Re: EU and trade

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Peter,
       The EU member that had the most developed
planning system was France.  The last full blown
plan that they had was the tenth, that was for the
period 1988-92.  Since then there have been no
full-blown multi-year plans, although the Commissariat
General du Plan (CGP) continues to exist, now
directly attached to the Premier's office rather than
the Ministry of Finance.  It supposedly is engaged in
"interministerial coordination" as well as efforts to
integrate the French economy into the EU, strenghthen
the social safety net, and modernize the French
economy.
       The official reason given for the ending of formal
planning is that the most important mechanisms of
policy have now moved to the EU level.  The French
in particular hoped that there would be formal indicative
planning at that level, but it has not happened.
       Certainly a pretty strong "neoliberal" stance has
come to characterize a lot of policy making in the EU,
although the Brits have held back because of the opposite
perception, and certainly it is still more dirigiste and
interventionist than in the US.  But demands for full
capital mobility and so forth will play havoc with the
efforts of such places as Slovenia to preserve the
workers' ownership and management system, if they
enter.
Barkley Rosser
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dorman" <dormanp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Post Keynesian Thought" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: EU and trade


> This is an interesting question.  My reading of the history is that the EC
> countries were engaged in extensive cross-border sectoral planning right
from
> the start (mid 50s).  There was always a sense that economic integration
> needed to be managed.  Even so, the existence of separate currency zones
> occasionally played havoc, especially with efforts to do leftish things --
> Wilson in the UK, Mitterand in France.  An important aspect of the
adjustment
> to the EC was the existence in most countries of an extensive national
> planning system.  It has become obvious that these systems are breaking
down
> under the new dispensation (especially with increased capital mobility),
and
> that the choice is increasingly EU-wide planning or descent into
> neoliberalism.
>
> If I'm right, this is a terribly important set of lessons, and it should
> caution those who would jump into western hemisphere integration without
> consideration of regulatory or forex issues.
>
> Peter
>
> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." wrote:
>
> > Peter,
> >       Oh, you're right, I'm bad.  OK, so let us
> > not make silly remarks about Kansas (Kansas...).
> > Stick with the EU.  Well, it has almost imitated
> > the US by now with its common set of regulations
> > (more or less) and now the euro within Euroland.
> > But the original part of the whole project was the
> > initiation of a free trade zone, which looks very
> > successful in retrospect.  Although there is still
> > some fussing in agriculture, I do not hear of any
> > calls by the traditionally protectionist French to
> > re-erect barriers to German imports, and we did
> > not hear them earlier when they all had different
> > regulations and different currencies not pegged
> > to each other.  Would it make sense now?
> > Not much more than the Kansas-Illinois example.
> >        Am I saying everything is hunky-dory in the
> > international economy?  Hardly.  I think you think
> > that capital movements and different currencies
> > are part of the problem.  I would agree.  I would
> > also agree that trade between countries with
> > very different income levels and political power
> > becomes complicated.  There are also problems
> > when countries sign free trade agreements, but
> > then don't keep them.  But much of this is perspective.
> > Well off workers and capitalists in the US feel
> > great when protectionism is used (even against
> > US international agreements) to block imports
> > from poor countries that impoverish their workers
> > and capitalists.  This is certainly a problem, and
> > clearly reflects the political economic power of the
> > US to impose its will in an entirely hypocritical manner.
> > Barkley Rosser
>
>