Fear of Flying: Aviation Protectionism and Global Growth
Forty percent of the world's trade now travels by air, yet aviation is still caught in a postwar web of bilateral agreements. A new global aviation regime is the solution.
Gerald L. Baliles is an attorney and former Governor of Virginia. He was appointed by President Clinton to chair the National Airline Commission, which completed its report in August 1993. Greg Principato and Rosalind K. Ellingsworth, the commission's Executive Director and Staff Director, contributed to this article.
Reduction of trade barriers has led to global economic growth, but tight restrictions and regulations on how people and goods reach markets still hamper the expansion of international commerce. Nowhere are the obstacles greater than in the skies above. Forty percent of the world's trade, by value, now travels by air. Forty percent of those crossing national borders arrive by air, with the percentage much higher in advanced growth regions. International travel accounts for half of all revenue passenger miles. Over the next decade, most estimates suggest, the travel industry will double its already sizable contribution to worldwide economic growth.
With the increasing importance of efficiently and economically transporting people and goods by air, an overarching international regime to govern air transportation -- akin to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its role in trade in goods and services -- could bring enormous benefits. But no such regime exists. In fact, not a single international flight may take off or land without a bilateral agreement between the countries in question. This is true even if all the air carriers and airports involved are owned by private concerns. Bilateral aviation agreements often stipulate the number of flights, the routes, and the number of airlines that may serve specific markets. Worldwide, there are more than 1,200 such agreements in force today.
While the world is moving away from managed and protected trade in most goods and services, the air transportation by which people and products reach destinations and markets is still heavily regulated and often fiercely protected. This antiquated and costly state of affairs dates back to the United States' failure at the end of World War II to achieve the goal of open skies as part of a liberal postwar order. Other governments opposed the concept because the United States was then the only country capable of mounting a global air transportation effort. Resistance to U.S. domination of the airways was reinforced by the sense of countries still at war that control of the skies was a critical security issue.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Not everyone is a winner in the global economy. Unemployment is high in Europe and inequality is rising in the United States as growth proves disappointing and foreign competition drives wages down. While economists debate causes and officials fret over inflation, protectionism threatens world trade. Postwar policymakers, learning from the upheaval of the 1930s, struck a deal with workers. Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks would foster global commerce, and the International Monetary Fund and domestic public policy would make sure that everyone gained. Stagflation in the 1970s undermined this social contract. Policymakers today must abandon their fiscal stringency, or more unpleasant leaders may rise.
Bringing the newly market-oriented countries of Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe into the global economy would harness the productive capacity of some three billion people. But increased resistance to free trade has cut the supply of political tolerance for another global trade round anytime soon. An expansion of regional trading areas such as the European Union and NAFTA promises the greatest progress, but international e»orts must keep regional blocs from becoming protectionist and ensure they are compatible with the global trade regime.
The logic of free trade does not apply to currency convertibility, as the Asian currency crisis should have made clear.
