Final answer:
Opponents of free trade zones might argue that these agreements can result in protectionist policies that benefit domestic industries to the detriment of international cooperation, and can even conflict with the WTO's broader trade agreements. Owners of uncompetitive industries may support such measures, despite the consumer benefits from international trade.
Step-by-step explanation:
Opponents of free trade zones may argue that such agreements, while ostensibly promoting economic cooperation and free trade, can result in efforts to protect domestic industries, leading to limitations on trade with countries outside the agreement. This protectionist bent can stem from the desire of nations to shield their own economic interests, particularly in industries where they lack a comparative advantage. Additionally, regional free trade agreements could potentially contradict larger, global trade arrangements like those overseen by the World Trade Organization (WTO), causing conflict and undermining the broader goals of free trade.
Owners of factors of production within industries that are not competitive internationally may prefer protectionist measures to safeguard against competition from firms with better or cheaper products. Such protectionist measures can lead to losses in business profits, and job losses for workers. Conversely, consumers generally benefit from the wider selection and lower prices that free trade brings, implying that the gains from trade could outweigh the losses.