In his argument proposing the motion, Dr Andy Storey has made a substantial number of claims that would seemingly back up his contention that ‘Globalisation puts profit before people’. Taken in the order presented by Dr Storey he firstly makes two points in the form of a quip aimed at Prof J Hill, and his comments about the material benefits that may be accumulated for so many as a result of globalisation. Dr Storey recommends that the aforementioned speaker consider the impact of globalisation and the accrual of such goods has on both workers in developing countries as well as the environment. No one can argue that working conditions all over the world are not equal or fair, however to blame this on globalisation is to take a very narrow view of all the factors involved and have not progressed economically in the way that developed countries have. In the paper “The Effects of Globalization on Working Conditions in Developing Countries: An Analysis Framework & Country Study Results 2008” Ruwan Jayasuriya points out that one of the effects of globalisation is that it can in fact help draw attention to the harsh working conditions that may exist in developing countries and thus help place political pressure on governments to enforce change for the better. Jayasuriya also points to the results of the study that was undertaken for the paper which concludes with the fact that in developing countries the effect of globalisation is that there is a movement of workers from less profitable industries, which have associated low wages to “sectors with relatively higher wages and better non-wage working conditions.” (Jayasuriya, 2008)With reference to Dr. Storey’s remark about the supposed detrimental affect of globalisation on the environment because of the accrual of material goods such as flat screen televisions one wonders whether it is his contention that if every country adopted measures based on protectionist policies and international trade ceased that the worlds population would stop wanting such luxury goods. Maybe if we stop trading with other countries we would have the desire to throw away all our luxuries and build ourselves tree huts to live in so that we do not harm the environment? The reality of the situation is that whether we trade internationally or produce all our goods domestically there will always be an impact on the environment. We must also remember that it is a well known fact that some governments have less of a propensity to impose environmental sanctions on their industries than other countries. And it is only through international pressure and agreements which form as a result of the interconnectedness that exists between nations through global trade that these countries are forced to review their environmentally damaging practices. Globalisation has helped in the formation of such agreements as the Kyoto Protocol which endeavours to protect our planet, our environment and our race.
Dr Storey then attempts to make us believe that America and Britain or as he calls them “the two poster boys for claimed development through reliance on free markets and free trade” gained their wealth and dominant market positions through practicing protectionism and essentially shutting out all other nations. He also goes on to state that other countries such as Taiwan really only began to prosper when they started to practice protectionism or interventionism as he would call it. Now unfortunately for us there is not enough time to systematically go through every country that Dr Storey mentions and give rebuttals The argument presented is fundamentally flawed from a historical perspective in that Dr Storey has chosen to be extremely selective in his delivery of the development of America’s trading past as well as the fact that such statements that protectionist policies could create a dominant market position completely fly in the face of economic theory which proves the contrary. I am, of course, talking about the theory of comparative advantage. However firstly we will take a more in depth analysis of America’s trading past which will prove that although America did apply import quotas as well as other protectionist measures throughout its history they all proved to be either completely fruitless or even counterproductive to the extent that such policies actually damaged the overall welfare of the domestic population. The case for the adoption of globalisation as opposed to protectionism is epitomised by the policies adopted by President Jefferson and The US Congress between 1807-1809. This so called “Jeffersonian trade embargo” (Irwin, 2006)was so effective that imports into America had disappeared by 1808. America had adopted a fully protectionist _______ and had rejected international trade. So how did America get on? According to Douglas Irwin from The National Bureau of Economic Research in the USA not well to say the least. In fact Irwin explains that his research shows “the static welfare cost of the embargo was about 5 percent of GDP. Thus, the embargo inflicted substantial costs on the economy during the short period that it was in effect.” (Irwin, 2006)American import tariffs remained high right through til
Dr Storey’s argument that America gained its market power through the very protectionist policies it opposes is thus ridiculous. All that the trade restrictions imposed by the USA really managed to achieve was to deepen a recession and so turn it into a depression. America should be considered a ‘poster boy’ for globalisation due to the fact that the mistakes made there, through the adoption of protectionism, can be a lesson to all countries that only through the embracing globalisation can we ensure that people are put first through increased consumer surpluses.
Now that I have discredited my opponent’s claims from a historical perspective I will now explain why the very idea of getting rich through protectionism????? Is ridiculous and that only through the adoption of globalisation and free trade can we guarantee to increase consumer welfare so put people before profit. This is achieved through the magic of comparative advantage.
Reason for eco partnership agreement mark wolf on
CONCLUSION
Dr Storey then mentions the work of Martin Wolf and that as an “ardent supporter of globalisation” even he admits that it is “self interest coordinated through the market motivates people to invent produce and sell a vast array of goods, services and assets.” He then attempts to suggest that this pursuit of profit does not promote the common good. However the simple fact of the matter is that the
“It is true that high-income countries are more open to trade and capital flows than ever before, but they continue to protect labour intensive, inefficient agricultural activities and operate tight controls on inflows of immigrants. In so doing, they inflict substantial harm on developing countries. Many of these developing countries remain more closed to trade, capital, and movement of people than they were a century ago. Poverty is the price paid for these deficiencies.”
The debate over whether globalisation puts profit before people is, as pointed out by a number of the speakers, an extremely emotive one. There is no system in the world that is completely perfect and although the term ‘globalisation’ is really only 50 or 60 years old the process has existed for hundreds of years back to the time when Europeans traded with Asians for exotic spices and silks. It is still developing…
One thing that is an undeniable consequence of globalisation is the increased interconnectedness of many peoples from many different countries all around the world.
They say that everyone can be connected to anyone else in the world by only six people and people realise that
Greater concern for the planet as a whole – Kyoto agreement
In the face of natural disasters such as recently in Haiti governments and peoples all over the world offer assistance in the form of pledges of cash to aid agencies sending workers to help where they can. We are all connected to each other on this planet which through the likes of globalisation is becoming ever smaller. In conclusion the results associated with globalisation will not guarantee vast riches for the population of the entire world but it will help ensure that consumers all over the world are better of through having a greater variety of products which through comparative advantage are cheaper than if produced at home.
We all share planet, we are all affected by the actions of each other so it is in everyone’s best interest to look after the entire world and preserve it as best we can.