Category: Trade

Climate and Trade Explainer

Regions RefocusLeave a comment

The Gender and Trade Coalition was initiated in 2018 by feminist and progressive activists to put forward feminist trade analysis and advocate for equitable trade policy.

This article is the fourth in a series of short, Q&A format ā€˜explainersā€™ unpacking key trade issues produced for the Gender and Trade Coalition by Regions Refocus. It was written by Erica Levenson (Regions Refocus) with inputs from Maureen Penjueli (PANG), Adam Wolfenden (PANG), and Ranja Sengupta (Third World Network). The authors give their thanks to Mariama Williams (Global Afro-Descendant Climate Justice Collaborative), who reviewed various versions of the article and provided helpful feedback. Read the full article and catch up on past explainers .

1. How is Trade Connected to Climate Change?

For the past 500 years in which capitalism has been the dominant economic system, continuing profit accumulation has been dependent on the unsustainable use, commodification, privatization, and destruction of natural resources on the one hand, and exploitation of human resources on the other. While natural resources have always fueled the metaphorical fire of capitalism, the Industrial Revolution greatly increased the ease and speed with which they could be destroyed. It is scientifically proven that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main cause of climate change, with carbon dioxide (CO2) that results from the burning of fossil fuels as the number one source of warming and methane (largely emitted by the industrial agriculture sector) at number two. [1] Trade in particular has contributed to climate change: international trade alone accounts for an estimated 20ā€“30% of annual GHG emissions.[2]

The current structural configuration of the economy, with trade at the center, is fundamentally incompatible with the reduction of GHG emissions. Free trade aims to expand the volume of trade in terms of production as well as consumption, so as to increase the potential gains to countries from

participating in international tradeā€” as established by Ricardoā€™s theory of comparative advantage.[3] But this theory pays no attention to the distributional impacts of free trade, or its environmental impacts. Trade-related production activities are often hugely detrimental to the environment and come at the price of forever contaminating or destroying essential ecosystems. Since all modes of transportā€” air, land, sea, and train shippingā€” are fossil fuel-dependent, an increase in consumption necessarily means an increase in GHG emissions. Gasoline and diesel power every form of shipping; maritime transport, fueled by diesel, makes up the majority of international trade in terms of both volume and value.[4]

Read More »

Migration and Trade Explainer

Regions RefocusLeave a comment

The Gender and Trade Coalition was initiated in 2018 by feminist and progressive activists to put forward feminist trade analysis and advocate for equitable trade policy.

This article is the third in a series of short, Q&A format ā€˜explainersā€™ unpacking key trade issues produced for the Gender and Trade Coalition by Regions Refocus. It was written by Erica Levenson (Regions Refocus) with inputs from Carol Barton (WIMN) and Catherine Tactaquin (WIMN). The authors give their thanks to Neha Misra (Solidarity Center), Irem Arf (ITUC), Liepollo Lebohang Pheko (Trade Collective), and Mariama Williams (ILE), who reviewed various versions of the article and provided helpful feedback. Read the full article and catch up on past explainers .

1.     What Does Trade Have to do With Migration?

The movement of people is a phenomenon as old as human history, and indeed predates nation-states. Migration is not something that begins and ends so much as it is a process, from the roots of the conditions which form the imperative to migrate, to the migration journey, gradual integration, and complex notions of citizenship and identity. This is precisely what makes migration flows a reflection of the social, economic, and political context in which they happen. Modern migration flows, then, reflect the stark structural inequalities that exist in the global economic order. This view correlates to the core-periphery model of migration, which sees migration as the result of acute labor shortages in capitalist centers that need to be filled through migration inflows from peripheries, drawing parallels to the Marxian concept of a reserve army of labor (Sassen-Koob 1981). As feminist scholars have argued, continuous flows of labor power from the Global South to the North are possible not simply due to the will of the Global North, but because institutions in countries of origin facilitate them (Nawyn 2010).

