‘Not so fair trade’

In a great new article, Andrew Chambers of the Guardian rips into fair trade:

Fairtrade provides a minimum baseline price for commodities, allowing farmers to hedge against market volatility. The co-operative system allows small farmers better access to global markets and encourages democratic representation. Each commodity price also includes a “social premium” which can be reinvested in social or development projects.

He continues by pointing to evidence of its harm:

[E]conomist Paul Collier argues that Fairtrade effectively ensures that people “get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty”. Fairtrade reduces the incentive to diversify crop production and encourages the utilisation of resources on marginal land that could be better employed for other produce. The organisation also appears wedded to an image of a notional anti-modernist rural idyll. Farm units must remain small and family run, while modern farming techniques (mechanisation, economies of scale, pesticides, genetic modification etc) are sidelined or even actively discouraged.

By guaranteeing a minimum price, Fairtrade also encourages market oversupply, which depresses global commodity prices. This locks Fairtrade farmers into greater Fairtrade dependency and further impoverishes farmers outside the Fairtrade umbrella. Economist Tyler Cowen describes this as the “parallel exploitation coffee sector”.

He continues:

Coffee farms must not be more than 12 acres in size and they are not allowed to employ any full-time workers. This means that during harvest season migrant workers must be employed on short-term contracts. These rural poor are therefore expressly excluded from the stability of long-term employment by Fairtrade rules. Indeed, The International Development Committee declared in 2007 that “Fairtrade could have a deeper impact if it were to target more consciously the poorest of the poor”.

We might think of sub-Saharan subsistence economies when we think of Fairtrade, but the biggest recipient of Fairtrade subsidy is actually Mexico. Mexico is the biggest producer of Fairtrade coffee with about 23% market share. Indeed, as of 2002, 181 of the 300 Fairtrade coffee producers were located in South America and the Caribbean. As Marc Sidwell points out, while Mexico has 51 Fairtrade producers, Burundi has none, Ethiopia four and Rwanda just 10 – meaning that “Fairtrade pays to support relatively wealthy Mexican coffee farmers at the expense of poorer nations”.

Free Trade in Health Care?

Dean Baker and Hye Jin Rho of the Center for Economic and Policy Research have an interesting new paper titled ‘Free Trade in Health Care: The Gains from Globalized Medicare and Medicaid.’

In their paper, Baker and Rho argue the all-too-familiar line that “patients are paying too much for their health care.” But they provide an interesting twist: why not permit free trade in health care?

The huge gap between the cost of health care in the United States and the cost in other countries with comparable health care outcomes suggests the potential for substantial gains from trade. This paper describes one mechanism for taking advantage of these gains – through a globalization of the country’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. The projections in this paper suggest that the country’s long-term budget situation would be substantially improved if beneficiaries of these two programs over the age of 65 were allowed to take advantage of the lower-cost health care available in other countries (that also have higher life expectancies than the U.S.). This could also allow them to enjoy much higher retirement incomes than they would otherwise receive.

They estimate significant savings for the U.S. and gains for other countries. Who would have guessed there would be gains from trade (that’s sarcasm people)?

The chart below illustrates the potential savings to the government over the next 75 years for each beneficiary who opts to use a Medicare voucher to buy into the health care system of another country:

The table below shows the implied savings to the Medicare system if 30 percent of the eligible population opts to use a Medicare voucher to buy into the health care system of another country:

The gains from trade, of course, help the countries that provide health care as well. The gains to beneficiaries from moving to another country for health services are illustrated below:

So what can we make of this? Well, for one, the future can’t be predicated with any degree of certainty when it comes to health care. It is now in the filthy world of politics.

But if the health care debate truly centered on helping those who can’t help themselves, then the focus would remain on fixing Medicare and Medicare. But clearly helping the needy has somehow evolved into helping everyone.

Nevertheless, Baker and Rho provide an interesting way to sharply reduce the costs of health care for those who may need it.** In the words of the authors,

The huge gap between the cost of health care in the United States and the cost in other countries with comparable health care outcomes suggests the potential for substantial gains from trade.This paper has described one mechanism for taking advantage of these gains – through a globalization of the country’s Medicare and Medicaid programs. The projections in this paper suggest that the country’s long-term budget situation would be substantially improved if beneficiaries of these two programs were allowed to take advantage of the lower-cost health care available in other countries. This could also allow them to enjoy much higher retirement incomes than they would otherwise receive.

**I will not go into the morality or practically of providing health care to the poorer segments of society. Whether these programs are necessary is not my point here. My point is to highlight a practical method to improve what is unlikely to disappear.

A short guide to protectionism

From the Telegraph:

1.  Smoot-Hawley

The most famous act of protectionism took place in the 1930s when the US government, facing the early forces of depression, legislated to impose tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods – some significantly. The act triggered a spiral of retaliatory protectionism across the world, and in the view of some economists, fuelled both the Great Depression and the geopolitical tension that led to the Second World War.

2. Common Agricultural Policy

Under the CAP – a European scheme, although similar programmes are in place in the US and throughout the developed world – domestic farmers are given subsidies for producing (or in some cases not producing) food. Without such subsidies many domestic agricultural businesses would collapse, since they cannot compete with the cheap prices charged by overseas exporters for everything from vegetables to livestock to cotton.

