Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

 Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

Murad Abel, DBA
Professor, Department Chair and Research Fellow, 

University of Arizona Global Campus

June 12th, 2025

---

Keywords: Economics, Clusters, Innovation, Industry

---

Abstract
Technological innovation is transforming economies at unprecedented speeds, reshaping industries, and redefining national growth trajectories. Central to this transformation are economic clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected businesses, institutions, and networks—which serve as engines of innovation, productivity, and regional development. These clusters enable collaboration among academia, government, and private industry, fostering environments conducive to the rapid development of next-generation products and services. Drawing on theories such as Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction, this paper explores how innovation-driven clusters support economic resilience, quality of life enhancements, and human capital development. It emphasizes the importance of infrastructure, data networks, and inclusive strategies in sustaining global leadership in innovation. Despite persistent barriers—such as resource limitations and technological adoption gaps—clusters offer scalable solutions through coordinated stakeholder efforts, startup integration, and cross-sector collaboration. The paper concludes that a hybrid approach to cluster formation, blending intentional design with organic growth, holds the greatest promise for advancing regional economies and addressing 21st-century challenges through shared innovation ecosystems.

Industry Cluster Innovation Through Collaboration

Technological change is accelerating at a pace unimaginable to our grandparents and great-grandparents. Advances in computing power and emerging technologies have reshaped our environment, making rapid innovation a critical driver of national growth. The development of new products and services not only influences economic health but also renews interest in expanding research and knowledge. This, in turn, encourages companies to bring cutting-edge offerings to market.

Economic clusters—regions where businesses, research institutions, and networks converge—play a vital role in fostering innovation. By enhancing connectivity and collaboration, these clusters create enriched environments that support the development of next-generation products and services. While improved GDP at local, state, national, and regional levels is one key benefit, such clusters also offer significant opportunities to enhance Quality of Life (QOL) and support long-term human capital development.

Technology Innovations

Technological innovation often drives broad economic growth within industries and regions (Thi & Do, 2024). When tied to infrastructure—such as railroads or the Internet—these advancements can deliver widespread benefits, especially for those who leverage resources effectively. For instance, the strength of data networks and fiber infrastructure, combined with advancements in artificial intelligence, significantly influence national growth prospects. As of this writing, the U.S. ranks among the top three countries on the Advanced Innovation Index 2024 (Dutta et al., 2024). However, maintaining this position requires intentional efforts to foster innovation through a more inclusive and networked approach.

Creating innovative environments accelerates the development of new products and services. In some cases, paradigm-shifting discoveries—such as breakthroughs in energy, AI, infrastructure, or materials—can rapidly transform multiple industries. With the right conditions, innovation clusters can give rise to entirely new sectors.

Joseph Schumpeter described this phenomenon as Creative Destruction—a natural economic process where old structures are continuously dismantled and replaced by new ones. As he wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942):

“The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” (p. 83)

Economic clusters offer governments a practical way to support innovation, economic development, and quality of life improvements. These clusters—often formed through partnerships among industry, academia, government, and communities—serve as microcosms of economic progress, enabling stakeholders to collaborate and mutually benefit.

Fostering clusters of related industries helps catalyze these natural processes. According to Porter (1998), such clusters are inherently innovative and contribute to economic resilience. They do so by forming networks of complementary businesses that boost efficiency and competitiveness—advantages that are difficult to replicate elsewhere.

Economic Growth Environments

Economies are complex systems that, when functioning effectively, generate value for both industries and the communities in which they operate. Technological advancement has long served as a catalyst for economic growth and has improved the quality of everyday life. The development of new technologies depends on a region's physical assets combined with human capital, which together create innovative advantages.

Industry clusters—geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, suppliers, and institutions—have been shown to foster innovation, improve efficiency, and increase productivity, enabling firms to compete at both national and global levels (Porter, 1998). Due to their significant financial and supply chain impacts, fostering innovation through clusters is increasingly viewed as a strategic avenue for economic development. For economies aiming to compete globally, the ability to produce cutting-edge technologies and engage in advanced manufacturing is essential to enhancing value and resource attraction.

More than fifteen years of research into industrial clusters suggests that rapid innovation arises from the interaction of multiple interrelated factors. These factors can be isolated, studied, and optimized to further accelerate cluster formation and effectiveness. Ideally, clusters should be purposefully developed to strengthen community resilience, address critical industry challenges, or advance sector-specific research. Centering cluster development around clear objectives can improve coordination and collective impact.

