Free trade is seen as utilitarian. Has not your peacemaking function so often been relegated to the second plan?
Yes , government policies or political policies may differ but buiseness relationship are different and don't see any barriers only opportunities
The existing barrier in most cases is the reason for trade between nations.
In the course of human events, businesses have helped bring people together.
However, nations (and their barriers) still exist today.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Minadeo & readers,
Trade can certainly overcome some barrier between countries. It creates economic advantages for the businesses involved in trade across borders.
This is what happens early on in trade expansion.
In the longer run, however, this can also set up conflicts between or among countries. Expansion of foreign trade benefits some elements of the domestic economy in contrast to others. In general terms, it is usually a matter of conflicts of interest between commerce and finance on the one side and domestic manufacturing (or agriculture) on the other. Again, the domestic seacoasts tend to benefit while the interior regions lag behind.
Large expansions of international trade tend to create "cosmopolitan," international elites which may have little interest in contrary elements of the domestic economy and society--and this tends to set up an internal, domestic contests for political power. The larger context for the evaluation of trade expansion, or further trade expansion, is not the narrowly economic, but instead a matter of political economy.
H.G. Callaway
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Murthy & readers,
Interesting reply. But notice that technological transfer is being resisted on grounds of national interest.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
No , not really , technical and knowledge transfer can do it ...
Dear Prof. @H.G. Callaway. I find your ideas very interesting about the groups in a country that benefit most from trade. This debate needs to be further developed.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Minadeo & readers,
Thanks for your comment.
One of my arguments has been that if investors are going to put large amounts of money into a foreign country, then they will want to know they they will be in a position to get it back--plus returns on the investment. In consequence, they will want to know and trust the people who are in a position to exercise control over the matter. This tends to set up direct relationships between "elites" of each side, backed, in all probability by big finance. International commerce and finance benefit, but without regard to the interests of those in the domestic economy who produce what stands to be replaced by imports.
I think it is pretty well known that in countries around the world, there has been a very considerable growth in domestic inequalities --say, the 1% as against the others. In the U.S., ordinary working people have been hardest hit by the comparative decline of domestic manufacturing --their jobs have often been exported. Domestic wages have not stood up. This has tended to erode the American middle class and the lower middle class in particular. This is a destabilizing effect. I think that the political consequences are fairly well known.
They have been sufficiently strong to take the wind out of globalization-- understood as ever increasing international trade. One might also consider Brexit in these terms.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Dear Prof. @H.G. Callaway. I find your ideas very interesting about the groups in a country that benefit most from trade. This debate needs to be further developed.
Dear Prof. @H.G. Callaway. It seems that if trade only favors a group, the internal rules of the country are not fair.
Commerce often serves as a check on the urges of the right wing nationalists to restrict immigration, emigration and contact between nations; as well as the left wing urges to redistribute wealth and reward from the productive to the idle.
There is a reason why the common phrase links "peace and prosperity" together. It is almost always in the interest of the productive class to limit conflict between individuals at home and nations abroad.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Fritz & readers,
It may be in the long-term interest of productive people to "limit conflict between individuals at home and nations abroad." But notice that a "quick buck" can often be made in the short term --regardless of wider consequences --by ignoring broader interests, say, those of people working in domestic manufacturing.
Although the expansion of international trade can proceed very quickly, based on the economic incentives available to those directly involved, needed political adjustments are often a slow, laborious and discursive process which is faced by the likely opposition of elite international interests and their domestic friends. The international combinations often escape domestic regulation --which was an important element in the crash of 2008. The domestic interest in international trade is strengthened by its quick success and enrichment, and strengthened all the more to the extent that broader interests are ignored or denigrated. Do you recall the phrase "fly-over America"?
All of this can set up intensive domestic political conflicts, and since resolution of the domestic conflicts affects intensive foreign interests, the problems can easily overflow into international tensions and conflicts. (Think, e.g., "Ukraine," "South China Sea," "Middle east oil.")
No doubt, expansion of international trade promotes good international relations, early on. The longer run presents a distinctive question. The advocates of "free trade" tend to focus on the early developments. No doubt, there are times when expansion of trade is overall quite positive; but there are also times when it is important to be more cautious on political grounds. That's when we start hearing about "fair trade," "dumping," "the balance of trade," and the need of reciprocity,
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
There is a reason why the common phrase links "peace and prosperity" together. It is almost always in the interest of the productive class to limit conflict between individuals at home and nations abroad.
