Tradeoffs in Trade: How the Public Perceives Environmental, Human Rights, and Labor Standards in International Trade Agreements

Since the 1990s, governments have increasingly embedded “non-trade” provisions—such as environmental, human rights, and labor standards—into free trade agreements (FTAs). Today, at least one in three FTAs includes such obligations. These provisions are controversial. Advocates argue that they prevent social dumping and/or uphold moral imperatives, while critics claim they squander bargaining leverage and undermine comparative advantage. This paper examines public perceptions of these provisions through survey experiments in Canada and the UK, two countries currently considering FTAs with developing economies. Using conjoint analysis, I assess preferences for non-trade provisions alongside core FTA features. The results are remarkably similar across the two countries. In both countries, respondents prefer moderate or considerable standards to none, even when these come at a cost to the initiating government. Equity principles are crucial, with respondents preferring equal investment in “non-trade” provisions even if they could have the partner country invest more. Partisanship strongly shapes these preferences, with potentially important implications for trade negotiations and democratic politics in both countries.