TIGblogs - winilyn joei sancho

Stilglitz, Joseph. Social Justice and Global Trade. FarEastern Economic Review: Review Publishing Company Limited. March 2006, Volume 169. Number 2.

A Review on Social Justice and Global Trade

“Trade can make everyone better-off”. This is the second principle of economics that embody and used as the spell by free trade advocates (FTAs) to shove the concept of trade liberalism. Free market, free trade, trade liberalism, and globalization, these are synonymous terms used to denote an unrestricted international trade. It discourages government intervention in the market and promotes internationalism among nations. This is the contemporary market system offered by few influential nations for the rest of the world. The promotion of growth and development for every country who will engage in it is the slogan of FTAs.
The article presented the pros and cons of global trade and its implications to humanity. It also presented concepts regarding justice and equity in relation to changes in the economy brought about by trade liberalism. It questioned the purpose of pacts and international agreements in terms of proper representation and consideration regarding trade decision making. Hence, the author advocated an institutional change.
Basically, the article seeks the attention of legislators and negotiators allover the world to look back on the main reason why they are in the position - that is to represent, serve, and promote welfare among the people, more so, in their respective nation. The author would also like to wake up the public from the reverie of wellness which free trade promises to each and every nation which engages in it. Thus, he encourages the people to be aware, be critical, and be vigilant to policies that can affect the society. Nevertheless, the reader must have a background in the basic principles of economics, about the concept of free trade, and regards the people as social being which comprises a nation and thus can be affected by every policy implemented.
The article presented issues which involve the different advocacies of economic liberalism. This includes trade liberalism, deregulation, and the protection of intellectual property. A number of situations where trade had an impact in the economy and social condition of a certain nation were also included. Theories and common beliefs regarding free trade were identified. Although social facts, such as the difference in the tariff level among countries were presented, no concrete and precise empirical evidence was incorporated in the article. He opened up how some advanced industrialized countries give effort to endorse and rationalize situations to push for globalization. The author, Joseph Stiglitz, also iterated effects of free trade to developing and developed nations and how these nations react towards the system.
People face tradeoffs (Mankiw, 2004). This explains why in global trading some will lose and some). Global trading will not be possible without trade negotiations and agreements between will gain (Krugman, 2000each nation who will engage in it. Recently, these trade summits are the primary reason for the dissatisfaction of different parties involved. Allegations that rich nations become richer while poor nations degrade are supported by the fact that even with the agreement that tariff levels must be lowered down in accordance to the principle of free trade; there is unequal imposition of tariff levels (Nyilas, 1976). Developed countries’ tariff level is four times higher than the developing nations. Developing countries were also forced to eliminate subsidies in contrast to developed countries’ implemented policies to support production sector primarily the agriculture. Provided by the example of Mexico’s condition under Northern America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) where the largest market of the world was opened up for them, their growth would have been faster but the other way happened. Globalization affects each nation differently. Only countries with high to full level of employment and a mature economy can benefit from the system. Given that, at present, trading system is biased towards developed countries. It was found out that those countries that did not pursue globalization policies were recorded with the fastest growth level. Examples of these were the countries in East Asia (Stiglitz, 2006). The negotiation regarding the intellectual property right was also tackled. As the author emphasized, underneath the façade of principles of trade liberalism is the simple politics of self interest. Developed countries wants to open up the world economy to freely have a wider market for exports (Stiglitz, 2006).
Thus there is a need to change the current trading system policies. There is a call to reverse its skewness in favor of the developing nations. Should there be a change in the current approach on trade negotiations can alleviate more the situation. Proper representations for every party involved can better present their positions, sentiments, and recommendations with regards to trading propositions (Stiglitz, 2006). With proper representation and consultation, the body can come up with a more appropriate decision in the system of trading embodied by the concept of development. The problem of representation was identified because politicians’ decisions were palliative with regards to trading. They are usually influenced by special interest groups from which they also came from (Nyilas, 1976). Therefore there is a need to improve the quality, transparency, and real democracy in the domestic political arena. Nonetheless, structural reforms will never be authenticated unless there is a change in the ideological aspect of the people involved. Unless the mindset will think for social welfare and development, each and every decision they come up will only be biased on their line of interest. There is a call to reform the World Trade Organization, its policies, and its regulations. Although this will not guarantee a perfect change for the benefit of the aggrieved party but this can be a weight to create balance among nations in terms of trade.