Dear Colleagues. Interesting the latest ideas from @Stephen Martin Fritz and @H.G. Callaway. With regard to immigration, I have two publications, I will put the links below; It's a pity they're in Portuguese. The view on the 2008 crisis is interesting: internal problems with the lack of regulation of a country's mortgages have caused serious effects worldwide.
Links:
Conference Paper Importância da Imigração na Formação do Brasil e o Desafio d...
Chapter A Imigração no Brasil comparada à dos EUA e do Canadá: Impor...
Dear Colleagues. The widening inequality is relative: there are falling prices, just see record sales of international air travel and automobiles. I dare say that the average standard of living is getting better - excluding countries that are unfortunately at war. The most intense competition among companies is due to a number of factors, with the digital revolution being the predominant one. This leads to a decrease in the workforce - which does not only derive from globalization alone.
Trade has done more to create and spread civilisation than perhaps any other factor. In ancient Mesopotamia the earliest cities spread their version of life in order to spread the idea of trading and of industrial production. Writing was invented to enable successful transactions. Many believe the Mesopotamians helped develop Egypt to that end.
Trade spreads ideas, culture and art. The least utilitarian factor in history, and the most important.
Nevertheless, it takes time to build-up the contracts and goodwill and mutual need that trade brings.
What is "civilization" who is civilized and who is not is largely measured by production and trade and their long term effects on society.
The richer the culture (the more it produces and trades in volume and in years) the more its people will eventually fund the arts, opulence, ornamentation, diversity, higher education, and scientific research.
Are cultures equally "civilized?"
The British send researchers in planes into Borneo to document the practices of the aboriginal people.
The aborigines of Borneo do not send their medicine men in canoes to Britain to investigate British society.
But in our liberal (Mind 1 in The Theory of Dual Morality) age there is a push to presume all cultures are "equal" just as we try to presume all individuals are "equal."
Talk is cheap and it is easy to claim to believe such things while ruminating in the comfort of our air conditioned high-rises. But few people choose to emigrate from Europe to SubSaharan Africa or Borneo or the Amazon Regions in order to live a better life.
Roberto - Minadeo
Roberto
Why do you see the need to overcome borders(if we define these as the barriers between nations)?
As president Trump teaches us, Borders are good. The globalist melting pot defined by Marx and largely implemented in the 20th century has led to the large scale destruction of communities nd the cultures that defined them.
We see large scale migration as people become dissatisfied with their lifestyle only to cause contention in the receiving cultures as they see their cultures being weakened and denigrated by the incomers.
These are not trivial issues as the globalist community would have us believe.
Cross border trade between dissimilar communities has led to peace for thousands of years. Breaking down the 'barriers' as you see them leads to cultural dissolution and permanent empowerment of specific elites. This is especially true in the southern nations of Europe.
Ian
Hi @Ian Proffitt. Thank you for your participation. The problems listed by you are real. There are numerous other problems. In my view, trade is a way for people and countries to relate. Think of a purchase of yours: there is a need to be satisfied and you have a personal deficit because of it; when you buy something and satisfy that need, your situation improves a lot. The same is true of countries. Let us think of the immense value of spices for Europe in the Middle Ages. It was the basis of the development of the navigations that led the Europeans to America, to obtain new routes to obtain the spices in the Indies and to lower their cost. I am highlighting this intrinsic value of trade.
We agree on this important value of trade. Partial views focused on immediate political interests hinder the achievement of the civilizing task of commerce - as so many other researchers have pointed out above.
Hi, @Chun Liu. I agree that the use of political power can lead to a decline in commercial practices. Ultimately, a war is any exacerbation of this political vision.
Stephen, I do not necessarily disagree with you but as Uruk, for example, is regarded as the first true urban culture-that is cities-than civilisation is the correct word to use. I meant no moral values actually.
Stanley Wilkin I understand that "civilization" and the concept of "being civilized" has fallen out of favor. But I think the term still has value. It indicates a familiarity with the most broad ideas and technologies of your era. It suggests a toleration for assorted behaviors that allow for others to be heard and to participate in civil discussions, and it suggests an intolerance for moral extremists who promote violence or self-righteousness.
The creation of cities is a byproduct of extensive production and trade.
Looking back on the "great civilizations" of the past, how are they identified?
They are labeled in this way because they stand apart from what others were doing at the time by how well their citizens were living, and how dispersed the science, art, medicine, architecture and literature was among their people.
So we ask: "Are individuals civilized, or are cultures?"
And I think the answer is "both."
The semi-literate violent and cruel miscreant that exists in all societies are individually "uncivilized" as they express behavior that is not conducive to cooperation, education, and the appreciation of art and literature. They are unfamiliar with the best things their own culture has produced.
In poor and struggling societies where everyone barely scratches out a living forces its members to exist in almost that same low state.
But even among the poorest and most technologically primitive people there are those recognized for their nobility and wisdom.
Nazi Germany is sometimes described as the result of "uncivilized hooligans" taking control of an otherwise relatively "civilized" culture. The result was a decline in those things we associate with what is best in humanity.
Today we debate the excess that occur around us all the time. Wealth has allowed an explosion of drug addictions, porn sites, and universities that are stifling discussion and which seem to be intolerant of diverse ideas.
So we ponder: Can excess wealth lead to a decline in "civilization?"
Hi, @Stephen Martin Fritz and Edgard Monforte Merlo
It's really great to see someone that says: " The creation of cities is a byproduct of extensive production and trade". The concern about excess of wealth is also significant.
Hi, Roberto Minadeo
In fact trade plays one important role in the development. We can remember the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism and the erosion of the 1st organization model.
I always say the liberalism will generate advantages to all the countries if there is no barriers and the opportunities to develop new products are the same. So we must recognize the importance of trade and the problems associated with the relationship between countries (including political and technological).
The globalization movement was not the 1st, in ancient times China and Portugal obtained great advances with commerce, probably at that time the advance was more focused just to obtain relative gains with trade.
This phenomenon is different today the intensity of globalization and the political barriers could generate another movement in the opposite direction. In some sense what we see actually in USA with Trump, and other countries is the emergence of a new movement based in a strong defense of the national industry against the advance of commerce. There is another point to think about today that is the possibilities to manipule exchange rates and their effects on commerce and internal product. Probably we don't see any movement so strong as occurred today with China.
China is a good example, they advance with their production with commerce and the global production and today we can China as one great economy.
So commerce is important, we need the commerce to advance but as we can see by these points, there are a bigger scenario to consider together to get advances in this question.
Hi, Edgard Monforte Merlo
Great words: " China and Portugal obtained great advances with commerce, probably at that time the advance was more focused just to obtain relative gains with trade. "
Portugal developed its commerce to gain access to spices in the far east, and once there, and once having defeated minor Muslim states in the region, created colonies in order to hold onto the trade. The main purpose, or one of them, was to bypass the powerful Muslim polities. The other route to the Far East was of course the West's discovery of the Americas.
Why did the West discover the Americas and China and the great Muslim states did not? The latter held onto the power and trade of the Old World, Europe did not. Spices created wealth and control of its trade created power.
Hi, Stanley Wilkin
I see much agreement between our ideas: Portugal was a tiny nation, compared to the European powers. He performed miracles with his few resources. We see this in Brazil: a country three times larger than originally foreseen in the Treaty of Tordesillas and unified in the language. Portugal did much more trade than war and delegated power in the colonies created. Brazil became the seat of the Portuguese empire itself when threatened by the Napoleonic wars.
truly trade has eliminated many barriers among the countries. Also education and tourism has contributed towards this .
Roberto, there are different kinds of strategies involved with the trade and power relationship and the way these create relationships between different peoples.
Stanley Wilkin
I fully agree. I see that the defense of national interests can not overcome the possible gains that trade brings to all nations. Moreover, the defense of national interests is not identified with the artificial creation of conflicts.
Hi, Muhammad Faraz Mubarak Thank you for your participation. I see tourism as essential to commerce, it is a strong creator of jobs and wealth.