Rather than this core-periphery model of migration, a simplistic push-pull model guides migration provisions in international trade agreements. Informed by neoclassical economics, the push-pull model assumes that migration is the result of micro-level decision making processes that weigh the ā€˜pros and consā€™ of migration, envisioning a simplistic calculation of factors such as perceived wage differentials, employment conditions, and migration costs. Migration is effectively reduced to a household decision meant ā€œto minimize risks to family income or to overcome capital constraintsā€ (Aldaba 2000, 6).

There is a persistent assumption in trade governance that migration and trade are substitutes. Both European Union and United States policymakers have tried to substitute open markets for open immigration policies: to open their markets to exports from states in the Global South in order to reduce migration. This was the explicit goal of former US President George H.W. Bush when he signed NAFTA, and of the EU in liberalizing trade with Northern African states (Campaniello 2014). Simultaneously as the US and EU agreed to liberalize trade, they increased their border policing and passed restrictive migration policies. But these and other free trade agreements have failed to curb migration through substitution because of a key flaw in their assumption: that increasing free trade leads to increases in GDP and wages in developing countries. In fact, quite the opposite is trueā€“ trade liberalization has severely hindered the economies of developing countries. Consequently, free trade agreements have actually increased migration in the long-term (Orefice 2013).

There is a clear gap in structural understandings of the relationship between trade and migration and a need to challenge the ideologies of the people governing them. It is high time to acknowledge the many unfulfilled promises which have been hung on trade liberalization and the socioeconomic catastrophes it has instead led to (Aguinaga et al. 2013; BenerĆ­a, Deere, and Kabeer 2012; Flynn and Kofman 2004; Hannah, Roberts, and Trommer 2021; Harrison 1997). A critical feminist analysis of the relationship between trade and migration points out the numerous connections between deeply unequal trade and migration governance regimes and illuminates urgent areas in need of improvement.

Read More »

Post-Conflict Recovery and Trade Explainer

Regions RefocusLeave a comment

The Gender and Trade Coalition was initiated in 2018 by feminist and progressive activists to put forward feminist trade analysis and advocate for equitable trade policy.

This article is the second in a series of short, Q&A format ā€˜explainersā€™ unpacking key trade issues produced for the Gender and Trade Coalition by Regions Refocus. It was written by Senani Dehigolla (Regions Refocus), Erica Levenson (Regions Refocus), Anita Nayar (Regions Refocus), Nela Porobić (WILPF), and Fatimah Kelleher (Nawiā€“Afrifem Macroeconomics Collective). Read the full article and catch up on past explainers .

  1. Does Trade Enhance Post-Conflict Recovery?

Post-conflict contexts can refer to a spectrum of situations of violent political conflict (both inter-state and within states) which share similar considerations for reconstruction and development. Countries recovering from conflict wrestle with the challenges of sustaining peace while restoring their economies, rebuilding devastated social and physical infrastructure, and providing basic services to people whose lives have been upended by displacement and insurmountable loss (Cohn and Duncanson 2020; Mallett and Pain 2018). Many realities do not reflect the static term ‘post-conflict’, as conflicts can restart and end at different times in different parts of a country (Mallett and Pain 2018; Turner, Aginam and Popovski 2008). While trade may provide opportunities for exports and economic growth, unfettered trade liberalization can be counter-productive to domestic industriesā€™ recovery and does not necessarily benefit affected populations or lead to lasting peace (Kurtenbach and Rettberg 2018; Langer and Brown 2016; Oxfam 2007).

According to the infamous McDonald’s theory of peace, no two countries that both have a McDonald’s have ever fought a war against each other; this is because they are assumed to engage in free trade with one another and, therefore, a war would threaten both of their economies (Friedman 2000). Adhering to this theory, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade for Peace Programme highlights the role of trade and economic integration in promoting peace and security. It presents post-conflict contexts as a new opportunity to generate profit for multinational corporations (MNCs) based on the argument that integration into the multilateral trading system leads to stability and economic well-being.

In reality, turning post-conflict recovery into a one-size-fits-all outcome can lead to violent and incomplete re-integration into the global economy (Kurtenbach and Rettberg 2018; Langer and Brown 2016; Mallett and Pain 2018). This directly affects disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs on the ground which are critical to rebuilding post-conflict societies (Woodward 2013). Conflict can be further fueled by economic activities, with MNCs at worst capitalizing on conflict and post-conflict contexts to increase land grabs and labor rights violations, and at best continuing with business as usual despite the conflict (see for example Abed and Kelleher 2022; Frynas and Wood 2001).

Opening recovering domestic industries to highly competitive global markets can lead to the elimination of local economic actors and the further weakening of domestic industries, which deepens inequalities within and between countries (Krpec and Hodulak 2019). Even while some post-conflict countries such as Sri Lanka and Uganda have benefited from trade liberalization according to macroeconomic indicators, their GDP growth has failed to produce jobs for domestic populations, thereby neglecting to heal post-conflict wounds (Mallett and Pain 2018, 265). While trade liberalization may facilitate reintegration into the economic system, the same cannot be said for trade liberalizationā€™s ability to facilitate the recovery of ā€œthe conditions of peopleā€™s lives nor a societyā€™s recovery from warā€ (Cohn and Duncanson 2020, 5).

Read More »

Gender and Trade Explainer

Regions RefocusLeave a comment

The Gender and Trade Coalition was initiated in 2018 by feminist and progressive activists to put forward feminist trade analysis and advocate for equitable trade policy. This article is the first in a series of short, Q&A format ā€˜explainersā€™ unpacking key trade issues produced for the Gender and Trade Coalition by Regions Refocus. It was written by Erica Levenson (Regions Refocus) with inputs from Fatimah Kelleher (Nawiā€“Afrifem Macroeconomics Collective), Mariama Williams (ILE), Hien Nguyen Thi (APWLD), and Senani Dehigolla (Regions Refocus). Read the full article .

  1. How Are Gender and Trade Connected?

At the core of the modern global economy is an array of trade and investment rules that have been designed by developed countriesā€™ elites and corporations. These interlinked rules reinforce the othersā€™ impacts on national economies, enabled by international finance and trade institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Trade Organization (WTO) as enforcement mechanisms. From worsening human rights violations to degradation of the environment, the effects of trade and investment regimes impact every aspect of womenā€™s lives, exacerbating and creating inequalities based on hierarchies of class, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

Behind the scenes of global economic policymaking spaces, corporations and the financial sector set the policy menu: liberalization, deregulation, and privatization. Through predatory loan conditionalities, trade agreements, and other practices, international finance and trade institutions have enforced these policies and created ā€˜enabling environmentsā€™ for foreign investments. Trade tariffs have been lowered; investment possibilities and controls have been liberalized; and regulations on the financial sector, markets, and corporations have been dismantled while at the same time the rights of major corporations (especially intellectual property) have been increased (Aguirre, Eick, and Reese 2006; Hathaway 2020; Hursh and Henderson 2011). Cheap imports are dumped by transnational corporations and their subsidiaries, primary commodity export dependence is perpetuated, public goods and services are privatized, and social protections are cut, among other things (Hormeku-Ajei et al. 2022). These are the effects of ā€˜successfulā€™ neoliberal policies, and in particular trade liberalization.

The manifestations of deeply unequal trade and investment governance regimes can be seen in worsening poverty rates and gender inequality; widening gaps between the worldā€™s richest and poorest countries, and the richest and poorest people; and adverse impacts on supposedly inalienable human rights, including access to education, secure housing, food security, and healthcare (Koechlin 2013; Navarro 2007; OHCHR 2015; Western et al. 2016). The severe impacts of trade and investment rules have been increasingly borne by people in developing countries, especially women (Grzanka, Mann, and Elliott 2016; Pearson 2019; UNCTAD 2014; UNCTAD and UN Women 2020).

