The main problems with the Finlayson piece are logical, not statistical. 1. He conflates arguments about the specific effects of trade or investment pacts on wages and environment with a much more general, and I think unsupportable, argument that trade and investment *in general* have these bad effects. 2. He confuses correlation with causation. For example, it's unsurprising that wealthy countries attract large volumes of foreign investment into things like telecommunications and retailing. But the causation runs mainly from high wages to investment in those cases, not the other way around. The dollar levels of direct foreigh investment associated with sweatshops are very small since these things are so cheap to set up, and will be swamped in aggregate figures. Finlayson's causation arguments also shift back and forth between absolute levels and changes. 3. Toward the end Finlayson seems to realize that much of his argument boils down to saying that wealthy economies are wealthy economies. So he falls back on: > Since trade is a > principal means by which countries can become richer with no evidence offered, not even a "study." What is meant by "means"? The proposition that liberal trade policies promote growth is quite difficult to prove. 4. It would be interesting to get full references to the various "studies" to see what they really say. Especially the OECD one, which is not characterized clearly (higher than what?). Best, Colin
