The propaganda for free trade tells us that not only is it the master key to our own prosperity, but also the master key to lifting the world's poor out of poverty. So if we don't support free trade, we're in for a guilt trip like the one that used to make us stick quarters into UNICEF boxes.
Unfortunately, free trade just doesn't work as a global anti-poverty strategy. The spreading Third World affluence one sees in TV commercials only means that the thin upper crust of Western-style consumers is now more widespread than ever before. But having more affluent people in the Third World is not the same as the Third World as a whole nearing the living standards of the First.
This is actually not a terribly big secret, and is fairly well known to the people who promote free trade. For a start, the World Bank standard for poverty is $2 a day, so "moving people out of poverty" can merely consist in moving people from $1.99 a day to $2.01 a day. In one major study, there were only two nations in which the average beneficiary jumped from less than $1.88 to more than $2.13: Pakistan and Thailand. Every other nation was making minor jumps in between.
The developing world's gains from trade liberalization (insofar as there are any) are concentrated in a relatively small group of nations, due to the fact that only a few developing nations have economies that are actually capable of taking advantage of freer trade to any meaningful extent.
Although it depends a bit on the model, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Vietnam, and Turkey generally take the lion's share. This list sounds impressive, but it actually leaves out most Third World nations. Dirt-poor nations like Haiti aren't even on the radar. Even nations one notch up the scale, like Bolivia, barely figure.
So forget helping starving children in Africa this way. They're not even in the game of international trade--let alone winners of it.
Like it or not, this is perfectly logical, as increased access to the ruthlessly competitive global marketplace (which is all free trade provides) benefits only nations whose industries have something to sell which foreign trade barriers are currently keeping out. Their industries must both be strong enough to be globally competitive and have pent-up potential due to trade barriers abroad, a fairly rare combination.
As a result, the most desperately impoverished nations, which have few or no internationally competitive industries, have basically nothing to gain from freer trade.
What progress against poverty has occurred in the world in recent decades has not been due to free trade, but due to the embrace of mercantilism and industrial policy by some poor nations. (This is, of course, the same way nations like the U.S. and England became prosperous hundreds of years ago.) According to the World Bank, the entire net global decline in the number of people living in poverty since 1981 has been in mercantilist China, where free trade is spurned. ["2008 World Development Indicators: Poverty Data Supplement," The World Bank, 2008, p. 10.] Elsewhere, their numbers have grown.
The story on global economic progress for poor nations in the last 30 years is roughly as follows:
1. China (one fifth of humanity) braked its population growth, made a quantum leap from agrarian Marxism to industrial mercantilism, and thrived--largely because the U.S. was so open to being the "designated driver" of its export-centered growth strategy during this period.
2. India (another fifth) sharply increased the capitalist share of its mixture of capitalism and Gandhian-Fabian socialism after 1991. It did reasonably well, but not as well as China and not well enough to reduce the absolute number of its people living in poverty, given unbraked population growth.
3. Latin America lost its way after the oil shocks of the 1970s, experienced the 1980s as an economic "lost decade," and tried to implement the free market Washington Consensus in the 1990s. It didn't get the promised results, so some nations responded with a pragmatic retreat from free market purism, others with a lurch to the left, the former showing results in the last five years or so.
4. The collapse of Communism left some nations (Cuba, North Korea) marooned in Marxist poverty, while others (Uzbekistan, Mongolia) discovered that the only thing worse than an intact communist economy is the wreckage of one. Much of Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR got burned by an overly abrupt transition to capitalism, then recovered at various speeds.
5. Sub-Saharan Africa spent much of this period in political chaos, with predictable economic results (except for South Africa and Botswana). Washington Consensus policies in the 1990s did not deliver, and the few recent bright spots have yet to deliver increased per capita income or lower unemployment.
6. Other poor countries followed patterns one through five to varying degrees, with corresponding outcomes.
China is unquestionably the star here. But all its brutally efficient achievements in forcing up the living standards of its people from an extremely low base, it still has serious problems. Its growth miracle has been largely confined to the metropolitan areas of the country's coastal provinces. Of the 800 million peasants left behind in agriculture, perhaps 400 million have seen their incomes stagnate or even decline.