In line with the identified predicaments above, the article pose a challenge to create change in the system. There is an imperative call for the society to protect their rights against opportunistic aims.
Amidst economic rationalization, the most dominant rationale for pushing free trade is politics. An example of this is the concept that behind the rules and policies implemented by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other trading agreements are the imperialists’ agenda to gain in the expense of less developed societies, taking advantage their vulnerabilities as well as their resources (Galbraith, 1975). This exposé must be considered by policy makers. They have to be skeptical to every agreement they engage in because in their hands lie the stipulation of their country. An example presented by the author is the proposition of free trade advocate countries to lower tariffs on all products down to zero (Caves & Jones, 1985). It is ironic though, because these developed countries do no such things. This policy can greatly affect a developing country’s economy. Transitive to the move to lower tariffs is to cut government subsidies especially to agricultural sector because this will change the market-set prices and this is against the law of free market. This is another proposal of FTA which they themselves ignored. Subsidies to farmers make higher production and lower market price possible. Thus for these countries, given a higher productivity, it is easy to export especially for a lower tariff. In this case, countries who obeyed the policy of no-tariff, no-subsidy loses from trade (Gomez, et. al., 2000).
The existence of differences in tariffs among countries despite international agreements to level it might be a good issue to find out. Along with this, the author’s simple presentation of how developing countries’ export market was hindered to grow by industrialized countries’ products especially with their subsidized production sector such as agriculture can be a good argument for researchers who are less in favor for free trade and a challenging topic to rebut for FTAs.
Stiglitz also exposed some anomalies implicated in policy formulation and decision making in the international level. When he pointed out that influential, developed countries such as the United States, Japan, Canada, and EU are taking the responsibility to conduct surveys, studies, and other activities to prove the advantages brought about by free trade in to different countries and doing a massive international campaign pushing for principle-based trade liberalism in contrast to the policies they are implementing in their own countries, he showed that these countries hide under their benevolent mask of being a poverty alleviator while surreptitiously taking advantage of these less developed and developing countries to earn profit, and power. Being an economist, it will take a lot of courage and critical thinking for the author to deviate from the mainstream idea of free trade promotion. Consequently, this article will promote further investigation and critique regarding the effects of trade liberalism across countries.
There are different economic models, especially in line with development and international economics which tries to explain the relationship of trade to growth but each of those gave a situation which other things were held constant, thus making the model less applicable in the real life. A further study in this topic is suggested to help elucidate issues in the area.
Policy-makers must also consider the status of their country before concurring in a decree. Trade liberalism, according to the author, can benefit a nation with regards to its current status. A mature economy benefits more while a developing economy cannot compete well, hence becomes poorer. This can be a good departure point for researchers to find the relationship between the per capita standing of each country to the effects of globalization to income distribution. In considering the human development index, in terms of political-economy paradigm, the topic regarding trade and development will be a broad field for study.
By suggesting for the solution to change the mindset of the people the author got the most probable radical answer. This is what the society must undergo in order to think out of the box and realize the importance of patriotism and social consciousness. This is a recommendation for each and every citizen more specifically to policy-makers.
There are different classifications for countries. In this review countries will be classified as developed, developing, and least developed. These categorizations are based on different characteristics of a country such as per capita income and human development index. In the orthodox paradigm, growth of a country will only be based in the increase of per capita income. In this review, the political economy paradigm will be used to define growth in a country, which is with the income level; growth will also be based on human condition and satisfaction. The status of each country will be the basis on how it will be affected by globalization. As said earlier, free trade makes a rich country better off in the expense of underdeveloped nations. This account may be viewed in different perspectives of import and export as well as in its effect in employment and industry. Countries with full employment or close to full employment level and a mature economy are considered as the developed countries; in contrast are the developing and least developed countries (Gomez, et. al. 2000).
