{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015873015873015872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008281573498964804, 'mean_word_length': 5.5610859728506785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Globalization as Framed by the Two Logics of Trade

Economists are professionally biased in favor of free trade and open markets. Indeed, normative support for open markets is so universal among practicing economists that the logical origins of their positions are often obscured. Observers and sometimes economists themselves may fail to recognize that two categorically different logical arguments inform economists’ thinking and that these arguments, these separate “logics,” may have different consequences for generalized public and political attitudes toward the openness of markets. Globalization, as a catch-all term for movements toward more inclusive trading networks, may be viewed quite differently by persons who, even if vaguely, locate its normative bases differently. Such differences may surface more or less directly as explicit policies for moving toward or away from further globalization become alternatives for choice in democratic polities. For expository purposes, we may label the two logics of trade as Smithean and Ricardian, with reference to the two leading figures of classical political economy, Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Neoclassical economic analysis, which dominated the discipline of economics from 1870 to 1970, was informed during that century by the Ricardian logic before returning partially and somewhat reluctantly to the Smithean logic in the 1980s and later. As the scientific arguments spill over into