From: "Walter Lippmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 07:16:34 -0700 To: "CubaNews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [CubaNews] Globalization has not helped the poor Published Sunday, July 22, 2001 op-ed in the Miami Herald MARK WEISBROT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Globalization has not helped the poor The last 20 years of globalization have shown substantially diminished progress in infant and child mortality, and life expectancy. At this weekend's G-8 summit meeting in Genoa, Italy, leaders of seven of the world's richest countries -- plus Russia -- are discussing what they can do for the world's poor. Our own government will argue that globalization is their best bet. ``If one is concerned about the developing countries, both history and recent studies would suggest an open system is going to be the formula for them,'' said Bob Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative, at a recent press briefing. Even less partisan observers such as Joseph S. Nye Jr., dean of Harvard's Kennedy School, assert that globalization ``has improved the lot of hundreds of millions of poor people around the world.'' But what if it just weren't true? Is it possible that globalization has been a losing proposition for most of the countries and people of the world? Over the last 20 years most countries have increasingly opened their economies to international trade and investment. They have also adopted -- under the theory that Uncle Sam knows best -- a host of related economic policies promoted by Washington-run institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The real world results look very bad. For the vast majority of countries, the last two decades have shown considerably -- and often drastically -- slower growth than was seen in the previous 20 years (1960-1980). The average country in Latin America increased its income per person by about 7 percent since 1980, as compared to 75 percent in the previous two decades. Throughout the world, the poorer countries have generally suffered the worst declines in the growth of income per person. The exceptions tend to prove the rule. China had the fastest growth in the world over the last 20 years. It also has highly protected domestic markets, extensive currency controls and a banking system dominated by state-owned banks. This is not to say that any of these policies would necessarily work elsewhere, or that there are no gains to be had from international trade and investment. But there is clearly something wrong with the prevailing orthodoxy. Strategies for economic development have been abandoned, and it is generally assumed that open markets, privatization and attracting foreign investors will do the job. The last 20 years of globalization have also shown substantially diminished progress in health outcomes, such as infant and child mortality, and life expectancy. The same is true for other social indicators, including education and literacy. Again,the slowdown in progress is worse among the lower-income countries. A world in which half of humanity survives on less than $2 a day cannot afford to postpone development for the sake of being ``economically correct,'' or for special interests of transnational corporations. The expansion of trade and international markets is not an end in itself, however much it may appear that way to corporate and political leaders. MILLIONS OF JOBS LOST The Bush administration is now urgently seeking Trade Promotion Authority to negotiate a Free Trade Area of the Americas, stretching from Canada to Argentina. This would mean that Congress would have only an up-or-down vote on the FTAA, with no amendments. It's going to be a hard sell, with our economy at a virtual standstill and no recovery yet in sight. During the economic expansion of the 1990s, it was easier not to notice millions of jobs lost to expanding trade. Even then, workers who lost jobs in manufacturing usually ended up working for lower pay (if they found another job). But now the economy is not even creating enough jobs to keep unemployment from rising. In June, employment actually fell even in the service sector, the first time since 1958. Labor can be expected to fight Trade Promotion Authority and the FTAA. It will be joined by environmental and public-interest groups who oppose granting corporations new rights -- as NAFTA did -- to sue governments directly and overturn regulations designed to protect the environment and public health. The opposition will be accused of turning its back on the world's poor. But the last 20 years of corporate-led globalization tell a different story: The world's poor need a New Deal even more than we do. American labor and citizens' groups should ignore these self-righteous, self-serving accusations and carry on against the FTAA -- as well as the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization -- with a clear conscience. They are not only protecting American jobs, wages and forests -- they are also saving the rest of the world. Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and co-author of The Scorecard on Globalization 1960-1980: Twenty Years of Diminished Progress. _________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki Phone +358-40-7177941 Fax +358-9-7591081 http://www.kominf.pp.fi General class struggle news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Geopolitical news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________
