Robert MacDiarmid wrote:
> can anyone with a better grasp of stats than I have help with a rebuttal to
> this drivel?
> First, countries deeply engaged in international commerce should have lower
> wages and impose less demanding societal obligations on businesses than
> countries that are less involved with the global economy.
Not necessarily. What tends to happen is that the traditional sources of
employment dry up, leaving lots of unemployment. Those that do get jobs in the
export sector get higher money wages than the people in the traditional sector,
but their costs are higher because they no longer have access to the produce of
the land.
> Second,
> multinational corporations should be flocking to establish operations in
> low-wage jurisdictions with feeble or non-existent standards.
>
Not necessarily, again. Multinational corporations are not major employers
worldwide. Frequently they contract out to subcontractors that are better
suited to abusing workers in those regions.
>
> Neither of these predictions is borne out by the data on trade flows,
> foreign investment activity or the patterns of labour and environmental
> standards found in different countries.
>
> To begin with, there is no real evidence that openness to trade reduces
> workers' incomes or labour standards. A comprehensive study by the
> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that
> developing countries that lowered trade barriers and stepped up their
> participation in global markets tended to have higher labour standards, less
> workplace discrimination, stronger trade unions and better wages.
>
> What about the location decisions of multinational corporations? Here, too,
> the data provide little support for the claims advanced by foes of
> globalization. First, the vast majority -- 70 per cent or more -- of
> worldwide foreign direct investment takes place not in poor countries with
> low wages and standards, but in higher-wage economies such as the United
> States, Britain and Canada. Second, even in the case of developing nations,
> a sizable part of this investment activity is concentrated in relatively
> affluent Third World regions, such as Chile, Taiwan and Singapore. Indeed,
> the poorest countries often receive little or no outside investment, even
> with extremely low wages and non-existent standards -- most of Africa being
> a case in point.
>
> The impact of trade on the environment has recently begun to figure in
> policy discussions. Many green lobbyists argue that by encouraging countries
> to produce for external markets, trade liberalization leads to a decline in
> environmental quality. A related worry is that developing countries are
> becoming "pollution havens," accelerating the degradation of their
> environments.
>
> A recent study by Brian Copeland and Werner Antweiler of the University of
> British Columbia and University of Wisconsin economist Scott Taylor disputes
> this view. They find that international trade results in only minor changes
> in a country's pollution concentrations. After accounting for the rise in
> income per person and the changes in the composition of output associated
> with the growth of trade, they conclude that freer trade is actually good
> for the environment. This accords with the common sense observation that
> rich countries invariably boast cleaner environments. Since trade is a
> principal means by which countries can become richer, it follows that
> liberal trade policies should pave the way for higher environmental
> standards.
>
> There is strong evidence that openness to outside investment and foreign
> trade leads to higher per capita incomes, and over time, to the adoption of
> more stringent environmental and labour standards. Developing countries
> hoping to improve their economic and social circumstances would therefore be
> well advised to ignore the advice offered by today's hordes of
> anti-globalization activists.
> Jock Finlayson is the vice-president of policy at the Business Council of
> British Columbia.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: winmail.dat
> winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef
> Encoding: base64
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