3. Shoe wars, bra wars

Recently, in his former role as European Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson accused China of illegally dumping vast numbers of shoes – and later bras – on the European markets. “Dumping” is the name given when a country exports a product at a price even lower than that paid in its domestic market. Under the WTO code, it can act against such moves under so-called “anti-dumping” rules.

4. Chinese tyres

China and the US are currently locked in a trade battle over the trade in car tyres. In September, the US Congress accused China of illegally swamping the US market with cheap tyres and imposed tariffs on those imported from the Asian giant. China in turn accused the US of protectionism, arguing that exports to America had actually dropped last year. But with thousands of American jobs on the line, the case is still the focus of heated debate.

5. India vs China

The WTO is not merely a mechanism for the West to fight its own corner against cheaper emerging market exporters. Emerging and developing nations also use it as a forum to tackle their own independent trade battles. Recently, China and India have been locked in debate over trade, with India accusing China of expanding overly aggressively into its silk and satin markets. India argues that Chinese prices are so cheap that its key domestic industry is simply unable to compete.

Agricultural trade liberalization and poverty in Brazil

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has published a new paper called ‘Agricultural trade liberalization and poverty in Brazil.’ Below is the author’s abstract:

This paper addresses the potential effects of a world agricultural trade liberalization scenario on poverty and regional income distribution in Brazil, using an interregional applied general equilibrium (AGE) and microsimulation model of Brazil, tailored for income distribution and poverty analysis. The model distinguishes 10 different labor types and 270 different household expenditure patterns. Income can originate from 41 different production activities (which produce 52 commodities), located in 27 states in the country. The AGE model is linked to a microsimulation model that includes 112,055 Brazilian households and 263,938 adults.

The scenario is generated from a previous run of the MIRAGE model, which assesses the likely impacts of a Doha Development Agenda agreement, based on the draft on agriculture by Crawford Falconer and the draft on nonagricultural market access by Don Stephenson. The results of this global scenario are transmitted to the Brazilian model. Poverty and income distribution indexes are computed over the entire sample of households and persons, before and after the introduction of policy shocks. Model results show that the simulated trade policy shocks have positive effects on poverty and income distribution in Brazil. The simulated effects on poverty and income distribution are positive in aggregate, with benefits concentrated in the poorest households. The results, however, differ across the Brazilian territory, worsening in some important states, where the poverty and inequality indicators increase. The gains in agriculture are found to benefit all the agents involved, from workers to small producers to large farmers, rejecting the idea that just large farmers would gain.

Trade liberalization associated with a decrease in child labor and an increase in schooling in Indonesia

Robert Sparrow and Krisztina Kis-Katos just released a new study called ‘Child work and schooling under trade liberalization in Indonesia‘ where they conclude that trade liberalization in Indonesia resulted in a drop in child labor and an increase in schooling. Below is the abstract:

We examine the effects of trade liberalization on child work and schooling in Indonesia. Our estimation strategy identifies geographical differences in the effects of trade policy through district and province level exposure to reduction in import tariff barriers. We use seven rounds (1993 to 2002) of the Indonesian annual national household survey (Susenas), and relate workforce participation and school enrolment of children aged 10-15 to geographic variation in relative tariff exposure. Our main findings show that increased exposure to trade liberalization is associated with a decrease in child work and an increase in enrolment among 10 to 15 year olds. The effects of tariff reductions are strongest for children from low skill backgrounds and in rural areas. However, a dynamic analysis suggests that these effects reflect the long term benefits of trade liberalization, through economic growth and subsequent income effects, while frictions and negative adjustment effects may occur in the short term.

‘Africa’s Capitalist Revolution’

Below is an excerpt from the most recent edition of Foreign Affairs. The article begins on a positive note:

It is still a well-kept secret that the African continent has been in the midst of a profound economic transformation. Since 2004, economic growth has boomed at an average level of six percent annually, on par with Latin America. This rate will undoubtedly decline as a result of the global financial crisis, but the International Monetary Fund still projects growth of around 1.5 percent for this year and four percent for 2010 throughout Africa–a relatively healthy figure by today’s depressing standards. International trade now accounts for nearly 60 percent of Africa’s GDP (far above the level for Latin America), and foreign direct investment in Africa has more than doubled since 1998, to over $15 billion per year. Overall, private-sector investment constitutes more than 20 percent of GDP. Furthermore, since 1990, the number of countries with stock markets in sub-Saharan Africa has tripled and the capitalization of those exchanges has risen from virtually nothing to $245 billion (that is, outside of South Africa, which has long had an active stock exchange). These “frontier” markets have, until recently, given investors huge returns compared to those found in other emerging economies.

It ends with a pessimistic outlook:

Trade is critical to Africa’s economic growth, because Africans’ incomes cannot rise if their countries are unable to export goods and services to richer regions. To be sure, African countries themselves must do more to create free-trade zones and promote commerce with other developing nations. But in the end, it is the wealthy consumers of Europe and North America whose buying power will lift Africans out of poverty. For Europe and the United States, protectionism and reduced trade are merely costly, at least for now; but for Africa, with its small domestic markets, they are potentially deadly.

