\r\n | \r\n TURKEY<\/b>\r\n \"Turkey Unveils Economic Program to Address Crisis,\" by News Services\r\nin the Washington Post<\/i>, April 15, 2001, page A17. \r\n <\/p> \"Needing Cash, Turkey Plans More Sacrifice,\" by Douglas Frantz in\r\nthe New York Times<\/i>, April 15, 2001, Section 1, page 10. \r\n \r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n In the last 54 \r\n years, the IMF has designed seventeen failed\r\n economic programs for Turkey\r\n
<\/b>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \r\n <\/b> These articles report on Turkey's plans to implement new economic austerity\r\nplans in coordination with the IMF, and the large protests against these\r\nplans. The articles note some of the protesters' criticisms of the negative\r\neffects of IMF policies. It would have been helpful to readers to point\r\nout that in the last 54 years, the IMF has designed seventeen failed economic\r\nprograms for Turkey (see \"In Turkey, a Quieter Day to Examine Core Problems,\"\r\nby John Ward Anderson, Washington Post<\/i>, February 27, 2001, page A19), which\r\nsuggests that it does not have a very good track record.\r\n
\r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/table>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n | \r\n FTAA<\/b>\r\n \"NAFTA Lite? Hemisphere-Wide Trade Pact Faces Opposition From Brazil\r\nto Capitol Hill,\" by Paul Blustein in the Washington Post<\/i>, April 15, 2001,\r\npage H1.\r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n The fact that\r\n U.S. economy has created a large number of jobs in\r\n the last seven years says nothing about the impact of\r\n NAFTA on employment growth. <\/b>\r\n
\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n | \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/b> This article previews the summit meeting in Quebec to discuss a hemisphere-wide\r\ntrade agreement. The article repeatedly makes allusions to the history\r\nof NAFTA as a backdrop. Some of the allusions are of questionable appropriateness\r\nand accuracy.\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/p> For example, the article notes that Ross Perot's claim that NAFTA would\r\ncost millions of jobs has been proven false because the U.S. economy has\r\ncreated 20 million jobs since NAFTA. The fact that U.S. economy has created\r\na large number of jobs in the last seven years says nothing about the impact\r\nof NAFTA on employment growth. The U.S. could have created 20 million jobs\r\nin spite of a very negative impact of NAFTA and, in fact, the U.S. trade\r\ndeficit with the NAFTA nations (Mexico and Canada) has grown by more than\r\n$60 billion since NAFTA was passed. This implies that the direct effect\r\nof increased trade with these nations was a net loss of close to 700,000\r\njobs.\r\n\r\n<\/p> It is also questionable whether Ross Perot is an appropriate spokesperson\r\nfor opponents of NAFTA. While he is apparently popular with the media,\r\nthere are large organizations who are working on this issue and they have\r\nspokespeople with far more grounding in economics than Mr. Perot.\r\n<\/p> At one point the article reports the predictions of Jeffrey Schott,\r\nan economist at the Institute for International Economics, about the potential\r\nfor a new trade agreement to increase exports to Latin America. It would\r\nhave been worth noting that Mr. Schott was the co-author (with Gary Hufbauer)\r\nof a 1993 study that predicted that NAFTA would lead to a large increase\r\nin the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico. In fact, the U.S. trade surplus\r\nquickly turned into a large deficit.\r\n\r\n<\/p> The article also asserts that Mexico's economy quickly recovered from\r\nits financial crisis in 1994. This is a questionable assertion. Many farmers\r\nand small business owners remain heavily burdened by debt as a result of\r\nthe crisis, and the real wages of Mexican workers are just now coming back\r\nto their pre-crisis levels.\r\n<\/p> It is also worth noting that the article repeatedly refers to the trade\r\npact as a \"free trade\" agreement. One of the major goals of the United\r\nStates in these negotiations is to increase patent and copyright protection\r\nthroughout the hemisphere, thereby reducing free trade. It would be more\r\nappropriate to refer to the pact as simply a \"trade\" agreement.\r\n
\r\n<\/p><\/td>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \"Bush Says He'll Press Effort for Hemisphere Trade Pact,\" by Christopher\r\nMarquis in the New York Times<\/i>, April 18, 2001, page A4.\r\n<\/p> \"Bush to Talk Trade at Summit,\" by Dana Milbank and Paul Blustein\r\nin the Washington Post<\/i>, April 20, 2001, page A1.\r\n<\/p> \"Bush's Quebec Task: Push Case for Free Trade in Americas,\" by Anthony\r\nDePalma in the New York Times<\/i>, April 20, 2001, page A16. \r\n \r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n Per capita GDP growth in Latin America slowed\r\nfrom an average of 2.8 percent annually in the\r\n1960-1980 period to just 0.3 percent annually in the\r\nlast twenty years.\r\n
<\/b>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n | \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \r\n<\/b> All of these articles discuss President Bush's agenda for the trade\r\nnegotiations in Quebec. At one point the article by Marquis notes that\r\nmany Latin American nations oppose including labor and environmental rules\r\nin any trade agreement because they \"do not want other nations dictating\r\ntheir domestic laws.\"\r\n<\/p> While these nations may not want other nations dictating their domestic\r\nlaws, they have been willing to tolerate exactly this practice in a wide\r\nrange of areas that are being discussed in recent trade talks, including\r\nrules on investment restrictions, copyright and patent protection, and\r\neven environmental regulations (some types of environmental regulations\r\nhave been ruled as unlawful trade restrictions by the WTO). So these nations\r\nare clearly willing to let other nations dictate their domestic laws under\r\nsome circumstances.\r\n\r\n<\/p> At one point, this article also refers to comments by Chile's president,\r\nRicardo Lagos, who argued that there was a need for Latin American governments\r\n\"to show the connection between trade and growth on one hand and greater\r\nwell being for ordinary citizens on the other.