Re: ``globalization'' and poverty

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James,

Thank you for your post, which seriously engages the issues.

Note that Friedman did not say that all opposition was
ill-intentioned, he said it was also ill-informed.  If the tariff
reductions offered by the act (now P.L. 106-200) were desirable, is
opposition to the act because it contains pariticipation restrictions
a sensible stance?  This is a complicated question, because it depends
on what you think the alternative outcomes or available ammendments
might be.  My view is that for now this is what we can get, and it is
an improvement over the status quo ante.  Out-and-out pposition to the
bill, in my opinion, was either ill-informed or simply a matter of
economic interests.  Proposals for ammendments to remove a couple of
the qualification restrictions were, of course, perfectly reasonable.

Where did the bulk of the opposition come from?  Well, where would we
guess without knowing anything more than that the bill makes it easier
for African nations to export textiles to the US?  The US textile
industry, of course.  And if we look at a CRS report
  http://www.cnie.org/nle/econ-36.html
we find that is indeed the case.

Now personally I would like to have left out some of the
restrictions, although most are not objectionable per se.
  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c106:1:./temp/~c10660LzYr:e10122:
But are members of *this* list supposed to be surprised
that legislation is determined not just by principles but
also by interests??  (And to be fair, the opposition arguments
apparently focussed on the threat of trans-shipment, although
I suspect this was simply politically most fruitful.)

One last point: you suggest that in the absence of concrete evidence
we should avoid Friedman's optimism about the welfare consequences of
the trade increases he documents.  But we are always thrown on our
best judgment given the available evidence, and what we have in this
case certainly does not suggest a pessimistic assessment.

Alan Isaac

On Thu, 3 May 2001, James R. Olson, jr. wrote:
> I noticed that the United Methodist Church, for one, opposed the bill.
> Additionally, South Centre has published a number of critiques of the bill,
> e.g. http://www.southcentre.org/southletter/sl31/sl31-04.htm

> 	"It is difficult not to be struck by the overdose of eligibility
> 	 requirements that are central to the legislation. In all, the section
> 	of the Act dealing with eligibility lists twelve requirements under the
> 	general heading, seven other points under the sub-section on "additional
> 	factors", and several other broad statements that specify additional
> 	grounds for eligibility. This long, ideologically-loaded and
> 	prescriptive list in effect pre-determines the policy options of
> 	sovereign African countries and their governments. The Act thus
> 	reinforces the wholly unacceptable diplomacy of conditionality with
> 	which the West has grown accustomed to dealing with Africa. Given their
> 	range and breadth, it is difficult to imagine that any African
> 	government can truly qualify to meet the requirements for participation
> 	unless it completely surrenders itself to the dictates of the IMF and
> 	does everything to please the U.S. foreign policy and security
> establishments. "

> A quick search of http://www.southcentre.org will reveal more.

> Senator Paul Wellstone listed a number of critics of the bill in his
> testimony against it:

> 	"The AGOA's sponsors have refused to seriously address the concerns of
> 	its prominent critics, such as TransAfrica President Randall Robinson,
> 	Professor Ron Walters, President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Rev.
> 	William Campbell, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice and Rep.
> 	Jesse Jackson Jr., and many of his colleagues in the Congressional Black
> 	Caucus including Rep. Maxine Waters, and Rep. John Lewis.

> 	"Over the course of the last and current Congress, African American
> 	 leaders and organizations concerned about Africa have carefully studied
> 	the actual provisions of the different versions of the AGOA. Close
> 	analysis of the bills reveals that although they are wrapped in rhetoric
> 	about helping Africa, these bills are designed to secure U.S. business
> 	interests, often at the expense of the interests and needs of the
> majority of African people and at the expense of African nations'
> 	sovereignty and self-determination.

> 	"They have thus been rightly designated as `corporate bills' rather than
> 	as measures promoting justice or fair trade."