Obama ‘weak, cautious’ on trade

In an article titled “Obama’s Big Failure,” Susan Ariel Aaronson, associate research professor of George Washington University, criticizes the President’s trade policy as “cautious and vague.”

“Because they have not put forward an alternative model,” she writes in International Economy magazine, “by default, Obama Administration officials have accepted the Bush paradigm for trade liberalization.”

Dr. Aaronson identifies the chief mark of this “timidity” as going along with the Bush switch of trade negotiations from the multilateral forum to the bilateral and regional, which pursue “preferential” rather than free trade agreements. This reorientation “undermines both the effectiveness of the World Trade Organization and its fundamental principle of most favored nation (nondiscrimination among nations).”

“The result has been a mish-mash of global trade governance,” she points out, as the various preferential agreements include differences in some key rules. She strongly recommends returning the focus of trade policy to the WTO.

To gain public support for such a move (and trade generally, I would add), Dr. Aaronson urges policymakers to publicize the links between trade and employment., with the UN International Labor Organization having a role in this assessment.

Dr. Aaronson latest book is “Trade Imbalance: the Struggle to Weigh Human Rights in Trade Policy Making.”

Print Page Read more!

President's agenda for jobs: is it populist enough?

I didn’t watch or listen to President Obama’ State of the Union address. I read it the morning after. And I re-read large chunks of it, focusing on what he said about jobs.

“Jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010,” he declared. Here are his plans.

One way is to “put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow” and “building clean energy facilities.” These steps, however, “won’t make up for the seven million jobs that we’ve lost over the past two years.”

So “it’s time to get serious about the problems that are hampering our growth.” One of a series of initiatives proposed by the President: “Double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.”

In aggressively seeking new markets, the U.S. must make sure that other countries are playing by the rules. “And that’s why we’ll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”

Some pundits attributed Obama’s new emphasis on jobs to a need to become more “populist” after a Republican won the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Senator Kennedy. But how populist is President Obama’s position?

A few weeks ago Gallup asked 1,017 Americans this open-ended question: “In your opinion, what would be the best way to create more jobs in the United States?”

The top prescription was “Keep manufacturing jobs here/Stop sending overseas,” favored by 18% of respondents. Another 4% chose “higher taxes on imports/Buy American.” So in effect 20% deemed globalization to be the chief obstacle to ending U.S. unemployment.

The Gallup poll findings were consistent with those in a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. Its respondents were asked to prioritize a prepared list of 11 long-range foreign policy goals. Surprisingly, “protecting the jobs of American workers” shared the top place with “taking measures to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks.” Both were given 85% “top priority," and 13% “some priority."

If these findings do reflect public opinion, Obama’s jobs agenda may not turn out to be a winner on voting day. It could depend on the unemployment rate at that time.

Print Page Read more!

Both saltwater and freshwater economists got it wrong on free trade -- and still do

“How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” was the title of a New York Times magazine article on September 6. Good question -- answered at length by Paul Krugman, a Pulitzer prize-winner in economics. Now the question has become: did Krugman get it wrong in a crucial respect – international trade?

In his 7,000-word essay, Krugman targeted mainline economists not only for failing to foresee today’s economic crisis but, more important, for being blind “to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy.” They blinded themselves by their exuberant faith in an efficient free market, a faith that they successfully spread to others, policymakers included.

In the field of macroeconomics, a significant theoretical difference has long existed quietly between those whom Krugman called “freshwater” economists (mainly at inland schools) and “saltwater economists” (mainly in coastal U.S. universities) over the cause and cure of recessions. That difference did not erupt on the policy level until the unprecedented economic shock hit last year.

What both salt- and freshwater economists ignored

The September 20 Times magazine has now printed nine letters with thoughtful comments on Krugman’s article. One was from Philip K. Verleger Jr., a business professor at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, a former staff economist at the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors and a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C.

Verleger praised Krugman’s essay “as far as it goes,” but faulted it for ending “at the edge of salt water.” His three-paragraph critique is worth quoting in full:

“Krugman does not raise the subject of international trade. Yet for years saltwater and freshwater economists have all written and preached of the benefits of free trade. Larry Summers [now director of the National Economic Council], for example, has endorsed the view that trillions of dollars of benefits would accrue by opening international markets. I was part of the chorus for more than 10 years as a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“Here, too, I believe economists got it wrong. The United States’ economic situation has been harmed, not helped, by the push for free trade. America’s skilled workers and middle class are undoubtedly much worse off thanks to the market-opening measures negotiated over the past three decades at the encouragement of almost all economists. The losses have occurred because the theoretical benefits projected by economists are blocked again and again by our trade partners.

“Unfortunately, few economists are willing to offer the same detailed criticism of trade policies that Krugman has offered of macroeconomics.”

The good news is that many policymakers now do understand that the financial markets, and their industry, are not self-regulating. As President Obama said in his weekly address on September 19, Congress must “put in place a series of tough, common-sense rules of the road that will protect consumers from abuse, let markets function fairly and freely, and help prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.”

But it is not at all clear whether the Obama administration understands that international trade also is not self-regulating, and that it too needs a series of tough, common-sense rules of the road that will protect consumers and workers, let markets function fairly and freely, and help prevent a crisis like this one from ever happening again.

Print Page Read more!

The President's Trade Quandries

Trade and globalization: where do they rank on the list of President Obama’s priorities? If you rely on the White House Website, they are not a priority of his at all.

When I checked the Website five days ago, I found that the home page listed 22 “issues,” lined up alphabetically from Civil Rights to Women. Then I clicked on “Additional Issues” at the end of the 22-item list. Seven more popped up, with Faith at the top, followed by six more listed alphabetically, from Arts to Transportation. No Trade or Globalization.

I turned to a “contact us” form, whicd invites the viewer to submit comments or questions for the President or his staff. I submitted the following;

"Mr. President: Why are two highly important issues -- globalization and trade -- omitted from your list of issues and additional issues?. That's very strange. You need to take a clear stand on these issues, considering their impact on American working men and women. I know your advisers would like to duck these issues, but that's impossible. Bob Senser"

I checked a box marked “a response requested.” Today, after getting no response, I scanned the Website again. The 22 issues and seven additional issues were still there as before. No additions.

It occurred to me that Globalization and Trade might be treated under Foreign Policy or Economics. No, they are not.

The President is the midst of a historic struggle for universal health coverage for Americans, a goal that none of his predecessors, from President Truman on, had achieved. I presume that his “issues” staff did prepare drafts at least on Trade, but that anything clear on this controversial subject would ignite additional fireworks, which the White House did not want to set off at this time.

In any case, because of conflicting pressures, foreign and domestic, as well as a less than full grasp of globalization, the President appears to be in a real quandary on trade. But he will certainly have to take a stand of some kind next week, when he addresses the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, followed by a G20 summit the following week in the same city.

Will he come down on the side of workers? Or on the side of major American corporations whose highly profitable off-shore production, imported into the United States, accounts for 40 percent or more of the huge U.S. trade deficit?

On September 11 the President imposed increased duties for three years on tire imports from China, ruling in favor of a petition by the United Steelworkers and a few U.S.-based corporations. See my article, “Obama Faces Crucial Test on Trade,” for background.

In explaining the President’s decision, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said: “When China came into the WTO, the U.S. negotiated the ability to impose remedies just like this one…Enforcing trade laws is key to maintaining an open and free trading system.”

Print Page Read more!

Reviving the anti-sweatshop movement

“Nearly 20 years of anti-sweatshop activism has come to naught,” says a veteran campaigner against sweatshops, Jeff Ballinger. He contends, therefore, that it is urgent to try a new, more effective, strategy.

In the lead article of Dissent magazine’s summer issue, Ballinger lays out his thoughts on such a strategy. The article's title: “Finding an Anti-Sweatshop Strategy That Works.”

As an illustration of the anti-sweatshop movement’s failure, he cites a who-got-how-much breakdown of the $38 price of hoodie sold in the University of Connecticut bookstore a couple of years ago. Out of that $38, the workers in Mexico who produced it received a meager l8 cents. “The workers’ share could hardly have been lower when the movement began,” writes Ballinger, who himself helped create the movement.

From his own experience working with workers in the United States and Asia, he is convinced that to get rid of sweatshops, you have to start by helping workers “empower” themselves – get them involved in learning the facts of their vulnerable situation and the way to do something about it.

How to help under current circumstances? In Ballinger’s view, “fighting sweatshop abuses here and abroad will not be key policy undertakings of Barack Obama and his team.” He presumably means that strong anti-sweatshop legislation may get sidetracked by other priorities, such as battling for health care and financial reforms.

But even so, Ballinger insists, the executive branch has available a wide set of initiatives that it could take on its own – initiatives that “would at least begin an assault on global sweatshop practices.” That beginning should be launched by President Obama himself: “Addressing the rule of law as applied to the workplace ought to be a slam-dunk for the President and the recently re-energized State Department.”

Among the specific initiatives that Ballinger proposes for a “no-nonsense strategy” are these:

-- Expand the Bush administration’s “Trafficking in Persons” program to include workers lured to leave their Asian home countries for sweatshop jobs elsewhere in Asia.
-- Be sure to connect with real labor activists, in Asia and Central America especially.
-- Have AID missions adopt “worker empowerment” projects, such as those that involve workers themselves in using survey-research tools to gather information useful to local legal aid groups as well as to unions.
-- Have U.S. Embassies gather labor and environmental information in a more focused and systematic way, for example, by reporting meaningful details on enforcement by labor inspections.
-- In addition to raw data, gather wiki-style narratives on recent strikes, the human effect of sub-par wages, outright wage-cheating, and other pressing issues, as well as local academic papers on these issues.
-- Share information on these subjects with U.S. corporations that contract out work to local factories and offices.

Ballinger is currently finishing up work on a PhD degree, aided by a grant from the Laborers International Union. For the full text of Ballinger’s article, click here.

Print Page Read more!

President Obama’s basic choice on trade

As the Obama administration wrestles with shaping its policy on the World Trade Organization (WTO), the old questions about fairness and equal treatment pop up once again.

Fairness? (I can hear the loud objections.) Why sidetrack the WTO into controversies about fairness and equal treatment?

It may come as a surprise to some that the WTO is already committed to equal treatment. That commitment is so basic that it is expressed in two principles that the WTO calls “the foundation of the multilateral trading system.”

These two principles, both formulating “trade without discrimination,” are:

“1. Most-favored-nation (MFN): treating other people equally….Grant someone a special favor (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products), and you have to do the same for all other WTO members.”

“2. National treatment: treating foreigners and locals equally. Imported and locally produced goods should be treated equally….The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and domestic trademarks, copyrights, and patents.”

Those two principles, here quoted from an official document, “Understanding the WTO,"are written into all three key WTO agreements, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the General Agreement Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

Why does equality of treatment have such a fundamental role in the WTO as in the trading system as a whole?

Because it is fair to those whose rights and interests it is designed to protect – the business people and firms engaged in international commerce. The laws of individual countries were not – and are not -- adequate to offer that protection. After World War II, policymakers of leading nations agreed to correct that particular gap, and created the first versions of GATT the agreement and GATT the organization, both focused on business.

Even at the beginning, some leaders recognized that the focus on business was one-sided and needed to be corrected to include the rights and interests of workers and their organizations. Those efforts failed then, and have failed ever since.

The challenging trade issues now facing the Obama administration can be reduced to three statements:

1. The world trade and investment system does not protect the rights and interests of workers and worker organizations as it does the rights and interests of business and business firms.

2. That imbalance is unfair, and is increasingly recognized as unacceptable -- a trend that partly accounts for the widespread disenchantment with globalization.

3. The challenge is to decide what actions, short range to long range, are necessary to correct that imbalance.

Adopting a WTO agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of International Labor Standards (TRAILS) would be a historic achievement, but not a cure-all. Biased ideas toward work, workers, and worker organizations are imbeded in our culture. Curing them requires a multi-faceted approach.
* * *

This crisis should not go to waste

“Anonymous” makes the following comment about my previous post (below), titled “Oust U.S. financial oligarchy: economist”

“I'm so not listening to economists these days, Bob. Let's hear from people who are breaking out new mobilization ideas - the grass-roots cannot be rallied with what this-or-that economist says. Get the agit-prop, resistance-inspiring and activists' victories stories out there, before this moment passes!”

My view: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Including those among economists.


Print Page Read more!

New Labor Secretary Inherits a Mess

Under a Labor Department that has been mismanaged for years, uncounted numbers of workers – perhaps millions -- became victims of wage theft by employers. In testimony before a Congressional committee, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) yesterday described how sloppy enforcement of the law left low-wage workers particularly vulnerable to having employers steal their earnings.

Following up on scandals reported in the media, the GAO assigned a team of undercover agents to pose as workers or employers to test how the field offices of the department’s wage and hour division handled 10 types of complaints typically voiced across the country.

Here are three examples given of how department employees dealt with fictitious violations of minimum pay, child labor, and other issuest under their jurisdiction.

n A receptionist in Virginia paid less than the minimum wage: the department’s investigator accepted without question the employer’s refusal to pay back wages and counseled the office worker to file a private lawsuit.
n A meat packer in California using children to run heavy equipment: four months after receiving this anonymous tip, the wage and hour division office had still not conducted any investigative work, and never recorded the complaint in the department’s data base.
n A house painter in Texas who did not receive his final paycheck: the division employee accepted the employer’s word that he would pay, and closed the case as “agreed to pay” despite the painter’s claim that he got not a cent.

The department’s statistics on back wages collected, and the number of employees receiving their back pay, are overstated, according to the GAO, because “an unknown number” of complaints recorded as resolved did not in fact result in the worker’s receiving the back pay due

More than 100,000,000 workers are covered under federal labor laws enforced by the wage and hour division (WHD). The GAO’s overall assessment was that the WHD had “an ineffective system that [particularly] discourages wage theft complaints.

The new Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis, who has been in office less than two weeks, vowed to take the GAO findings seriously. The understaffed WHD will be adding 250 new investigators.

Under Secretary Solis, the Department of Labor is set to return to the mission for which it was founded in 1913: “to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of working people.”


Print Page Read more!

Pro-Obama think tank on trade reform

The Obama administration is getting some strong advice from the Center for American Progress, a think tank headed by transition co-chair John D. Podesta. Among other things, the advice deals with creating “a new and different trade policy –- one that takes a strategic approach to making globalization more inclusive and sustainable.”

How to implement that approach is the subject of a Center report by Ira Shapiro, a former general counsel in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Richard Samans, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Their newsiest recommendation:
-- Resist the temptation to lead a revival of the collapsed “Doha Round” of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
-- Do remain a “committed leader” of the multilateral trading system, while also making “new trade arrangements” within the WTO and outside of it.

Their most intriguing recommendation concerns “the special case of Asia” and how the United States could regain “its economic position” there. The report suggests that the Obama administration “reach out to the more advanced countries in Asia as potential partners in a vanguard, global club of advanced economies that agree to pursue deeper economic integration through both free trade and basic consistency of structural, regulatory, and exchange rate policies and institutions.”

“Basic consistency” would include comparable labor, environmental, consumer, and investor protections, the report emphasizes. It envisions that the pioneering members of this arrangement would be the United States, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, and that it might serve some nations’ self-interest to have “a counterweight to China’s increasing economic and political clout.”

Whether that particular idea flies or not, the report makes a reasonable case for a “more flexible approach” that regards fundamental policy consistencies as “a sounder organizing principle for [free trade agreements] than geographical proximity or bilateral ties.” The approach thus departs from a founding principle of the current trade regime: that all countries, whether democratic or dictatorial, are treated the same and get the same trade rights and privileges.

Here is what the report says about several of the current trade issues facing the new administration:

NAFTA: Because of global changes in the 15 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, “it is perfectly appropriate” for Canada, Mexico, and the United States not only to evaluate the agreement but to explore other topics of mutual interest (e.g., better regulatory coordination on food safety).

Colombia FTA: Before this can be ratified, Colombia will have make “sufficient progress” in ending violence and in prosecuting those engaging in violence.

South Korea FTA: South Korea must address impediments to U.S. beef and auto exports

Presidential trade promotion authority: Without it (including some version of “fast track”), other nations won’t take U.S. negotiators seriously, but this executive power needs to be balanced by a strengthened role for Congress, even to the point of it helping choose countries for trade agreements.

The report, part of a book titled “Change for America: a Progressive Blueprint for the 44th president,” is aimed at the Office of United States Trade Representative (USTR) and what it should do about “responding to the changing global challenge.”

For the new President, the “blueprint” in the 17-page trade section is obviously subject to change because of competing priorities, not only within the ten-chapter book, but also because of the financial debacle that happened after the book was drafted.

Print Page Read more!