\" It would have been appropriate\r\nto note that the expansion of trade in Latin America in the last two decades\r\nhas not been accompanied by increased economic growth. According to World\r\nBank data, per capita GDP growth in Latin America slowed from an average\r\nof 2.8 percent annually in the 1960-1980 period to just 0.3 percent annually\r\nin the last twenty years. It may be possible to show a link between growth\r\nand greater well being for ordinary citizens, but the data indicate that\r\nit will be far more difficult to show a positive connection between trade\r\nand growth.\r\n<\/p> The Post<\/i> article refers at one point to an argument from the White House,\r\nthat U.S. exports to the rest of the western hemisphere would increase\r\ndramatically if a new trade agreement was reached. It would have been appropriate\r\nto note that the Clinton administration made the exact same argument about\r\nNAFTA prior to its passage. Since NAFTA went into effect, imports have\r\nincreased far more than exports, which means that the direct effect of\r\nthe agreement has been a loss of jobs.\r\n<\/p> Both of the Times<\/i> articles refer to the trade pact being negotiated\r\nas a \"free trade\" pact. As noted above, since the pact will likely also\r\ninclude the extension of protectionist measures such as copyrights and\r\npatents, it is more accurate to refer to it simply as a \"trade\" pact.\r\n
\r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n | \r\n DRUG PATENTS<\/b>\r\n \"Global Issues Dog South Africa on AIDS,\" by Jon Jeter in the Washington\r\nPost, April 20, 2001, page A1.\r\n<\/p> \"Clash Over Patents,\" by Andrew Pollack in the New York Times<\/i>, April 20, 2001, page A16.\r\n\r\n \r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n Most bio-medical research is actually not supported by patent protection\r\n
<\/b>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \r\n <\/b> Both of these articles present overviews of the future of drug patents\r\nin the developing world in the wake of a decision by 39 drug companies\r\nto abandon a lawsuit against South Africa over patent enforcement. Both\r\narticles note that the lack of patent protection could have a negative\r\nimpact on drug research by the pharmaceutical industry. It would have been\r\nappropriate to note that most bio-medical research is actually not supported\r\nby patent protection. The U.S. government, together with universities,\r\nfoundations and private charities, supports considerably more research\r\nthan does the pharmaceutical industry. If it proves difficult to support\r\nindustry research through enforcing patent laws, then expanding these alternative\r\nsources of research funding would seem to be a promising option.\r\n
\r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n | \r\n BANGLADESH<\/b>\r\n \"Lives Held Cheap in Bangladesh,\" by Barry Bearak in the New York\r\nTimes, April 15, 2001, Section 1, page 1.\r\n \r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n \r\nAt one point [this article]attributes these conditions to the fact\r\n that \"consumers want bargains.\"
\r\n\r\n If workers produce one shirt an hour, doubling their wages would raise\r\nthe price of a shirt by an average of 6 cents\r\n
<\/b>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n | \r\n \r\n | \r\n\r\n \r\n <\/b> <\/p> This informative article examines the working conditions in sweatshops\r\nin Bangladesh. It points out that workers toil often long hours, at low\r\nwages, in dangerous workplaces. At one point it attributes these conditions\r\nto the fact that \"consumers want bargains.\" The difference that eliminating\r\nthe worst labor abuses would make in the price that consumers pay for clothing\r\nwould in most cases be minimal. According to the article, wages for adults\r\nare in the range of 6 cents an hour (children earn less). This means that\r\nif workers produce one shirt an hour, doubling their wages would raise\r\nthe price of a shirt by an average of 6 cents (0.3 percent on a $20 shirt).\r\nThe article provides no evidence that a price increase of this magnitude\r\nwould have a noticeable effect on demand.\r\n<\/p> The article also reports on the impact of efforts by \"do gooders,\" who\r\nhave tried to block imports of goods produced with child labor. The article\r\nreports that these do-gooders are \"suspected of shallow thinking,\" because\r\nthe result of these restrictions was the mass firing of children under\r\nfourteen. It claims that many of these children were hired as a favor to\r\nimpoverished parents, and that it actually did no harm to the factory owners\r\nto lose them as workers.\r\n<\/p> It seems implausible that these factory owners would be so altruistic\r\nin hiring children as a favor to the poor, but so unwilling to provide\r\ntheir workers with safe and humane working conditions. It is also worth\r\nnoting that any child labor law that actually has an impact results in\r\nthe firing of children whom their parents would like to be employed (unless\r\nthe children are working against their parents' will). In other words,\r\nwhat the article has identified as the result of \"shallow thinking\" by\r\ndo-gooders is the inevitable result of effective child labor legislation.\r\n<\/p> The term \"do gooder\" is pejorative. It does not belong in a news article.\r\n
\r\n <\/p><\/td>\r\n <\/table>\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n | \r\n \r\n You can receive ERR via email every week by sending a \"subscribe ERR\"\r\nemail to cepr@cepr.net. You can\r\nfind the latest ERR at TomPaine.com. \r\nAll ERRs since August 2000 are archived at http:\/\/www.tompaine.com\/news\/2000\/10\/02\/index.html. \r\nFor earlier archives, go to http:\/\/www.cepr.net\/columns\/subbaker.htm.\r\n \r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/table>\r\n <\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A weekly analysis of economic reporting in the Washington Post and New York Times. Excerpts relating to corporate globalization: Turkey & the IMF, FTAA, Drug Patents, Bangladesh & Sweatshops.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/05\/err_4_20_01.htm","filesize":"21.2 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/05\/6841.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]} | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |