Oxfam’s spent the last decade or two telling us how appalling these effects of globalisation have been. Inequality within countries is increasing, wealth inequality is getting out of hand, sweatshops diminish the value of human labour and all that.
So, we get a reduction in that globalisation as a result of the pandemic. And what do they say then?
Appeals for help and chilling predictions of imminent disaster are coming thick and fast. The world is on red alert in a way few people alive today have experienced. Yet, despite the urgent clamour, the international response to the coronavirus catastrophe is lacking, leaderless and late.
Lacking in the sense that the scale of the problem, especially in developing countries, is so huge as to be almost numbing. Oxfam says more than half a billion people may be pushed into poverty by the economic fallout. Global poverty reduction could be set back 30 years.
At which point, two things.
Firstly, how about that admission that globalisation has, over this past 30 years, been a good thing? That the increase in international trade has, despite the increase in wealth and in-country inequality, the sweatshops, been a good thing for humanity?
Secondly, how about a little analysis of what Oxfam now proposes?
Food companies, farmers and civil society groups are pointing to a rising tide of hunger unless food supply chains are maintained and borders kept open to trade. Coordinated action by governments is necessary “to prevent the Covid-19 pandemic turning into a global food and humanitarian crisis”, they say.
That’s right, let’s have a bit more of this neoliberal globalisation, shall we?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Not really. Oxfam's position is that:
'While the anti-globalisation movement has identified trade as a leading cause of the widening global inequality, Oxfam says that trading rules are the problem, not trade itself.
"In itself trade is not inherently opposed to the interests of poor people," the report says. "Well-managed trade has the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty." '
See below for a summary of the Oxfam position from Tim's fave newspaper:
(Charlotte Denny, economics correspondent The Guardian -
Thu 11 Apr 2002 03.45 EDT)
"The European Union and the United trade are robbing the world's poor of billions of dollars each year in export earnings by preaching free trade while protecting their own markets, development campaigners claim today.
Analysing western approaches to trade in a report, Rigged Rules and Double Standards, Oxfam names the EU as the worst offender, followed closely by the US.
"Governments of rich countries constantly stress their commitment to poverty reduction," says Kevin Watkins, the report's author. "Yet the same governments use their trade policy to conduct what amounts to robbery against the world's poor. Rich countries are fierce advocates of liberalisation in developing countries, while retaining high trade barriers against exports from the same countries."
While the anti-globalisation movement has identified trade as a leading cause of the widening global inequality, Oxfam says that trading rules are the problem, not trade itself.
"In itself trade is not inherently opposed to the interests of poor people," the report says. "Well-managed trade has the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty."
A rapid growth of exports has helped to lift millions out of poverty in east Asia in the past 20 years, but the benefits are not automatic. "If countries are able to engage in higher value added trade, as in east Asia, export growth can contribute to rapid increases in living standards."
For free trade to work for the poor, rich countries must start backing up their rhetoric with real concessions to the developing world in the new round of global trade talks which begin in Doha in November.
"If Africa, east Asia, south Asia and Latin America were each to increase their share of world exports by 1%, the resulting gains in income could lift 128 million people out of poverty," the report says.
Oxfam ranks Europe first according to an index which measures protectionism by the world's biggest trading powers, followed by the US, Canada and Japan. They impose the highest trade barriers against the industries of most importance to poor countries: agriculture and textiles. Oxfam estimates that high tariffs and subsidies cost poor countries $100bn (£70bn) a year - twice as much as they receive in aid.
The EU and the US spend billions of dollars each year subsidising their farmers and protecting them from more efficient producers in the developing world. The surplus cheap produce is then exported to developing countries, wiping out local farmers' livelihoods.
Oxfam estimates that they export their farm crops at prices more than a third lower than the cost of production.
"These subsidised exports from rich countries are driving down prices for exports from developing countries, and devastating the prospects for smallholder agriculture," the report says. "Some of the world's poorest countries are competing against its richest treasuries."
By posing as free traders while protecting their own industries, rich countries are forcing poor countries to open their markets to western goods, using their control over the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Poor countries which borrow from the IMF and the bank are forced to cut subsidies and tariff barriers as a condition of receiving aid.
"Poor countries have been opening up their economies much more rapidly than rich countries," Oxfam says. "Average import tariffs have been halved in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and cut by two thirds in Latin America and east Asia."
In many cases, it says, rapid liberalisation has harmed poor countries by exposing their industries to competition before they are ready to take on more efficient producers.
Oxfam is calling on the World Bank and the IMF to stop imposing trade conditions on their loans, for poor countries to be given better access of markets, and for a new international body to support the prices of the primary commodities many developing countries depend on.
A spokeswoman for the British Department for International Development said the World Bank and IMF were analysing the impact of their trade liberalisation programmes and funding a pilot study in six countries. "They have agreed to delay the introduction of measures which are found to be negative".
Perhaps you've not noted that Oxfam's attitudes seem to have changed over the past 18 years? Especially since Winnie became top bod?
Again, not really, its 2019 Report at P29 is still highly critical of the EU protectionist attitude to milk production, for example - exactly what did you have in mind?
So Oxfam's position now is that international trade is good, only it needs to be managed. Despite admitting that the usual effect of trade "management" is cronyism.
How very true- Oxfam objected, as you do, to cronyism in 'trade management' as practised by the EU, US, Canada & Japan:
"Oxfam ranks Europe first according to an index which measures protectionism by the world’s biggest trading powers, followed by the US, Canada and Japan. They impose the highest trade barriers against the industries of most importance to poor countries: agriculture and textiles. Oxfam estimates that high tariffs and subsidies cost poor countries $100bn (£70bn) a year – twice as much as they receive in aid.
The EU and the US spend billions of dollars each year subsidising their farmers and protecting them from more efficient producers in the developing world. The surplus cheap produce is then exported to developing countries, wiping out local farmers’ livelihoods.
Oxfam estimates that they export their farm crops at prices more than a third lower than the cost of production.
“These subsidised exports from rich countries are driving down prices for exports from developing countries, and devastating the prospects for smallholder agriculture,” the report says".
Taken from Guardian articles from 2002, I think. An impressive double - defending Oxfam's current political stance compared to the one they have shouted about at Davos for the last 4 years or so using the Guardian from when I was in neoliberal nappies.
Of course cross-border commerce, or any innovation, increases inequality; notably between the people who avail themselves of it and the people who elect not to.
It doesn’t really matter what Oxfam actually says; their target audience don’t understand any of it. All they hear is “globalisation”, “western” ,“sweatshop”, “poverty”, “inequality” and they sign-up for more monthly donations to fix things.
The administrators then pat themselves on their backs, award themselves a nice bonus to add to their six-figure salaries and go and have another five-star holiday with prostitutes on demand.