Singer’s “One Economy” is an ethically-minded examination of the recognized need for some sort of wide-scale, policy setting body to deal with economic globalization, and our fledgling attempt at establishing such a body. As Wolf recognizes, market dynamics lead it to “want to cross borders,” theoretically benefiting all parties involved in every transaction via comparative advantage. After all, he says, there has never been a case in which a country benefited from anti-liberalization of their markets. Proving the benefits in any concrete manner, however, had been much more difficult. While most reasonable measures show that inequality is likely increasing, this is far from uncertain. It does appear, however, that standards of living (measured in HDI, easily illustrated on the Human Development Report 2006 - Human Development Trends website) are following a positive trend.
Just as the issues and statistics scrutinized with regards to globalization and its effects are virtually innumerable, so are the problems we can find with our current best attempt at managing economic globalization: the WTO. This fact, in my opinion, makes an important statement to advocates of a one world economy lead by a more powerful and comprehensive body. While debate is at the heart of democracy (a “pro,” given that this body would be more democratic in nature than our current model), the structural problems presented by vast differences in wealth, population, education level, etc seem too large to ignore. This is, obviously, disregarding religious, social and political convictions. As attractive as Wolf’s portrayal of global economic possibilities may seem to those viewing the situation from the economic powerhouse that is America, ethical questions both addressed by Singer and a certain multitude still outstanding place us a long way from a realistic, widely-beneficial realization of even an all-pleasing modification to the WTO as it stands.
3 comments:
I agree that Singer makes an excellent argument against the WTO and poses some serious questions regarding its decisions and policies. I would also like to emphaisize the huge dispartiy in opinion between Singer who argues against the WTO and challenges the ethics of globalization and Wolf who praises globalization for increasing democratic values and equality. Since the WTO is one of the main governing bodies and supporters of globalization, if cases exist that do, in fact, undermine democratic practices and ethics, how much of Wolf's argument is valid? Is globalization entirely wrong, or just the way the WTO is going about it?
Singer discusses the WTO in terms of four main charges 1. that the WTO trumps economics over the environment, human rights, and animal welfare 2. the WTO decreases national sovereignty 3. the WTO is not democratic and 4. that the WTO increases inequality rather than closing the gap (Singer, 55). Although the WTO "claims that this perception is all a misunderstanding" (Singer, 57) Singer would say that this is no misunderstanding. In particular, Singer presents examples of WTO dispute panel reports that deal with the WTO's "misuse of the product/ process distinction" (60). Two rulings, one in 1991 and the other in 1989 particularly bother me and support the accusations made in the four main charges listed above. These rulings prove that the WTO is not just concerned with making sure that nations do not use environmental/ social issues as a disguise in order to favor their own economiess and to place unfair embargos and such on other nations. For example when the WTO allowed the US to punish the EU for banning the sale of hormone treated beef by "imposing 100 percent duties on $116 million of EU agricultrual producs" the WTO was willing to rule against animals and other moral/ health issues on the grounds that the "product" was the same so it didn't matter if the "proces" was different. The real reasoning behind this type of ruling is not to cause equality but rather to safeguard against a "flood of protectionist abuses" (62). I think this decision is extremely undemocratic because democracy means power to the people, and the people's power lies inherently in their national government which was punished on account of its decision to uphold the moral wishes of its citizens.
Due to this example and countless others given by Singer I am currently opposed to the policies and decisions of the WTO (note that I am not saying that I am opposed to it's existence because I think that if done correctly it could be a successful and beneficial governing body). If I am to agree with Wolf's endorsement of globalization which is currently much affected by the WTO, it seems that major changes to the WTO may be in order.
The two of you, along with Andy, may be the people to kick off our conversation of the WTO tomorrow. Apart from the Venezuela bit above, Reilly, you make some important points here about the WTO and "democracy", if that is the right word. Thanks for the follow-up, HK.
i commented more on fairness and the WTO on DARYALG's blog, too (on a related note)
Post a Comment