Collaboration among key stakeholders—including industry, academia, government, and local communities—can create robust economic ecosystems. These systems harness unique regional advantages, such as data assets, coordinated resource use, branding, process innovation, and management infrastructure, to foster scientific progress and address market or societal challenges (Tanaka & Lopez, 2024).

However, barriers frequently impede the adoption of new technologies within manufacturing sectors (Rached et al., 2022). Removing these obstacles is critical for promoting innovation and enhancing industrial competitiveness through technological advancement (Zou, 2024). Common barriers include lack of technical knowledge, high labor and installation costs, inadequate government support, limited resources, and insufficient infrastructure (Rashed, Bagum, & Haque, 2022).

Well-designed economic clusters aim to minimize these barriers by fostering environments that support industrial growth. Such environments ensure access to necessary infrastructure, promote skilled labor development, facilitate research and development initiatives, offer tax incentives, strengthen digital connectivity, and enhance overall quality of life. These factors collectively create fertile ground for industry development, resulting in mutual growth and problem-solving capacity within targeted sectors.

Stakeholder Collaboration

Collaboration is essential to building strong economic clusters due to the significant investment of time and resources required to develop their foundational elements. In some cases, clusters form organically, while in others, they emerge from strategic efforts to fill industry gaps or stimulate innovation. When key stakeholders identify critical bottlenecks to industry development, they often come together to address these challenges, aiming to drive regional economic growth by advancing business innovation (Pulido-Gomez, de Jong & Rivkin, 2025).

Clusters operate as interconnected systems, linking labor, education, firms, and networks to form viable, dynamic ecosystems (Konig, 2023). These connections enhance resource efficiency and add depth to the local business environment. Companies that effectively leverage cluster resources tend to adapt and grow more rapidly within competitive markets (Handoyo et al., 2023). This accelerated growth contributes to regional gross domestic product, strengthening the broader economy (Pyo & Choi, 2025).

Start-ups play a critical role in these ecosystems by acting as sources of innovative capital for larger firms (Giglio et al., 2025). Clusters create fertile ground for the launch and scaling of start-ups, providing the support and conditions needed to foster radical innovation. Such innovation often arises under specific environmental pressures that trigger a reordering of industries. For instance, the development of AI followed a Schumpeterian model of Creative Destruction, where new technologies replaced outdated ones and reshaped entire sectors (Ramazan, Tuluce & Aykac, 2024).

The potential to spur innovation across multiple industries is one of the most transformative outcomes of successful clusters. A single invention can influence several sectors through ripple effects across the supply chain. Cross-industry collaboration, particularly where inter-industry networks overlap, can amplify innovation (Shi & Xiao, 2024). Ultimately, building clusters is about cultivating environments that are not only capable of inventing new products and technologies but also of generating entirely new technological trajectories that were previously unimaginable.

Conclusion

The development of clusters can be driven by local and regional stakeholders to promote both social and economic growth. Clusters support higher levels of industry innovation by fostering shared goals, collaboration in research and development, resource sharing, and knowledge spillovers. When designed for industry advancement, they leverage common infrastructure and expertise to drive innovation. Alternatively, organically formed clusters can enhance economic resilience by connecting diverse industries around shared competencies and resources. A hybrid approach—combining elements of both intentional and organic development—may offer the greatest potential, maximizing local assets across social and economic dimensions.

Bio

Dr. Murad Abel is a professor and Master of Business Administration (MBA) chair at UAGC's Department of Advanced Management Studies. He is also a research fellow and engages in economic review and research on clusters. He holds an MBA from Davenport University and a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) from University of Phoenix. Dr. Murad Abel LinkedIn

 References

Bedru, H., et al. (2020). Big networks: A survey. Computer Science Review, 37.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S157401371930282

Dutta, S., et al. (2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en/

Giglio, V., et al. (2025). Cooperation between large companies and start-ups: An overview of the current state of research. European Management Journal, 43(1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237323000919

Handoyo, S., et al. (2023). A business strategy, operational efficiency, ownership structure, and manufacturing performance: The moderating role of market uncertainty and competition intensity and its implication on open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100039

Hua, L., Yang, Z., & Shao, J. (2022). Impact of network density on the efficiency of innovation networks: An agent-based simulation study. PLoS One, 17(6), e0270087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270087

Kadlec, Ž., Josip, H., & Bedeković, M. (2018). Attracting investment in entrepreneurial zones of small cities by creating preconditions for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Interdisciplinary Management Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368881896

Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts. Brookings Institution. https://c24215cec6c97b637db6-9c0895f07c3474f6636f95b6bf3db172.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/content/metroinnovation-districts/~/media/programs/metro/images/innovation/innovationdistricts1.pdf

König, T. (2023). Between collaboration and competition: Co-located clusters of different industries in one region—the context of Tuttlingen’s medical engineering and metal processing industries. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 15(2), 288-326. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223002639

My Thi Thi, D., & Tran Phu Do, T. (2024). The interrelationships between economic growth and innovation: international evidence. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975

Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Pulido-Gómez, S., de Jong, J., & Rivkin, J. W. (2025). Cross-sector collaboration in cities: Learning journey or blame game? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae026

Pyo, S., & Choi, S. O. (2025). Regional innovation and economic growth: Empirical insights from FGLS, FE-DKSE, and XGBoost-SHAP approach. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100524

Ramazan, U., Tuluce, N., & Aykac, M. (2024). Creative destruction and artificial intelligence: The transformation of industries during the sixth wave. Journal of Economy and Technology, 2, 296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2024.09.004

Rashed, C. A., Bagum, M. N., & Haque, E. (2022). Adoption of technology and innovation in manufacturing sector: Current scenario. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359732230_Adoption_of_Technology_and_Innovation_in_Manufacturing_Sector-_Current_Scenario

Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed.). Harper and Brothers.

Shi, J., & Xiao, Z. (2024). Research on the impact of inter-industry innovation networks on collaborative innovation performance: A case study of strategic emerging industries. Systems, 12(6), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060211

Tanaka, M. L., & Lopez, O. (2024). Outlook on industry-academia-government collaborations impacting medical device innovation. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther, 7(2), 025001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063464

Thi Thi, D., & Do, T. P. (2024). The interrelationships between economic growth and innovation: International evidence. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975

Zou, T. (2024). Technological innovation promotes industrial upgrading: An analytical framework.                     Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 70, 150-167.                                          

             https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.01.012

Summary of Supporting Online Education Research at UAGC (2021-2024)

Research into online education leads to improving the model and furthering the capacity of the modality. Faculty at the University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC) create a research design and submit their projects to a panel of research-knowledgeable professors that assess the quality, design, and outcomes of such studies before granting research funding. Information obtained from the results of such research is shared to improve online higher education.

The program was initially started as a University Fellows Program (UFP) and converted to Online Success Student Initiative Fund (OSSIF) in 2024/2025. Research awardees are managed through the Organizational Research and Creative Scholarship Team (ORCS) of research fellows.

2021/2022 (UFP)

Experiential learning, equity, challenges of mothers in college, student organizations matched with mentors, student engagement, cohorts, collaboration, quality improvement, live learning math, asynchronous course with meetings, nontraditional student flexibility, live learning first year, doctoral writing coaches, badges, student immersion experiences, curriculum scaffolding.

2022/2023 (UFP)

Doctoral public speaking, short and long-term learning, interstitial skills, immersion experiences, ECE retention, women online college grit, e-Portfolio, AI student success, expanding immersion, Culture of Care, capstone e-Portfolio, and live learning mathematics.

2023/2024 (UFP)

Live learning mathematics, early childhood education research project, “Eight to Great” academic achievement, affinity group, graduate writing, peer mentoring, narrative development, motivational interventions retention, artificial intelligence self-efficacy, live learning, empowering messages, open education resource pilot, asynchronous learning.

Organizations that are interested in donating tax-free to student success and research may do so at Online Initiatives Fund for Excellence.

Dr. Murad Abel is a core professor and Master of Business Administration (MBA) chair at UAGC's Department of Advanced Management Studies. He is also a research fellow and engages in economic research on clusters. He holds an MBA in Human Resources from Davenport University and a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) from University of Phoenix. Dr. Murad Abel LinkedIn

 

Dr. Hwangji “Sherrie” Lu is the College of Arts and Sciences Research Fellow and Core Faculty of the Master of Arts in Health Care Administration program. She holds a master’s in nutrition from North Dakota State University, a second master’s in health services administration from Central Michigan University, and a Ph.D. in management with a specialization in leadership and organizational change from Walden University.

