Re: FW: [PEN-L] On free trade Re: Query from a Venezuelan

[Anthony D'Costa <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, the tech gap was much smaller between UK and Germany.  Today it is
much wider between OECD and the rest.  But there are some areas where the
gaps are much narrower, even if the economic base (market size, etc) are
quite disparate.  The IT industry would be a good example of this.  But
not aerospace, unless of course there is a specific tech/ind policy behind
it.  Israel, Brazil, India are cases in point.

On this score I would recommend Jorge Larrain (a Chilean I think based in
UK), where he cites Hinkelammert as offering this tech gap argument.

cheers, anthony

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington                        Campus Box 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Devine, James wrote:

> I wanted to add a point: back in the 19th century, Germany and the US were
> able to successfully use tariffs to promote national economic development.
> But part of this success was the relatively small technological gap between
> them and the market hegemon, England. With a little bit of help from
> tariffs, they were able to imitate England, catch up, and move ahead. But
> isn't the technological gap much larger nowadays? doesn't the whole
> intellectual property campaign aim to keep the tech gap as wide as possible,
> if not widen it?
>
> In addition, we should remember that Germany's tariff-based development was
> one (perhaps minor) source of the inter-national rivalry that set up the
> conditions for World War I.
>
> Jim
>
>
> I wrote:
> > >...
> > >that's right. It's important to distinguish "free trade" in
> > theory (the
> > >general lowering of tariffs and quotas on imports and the
> > end of export
> > >subsidies) and what it usually means in practice (free
> > movement of capital
> > >but usually not labor, the imposition of US-style
> > intellectual property
> > >rights on the world, partial lowering of trade barriers
> > (only by those
> > >countries with less political-economic clout), etc.)
> > >
> > >For those who want a critique of "free trade" in theory, see ...
>
> Bill:
> > Not to be forgotten is what one might term the "historical" aspect of
> > so-called free trade policies.  They tend to be pushed by powerful
> > nations who have a history of fiercely protecting domestic industry
> > until it can prevail in international markets.  England, Germany, and
> > the U.S. are among many cases in point.  An older critique is, of
> > course, Friedrich List, *The National System of Political Economy*,
> > funded in part (if I remember correctly) by Pennsylvania steel
> > interests.
>