Over the last 30 years of greatly expanding free trade, most of the world's poor nations have actually seen the gap between themselves and the rest of the world increase. As economist Dani Rodrik of Harvard summarizes the data:
The income gap between these regions of the developing world and the industrial countries has been steadily rising. In 1980, 32 Sub-Saharan countries had an income per capita at purchasing power parity equal to 9.3 percent of the U.S. level, while 25 Latin American and Caribbean countries had an income equal to 26.3 percent of the U.S. average. By 2004, the numbers had dropped to 6.1 percent and 16.5 percent respectively for these two regions. This represents a drop of over 35 percent in relative per capita income.
Today, because a few formerly poor nations are succeeding economically while most have been hit with economic decline, the world is splitting into a "twin peaks" income distribution, with a hollowing out of middle-income countries.
A significant number of nations have gone backwards, and are now poorer than they were a generation ago. Most poor nations have high fertility, so population growth drags down their per capita income by a percentage point or two every year if economic growth does not outpace it.
Contrary to impressions in the media, economic success is actually becoming more concentrated in the Western world, not less. According to one summary of the data by Syed Murshed of Erasmus University in Holland:
Between 1960 and 2000 the Western share of rich countries has been increasing; to be affluent has almost become an exclusive Western prerogative--16 out of 19 non-Western nations who were rich in 1960 traversed into less affluent categories by 2000 (for example, Algeria, Angola, and Argentina). Against that, four Asian non-rich countries moved into the first group.Most non-Western rich nations in 1960 joined the second income group by 2000, and most non-Western upper-middle-income countries in 1960 had fallen into the second and third categories by 2000. Of 22 upper-middle-income nations in 1960, 20 had declined into the third and fourth income categories, among them the Democratic Republic of the Congo, also known recently as Zaire, and Ghana. Most nations in the third group in 1960 descended into the lowest income category by 2000. Only Botswana moved to the third group from the fourth category, while Egypt remains in the third category.
We seem to inhabit a downwardly mobile world with a vanishing middle class; by 2000 most countries were either rich or poor, in contrast to 1960 when most nations were in the middle-income groups. (Emphasis added.)
Free trade eliminates the protected middle ground for economies, like Mongolia or Peru, which don't have globally competitive industrial sectors but were still better off having such sectors, albeit inefficient ones, than not having them at all. The productivity of modern industry is so much higher than peasant agriculture that it raises average income even if it is not globally competitive.
Nations which open up their economies to (somewhat) free trade relatively late in their development, and continue to support domestic firms with industrial policy, are far more likely to retain medium and high technology industry, the key to their futures, than nations which embrace full-blown free trade and a laissez faire absence of industrial policy too early in their development.
There are numerous documented cases in which trade liberalization simply killed off indigenous industries without supplying anything to replace them. To take some typical examples given by the International Forum on Globalization:
Senegal experienced large job losses following liberalization in the late 1980s; by the early 1990s, employment cuts had eliminated one-third of all manufacturing jobs. The chemical, textile, shoe, and automobile assembly industries virtually collapsed in the Ivory Coast after tariffs were abruptly lowered by 40 percent in 1986. Similar problems have plagued liberalization attempts in Nigeria. In Sierra Leone, Zambia, Zaire, Uganda, Tanzania, and the Sudan, liberalization in the 1980s brought a tremendous surge in consumer imports and sharp cutbacks in foreign exchange available for purchases of intermediate inputs and capital goods, with devastating effects on industrial output and employment. In Ghana, liberalization caused industrial sector employment to plunge from 78,700 in 1987 to 28,000 in 1993.
One unhappy corollary of this is the so-called Vanek-Reinert effect, in which the most advanced sectors of a primitive economy are the ones destroyed by a sudden transition to free trade. Once these sectors are gone, a nation can be locked in poverty indefinitely.
Follow Ian Fletcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IanFletcher
In countries without massive oil wealth they must actually produce something. Hence formerly poor countries like (especially) Singapore and South Korea use liberalized trade to increase their standard of living. Most countries can emulate Singapore to some degree; you can't emulate oil wealth.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/indicators
Some quotes from the report:
# GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
# Most of this growth has been in the nonoil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.
the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent.
# Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.
# From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than onethird. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
# There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.
Ask the little slave-wage earning Pakistani if he would rather not have the job?
Development is a violation of which human right exactly? That statement would mean an end to all progress. I don't really care about the dignity of the VCR repairman I'm getting the DVD player and "Dingnifing" the organization that makes what I want.
