posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alexist at 12:54am on 11/04/2005
alexist at 12:54am on 11/04/2005I'm annoyed by the Christian Aid/Make Poverty History ads running in the papers, particularly the ones that criticize free trade and say countries should be free to protect their farmers and industries. (I do recognize that the ad is a massive simplification, and that part of the first point is addressed in the materials on the Trade Justice website, but this simplification is what's going to be read by many people, so I'll criticize it anyway.)
1) Free trade isn't operating here, only the illusion of free trade, because only one side has really opened up. The reason poor countries get flooded by cheap imports is because they stop subsidizing their farmers, but rich countries don't, and dump the resulting surpluses.
2) Protecting farmers would result in higher prices, and higher wages for farmers. But this would not necessarily benefit the poor. It would benefit those farmers who had enough to sell. It would not benefit subsistence farmers (the poorest) or the urban poor, who would be forced to pay higher prices for staple products.
3) The idea of protecting nascent industries is a nice theory, and people point to the growing Asian economies, who did this successfully. But again, protectionism has to be weighed against its costs. It can reduce choice for consumers, and in the absence of competition, companies can get lazy--they then fail when forced to open up.
4) (A criticism of the anti-globalization movement generally, rather than this specific ad): The backlash against the WTO, free trade, and the West has meant that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Issues are becoming dangerously simplified. Take the water privatization in Bolivia that's being held up as an example of the evils of corporatism. The company (French, I think) that operated the system was successful at expanding the provision of water, and did so much better than the previous municipal utility. But it did so at a cost, and this cost was resisted. So now the company is pulling out. A victory against corporate giants... and a loss for the people of the city. The company needed money to invest in the system. The Bolivian government can't afford to subsidize water connections. So you get a stalemate. But in the anti-globalization media, all you see is how the French company was horrible and charged so much money for something that should be a right. Well, water may be a right, but it costs money to pipe it into your house.
Because groups have been demonized, people are ignoring the good advice that's given. Good governance, for example, is crucial... but talking about it sounds like George W Bush's democracy crusade. And, of course, we're all afraid of sounding like racists, so we don't want to criticize, especially in Africa. Unfortunately, we're doing Africans no good by staying silent. We tut-tut at oil companies in the Niger Delta, but how often do we criticize the Nigerian government for failing to enforce any sort of environmental laws or taking all the oil revenue without reinvesting it in the Delta? Shell ran roughshod over the Delta, and the Nigerian government let them. When Ken Saro-Wiwa stood up, it was the Nigerian government that executed him. And it's not just that. It's security of tenancy and the ability to borrow against your land. It's freedom from corruption. It's money going to education and not to a tiny elite.
When will groups like Christian Aid run a campaign against the CAP, or US cotton subsidies? The CAP is insane, and I'm not sure how many Europeans even realize what a monster it's become, how much it costs us, or whom it really benefits.
I also wonder, do rich Westerners ever think about our part, or social consequences here? What's the real cost of £3 Tesco jeans? When we demand non-GM soya, do we think about the Brazilian rain forest that's being cleared to grow it?
1) Free trade isn't operating here, only the illusion of free trade, because only one side has really opened up. The reason poor countries get flooded by cheap imports is because they stop subsidizing their farmers, but rich countries don't, and dump the resulting surpluses.
2) Protecting farmers would result in higher prices, and higher wages for farmers. But this would not necessarily benefit the poor. It would benefit those farmers who had enough to sell. It would not benefit subsistence farmers (the poorest) or the urban poor, who would be forced to pay higher prices for staple products.
3) The idea of protecting nascent industries is a nice theory, and people point to the growing Asian economies, who did this successfully. But again, protectionism has to be weighed against its costs. It can reduce choice for consumers, and in the absence of competition, companies can get lazy--they then fail when forced to open up.
4) (A criticism of the anti-globalization movement generally, rather than this specific ad): The backlash against the WTO, free trade, and the West has meant that the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Issues are becoming dangerously simplified. Take the water privatization in Bolivia that's being held up as an example of the evils of corporatism. The company (French, I think) that operated the system was successful at expanding the provision of water, and did so much better than the previous municipal utility. But it did so at a cost, and this cost was resisted. So now the company is pulling out. A victory against corporate giants... and a loss for the people of the city. The company needed money to invest in the system. The Bolivian government can't afford to subsidize water connections. So you get a stalemate. But in the anti-globalization media, all you see is how the French company was horrible and charged so much money for something that should be a right. Well, water may be a right, but it costs money to pipe it into your house.
Because groups have been demonized, people are ignoring the good advice that's given. Good governance, for example, is crucial... but talking about it sounds like George W Bush's democracy crusade. And, of course, we're all afraid of sounding like racists, so we don't want to criticize, especially in Africa. Unfortunately, we're doing Africans no good by staying silent. We tut-tut at oil companies in the Niger Delta, but how often do we criticize the Nigerian government for failing to enforce any sort of environmental laws or taking all the oil revenue without reinvesting it in the Delta? Shell ran roughshod over the Delta, and the Nigerian government let them. When Ken Saro-Wiwa stood up, it was the Nigerian government that executed him. And it's not just that. It's security of tenancy and the ability to borrow against your land. It's freedom from corruption. It's money going to education and not to a tiny elite.
When will groups like Christian Aid run a campaign against the CAP, or US cotton subsidies? The CAP is insane, and I'm not sure how many Europeans even realize what a monster it's become, how much it costs us, or whom it really benefits.
I also wonder, do rich Westerners ever think about our part, or social consequences here? What's the real cost of £3 Tesco jeans? When we demand non-GM soya, do we think about the Brazilian rain forest that's being cleared to grow it?
There are no comments on this entry. (Reply.)
crushed