Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

G-20 Faith in Free Trade Remains Unbroken

by Magnifico Sat Apr 4th, 2009 at 01:50:51 AM EST

The absolutism of the key tenets of neo-liberalism: privatisation, deregulation, balanced budgets have all been rejected by all but the most dogmatic. Apart from one that is: the primacy of free trade.

So writes Noreena Hertz, economist and author, in her op-ed at Spiegel Online: "Is Protectionism Really All that Bad?"

Despite the nationalization of banks, calls for increased regulation, and massive trillion dollar deficits amassed, the status of free trade remains "basically sacrosanct", she writes. "'Free trade is good' continues to be presented as a totemic truth, ring-fenced from debate or interrogation."

An examination of the G-20 communiqué (pdf) from this week's meeting seems to confirm Hertz's assertion.

The G-20 leaders stated: "We believe that the only sure foundation for sustainable globalisation and rising prosperity for all is an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulation, and strong global institutions."

They pledged to "strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust" and "promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism" among other points.

The push toward increasing deregulation has been temporarily, at least, halted on paper. From the statement:

We will take action to build a stronger, more globally consistent, supervisory and regulatory framework for the future financial sector, which will support sustainable global growth and serve the needs of business and citizens...

Strengthened regulation and supervision must promote propriety, integrity and transparency; guard against risk across the financial system; dampen rather than amplify the financial and economic cycle; reduce reliance on inappropriately risky sources of financing; and discourage excessive risk-taking.

According to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, this marks the "death... of financial market liberalisation, privatisation and unfettered capitalism promulgated by the Bretton Woods institutions - the IMF and the World Bank."

While stronger regulation may be forthcoming, the belief in free trade, however, remains unchanged. Hertz writes:

We urgently need a frank, honest and grown-up discussion about the final frontier of neo-liberalism -- free trade. And we're not getting one.

Instead from the G-20 statement:

World trade growth has underpinned rising prosperity for half a century. But it is now falling for the first time in 25 years. Falling demand is exacerbated by growing protectionist pressures and a withdrawal of trade credit. Reinvigorating world trade and investment is essential for restoring global growth. We will not repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras.

Hertz describes this as "scaremongering" and invoking the fear in the form of faint memories of the 1930s. She writes:

Leading economic historians now explain the collapse of world trade in the 1930s not as a result of protectionism, but because of shrinking demand and a lack of trade credits.

We also continue to be presented with a false dichotomy -- free trade versus protectionism. What we actually need is a nuanced analysis of where on the free trade/protectionism scale individual nations need and want to be positioned, and what the implications of that would be.

Instead of challenging the belief that free trade will save the world's economy, the G-20 leaders accepted this neo-liberal dogma and pledged "to refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organisation (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports" until 2010.

They promised that their countries would "not retreat into financial protectionism, particularly measures that constrain worldwide capital flows, especially to developing countries" and take, "at the same time, whatever steps we can to promote and facilitate trade and investment".

The rhetoric coming from the meeting made it seem as if some of the G-20 leaders feared more about protectionism than loss of jobs from their country. So much so that they promised to have the WTO "'name and shame' countries that erected trade barriers, intended to resist growing protectionist sentiment."

Hertz counters that protectionism, when selectively applied, can have a positive role in rebuilding a nation's domestic economy.

Given that, when used specifically and for a limited time, as Sweden and Japan did in the aftermath of the 1970s oil shocks, protectionism can be the lifeline a struggling country needs to survive. It can provide the breathing space an economy needs to retrench and retool its industries and workers.

For economies actively destroying jobs at an accelerating rate, such as in the United States where the seasonal unadjusted jobless rate is at 16.2 percent, a protectionist envelope could cushion workers in the failing manufacturing sector while it reinvent itself or allow workers in the construction sector to retrain for new opportunities in a post-housing boom economy. Hertz suggests instead of embracing free trade without question, nations should be allow to erect short term protectionist measures to stop a cratering economy.