Hi, C. Lewis Kausel
Great ideas: " Populations that collaborate and exchange, are certainly better off than those that don’t, and mutually enrich their development (...)". When speaking in commerce, one tends to focus only on the short term, and classifications like liberalism - applied by ideological motivations. This is a reductionism, as his idea clearly illustrates.
Hi, Sajda Taha Mahmood
I totally agree, as a large group of colleagues commented above.
Yes, the development of international trade, and especially the activating factors, including for example the growing comparative advantage between countries can motivate to overcome various types of barriers dividing different countries. The development of international trade with the simultaneous economic growth of many countries, increasing profitability and living standards of citizens reduces the risk of wars between countries. In parallel with the development of international trade, capital exchange, flows of factors of production, development of tourism, increase of political cooperation, development of international corporations, mergers of previously operating locally, nationally and transforming into internationally operating enterprises, etc. may develop. All these processes can be with each other correlated to some extent.
Hi, Dariusz Prokopowicz
To me, your answer reflects how I view this question.
Several researchers have referred to the theme in a similar way.
Certainly trade can overcome the barriers separating nations because it is a tool for communication and acquaintance among human societies
I'm not sure I understand the question.
What are the barriers between the nations that are being referred to?
There are always tensions between immigrating peoples from different cultures, but trade is almost always welcome until it is seen as hurting domestic production, then barriers or tariffs are sought.
If the world were one big free trade zone few would know or care where the products they used were made. And people would move as freely between nations to seek employment as the goods that were bought and sold.
But of course, that is a sort of libertarian utopia.
International trade may not overcome fully the existing barriers which exist among nations but it certainly can help. There is plenty of evidence about the social and economic development of nations derived from trade from antiquity until very recent times. Consider, for example, the great changes undergone by the People's Republic of China since their economy was opened to international trade and the backwardness of some nations who have decided to live in autarchy. Transformations may be limited, but overall the gains are more than the losses.
Hi, Stephen Martin Fritz
In speaking about the barriers that separate nations, I refer to those created by a vision that "our nation is the best and needs no other." I imagine that language and distance barriers are gradually being overcome by technology.
I think trade helps unite people. I think of items that a country does not have and that it needs to obtain from other nations, generating beneficial connections in ever larger sectors of the nations involved.
I also think trade helps unite people, however we cannot generalise.
Free trade can create environmental and/or labour pressure, having opposite effects of our ethical goals!
I think people underestimate the survival value in seeing oneself as part of a group that is distinct from "and more important than" other groups.
Because we live in very rich and prosperous times we want to imagine that we all should feel that it is right that we see ourselves as one big family of man.
And when we do this, racism, nationalism, and sexism will be eliminated, religions may need to be eliminated, as well as any other cultural device that says "I am this" and "you are that."
All this is possible in our current world of fantastic opulence.
But times have not always been so opulent.
Prior to the development of agriculture and the industrial revolution if your group occupied this prime hunting ground my group could not hunt there.
There was not enough game for both and no amount of trading and sharing could allow both groups to survive.
Either your group died, my group died, or half of each died.
Something like that was closer to how humans lived for most of pre-history.
So our "tribal" emotions and tribal "morality" evolved to guide us in those circumstances.
Competition between tribes, like competition between individuals is a survival mechanism that helped human beings.
Strongly identifying with ones tribe worked!
Today, nationalism might seem out of style. And we seem to be going back and forth unable to decide if there are no sexes and everyone is exactly the same or if there are innumerable sexes and we can't keep track of them all but they're all wonderful.
So, though world-wide trade certainly increase toleration for those who are different from us. We need to recognize that every new born baby is ready to grow up with prejudice, ready to be a nationalist, ready to be an anti-Semite, or social leveler, anti-black or anti-white, or anti-whatever his group is --- ready to hang the rich and steal their property as a matter of self-justified right.
These are part of the package of human instincts we are all born with and which have helped us survive the social world of Homo sapiens for 100,000 years. -- instincts that learning and rationalism tempers and directs but never completely subdues.
Trade can help overcome the barriers that separate nations, but those barriers are initially established in our genetics..
Hi, Roberto Molteni
I also think that exaggeration should be avoided. The biggest role of the state is to regulate.
Hi, Stephen Martin Fritz
Great answer.
Very important this panoramic historical vision that you presented.
