Editing Protectionism (section)

====Living standards====
A 2016 study found that "trade typically favors the poor", as they spend a greater share of their earnings on goods, as free trade reduces the costs of goods.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Fajgelbaum|first1=Pablo D.|last2=Khandelwal|first2=Amit K.|date=1 August 2016|title=Measuring the Unequal Gains from Trade|journal=The Quarterly Journal of Economics|language=en|volume=131|issue=3|pages=1113–80|doi=10.1093/qje/qjw013|s2cid=9094432|issn=0033-5533|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w20331.pdf}}</ref> Other research found that China's entry to the [[World Trade Organization|WTO]] benefited US consumers, as the price of Chinese goods were substantially reduced.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://voxeu.org/article/china-s-wto-entry-benefits-us-consumers|title=China's WTO entry benefits US consumers|last1=Amiti|first1=Mary|last2=Dai|first2=Mi|date=28 June 2017|website=VoxEU.org|access-date=28 June 2017|last3=Feenstra|first3=Robert|last4=Romalis|first4=John}}</ref> Harvard economist [[Dani Rodrik]] argues that while globalization and free trade does contribute to social problems, "a serious retreat into protectionism would hurt the many groups that benefit from trade and would result in the same kind of social conflicts that globalization itself generates. We have to recognize that erecting trade barriers will help in only a limited set of circumstances and that trade policy will rarely be the best response to the problems [of globalization]".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://piie.com/publications/chapters_preview/57/1iie2415.pdf|title=Has Globalization Gone Too Far?|last=Rodrik|first=Dani|publisher=Institute for International Economics}}</ref>