We should see protectionism as a tool in nations' armouries that can be deployed to help address their local economic freefall, but is also capable of creating far-reaching collateral damage.

The problem is while free trade is promoted by G-20 leaders and other neo-liberals as good for a nation's economy, it has many negative impacts like the loss of domestic industries and once-dependable jobs. Likewise, protectionism is blamed for eliminating jobs when, in fact, it can save jobs long enough to allow for people to retrain or industries to retool. Hertz writes:

So rather than simply re-stating old beliefs about the supremacy of free trade, the G-20 should place it firmly under the microscope. For surely if we have learnt anything over the past few months it should be that economic axioms are at best schools of thought, and that wisdom comes not from blindly accepting convention but from questioning, interrogating and challenging what we think we know.

I think the time has come to look a fresh and see if and how protectionism can be helpful to rebuilding domestic economies and creating jobs especially in a green economy focused on sustainability rather than on unbounded growth.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

In the same vein, but from before the G20:

by Ha-Joon Chang

Three sacred cows have dominated the market fundamentalist religion of the last 25 years: balanced budgets, private ownership and free trade. Two have recently been sacrificed to reality. Balanced budgets went first, as countries dived into deficit spending without debate to fend off the recession. Belief in private ownership is faltering too, as country after country nationalises its banks.

Probably someone posted this back when, if not... there you go.

by Torres on Sat Apr 4th, 2009 at 05:54:12 AM EST
I think Hertz covers all the main points, so there's not much left to say.

I will just momentarily promote a graph that I appear to have lost, which plots world gdp against historical oil extraction.

Just this alone (without factoring in other fuels) suggests that a lot of the "increase in wealth" attributed to "free trade" might actually represent wealth derived from increased energy usage.

As such, it's another reason to be careful about attributing too much value to "absolute free trade" - I'm very much in agreement with Hertz that there is a spectrum between protectionism and free trade and different countries will need to be in different places at different times.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Apr 4th, 2009 at 07:21:45 AM EST
... stock is not wealth, even if it is a way to generate transitory income.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 12:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.... 1st Commandment, "Though Shalt Not Post In a Diary Over Four Hours Old that Is Not On the Wrecklist".

Of course not ... 'free trade' is a trademark ...

... or marketing slogan, like "Fair and Balanced" ... it stands for "eliminating any national sovereignty that stands in the way of corporations moving financial assets around to exercise economic power".

Of course, the connection between that and "free trade" is quite tenuous ... you have to start pretending that tossing massive amounts of wealth around is "trade in financial services", which is quite absurd ... but that's OK. There is a strong theoretical argument for balanced, free and fair trade, which is then borrowed without too many questions being asked by unbalanced unfettered trade, which is then imposted by the capital flows that are the flip side of unbalanced unfettered trade ...

... and since its the unfettered capital flows that are convenient to existing entrenched vested interests, the fact that the original theoretical argument no longer applies is only a minor quibble that can be hidden from the people as long as the mess media only ever interviews people who all agree that "of course, we need free trade".

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 at 12:23:10 AM EST
We also continue to be presented with a false dichotomy -- free trade versus protectionism. What we actually need is a nuanced analysis of where on the free trade/protectionism scale individual nations need and want to be positioned, and what the implications of that would be.
This would seem to be a propitious time for the critics of Free Trade to bring to the fore the "negative externalities" of Free Trade.  Rather than attempting to delegitimate free trade per se it would be more effective to militate for restrictions to the abuses of the concept in the name of regulatory arbitrage and the promotion of human and civil rights in those countries supposedly benefiting from Free Trade by being privileged to sell labor for the local subsistence wage.

The approach I have advocated consists of requiring importing countries to levy a "benefits tariff" on products coming from foreign countries.  That tariff would consist of the approximate cost of providing medical care and some provision for retirement for the workers making the imported products.  This tariff would be waived or rebated to the extent said benefits are provided.  Opposition to such a procedure could be used to illustrate the deliberately exploitative nature of Free Trade and how it is used to promote a race to the bottom in wages world wide.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Apr 7th, 2009 at 08:00:07 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]