 

Are we in a recession?

 Dr. Robin Dhakal

Over the past few months, economic indicators have painted an increasingly worrisome picture. As an economist, I am inclined to believe that the U.S. economy has already entered a recession, though official declarations often lag behind the reality on the ground. My perspective is not based on speculation but on a careful analysis of key economic data, ranging from GDP growth and inflation to consumer sentiment, trade deficits, and stock market performance. While some might argue that certain distortions—such as surging gold imports—make the situation appear worse than it is, the broader trends suggest that economic activity is contracting in ways consistent with past recessions. The real question is not whether we are in a downturn but rather how severe it will be and whether policy decisions will exacerbate or mitigate the crisis.

Let’s look at a few indicators

The most fundamental measure of economic health, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has shown signs of weakness. The Atlanta Federal Reserve’s GDPNow model initially projected a sharp 2.8% contraction for Q1 2025, though later revisions brought the decline to 2.4%. Even if the final numbers show a slightly less severe drop, the fact that forecasts are in negative territory suggests that economic activity is slowing. A single quarter of contraction does not confirm a recession, but when combined with other indicators, the picture becomes clearer.

Trade data also provides crucial insight into the state of the economy. The U.S. trade deficit reached a record $131.4 billion in January 2025, a figure largely driven by a surge in gold imports. Businesses rushed to import goods ahead of anticipated tariffs, leading to temporary distortions in the data. Adjusted for this anomaly, the trade deficit appears less alarming. However, the key issue is that businesses feel the need to preemptively react to policy uncertainty—an indication of underlying instability rather than confidence. Trade disruptions, whether from tariffs or geopolitical tensions, tend to have lagged effects, meaning the economic drag from these policies may not yet be fully reflected in the data.

Stock markets, often seen as forward-looking indicators, have reacted negatively to the evolving economic environment. Since January 20, 2025, the S&P 500 has declined by 6.4%, the Nasdaq Composite has fallen by 11%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped by 3.6%. While equity markets do not always align perfectly with economic fundamentals, sharp declines in stock prices often reflect investor concerns about future earnings, demand, and stability. When markets exhibit such broad-based weakness, it suggests that expectations for corporate profitability and economic growth are deteriorating.

Meanwhile, inflation remains a persistent concern. Although consumer price increases have moderated somewhat, inflation expectations have inched higher, with the 12-month outlook rising to 3.1%. This suggests that businesses and consumers anticipate continued cost pressures. Rising inflation expectations can be problematic because they influence behavior—firms may preemptively raise prices, and consumers may pull back on spending, creating a feedback loop that suppresses growth.

Consumer sentiment is another critical piece of the puzzle. Recent data indicates a decline in confidence, which is particularly troubling because consumer spending accounts for roughly two-thirds of U.S. GDP. If households become more cautious due to concerns about job security, inflation, or economic uncertainty, they may delay major purchases, further dampening demand. Weak consumer sentiment can act as a self-fulfilling prophecy—when people expect a downturn, they alter their behavior in ways that bring about that very outcome.

Could this be a severe recession?

While the data strongly suggests that we are likely already in a recession, its depth and duration will largely depend on policy responses. Several key factors will determine whether this downturn remains mild or evolves into something more severe.

First, the administration’s approach to tariffs is critical. The on-again, off-again nature of tariff policies has created uncertainty that is damaging to businesses and investors. Supply chains do not adjust instantaneously, and constant shifts in trade policy make long-term planning difficult. If tariffs continue to be used unpredictably, businesses may adopt a more defensive posture—cutting investment, reducing hiring, and scaling back operations. This would only serve to deepen the economic slowdown.

Second, ongoing federal employee cuts could have broader implications for economic activity. Government employment plays a stabilizing role in recessions because it provides a steady source of demand. Reducing the federal workforce at a time when private-sector hiring is also weakening could amplify job losses, leading to further declines in household income and spending.

Finally, the ongoing budget battles in Washington present another risk. If political gridlock leads to significant spending cuts or a government shutdown, the economy could take another hit. Historically, budget fights that result in federal spending reductions have slowed economic growth. At a time when private-sector momentum is already faltering, fiscal policy should ideally act as a counterbalance rather than an additional drag.

Looking ahead

Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that the U.S. economy is likely in a recession. GDP forecasts are negative, trade disruptions are distorting business activity, stock markets have seen substantial declines, inflation remains a concern, and consumer sentiment is weakening. While some might argue that certain factors, such as gold imports and tariff distortions, make the data look worse than it really is, the broader trend lines are undeniable.

The severity of this downturn will largely depend on how policymakers respond. If trade policy remains erratic, government employment cuts proceed aggressively, and budget fights result in contractionary fiscal policies, this could evolve into a major recession. Conversely, if leaders take steps to restore confidence, stabilize trade policy, and support economic growth through targeted stimulus or investment, the damage could be contained.

For now, we must recognize that economic conditions are deteriorating. The key question is not whether we are in a recession—we likely are—but rather whether it will be short-lived or deepen into something more prolonged and painful. The answer will depend, in large part, on the choices made in Washington over the coming months.

 

Dr. Robin Dhakal is an Assistant Professor at UAGC. He earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of South Florida and a B.A. in Business/Economics and Mathematics/Computer Science from Warren Wilson College. His academic research focuses on development economics and political economy. He has been teaching Economics in colleges and universities for the past ten years. You can reach him at robin.dhakal@uagc.edu

References:

1)     Agence France-Presse. (2025, March 6). US Trade Gap Hits New Record in January as Tariff Fears Loomed. Industryweek.com; IndustryWeek. https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/trade/news/55272784/us-trade-gap-hits-new-record-in-january-as-tariff-fears-loomed

2)     Census. (n.d.). Goods Data Inquiries Goods Media Inquiries Services Data and Media Inquiries. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/ft900.pdf

3)     GDPNow. (n.d.). Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow

4)     Romei, V., & Wigglesworth, R. (2025, March 10). How the gold bullion boom sent a US recession alarm blaring. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/1f58f6ac-fa3c-4df8-8d13-545097838654

5)     Trade deficit widens by record margin. (2025). KPMG. https://kpmg.com/us/en/articles/2025/january-2025-international-trade.html

6)     Trading Economics. (2025, March 6). United States balance of trade. United States Balance of Trade

Empowering Leaders: Bill Davis in Conversation with Eddie Turner

Bill Davis was recently featured and interviewed on Global Leadership Expert Eddie Turner’s Keep Leading! ®Live Podcast. Bill spoke about Leading with Purpose. Bill is the Chair of the UAGC - BA Operations Management and Analysis (BAOMA) Advisory Board. Bill is also the Program Chair of the UAGC BAOMA program. Bill has extensive experience and education in all aspects of business: consultant, management, leadership, sales, marketing, strategic planning, human resources, and organizational change. He has over three decades of experience working in the beverage industry, specifically in the PepsiCo system, a Fortune 500 company, serving in front, middle management, and executive level leadership positions. Bill is a pracademic who successfully transitioned his highly successful career into academia. He has taught over 320+ courses in higher education in online and on ground modalities and has over 20 years of extensive academic experience.

Leading with Purpose (Entire 30 min session): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCxvElrIOcE

Boost Your Credibility (Short Clip): https://youtube.com/shorts/_SRLgdXy81I?si=bVr98SUK2ZhLFeen

Let’s Talk About Trade

 Dr. Robin Dhakal

Trade has been the lifeblood of human civilization for thousands of years. From the barter systems of ancient tribes to the complex global supply chains of today, the exchange of goods and services has shaped economies, cultures, and nations. But what makes trade so powerful? And why has the concept of free trade become a cornerstone of modern economics?

But first, a brief history…

Trade is as old as human society itself. Ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Indus Valley were among the first to engage in organized trade, exchanging goods such as grain, spices, textiles, and precious metals. One of the most famous examples of early global trade is the Silk Road, a sprawling network of routes that connected Asia to Europe from around 130 BCE to the 1450s CE. The Silk Road facilitated the exchange of silk, spices, tea, and other luxury goods, but its impact went far beyond material wealth. It enabled the flow of knowledge, art, and innovation, linking the Roman Empire, China, India, and the Islamic world. For instance, papermaking, gunpowder, and the compass—technologies that originated in China—spread to Europe via these routes, profoundly shaping the course of history. In the Middle Ages, city-states like Venice and Genoa became wealthy through trade, while the Age of Exploration in the 15th and 16th centuries opened up new trade routes between Europe, Asia, and the Americas. The discovery of the Americas, in particular, opened up unprecedented trade opportunities, with goods like sugar, tobacco, and silver flowing into Europe. However, this period also saw the darker side of trade, including the transatlantic slave trade and the exploitation of colonized regions.

