This message contains the text of Sidney Weintraub's "Issues in International 
Political Economy" October 2000. To go directly to the web version, click on:
http://www.csis.org/americas/pubs/weintraubnewsletters102000.html

For further information, contact:

Rebecca Tunstall
Research Assistant
William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
p- 202-775-3123
f- 202-466-4739


ISSUES IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY
October 2000, Number 10


TELLING IT LIKE IT IS
Sidney Weintraub

This is my curmudgeon commentary. Its barbs are directed against 
exaggeration, double talk, and scapegoating of important institutions engaged 
in global economic development.

I do not intend, in what follows, to disparage the importance of labor unions 
in protecting the rights and benefits of workers, or to argue that the United 
States is a protectionist nation, or to doubt the valuable work that is done 
by multilateral institutions. My purpose, rather, is to highlight a few 
points: the hypocrisy that exists when imports of goods and services from 
poor countries are restricted while simultaneously insisting that this 
exclusion will benefit workers in those countries; the inconsistency of 
promoting democracy in developing countries even as we neglect the interplay 
of foreign trade, economic well-being, and political outcomes; the 
perpetuation of the fiction that multilateral institutions are independent 
actors that behave supranationally in ways that conflict with the desires of 
their powerful members; and the misconception that institutions such as the 
World Bank provide a service by promising more than they can deliver.

The leaders of organized labor in the United States opposed NAFTA and the 
grant of permanent normal trading relations with China. They are also against 
a free trade area of the Americas and opening a new round of negotiations in 
the World Trade Organization. The stated basis for this opposition is that 
the United States should not further liberalize its import structure until 
other countries accept core labor standards (right of association, power to 
organize and bargain collectively, prohibition against forced labor, minimum 
age for employment of children, and acceptable working conditions), and that 
punishment should be meted out in the form of U.S. import restrictions when 
these standards are violated.

Is this protectionism or a socially conscious initiative to upgrade labor 
conditions in poor countries? The leaders of poor countries insist that they, 
too, want to raise labor standards, but cannot do this if their export 
earnings are restricted. The practical result of the U.S. position is that 
meaningful trade negotiations are not going forward. Even though labor 
leaders insist this is not about protectionism, it sure looks like 
protectionism. (Former senator Dale Bumpers has noted that when politicians 
say something is not about money, it is about money.)

World Bank analysis has shown persuasively that the developing countries that 
have made the most progress in raising incomes are those that have opened 
their markets and engaged actively in world trade. However, there are still 
antitrade advocates who advise today's developing countries to look inward, 
just as many of today's developed countries focused first on internal markets 
and protecting their producers against foreign competitors. This was 
Alexander Hamilton's advice to the newborn United States. It was the 
development pattern for Japan. It was Ra?l Prebisch's advice to Latin 
American countries. Although this advice may have had some relevance once 
upon a time for countries with large or potentially large internal markets, 
such as Brazil, it surely does not for countries with tiny markets, like many 
in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa. The lesson of post-World War II 
development history is that countries that looked outward, such as those in 
East Asia, grew rapidly, while those that looked inward, as in Latin America, 
were relatively stagnant.

Is the advice to poor countries to look inward in the modern and increasingly 
globalizing world sincere, or is it designed to prevent competition in the 
U.S. market? Why advise developing countries to emulate the world's losers 
rather than the winners?

A dominant aspect of U.S. foreign policy today is to promote democracy 
wherever this seems feasible, such as in Latin America and the Caribbean, 
East Asia, Africa, and the transition nations of the former Soviet Union. 
This is a laudable effort. At the same time, however, the most severe U.S. 
trade restrictions are directed against imports from developing 
countries-such as sugar and textile products from just about everywhere, 
orange juice from Brazil, and steel from many developed and developing 
countries alike. U.S. foreign aid now represents 0.1 percent of our gross 
national product, placing it at the bottom of the list of donor countries. 
Our slogan used to be "trade, not aid." Now it is more like "not too much 
trade and very little aid."

It is extremely difficult for poor countries to establish stable democracies. 
Achieving this obective is made even more complex by the inherent 
contradiction in U.S. policy-preaching democracy even as we limit the ability 
of these countries to obtain the resources necessary to make democracy 
possible.

During the past year much invective has been hurled at key multilateral 
institutions established at the end of World War II. This was evident in 
Seattle late last year when protesters tried to disrupt the meetings of the 
World Trade Organization (the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, which came into being in 1947), and again last month in Prague 
during the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary 
Fund. It is not clear why the demonstrations were directed against these 
institutions rather than at the countries which determine the institutions' 
policies. They are not supranational bodies, but rather creatures of their 
masters, the world's most powerful national governments.

It is troubling when nongovernmental organizations exercise their right of 
free speech by preventing delegates to international meetings from exercising 
their right of free speech. We should not be troubled, however, when serious 
nongovernmental observers act constructively to change practices they find 
offensive. The IMF has long been ultrasecretive about its analyses and 
findings; this is inappropriate for an institution that obtains its funds 
from national governments (i.e., from taxpayers). The WTO's 
dispute-settlement procedures, which are an important part of that 
organization's work, have themselves been overly secretive. Many of these 
practices are changing, and the outside critics deserve much of the credit 
for this greater openness.

The president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, has exerted great effort 
to make the bank's work more transparent. At the same time, he exaggerates, 
incorrigibly so. He implies that the bank, under his leadership, has 
"discovered" that economic growth, while necessary, is not sufficient to 
achieve widespread social development. There are many examples of this 
attitude. Only one will be cited: "The old approach of an exclusive focus on 
growth as the elixir for all the world's problems is thus too circumscribed" 
(op-ed by Wolfensohn and Joseph Stiglitz, Financial Times, September  22, 
1999). Wolfensohn's emphasis on alleviating poverty is praiseworthy, but the 
trashing of all the foreign aid practitioners who preceded him for not 
understanding the multiple aspects of development is egregiously inaccurate 
and ungracious.

The World Bank's World Development Report 2000/2001 is devoted exclusively to 
"attacking poverty." It approaches this theme citing three areas for action: 
creating opportunities, empowering the poor, and providing greater security 
against the risks the poor face. The study contains a mountain of data and 
undoubtedly will be a valuable reference source for years to come. What it 
fails to do, however, is to explain how the World Bank can achieve these 
goals, particularly empowerment, which it admits depends on "the interaction 
of political, social, and other institutional processes." Is this the role of 
the World Bank?


Issues in International Political Economy is published by the William E. 
Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on 
international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and 
nonproprietary.

CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, 
positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood 
to be solely those of the author.

, 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.