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 environmental leakage, 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, including trade concessions and cost distribution. In both countries, respondents prefer moderate or considerable standards over none, even when these impose costs—though Canadian support for environmental standards is weaker. Equity principles, particularly equal cost-sharing, are important to respondents in both countries, though more so for Britons. Partisanship and underlying attitudes toward trade strongly shape preferences, with important implications for trade negotiations and democratic politics in both countries.