Contemporary trade intensification, expansion, and privatization in the modern global economy relies on the systematic exploitation of women. Women form the backbone of the economy, in terms of both production and domestic labor: women are systematically underpaid, occupationally segregated, and marginalized, and their domestic labor is invisibilized and devalued. Gender inequality is not a question of happenstance but rather something that is necessary to the current function of the economy, in particular to trade. A critical analysis of trade from a feminist lens proves the urgency of recognizing the crucial role that gender inequality plays in sustaining global and national economies and illuminates key areas that serve as opportunities for policy interventions.

Read More »

Want to understand industrialisation in resource-rich countries such as Uzbekistan? Read Marx (and IƱigo Carrera)

fgaldini1 Comment

The commodity supercycle of the 2000s and 2010s gave rise to a rich debate in the academic literature about the possibility for resource-rich countries to muster the primary commodity price bonanza for development. As in past debates on the rise of Asia as the ā€˜worldā€™s factoryā€™, industrial policy was once again at the forefront of discussion.

On the one hand, orthodox scholars insisted that the use of market distortions to channel resources towards industrialisation would be a risky gamble with little guarantee of success. Instead, as the Asian ā€˜tigersā€™ and China before them, developing countries would do well to make good use of the market to identify their comparative advantages. In this view, industrial policy continues to be inefficient and wasteful, especially as it creates plenty of opportunities for corruption rather than development. On the other hand, heterodox researchers argued that state intervention was crucial to divert resource rents to specific nascent industries that would never be able to withstand international competition without sustained support. As both the Asian ā€˜tigersā€™ and China more recently used robust industrial policy to develop globally competitive industries, developing countries should also use targeted policy intervention to ā€˜upgradeā€™ to higher value-added manufacturing for export.

Still, one question that eludes both orthodox and heterodox literature concerns why, for decades, multinational corporations would consistently invest in manufacturing in resource-rich countries such as, for instance, Argentina, Brazil, and Egypt. This has been the case despite the small scale and high costs of production in these markets (making them inefficient, per orthodox scholars), whose output is mostly sold domestically rather than exported (pace heterodox scholars).

In a in Competition & Change, I applied Argentinian scholar ā€™s on Marx to the under-researched case study of the car industry in Uzbekistan to answer precisely this question. I found this same orthodox-heterodox binary to dominate the literature on ā€˜transitionā€™ from the command to the market economy in Uzbekistan, too. Orthodox researchers averred that state-owned auto company UzAvtoSanoat failed to develop due to inefficiency and corruption, in particular due to the distortions of the governmentā€™s industrial policy. Heterodox scholars instead found industrial policy to be the very reason behind the creation of a successful export-oriented car industry, in particular during the commodity supercycle when part of total output was exported mostly to Russia. Neither, however, could explain why Korean Daewoo Motor Company (DMC) and American General Motors (GM) entered into a joint-venture with UzAvtoSanoat, despite the small domestic scale (hence high costs) of automobile production in the country, which is mostly purchased domestically.

Read More »

The Malformation of West Africa

Abel B.S. Gaiya1 Comment

In 1927, Ladipo Solanke ā€“ co-founder of the West African Students Union (WASU) ā€“ published a book in which he argued that ā€œIt took the white race a thousand years to arrive at their present level of advance: it took the Japanese, a Mongol race, 50 years to catch up with the white race, there is no reason why we West Africans, a Negro race, should not catch up with the Aryans and the Mongols in one quarter of a century.ā€ (Solanke, 1927: 58). All that would be needed to achieve this, for Solanke, would be ā€œa strong self-determination to take up and money to back up,ā€ as well as active cooperation among West Africans. Sir Henry J. Lightfoot-Boston, in an article titled Fifty Years Hence, prophesied a federation of West African territories by 1976 (Boahen, 1982: 40).

The fulfilment of such grand visions has continued to elude the region for decades. West Africans, and indeed many from outside the region, have not only underestimated the difficulty of development in general and in the region in particular, but have understated how crucial it is to examine the difficulties within a regional framework.