Hi, Ammad Hassan Khan
I understand that it often seems that trade does not help, and that it only represents each one seeking his profit. The broader picture can be illustrative and show the opposite: we see China committed to producing billions of masks to help meet the needs of the world. I doubt that this gesture is what just "maximizes your wealth". In other words, trade can be seen as an important exchange between nations, a gesture of goodwill.
Trade is a very powerful positive tool, if we also include developing countries.
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Minadeo & readers,
It is a problem for the "free trade" notion that there is historically a more or less regular cycle in the predominance of related policy positions. Free trade first sounds like a very good idea, say, based on Ricardo and the idea that various countries and locations enjoy a "comparative advantage" in production. But later in the cycle, people arrive at the ideal of "fair trade," and what is implicit in this ideal is that "free trade" tends to favor, not the producer with a purely economic "comparative advantage," but instead those trading on the basis of their positions of political power and the corresponding ability to impose more favorable trading relations and agreements. When all else fails then people revert to "protection" of domestic producers and a rejection of the ideal of "free trade."
For example, there were certainly advocates of free (or freer, expanded) trade in the early U.S. republic. But this sort of practice was later perceived as a kind of political acquiescence in the mercantilist practices of the British empire. Subsequently, an attempt was made to balance things out politically, by offering the same trading advantages to France that had been granted to Great Britain in the Jay Treaty. But eventually, the U.S. retreated behind high protective tariffs on imports --until the end of the 19th century. The mass industrialization of the U.S. in the late 19th century, was substantially accomplished behind high protective tariffs. When efforts were made to lower these tariffs in the early 20th century, this was done on the basis of reciprocal agreements and the "most favored nation" idea. But in general terms, this was regarded as only possible on the basis of enhanced U.S. power in world affairs, the building of a large, modern navy, "the Great White fleet" --and the brief war with Spain in 1898.
While I would not want to claim that world conditions are exactly the same now, it does seem worth mentioning that China has been building up a new, modern navy and making efforts to occupy strategic locations in the South China Sea --where a large proportion of its imports must pass through. In addition, of course, freedom of trade has traditionally depended on a large military power capable of defending freedom of navigation --one reason why the Royal navy traditionally "ruled the waves." Doubts about the viability of "free" or expanded world trade have always had some linkage to the relations of world powers; and insofar as this is true, one can understand the inclination of policy decisions and debates to shift away from the ideal of free trade. With the expansion of trade, the specific interests of various world powers eventually come into some degree of conflict. This includes conflicts arising from the problems of "over expansion" of military forces.
A natural response is to cool things down by giving a rest from continued expansion of trade--this is typically articulated as an emphasis on "fair trade," where particular trading nations are not forced into acceptance of serious disadvantages.
H.G. Callaway
Hi, H.G. Callaway
First of all, thanks for the contribution. I agree with the idea that "free trade" can harm weaker countries. They need to create mechanisms to strengthen their industry and their service providers.
Hi, H.G. Callaway
Regarding military considerations, I fully agree: there is a need for investments to guarantee the defense itself.
Hi, H.G. Callaway and all,
The main reflection I want to create is that trade strengthens good relations between peoples, who seek to supply their needs in other countries. Just think about vaccines now: few countries will supply the world. This will generate relationships between health authorities and manufacturers, etc. In my view, this healthy by-product of international trade is a source of peace between peoples.
Trade can create dependencies that can be used to exert pressure in other areas. Witness China's recent bullying and extortionist tactics against Australia.
Hi, Karl Pfeifer
Excellent contribution. I agree that any power, such as commercial, can be used to gain illegitimate advantages, to apply pressure, etc. The question: can countries live in isolation? Diplomacy is the art of solving International Relations problems.
Hi, Sule Akkoyunlu
Great insight. Difficult times and persecutions lead to migrations. Brazil for decades welcomed people from Europe and Asia with open arms, and benefited from it, while providing space for new homes to those who arrived.
Dear Professor Karl Pfeifer,
The Chinese example with respect to Australia is notorious and so is the use of trade-related issues to pursue political goals by the Trump Administration. It's not difficult to find the negative side of human actions whose positive effects far outweigh the negative ones. How would have civilization evolved without international trade?
Hi, Carlos Rodríguez-Monroy
Thanks for your answer.