Despite the growth of trade, it was often constrained by mercantilist policies, which dominated economic thought from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Mercantilism viewed trade as a zero-sum game, where nations sought to accumulate wealth by maximizing exports and minimizing imports, often through tariffs and trade restrictions. This approach prioritized national power over mutual benefit, setting the stage for the economic theories that would later challenge it.

In comes Adam Smith

The modern concept of free trade began to take shape in the 18th century, thanks to the groundbreaking work of Scottish economist Adam Smith. In his landmark book The Wealth of Nations (1776), Smith challenged the prevailing economic doctrine of mercantilism, which viewed trade as a competition where one nation’s gain was another’s loss. Instead, Smith introduced the idea of absolute advantage, arguing that trade could be a win-win situation for all nations involved.

Smith’s key insight was simple yet revolutionary: countries should focus on producing goods they can make more efficiently—that is, at a lower cost or with fewer resources—than other countries, and then trade for the rest. This specialization, he argued, would lead to greater productivity, lower costs, and increased wealth for everyone. To understand why this was such a radical idea at the time, imagine two countries: England and France. Suppose England is really good at producing wool—it can make a lot of wool quickly and cheaply—while France is really good at producing wine. Under mercantilism, both countries might try to produce both wool and wine on their own, even if they’re not very good at one of them. This would be inefficient and costly.

Smith’s idea of absolute advantage flipped this logic on its head. He said, “Why should England waste resources trying to produce wine when it’s so much better at making wool? And why should France struggle to produce wool when it excels at making wine?” Instead, Smith proposed that England should focus on producing wool and France should focus on producing wine. Then, they could trade with each other. England would get all the wine it needed from France, and France would get all the wool it needed from England. Both countries would end up with more of both goods at a lower cost than if they tried to produce everything themselves.

Smith’s theory laid the foundation for the modern understanding of free trade, showing that open markets and specialization could drive economic growth and improve living standards. It was a radical departure from the zero-sum thinking of mercantilism and set the stage for the global trade systems we have today.

David Ricardo- the true champion of free trade

While Adam Smith’s theory of absolute advantage was groundbreaking, it was David Ricardo who took the concept of trade to a whole new level with his idea of comparative advantage. In his 1817 work On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Ricardo showed that even if one country is more efficient at producing all goods, trade can still benefit both countries—as long as they specialize in producing the goods where they have the relative efficiency advantage. This idea was so powerful that it became the cornerstone of modern trade theory.

To understand why comparative advantage is such a game-changer, let’s revisit our example of England and Portugal. Suppose Portugal is better than England at producing both wine and cloth. Under Adam Smith’s absolute advantage theory, it might seem like Portugal has no reason to trade with England because it can produce everything more efficiently. But Ricardo saw something deeper: even if Portugal is better at both, it’s still better for Portugal to focus on the good where its advantage is greatest and let England handle the other.

Here’s how it works: Imagine Portugal can produce 10 bottles of wine or 5 yards of cloth in the same amount of time, while England can produce only 2 bottles of wine or 4 yards of cloth. Portugal is clearly better at both, but its advantage in wine production is much greater than in cloth. Ricardo argued that Portugal should focus on making wine, where its efficiency is highest, and England should focus on making cloth, where its inefficiency is least. By specializing and trading, both countries end up with more wine and cloth than if they tried to produce everything on their own.

Why is this so revolutionary? Because it shows that trade isn’t just about being the best—it’s about making the most of what you have. Even if one country is worse at producing everything, it can still benefit from trade by focusing on what it’s least bad at. This means trade isn’t just for the most efficient economies; it’s for everyone. It’s a win-win situation, where both sides gain by doing what they’re relatively better at.

Ricardo’s concept of comparative advantage is why trade agreements exist today. It proves that trade isn’t a zero-sum game where one side wins and the other loses. Instead, it’s a way for countries to work together, leveraging their unique strengths to create more wealth for everyone. This idea is so powerful that economists still call it “the most beautiful idea in economics.” It’s not just a theory—it’s the reason why free trade has lifted millions out of poverty and transformed the global economy.