Developmental and Regional Difficulties

In the case of the former, the worldwide development experience since the 1960s and the multitude of crises in West Africa have demonstrated that development and stability are not merely matters of ā€œpolitical willā€ or ā€œstrong self-determinationā€. Particularly for West Africa, there is a reason why the great empires and societies of the interior (the Western Sudan) which had the highest levels of integration with the rest of the world, elite Arabo-literacy rates and the largest empires in the pre-Atlantic period now rank the highest in poverty rates and the lowest in economic production, anglo-literacy rates, and many other measures of human development.

There is a reason why West Africa had the highest incidence of military coups in Africa following political independence (McGowan, 2003: 355); why the region is a major center of diffusive terrorism on the continent; and why it is experiencing a current climate of violence between farmers and pastoralists that is ā€œunprecedented in modern timesā€ (Brottem, 2021: 2). There is a reason why West Africa, along with Central Africa, has the highest transport costs and lowest transport quality in a continent which has the highest transport costs in the world (Teravaninthorn and Raballand, 2009: 17).

There is a reason why, according to the latest attempt to quantify political settlements of developing countries (Schulz and Kelsall, 2020), West Africa ranks the lowest in Africa in terms of virtually all the variables identified by Whitfield et al. (2015) as critical for industrial policy success. Yet presidential elections and development discourse within nations in West Africa continue to be dominated by simplistic narratives of ā€œgood governanceā€, ā€œcorruptionā€ and ā€œpolitical willā€.

With regard to understating the importance of adopting a regional lens, this has been the case since the late colonial period when self-government began to be extended to the colonies on a territorial rather than regional basis. The movements for West African cooperation fostered by the National Congress of British West Africa (NCBWA), its eventual rival, the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) and student organizations such as the West African Students Union (WASU) and the FĆ©dĆ©ration des Ć©tudiants d’Afrique noire en France (FEANF) (Black African Students Federation in France) went into decline in West Africa as nationalist territorialism spread across the region in response to the expanded opportunities for legislative engagement which followed colonial acquiescence to some degree of self-rule (Boahen, 1982: 15). Efforts at creating regional federations, as pre-eminently envisaged by Kwame Nkrumah, did not succeed, and faded away after the fall of Nkrumah in 1966 (Serra, 2014: 21-22). Since then, ā€œAlthough rhetorical support for integration exists, there is no dominant personality to articulate a vision and turn it into a crusade the way Nkrumah once did.ā€ (Lavergne and Daddieh, 1997: 105). There is also an absence of an ā€œintegration cultureā€ in the region, among governments, business communities and ordinary people (Bundu, 1997: 38).

Read More »

International support forĀ theĀ least developed countries: movingĀ out of the mainstream

Dan1 Comment

Next January the next United Nations Programme of Action for least developed countries (LDCs) will launch in Doha. It will set the framework for the next 10 years of international support for the worldā€™s 46 officially poorest and most structurally disadvantaged countries, home to around a billion people.  

LDCs are low-income countries confronting severe structural impediments to sustainable development. Membership of the category is based on : income per capita, human assets and economic and environmental vulnerability.  

 for LDCs currently falls under three categories: trade, aid and a range of ad hoc measures broadly aimed at help with taking part in the international system, such as lower contributions to the UN budget and support for travel to international meetings like the annual UN General Assembly.  

Support is largely based on the premise that LDCs are artificially or temporarily excluded from global commerce. Preferential market access, temporary development assistance and help with participating in multilateral processes are intended to tackle this defect, in turn helping the LDCs ā€˜catch upā€™.  

Dating to 1971, the category is the only one recognised in UN and multilateral legal texts. There is no official ā€˜developing countryā€™ or ā€˜middle incomeā€™ category with associated support measures. Low income countries are not specifically targeted, and the small and vulnerable states are only recognised as a working group at the World Trade Organisation. They are not acknowledged in the legal texts. 