I agree with your words, when some actions of Trump Administration are compared with some aspects of China's actions.
International trade is a key element of international economic cooperation. Therefore, if economically cooperating countries benefit from specific cooperation, including international trade, it can be an important factor in reducing barriers between nations.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Prokopowicz & readers,
If trade and even expanded trade is sometimes good, it does not follow from that, of course that more trade is always better. Sometimes we need to reduce barriers between countries; and sometime we do better to keep them in place.
H.G. Callaway
Hi, Dariusz Prokopowicz
I agree, trade is a huge factor to reduce barriers between nations.
Hi, H.G. Callaway
I see that we are thinking in a similar way: for me, if there is more trade between countries, the barriers in general have been reduced.
The internal control of other countries is fundamental to trade and has been for thousands of years.
The early Sumerians employed trade to create dependence on their products and societies in Anatolia and Near East similar to their own in order to expand their wealth. Hasn't the USA done the same? China seems intent on controlling internal industries and following in the path of the above.
Might be worth noting that the USA in the 1940s and 50s did the same as China in order to accumulate greater wealth and power. The USA nobbled its allies, France and Britain, also potential rivals, through the requirements of Lend Lease and (correctly) attempts to disable their empires while (less correctly) building up their own economic one.
Hi, Md. Al-Mamun
I see your point in a more big context: if I sell something to you, you're my costumer. It's basic Marketing: client is always right.
The Bretton Woods agreement (coercion by US) effectively used trade (rather the huge market of the US) to form alliances to oppose USSR. The collapse of the USSR was also a testament of the effectiveness of trade as a weapon. But another lesson, was that the cost of protecting trade (the US military and especially the Navy) must be paid. The British attempt at empire had the British military protecting international trade, but the client states eventually refused to pay for the trade protection costs - The British Empire collapsed. So, too it seems the US empire is collapsing as there is now no need for Bretton Woods. The US voter has been rewarding politicians who withdraw from paying the cost of the protection. In the end, I suppose the US debt (paying for the past trade protection) will be repudiated. Without the protection, international trade and globalization will cease. But a new scheme or world order is needed to continue globalization to address the cost issue.
Hi, John Hodge
I fully agree that trade barriers are used far beyond what would be reasonable limits
International trade can help overcome barriers among nations, although the effects can be very subtle and the results perverse. It has evolved greatly, and now we observe that the rate of growth of trade in services is considerably higher than that in goods. Despite some negative effects, we can say that the benefits outweigh the costs by far, and nations can meet demands that otherwise would remain unsatisfied. Yet, as with most human creations, international trade is far from perfect.
Hi, Carlos Rodríguez-Monroy
I totally agree that international trade isn't perfect. In the case of services, we can observe that "open banking", leaded by giants of IT, can melt the banks of little countries.
But unfortunately powerful blocks are using trade embargos as a weapon to economically weaken countries who are not in align with these powerful countries and their policies.
Hi, Kolita Weerasekera
I agree that trade embargos are totally unfair.
Hi Roberto - Minadeo . Yes sure because the trade plays an important role to make interactions between different nations .
Thanks to the evolution of technology over the last number of decades the world became a local neighborhood at the individual level. The task is to expedite the evolution of global civility and not to “overcome the barriers separating nations”, but to preserve the sovereignty and diversity of those nations. “Trade” between nations has been going on for hundreds of years and the results of such trade is in the historical record.
However, today we have a better understanding of the science of evolution, transcending domain, with the potential to advance global civility and this science is known as the Constructal paradigm. Please see the following short discussion on “The Science of Rights” via the physical constructal law, presented at the Thermodynamics 2.0 conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4
Additional background:
https://www.academia.edu/43512871/The_Science_of_Rights_an_Overview
Links covering the Constructal paradigm:
https://constructal.wordpress.com/
The barriers separating nations are geographical, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, and philosophical among others. Free trade (or trade in general) can be an efficient driver to overcome these barriers. Trade relations also offer the possibility of building trust among participating nations. Trade can be seen as a seed that can provide more plentiful fruit.
Carlos Rodríguez-Monroy
Excellent enumeration of barriers between peoples. I strongly agree with: "Free trade (or trade in general) can be an efficient driver to overcome these barriers."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity