Jonathan Swift's satire was aimed at preaching to the non-converted. This one doesn't end up that way, since it rapidly gets into leftist jargon (e.g., "core" and "periphery"). (Besides, a lot of this proposal has already come true, as with folks in Guatemala giving blood that ends up in the U.S.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:47 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:24551] Jonathan Swift returns > > > < http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/579/op10.htm > > Comparative advantages > Inspired by the Monterrey conference, M Shahid Alam* suggests > new and efficient uses for the surplus > bodies of the underdeveloped world > > > '... it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide > for them [Irish children] in such a > manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the > parish, or wanting food and raiment > for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary > contribute to the feeding, and partly to the > clothing, of many thousands.' -- Jonathan Swift, A Modest > Proposal (1729) > > The world has never shown a greater, more deeply felt > solicitude for the wretched of the earth -- > the hundreds of millions who die miserable deaths on less > than a dollar a day -- as it has in the > six months since 11 September. These concerns were showcased > at the Conference on Financing > Development underway last week in Monterrey, Mexico, where > the heads of the richest, most powerful > nations appended their signatures to a "consensus" on how to > eradicate global poverty in our > lifetime. > > It is indeed gratifying that the core countries, so soon > after the dastardly attacks of 11 > September, have recovered their sense of the great civilising > mission inaugurated by Christopher > Columbus, and are once again fully seized of the few > remaining tasks that still demand their > attention. In the first aftermath of the 11 September > attacks, it had appeared that the righteous > anger of the American public -- which never fails to produce > great consequences when it is unjustly > provoked -- would incinerate any country even remotely > connected to the hijackers. Thankfully, > President Bush was fully apprised of the need to placate this > great Moloch. Having accomplished this > task quickly and brilliantly -- by scattering Al-Qa'eda and > their Taliban hosts to the four winds -- > he has now joined his war against terrorism with a war on poverty. > > In case my reference to America's anger is misconstrued, I > wish to make it clear that I consider > this response justified in the fullest measure. This anger > was justified because of all the burdens > the United States has carried in the past, the most important > has been advancing the West's > universal project of civilising the rest of the world. We > have intervened repeatedly, by force of > arms as well as stealth, to make the world safe for > capitalism. No great power in the recorded > history of mankind has dedicated itself so selflessly -- and, > may I add, ceaselessly -- to > propagating freedom; but unlike romantics, anarchists, and > other muddle-heads, we have never pursued > these goals in reckless disregard of the native conditions > which sustain free institutions. American > presidents have never lost sight of the fundamental principle > that the lesser breeds will never be > ready for freedom until they can first embrace free markets, > free trade, and free mobility of > capital across national frontiers. > > In the pursuit of these great goals, the United States has > waged a relentless campaign since the > start of the 20th century to rid the world of its chief > scourges: in succession, these have included > fascism, communism, and a hundred insidious chauvinisms. > Having engineered the collapse of Soviet > Union in 1990, and finally established the firm foundations > on which the world could build a > millennium of prosperity, the least the US could expect from > the rest of the world was gratitude, > and a vote of thanks for establishing an epoch of > unprecedented prosperity based on irreversible > globalisation. > > So when the terrorists struck on 11 September, bringing down > the twin symbols of the world's > financial capital and the military headquarters that make the > world safe for capitalism, Americans > were understandably in deep shock. They were dismayed, > discomfited and disoriented. Those who > understand their inconsolable sorrow could scarcely blame > Americans if they responded with a sense > of outrage, or if their demand for justice occasionally > sounded like a call for vengeance. > > After this clarification, I wish to return to the subject of > the Monterrey Consensus. On my first > reading of this historic document, I was moved to tears by > the grand vision of its framers; and > every one of its 11 printed pages carries stains to prove the > depth of my gratitude. Each one of the > goals of this consensus -- "to eradicate poverty, achieve > sustained growth and promote sustainable > development as we advance to a fully inclusive and equitable > economic system" -- deserves to be > inscribed permanently in laser lights on the night sky so > that it may be read in all quarters of the > world. > > More incredibly, each one of these goals is faithfully > translated into a stunning array of policy > recommendations. Space prevents me from listing all; but each > one deserves our attention. The > Monterrey Consensus calls for "collaboration among all > stakeholders," and "national and global > economic systems based on the principles of justice, equity, > democracy, participation, transparency, > accountability, and inclusion." It urges corporations "to > take into account not only the economic > and financial but also the developmental, social, gender and > environmental implications of their > undertakings." It welcomes the "WTO's decisions to place the > needs and interests of developing > countries at the heart of the WTO Work Programme." It calls > on developed countries "to provide > duty-free and quota-free access for all LDC [least- developed > country] exports." It demands that > "immediate attention should go to strengthening and ensuring > the meaningful and full participation > of developing countries, especially the LDCs, in multilateral > negotiations." Finally, amongst many > other equally weighty recommendations, the consensus urges > "developed countries ... to make concrete > efforts toward the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP as ODA [aid] > to developing countries." > > For hours after reading the consensus I was ecstatic, > overwhelmed by visions of the new global > economy it would help to create. But being a realist, I had > to pull myself together. While the > consensus will always be remembered as a testament to the > vision of its signatories, I know that > this vision will unfold only slowly, and not because there > are forces that will obstruct the > progress of the poor countries. I have to acknowledge that > this progress, as in the past, will be > hindered by the refractory cultures -- still struggling to > cope with modernity -- that continue to > clog the wheels of progress in Africa, Asia and Latin America. > > This retreat from euphoria, however, does not lead to > pessimism. On the contrary, I rest confident > in the thought that the new wave of globalisation that began > in the 1990s is more inclusive and more > durable than any we have seen in the past. It is more durable > because it is managed by multilateral > institutions -- the IMF, the World Bank, and WTO -- rather > than a gaggle of great powers. In turn, > these institutions derive their legitimacy from the US, as > benign a hegemon as there ever existed in > the annals of human history. > > It is this global economy that has created the prospect for a > new international division of labour, > one that, I hope to demonstrate, will reverse the > marginalisation of the periphery. At this point, > the orthodox economist is likely to yawn since this is what > his theory of international trade has > always predicted. That is not a prediction that anyone would > contest lightly, since orthodox > economics always takes great care to choose assumptions which > guarantee its results. My concern at > the moment, however, is with the real world. And though this > concern is not valid in the eyes of > orthodox economists -- and rightly so, since their function > is to provide impenetrable > justifications for the world as it is -- this writer feels > that we may be allowed occasional > glimpses of the real world, especially when it is thrust upon > us violently, as it was by the > suicidal hijackers of 11 September. > > Now while the arguments favouring free trade remain > unassailable -- and I cannot emphasise this > enough -- some countries on the periphery have perversely > failed to benefit from the global economy. > There are two reasons for this, quite unrelated to any > asymmetries in the workings of the global > system. Rather, driven by irrational fears, their xenophobic > leaders have chosen to shut off their > people from energising contacts with foreign capital. But > even when free trade was thrust upon them > by European powers -- motivated only by Christian altruism -- > their response has been sluggish at > best. As Sir Arthur Lewis has so brilliantly explained, they > could derive no benefits from their > primary exports because they failed to raise their > productivity in food. > > The countries of the periphery have paid dearly for their > failures. Starting from positions of near > parity in 1800, they have been falling behind the core > countries ever since, so that in 1999 the gap > between high-income and low-income countries stood at 63 to > one. It is testimony to global > capitalism's power to generate unremitting growth -- a power > that Karl Marx glimpsed quite early > on -- that the owners of dogs and cats in the core countries > spend considerably more on their pets > than most parents in the periphery can spend on their > children. These disparities offer a sobering > measure of the opportunities for growth squandered by the periphery. > > But all is not lost for the periphery. Global capitalism does > not consign sinners to eternal > perdition: it is continuously creating new opportunities and > inviting past sinners to make a fresh > start. When the core countries first prospered in the 18th > century, this created demand for the > periphery's sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa and tobacco. Later, > when the industrial revolution got > underway, this translated into a massive demand for wheat, > cotton, jute, sisal, and vegetable oils. > Even some core countries organised to meet this demand. This > created a huge demand for workers in > the periphery; most notably, millions of underemployed > Africans found themselves permanently > employed in the plantations of the United States and the > Caribbean. Finally, as the core countries > accelerated their growth in the 1950s, they generously let go > of their most labour- intensive > industries. Those countries that embraced this opportunity > with laissez-faire policies are now the > miracle economies of East Asia. Thus, growth in the core > countries has never failed to transmit its > dynamic impulse to the periphery. > > And now a variety of developments in the core have converged > to create vast new opportunities for a > new international division of labour. First I will draw your > attention to advances in the medical > field that have made organ transplants safe, and that are > generating drugs and cosmetic products > derived from foetal tissues and body waste. This has created > growing demand for a variety of body > parts and body waste (BPWs). At present, the body parts in > greatest demand include heart valves, > livers, kidneys, corneas, skin, ova, sperm, bone marrow, and > muscle tissue. A variety of body wastes > are also in growing demand, including foetuses, brain cells, > umbilical cords, foreskins, placentas > and infected cells. As the core countries get richer, as > their incomes become more skewed, and as > their population ages, we can safely predict a sustained > growth in the global demand for BPWs. > > This growing demand for BPWs carries an enormous -- and I > would hasten to add, unprecedented -- > opportunity for growth in the poorest of the poor countries. > A simple application of the standard > theory of international trade would suggest that the > production of BPWs will occur in the poorest > countries of the periphery. The logic is quite transparent. > The production of BPWs, since these are > harvested from the bodies of workers, is a very strongly > labour-intensive activity; and since labour > is cheapest in the poorest countries, the global markets will > ensure that their production is > concentrated in the these countries. > > Quite apart from its tremendous economic advantages, this > international division of labour, once > established, will create a hitherto inconceivable organic > bond between global centre and periphery. > When the populations at the centre -- the men, women and > children -- realise that some of their body > parts are imported from the periphery, one hopes that this > will finally erode the age-old racisms > that have poisoned relations between the world's peoples. > > I am aware that there is some work to be done before this new > division of labour can be implemented. > We will have to work out a legal framework, including > property rights, to foster this trade in BPWs. > I will not trouble you with the details of these legal > questions, since I am confident that the WTO > can be trusted to work out both the legal framework and the > standards that will govern this trade. I > have been warned of the inevitable objections that some > humanitarians and other busybodies will > raise concerning the morality of trade in BPWs. Economists > will quickly lay such objections to rest. > Clearly, the economic benefits to humanity from these > exchanges exceed by a wide margin their moral > costs to a few finicky humanitarians. > > If the assorted humanitarians, ethicists and anarchists in > the core countries should succeed in > erecting barriers to this trade, I am confident that they > will be quickly circumvented. Instead of > importing the BPWs, the consumers will simply move to the > periphery. The core country patients will > now travel to the periphery, creating a new transplant > tourism; and the pharmaceutical companies > will sub-contract their research to the periphery. All this > may not be such a bad thing. The > periphery can now add tourist dollars to the revenues from > the sale of BPWs. > > I should have ended this essay at this point -- since I have > already made a most capital suggestion > for improving human welfare in the periphery. But once I had > started upon this exciting train of > thought, I was ineluctably drawn to several related > proposals. And since I am convinced of the great > advantages they will confer on the poor and the meek, I think > it would be criminal if I held them > close to my chest for too long. But I promise to be brief, > since I know that the reader could be > better employed examining a variety of perceptive proposals > for extending the war on terrorism. > > In recent years, pharmaceutical producers in the core > countries have encountered growing > difficulties in finding human subjects for testing their > drugs; it is those ethicists again. > Needless to say, the delays this causes in marketing new > drugs have cost lives, lowered people's > beauty coefficients, and, most importantly, cost billions of > dollars in lost profits. These losses > can now be remedied by testing the new drugs in the > periphery. Once again, the moralists -- if there > are any -- will be quickly answered by the economists. Since > markets value life much more highly in > the core than in the periphery, it is efficient to allocate > the human costs of developing drugs > where life is cheapest. > > The disposal of toxic waste, too, has become a serious > problem in the core countries: they are now > producing 300 to 500 million tons of toxic waste annually. As > the environmentalists gain strength, a > growing number of districts in the core countries have > prohibited the dumping of toxic waste. > Providentially, this is opening up a vast new trade > opportunity for the periphery: a few island > economies are already specialising as dumping sites for toxic > waste. I do not have accurate figures > for the price the markets will fix for such dumping, but > assuming a price of $100 for each ton of > waste, this has the potential of generating a revenue of $30 > to $50 billion annually for the > periphery -- a bonanza for many. > > I must admit, though, that Lawrence H Summers brilliantly > anticipated the potential for this trade > in toxic waste in December 1991 when he was chief economist > for the World Bank. As he explained, > water and air quality, especially in Africa, are at levels > that are "vastly inefficiently" high. > Clearly, this is an unconscionable waste. The high water and > air quality of the periphery should be > reduced by encouraging the dumping of toxic wastes. > > I have one final proposal in my bag; and, though some might > consider this outlandish, I believe it > can stand on its economic merits. There also exists now a > modest opportunity for promoting sex > tourism for paedophiles. It appears from the growing > incidence of child abuse cases that sexual > tastes in the core countries are slowly shifting towards > paedophilia. Given their superabundance in > children, I should think that the poorest countries could > promote themselves as a paradise for > paedophiles -- the alliteration sounds inviting. Those who > would shrink from such a degradation of > children only need to be reminded that this may be the only > alternative that some children in the > periphery have to certain death. Let them choose between > abuse and death. > > I launch these proposals for a new international division of > labour in the firm conviction that this > is not some utopian project. Five centuries of global > capitalism have produced a superabundance of > bodies in the periphery, but now, at last, the same forces > promise to process these bodies for the > enrichment of the periphery. This is the latest, most cunning > twist in the dialectics of capitalist > development. > > * The writer is professor of economics at Northeastern > University in Boston, US. > >