Although donors donā€™t meet aid pledges and support doesnā€™t go far enough, official targets are possible because the LDC group is officially recognised in the UN system and has legal bearing. An example of such a target is the commitment by developed countries to deliver 0.15-0.20% of gross national income (GNI) in development assistance to LDCs. The European Union offers duty-free, quota-free market access to LDC exports under its Everything But Arms (EBA) trade scheme for LDCs. 

The theory behind support for LDCs is implicitly based on the mainstream economics view that LDCs lag behind because they arenā€™t exposed enough to correct market prices and conditions. The removal of so-called distortions like overseas tariff and non-tariff barriers, alongside temporary development assistance and help taking part in the global system, is supposed to free up these economies to play a fuller role in the international economy. Economic growth will drive development and reduce poverty. 

The evidence shows that for most LDCs this theory never worked. Until the pandemic the economies of some LDCs were performing well. Up to 12 could leave the category in coming years. A few, like Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar, were able to take advantage of lower tariffs for their garment exports. These three countries account for 87% of imports to the EU under EBA.  

But half were supposed to meet the criteria by 2020, according to international targets. 12 graduations falls well short. The six that have left since the formation of the category in 1971 have not all done so because of better international market access or special support measures. Commodity exports, tourism or improved health and education are mostly responsible.  

The remaining LDCs arenā€™t catching up.Ā The gap is widening.Ā The pandemicĀ Ā group.Ā Gross domestic product (GDP)Ā shrank 1.3% on averageĀ in 2020, with the economies of 37 contracting during the yearĀ and extreme poverty in the group rising by a staggering 84Ā million. But even beforeĀ Covid, average realĀ GDP per capitaĀ for the groupĀ had long divergedĀ fromĀ other developing countriesĀ and theĀ rest of theĀ world.Ā Ā 

Read More »

World Development under Monopoly Capitalism

benjaminselwyn1 Comment

Photo: do bicycles come from? Source: WDR2020, Figure 1.1, pp. 16.

One of the main effects (I will not say purposes) of orthodox traditional economics wasā€¦a plan for explaining to the privileged class that their position was morally right and was necessary for the welfare of society.

ā€”Joan Robinson1

The recent period of globalizationā€”following the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the reintegration of China into the world economyā€”is one where global value chains have become the dominant organizational form of capitalism. From low to high tech, basic consumer goods to heavy capital equipment, food to services, goods are now produced across many countries, integrated through global value chains. According to the International Labour Organization, between 1995 and 2013 the number of people employed in global value chains rose from 296 to 453 million, amounting to one in five jobs in the global economy.2 We are living in a global value chain world.3

The big question is whether this global value chain world is contributing to, or detracting from, real human development. Is it establishing a more equal, less exploitative, less poverty-ridden world? Which political economic frameworks are best placed to illuminate and explain the workings of this world?

Recent critical scholarship has applied monopoly capital concepts and categories to the analysis of global value chains. John Bellamy Foster and others have illuminated how global value chains represent the latest form of monopoly capital on a world scale.4 John Smith shows how surplus-value transfer and captureā€”from workers in poorer countries to lead firms in northern countriesā€”is portrayed by mainstream economists as ā€œvalue addedā€ by those firms.5 Intan Suwandi analyzes how global value chains are enabled by, and also intensify, differential rates of worldwide labor exploitation.6

Mainstream advocates of global value chain-based development tend to ignore such critical analyses, and continue to preach the benefits of global value chain integration by drawing on examples and data that support their claims. However, it says much about the anti-developmental dynamics generated by global value chains when a World Bank report advocating global value chain-based development actually provides data that supports the analyses of the aforementioned critical authors.

Here, we interrogate the data used and the claims made in the World Bankā€™sĀ World Development Report 2020, titledĀ Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value ChainsĀ (WDR2020, or ā€œthe reportā€).7Ā While the report portrays global value chains as contributing to poor countriesā€™ development through job creation, poverty alleviation, and economic growth, we reveal how its data shows the opposite.8

Read More »