It is hard to imagine Barack Obama–a U.S. president of Kenyan descent–leveling such a cruel blow against his ancestral homeland. Yet although the Obama administration was tireless in warning of a domestic catastrophe if Congress did not pass an economic stimulus package and a bailout for U.S. banks, it has been relatively silent when it comes to warning of the international catastrophe that would accompany a renewed round of protectionist policies. The “Buy American” provision of the stimulus package that President Obama signed into law–which he has defended as being consistent with the rules of the World Trade Organization–exposes the absurdity of developed-world governments that give with one hand by promoting economic development and take with the other by practicing protectionism. Africans have already taken up the shovel to dig themselves out of a half-century-old hole of poor economic management and bad governance. It is now up to the United States and its European allies to help them complete the job.

Economic vandalism: Barack Obama and free trade

The Economist has a timely and spot-on article on Obama’s “string of ominously protectionist policies” highlighted recently by his decision to impose a 35 percent tariff on imported Chinese tires. The magazine writes:

This newspaper endorsed Mr Obama at last year’s election (see article) in part because he had surrounded himself with enough intelligent centrists. We also said that the eventual success of his presidency would be based on two things: resuscitating the world economy; and bringing the new emerging powers into the Western order. He has now hurt both objectives.

…The tyre decision needs to be set into the context of a string of ominously protectionist policies which started within weeks of the inauguration with a nasty set of “Buy America” provisions for public-works contracts. The president watered these down a bit, but was not brave enough to veto. Next, the president stayed silent as Congress shut down a project that was meant to lead to the opening of the border to Mexican trucks, something promised in the NAFTA agreement of 1994. Besides these sins of commission sit the sins of omission: the president has done nothing at all to advance the three free-trade packages that are pending in Congress, with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, three solid American allies who deserve much better. And much more serious than that, because it affects the whole world, is his failure to put anything worthwhile on the table to help revive the moribund Doha round of trade talks. Mr Bush’s tariffs, like the Reagan-era export restraints on Japanese cars and semiconductors, came from a president who was fundamentally committed to free trade. Mr Obama’s, it seems, do not.

Click here to read the full article.

Tire Industry Opposed ‘Punitive Tire Tariff’

Mark J. Perry points to an interesting New York Times article that claims the “punitive tire tariffs” against China were in fact opposed by the domestic tire industry (Goodyear and Cooper):

Last Friday night, Mr. Obama, responding to a complaint by the United Steelworkers, imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires for cars and light trucks. China quickly responded by threatening to retaliate against American auto products and chicken meat, raising fears of a possible trade war, an especially unwelcome prospect just as the global economy is struggling to recover.

China has deplored the administration’s decision, suggesting it caved to domestic support for protectionism. The Tire Industry Association, which represents American tire retailers, said the decision was ill-advised and would lead to higher prices for consumers.

Asserting that the decision would hurt tire retailers, the association said it “believes this was a politically motivated decision that will end up costing more jobs than it saves. These tariffs will not bring back the jobs that the union claims have been lost.”

Responding to New Tire Tariff, China Targets American Auto Parts and Chicken Products

Just days after Obama bowed to union pressure and imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires, China has retaliated:

Chinese officials lambasted the decision, accusing the U.S. of engaging in protectionism and violating World Trade Organization rules. They argued that the U.S. tire industry had long ago abandoned the low-end market that China covets and said Chinese tire imports had increased only 2.2% between 2007 and 2008, state media reported.

By announcing the probe of U.S. imports, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce signaled that it was prepared to challenge Obama’s decision.

“Recently, the commerce ministry has received word from domestic industries indicating that [chicken and auto] products had entered our nation’s markets via dumping, subsidies and other unfair trade means,” the ministry said on its website, giving no details about the specific products.

James Zimmerman, a partner in the law firm of Squire Sanders & Dempsey in Beijing, recently told the Los Angeles Times, “American business in China should be prepared for what might be a zealous retaliatory response from China, which might impact a broad range of U.S. commercial interests.” Just what we need.

Milton Friedman: ‘The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse’

In 1999, Milton Friedman wrote,

There’s a common misconception that people who are in favor of a free market are also in favor of everything that big business does. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a believer in the pursuit of self-interest in a competitive capitalist system, I can’t blame a businessman who goes to Washington and tries to get special privileges for his company. He has been hired by the stockholders to make as much money for them as he can within the rules of the game. And if the rules of the game are that you go to Washington to get a special privilege, I can’t blame him for doing that. Blame the rest of us for being so foolish as to let him get away with it.

I do blame businessmen when, in their political activities, individual businessmen and their organizations take positions that are not in their own self-interest and that have the effect of undermining support for free private enterprise. In that respect, businessmen tend to be schizophrenic. When it comes to their own businesses, they look a long time ahead, thinking of what the business is going to be like 5 to 10 years from now. But when they get into the public sphere and start going into the problems of politics, they tend to be very shortsighted.

Click here to read the full article.