This is a very relevant question for New Zealand. Our textile, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry has been reduced from 40,000 to 20,000 workers over a decade, largely as a result of tariff cuts. Many of the remainder are at risk of being sacrificed to a FTA currently being negotiated with Hong Kong. This is jobs issue, but more than that: most of those employed are women, Maori and Pacific Islanders, and people in small provincial towns, for whom there is little hope of other employment (leave alone relatively skilled employment) if/when the TCF manufacturers close down.
On the other hand the unions representing those workers - among them one the best organising unions in the country - recognise the significance of TCF to developing countries, and maintain strong relationships with representatives of workers in many of those countries. So their advocacy of continued tariff protection is not one-eyed. (Incidentally, TCF tariffs are for practical purposes about the only remaining tariffs New Zealand has.) What would a progressive strategy be? While, as Bill Lear suggests, general economic policies to reclaim full employment (which New Zealand had until the mid-70's) are of course the basis for any sensible social policy, isn't that begging the question? For example, I suggest that a full employment policy must include (at least for New Zealand) some mechanism to ensure current account balance, such as by use of tariffs, quotas and foreign investment controls. Otherwise the deficit is managed by means that translate into reducing wages or employment. But to take particular industries, such as the TCF industry, even a full employment policy won't assure those workers of jobs of the right kind in the right places. Don't we need an active industrial development strategy that addresses both such particulars as well as general development needs - even in "developed" economies? Bill Michael Perelman wrote: > > Part of the question seems to be how do you organize in the absence of > international solidarity? In short, how do you make Cambodian wages move > up instead of US wages moving down? Wouldn't the center of gravity of a > competitive international wage be close to China? > > The intellectually easy, but practically hard strategy -- within the > bounds of capitalism -- would be to find ways to create high wage jobs in > the US, but in doing that say by building high tech textile equipment > would still destroy jobs in the 3rd world. > > Without getting into rancorous exchanges, what would a progressive > strategy be. Of course, socialism would be desirable, but .... > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