If you've got 100 people earning zero, cause they're slaves, and 1 person earning $1 million per year then the "average wage" is $9900 per year.
The picture of global economic growth is distorted by the use of PPP since a small change in incomes in poorer countries results in an exaggerated change in PPP. So small changes in poorer countries help drive the myth that global economic growth is attributable to American free trade policy.
Small increases in income in poorer countries will not then allow poorer countries to buy goods from richer countries, but they do show up as phenomenal growth in terms of percentages. So global economic growth as a result of free trade is a myth aided by simply using the wrong statistical tool to measure it. PPP was intended to measure the differences in economies, not their contribution to global economic growth.
From the IMF: " For 2007, China's share of global output is now estimated at 10.9 percent (down from 15.8 percent) while India's share has declined to 4.6 percent (from 6.4 percent). Reflecting the overall reduction in GDP in PPP terms of other countries, the share of the United States in global GDP has been revised up from 19.3 percent to 21.4 percent."
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2008/res018a.htm
Methodologies matter.
http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/CapCtrlsLetter.html
Economists Issue Statement on Capital Controls and Trade Treaties
"Initiated by the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University (GDAE) and the Washington, DC-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), this economist statement calls for the United States to recognize that capital controls are legitimate prudential financial regulations that should not be subject to investor claims under U.S. trade and investment treaties.
Following a number of official and academic findings that show capital controls are legitimate tools to prevent and mitigate financial crises, an increasing number of governments around the world are using capital controls and other macro-prudential measures in responsible ways to deal with heightened international financial instability. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is seeking approval of a trade pact with South Korea and is in the final phase of a review of the U.S. “model” bilateral investment treaty, which they say will be the basis for new deals with India, China, and several other countries. The United States is also negotiating the “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” which is intended to be a trade agreement “for the 21st century.”
These initiatives offer a real opportunity to apply lessons from recent financial crises and make U.S. trade policy more consistent with economic theory and practice...".
o Joseph Stiglitz
o William K. Black
o Dean Baker
The GDAE letter to Secretary Clinton said that the FTAs would be the basis for trade agreements with China and India.
The sucking sound of white-collar and blue-collar jobs out of the U.S. will only grow louder.
This massive free trade zone greatly offset the destructive nature of tariffs and other government policies that stifled growth. Combine that with rapidly falling transportation costs to further erode the impact of the destructive policies.
So yes I agree large free trade zones, free flow of capital and limited intrusion from government is what the world’s poor deserve. It is the only way to allow them to climb out of poverty while expanding our own wealth and prosperity.
Funny, Don Boudreaux says the same thing about protectionists.
I read your book and wish Congress would have read it out loud iin the house instead of reading the Constitution. The Constitution is going to be meaningless when when we all wind up working for peanuts for Chinese owners.
Of course if we got our Ag. culture back to 98% we could not have a manufacturing culture.
Returning to the past will not build the future, especially if the return caused by the governments use of force.
Milton Freeman and all the other free trade economists have been proven wrong about their free trade theories. The said the dollars sent out of the USA would be returned when our free trade partners bought American goods and services. Instead the dollars are being used to buy Treasury Bonds and American assets such as factories, real estate, farms, and energy companies INSTEAD OF OUR GOODS AND SERVICES..
Yet it seems the only economist that seems to know this appears to be Ian Fletcher.
The sad part is the economists are still teaching their failed theorys in our schools even though the majority of the graduates are not going to find a decent paying job when they graduate because loss of manufacturing means loss of opportunity.
Laffer Curve: We're well under the peak of the laffer curve, so tax the rich, won't effect me.
Supply side economics is great, isn't it.
Whatever the answer, I have long been convinced that the essential project for we the people (here and abroad) is to survive elegantly on meager financial resources. There are many groups working in that vein, but they need to come together and get their message across to the masses who are being submerged by the current economic world order. Growing our own food--ah, if I only were better at this!--is a primary means of self-sufficiency.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iron+law+of+wages
Iron law of wages | Define Iron law of wages at Dictionary.com
"the doctrine or theory that wages tend toward a level sufficient only to maintain a subsistence standard of living. "
True until the industrial revolution and the associated massive expansion of trade, specialization & innovation.