I find Stiglitz’s basic premise, that intellectual property should not be included in the WTO (128), problematic at best. In an earlier reading, Wolf described the five main problems that must be solved by a sophisticated market economy. Questions surrounding the place of intellectual property rights in international trade concretely touch on three of these five: the free-flow of information, protection of property rights and (less so) the idea that competition must be fostered. In his four central features of a modern market economy, this debate encompasses all four: corporations, innovation, intellectual property rights and financial markets. Yes, intellectual property rights itself is one of the four.
While, as I have recognized previously, our current attempt at managing economic globalization could stand for a good deal of improvement, many of Stiglitz’s sentiments on the protection of intellectual property rights at all toe the lines of “fostering competition” and “protecting property rights.” In my view, intellectual property is personal property. Innovators, especially those who began with their adult lives with thick stacks of hefty bills from various educational institutions and chose to accept the opportunity costs related to the time that they spent developing their product should be guaranteed to see some return on it. Call me selfish, but I would at least want to cover my bills after I spent all of that time on the project. (although hopefully, especially in the case of drug researchers, they also have concern for the well-being of others in their hearts) Though Stiglitz does not totally condemn IP rights, he often highlights very extreme examples of over-protecting IP rights.
As globalization progresses and the cost of communication becomes less and less, the definition and borders of intellectual property becomes increasingly more confusing. While patents grant (often excessive) monopoly power, if the patent-holding innovator had seen the high opportunity cost of inventing without the benefit of a possible pay-off, we would not have the product available to us to start with. As an ever-globalizing economy, it seems obvious that some sort of enforceable protection of an innovator’s rights to their product must be more widespread than just nationally. To not internationally protect intellectual property sufficiently could have serious detrimental effects on the world economy.
I do not seek to discard the needs (especially medical) of developing nations, nor to promote means of selfish overprotection of profits. Overall, I see that there is a simple need of large corporations that is difficult to write in to any law: they need a conscience. I think that Stiglitz’s idea of an innovation fund to encourage researching diseases that plague the third world is excellent and well-aimed. As further debates over globalization arise, I am optimistic about our ability to recognize and address problems such as this with our management of the world economy. However, I do think that intellectual property, just like goods and services, is an increasingly important part of trade that should be addressed by the WTO if we are to economically converge in a harmonious way.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Monday, April 30, 2007
5/1
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
4/26
Wolf tells us that, “enemies of globalization are opponents of the market economy (40).” While, as an American, I find it difficult discredit the virtues of a free market, his colleagues point out many of the undeniable difficulties associated with relaxing barriers to international trade and opening the markets of developing countries.
Stiglitz points to the largely uneven GDP growth between countries, enormous gaps in wealth both between and within nations and seeming inability of present political tools to manage economic globalization as unavoidable and delicate problems of economic globalization. Indeed, the reconciliation of American equality-based ideals is a difficult task for those citing vast economic advantage that the United States has in the global market over a country like Chad. This is not to condemn the virtues of competition and the quest for personal gain that Wolf praises in a free-market. It is simply difficult to watch tragedies of poverty and inequality (that too often lead to violence) without questioning whether or pro-globalization decisions have met with the degree of success that world leaders may have hoped- especially in developing nations. While opening up capital markets, allowing multi-national corporations to enter developing countries to benefit from cheap wage rates, etc may lead these countries to gains, the instability that this creates outweighs the possibilities of gain (Stiglitz). In addition, as Freeman points out, there is evidence to suggest that this outsourcing has contributed to falling wages rates for less-skilled workers in industrialized nations. No one is immune to problems presented by economic globalization, and the list goes on.
However, it is just as difficult for any one national leader to accept the problems of the world as still deal with those immediately facing his own nation. One person can only do so much. Though, as Singer points out, our definition of “what is acceptable for one independent, sovereign state to ask of another” is growing, humans still very much see themselves as belonging to a clearly delineated country. Collectively, people do not discredit this identification enough to view ourselves simply as “citizens of the world. Herein lies the difficulty of allocating international resources. Our global economy is growing faster than our ability to manage and nurture it to success. Questions of morality relating to poverty, resentment held by developing countries and possible violence rising from it, self-promotion over the benefit of humanity, as well as where to draw the line in each issue are more overwhelming than revealing. Managing globalization is a delicate balance, and declaring a critic of the seemingly inevitable process “an enemy of the free-market” seems a bit harsh.
Stiglitz points to the largely uneven GDP growth between countries, enormous gaps in wealth both between and within nations and seeming inability of present political tools to manage economic globalization as unavoidable and delicate problems of economic globalization. Indeed, the reconciliation of American equality-based ideals is a difficult task for those citing vast economic advantage that the United States has in the global market over a country like Chad. This is not to condemn the virtues of competition and the quest for personal gain that Wolf praises in a free-market. It is simply difficult to watch tragedies of poverty and inequality (that too often lead to violence) without questioning whether or pro-globalization decisions have met with the degree of success that world leaders may have hoped- especially in developing nations. While opening up capital markets, allowing multi-national corporations to enter developing countries to benefit from cheap wage rates, etc may lead these countries to gains, the instability that this creates outweighs the possibilities of gain (Stiglitz). In addition, as Freeman points out, there is evidence to suggest that this outsourcing has contributed to falling wages rates for less-skilled workers in industrialized nations. No one is immune to problems presented by economic globalization, and the list goes on.
However, it is just as difficult for any one national leader to accept the problems of the world as still deal with those immediately facing his own nation. One person can only do so much. Though, as Singer points out, our definition of “what is acceptable for one independent, sovereign state to ask of another” is growing, humans still very much see themselves as belonging to a clearly delineated country. Collectively, people do not discredit this identification enough to view ourselves simply as “citizens of the world. Herein lies the difficulty of allocating international resources. Our global economy is growing faster than our ability to manage and nurture it to success. Questions of morality relating to poverty, resentment held by developing countries and possible violence rising from it, self-promotion over the benefit of humanity, as well as where to draw the line in each issue are more overwhelming than revealing. Managing globalization is a delicate balance, and declaring a critic of the seemingly inevitable process “an enemy of the free-market” seems a bit harsh.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)