macroeconomic policies and effective institutions, it contributes to long-term growth and increasing the welfare of the population. Although aggregate gains are evident, sectoral costs are also real and require responses to height.
In every commercial opening there are sectors that earn more and others who lose. The central question is not whether the benefits exist, but as countries deal with the redistributive effects of this transition.
The American case is illustrative. Between 1990 and 2007, exposure to generated significant impacts on industrial regions.
The study by David Author, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson shows that these places have recorded a persistent drop in employment, increased long -term unemployment and salary stagnation. Geographic and occupational mobility, often assumed as automatic in economic models, was limited.
Instead of productive reintegration, what was observed was growth depending on programs such as disability insurance. Still, contrary to what preaches, the American as a whole if, with expressive gains of productivity, innovation and income.
India has gone through something similar. Petia Topalova analyzed the effects of tariff liberalization of the 1990s and found an increase in poverty in districts more exposed to opening. The national gains were real, but did not prevent certain groups from loss. Where there were public support policies, such as NREGS, the effects were softened. Where these measures were missing, commercial shock deepened inequalities.
These studies do not deny the benefits of international trade. On the contrary, they reinforce that gains exist, but warn of the risks of ignoring their concentrated effects. Opening expands the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy, but can generate localized losses that, without proper response, undermine their political legitimacy. When costs are neglected, resistance grows, and the agenda pacaca.
In Brazil, the defense of the opening remains fragile. Clearly in the communication of its positive effects and, above all, a coordinated plan to face adverse impacts. We continue to apply high rates in poorly productive sectors, with low integration with global chains. The result is a expensive policy, inefficient and unable to produce the expected gains from a more open economy.
Trump’s tariff has opened a window to discuss Brazil’s commercial integration more strategically. However, without coordination between liberalization and compensatory policies, the opportunity can pass without advances.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