Success stories

One of the most compelling examples of free trade’s benefits is the post-World War II economic boom. In 1947, 23 nations signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which laid the foundation for modern free trade by reducing tariffs and trade barriers. Over the next few decades, GATT’s successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), continued to push for freer markets, contributing to an unprecedented rise in global trade. Between 1950 and 2022, world trade expanded 32-fold, significantly outpacing global GDP growth. This trade expansion lifted millions out of poverty, particularly in developing nations like China, India, and Vietnam.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), implemented in 1994 and renegotiated in 2018 as the United States- Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA) is a prime example of free trade’s success. Before NAFTA, trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico was hindered by tariffs and trade restrictions. By eliminating these barriers, NAFTA helped increase trilateral trade from $290 billion in 1993 to over $1.2 trillion by 2016. The agreement also created millions of jobs: for example, U.S. exports to Mexico supported nearly 1.2 million American jobs by 2015. Additionally, consumers in all three countries benefited from lower prices on goods like automobiles and agricultural products due to increased efficiency and competition. 

Similarly, the European Union’s single market, which allows free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor among its 27 member states, has been a resounding success. Since its full implementation in 1993, intra-EU trade has nearly tripled, and the region has become the world's second-largest economy. The single market has increased EU GDP by an estimated 9%, benefiting businesses and consumers alike. For instance, German car manufacturers like Volkswagen and French agricultural producers have been able to expand their reach without trade barriers, resulting in more jobs and economic growth.

Beyond these large-scale agreements, individual nations have also reaped the rewards of free trade. China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 marked a turning point in global trade dynamics. By reducing tariffs and opening its markets, China experienced explosive economic growth, with exports rising from $266 billion in 2001 to $2.5 trillion in 2018. This transformation lifted over 800 million people out of poverty and turned China into the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. Similarly, Vietnam’s embrace of free trade, through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), helped it become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, with exports surging from $14 billion in 2000 to over $330 billion in 2022.

Free trade has also significantly benefited consumers by reducing costs and improving access to essential goods. For example, tariffs on electronics and textiles have been lowered globally, allowing smartphones, computers, and clothing to become more affordable. The rise of global supply chains, enabled by free trade agreements, has driven down the cost of manufacturing, making products like iPhones and laptops accessible to billions.

While free trade has its critics, the overwhelming evidence shows that it has been a key driver of global economic growth, job creation, and poverty reduction over the past century. By enabling specialization, fostering competition, and expanding markets, free trade has not only improved national economies but also enhanced the quality of life for millions worldwide.

Tariffs!

Despite the benefits of free trade, tariffs—taxes on imported goods—have been used throughout history. Governments often impose tariffs to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, generate revenue, or address trade imbalances. However, tariffs come with significant downsides.

The U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is one of the most infamous examples of protectionism. Aiming to shield American farmers during the Great Depression, it raised tariffs on thousands of imported goods. Instead of reviving the economy, it provoked retaliatory tariffs from other countries, causing a collapse in international trade and deepening the global economic downturn.

In more recent history, the U.S.-China trade war (2018-2020) saw both countries imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods. The U.S. sought to reduce its trade deficit and counter China’s trade practices by imposing tariffs on Chinese goods, leading China to respond with its own tariffs. While intended to protect domestic industries, these measures led to higher costs for businesses and consumers, disrupted global supply chains, and slowed economic growth. In 2019 alone, estimates suggested that the trade war cost the U.S. economy around $316 billion and slowed global GDP growth by 0.8%.

Similarly, Brexit led to the reintroduction of trade barriers between the UK and the European Union. The UK’s departure from the EU single market resulted in new tariffs and customs checks, which disrupted trade flows and increased costs for businesses. Studies indicate that Brexit-related trade frictions have reduced UK exports to the EU by approximately 15% since 2020.

While tariffs can offer short-term protection for certain industries, history shows that their long-term consequences—higher consumer prices, trade retaliation, and economic slowdowns—often outweigh their benefits. Thus, many economists argue that freer trade, with carefully negotiated agreements, remains the best path for sustained global prosperity.

 Why do economists say tariffs are bad?

Tariffs distort market dynamics by artificially raising the cost of imported goods, leading to inefficiencies and reduced consumer choice. When a government imposes tariffs, it forces consumers to pay more for goods that would otherwise be cheaper, essentially acting as a hidden tax. For example, if the U.S. imposes tariffs on imported washing machines, the cost of these appliances rises, making it more expensive for families to replace old or broken ones. This not only reduces the purchasing power of consumers but also disproportionately hurts lower-income households, who spend a higher percentage of their income on everyday goods. In addition, businesses facing higher costs for raw materials and goods pass these costs on to consumers. For example, US-imposed tariffs on Chinese imports between 2018 and 2019 resulted in an average cost increase of $1,300 per U.S. household, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. This inflationary effect ripples through the economy, making everything from groceries to cars more expensive. Unlike targeted subsidies or investments in innovation, tariffs act as a blunt instrument that raises costs without addressing underlying economic inefficiencies.

Tariffs also invite retaliation, sparking trade wars that harm all parties involved. When one country imposes tariffs, affected trading partners often respond with their own tariffs, escalating costs across multiple industries. A clear example of this was the U.S.-China trade war, where tariffs imposed on Chinese goods led to increased prices on products like electronics, clothing, and furniture. In response, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports, severely impacting American farmers who relied on global markets.

Moreover, tariffs often protect inefficient domestic industries at the expense of more competitive sectors, stifling innovation and long-term growth. A striking example is the U.S. steel tariffs imposed in 2002, which temporarily helped domestic steel producers but severely harmed industries that rely on steel, such as automotive and construction companies. As steel prices surged, car manufacturers and construction firms faced higher production costs, leading to job losses in those sectors. Estimates suggest that while the tariffs saved approximately 3,500 steel industry jobs, they resulted in the loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in steel-consuming industries due to increased costs.

Free trade has been a driving force behind global prosperity, enabling nations to specialize, innovate, and grow. While tariffs have their place in history, they often do more harm than good in the long run. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the case for free trade remains stronger than ever. By embracing open markets and cooperation, nations can continue to reap the benefits of trade, creating a more prosperous and interconnected world.

Dr. Robin Dhakal is an Assistant Professor at UAGC. He earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of South Florida and a B.A. in Business/Economics and Mathematics/Computer Science from Warren Wilson College. His academic research focuses on development economics and political economy. He has been teaching Economics in colleges and universities for the past ten years. You can reach him at robin.dhakal@uagc.edu

References:

Britannica. (n.d.). Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Smoot-Hawley-Tariff-Act

Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2019). U.S. trade in goods and services by selected countries and areas. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.bea.gov/data/intl-trade-investment/international-trade-goods-and-services

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). The effects of tariff rates on the U.S. economy: What the Producer Price Index tells us. Beyond the Numbers: Prices and Spending, 8(1). https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/the-effects-of-tarifff-rates-on-the-u-s-economy-what-the-producer-price-index-tells-us.htm

Fajgelbaum, P., & Khandelwal, A. (2021). The economic impacts of the US-China trade war. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29315/w29315.pdf

Francois, J., & Baughman, L. M. (2003). The unintended consequences of U.S. steel import tariffs: A quantification of the impact during 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Prepared for the CITAC Foundation.

Johns, B., Brenton, P., Piermartini, R., Sadni Jallab, M., & Teh, R. (2018). Trade and poverty reduction: New evidence of impacts in developing countries (English). World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/968461544478747599/Trade-and-Poverty-Reduction-New-Evidence-of-Impacts-in-Developing-Countries

Krugman, P., Obstfeld, M., & Melitz, M. J. (2018). International economics: Theory and policy (11th ed.). Pearson.

Peterson Institute for International Economics. (2019). US-China trade war tariffs: An up-to-date chart. Retrieved from https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart

Tax Foundation. (2021). Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/section-232-tariffs-steel-aluminum/

Tax Foundation. (2025). Trump tariffs: Tracking the economic impact of the Trump trade war. Retrieved from https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Trade in goods with Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

VoxEU. (2020). The 'bystander effect' of the US-China trade war. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved from https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/bystander-effect-us-china-trade-war

World Trade Organization. (2019). Global trade report: Trends and statistics. Retrieved from https://www.wto-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789287047755/read

World Trade Organization. (2020). An economic analysis of the US-China trade conflict (WTO Working Paper No. 2020/04). World Trade Organization. https://doi.org/10.30875/5b611474-en