Core-Periphery Theory (CPT)
This theory is also known as the Neocolonial Dependence Model which streamed out from the Marxist ideology. This shows the relationship of a center/more powerful nation to its colonies/weaker nations. The core intentionally or unconsciously dominates, oppresses, and exhausts the resources of the less powerful country. Sometimes if the core’s intention is to aid the colony, it ends up spoiling the country to the point that the country could no longer stand without the assistance of the core. Who maintain this kind of relationship are those people who gain, enjoy from their income, social status, and political power from the system. Only through a revolution or through major restructuring of the capitalist system can free the colonies from the core’s oppression (Todaro, 1997). The CPT can be associated directly to the present existing system as portrayed by the relationship of the Northern Hemisphere nations, as the “core”, to mostly African and Asian countries as their extension market/colonies/satellite/periphery countries. In the name of free market, these powerful nations push for tariff-free markets as well as no-to subsidy policy so they can have a market for their surplus products and earn more profit. In a tariff-free economy, the “periphery” can freely export some of their agricultural/raw products which are the main source of cheap raw materials for the industrialized and manufacturing economy of the “core” (Galbraith, 1975). How ironic it may seem but the “core” in reality does not follow the policy to abandon subsidy especially to its farmers (Stiglitz, 2006). Thus the core can produce more at a cheaper price. With higher productivity, the core can now export products (agricultural products) which are essential to developing countries’ export market such as corn, rice, etc. Since the core can now export these goods, it follows that they no longer need to import such. There will now be a smaller or worse no market for the periphery. Since the government no longer subsidize, let say the rice sector, a higher cost for production of this product is incurred. The more expensive locally produced rice can no longer compete with the cheaper imported rice. This condition will discourage local farmers to produce the good. This is the beginning of the periphery’s dependence to the core for rice production. In the other hand, in search for higher profit, the core may choose to outsource some of its companies to the periphery because of cheap labor (Thompson, 1993). This is the case of the present call center companies or the Business Processing Outsourcing (BPO). Of course this can provide jobs, contractual jobs, among the satellite’s citizens. In other sense, these citizens were forced to deviate from their usual time schedule to adjust on the nature of their customers. Although this kind of job can provide a good source of income for the citizens, in terms of the welfare of the employees, this can be degrading. This can damage the health of the worker, disturb their regular time schedule, stagnate their learning and application of their undergraduate degree or even their profession (in the case of some teachers who became a call center agent). This can also affect family relationship. Given this example, it can support the idea that free trade can hurt less mature economies. In contrast to CPT, the current globalization scheme enunciates or outrightly uses the “core’s” power to force satellite countries to accept and implement free trade policies through different institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), WTO, and other agreements and rounds which tackles international trade issues.
Neoclassical Counter Revolution
This is the ideology that embodies the concept of Trade Liberalism – the contemporary system promoted by developed countries. This theory has three approaches: free-market, public- choice, and the market-friendly. The free-market upholds the idea that market alone is efficient thus no government intervention in the market is promoted. Neoclassicists uphold their advocacies through obtaining control over the world’s major institutions such as the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and in the United Nation Development Program (UNDP). The above mentioned countries plus other influential countries – members of the Group of 8 (G8), greatly dominates the world trading system. They lead the formulation of international trade agreements as well as presenting rules and policies for referendum for countries. These trade agreements and the hocus-focus underlying in the pacts is the main issue of this article. According to Stiglitz trade agreements are dominated, manipulated and biased to the interest of developed countries, worst, for few interest groups alone.
Specific Factors Model (SFM)
This model presents how differences in countries’ resources can cause international trade. Income distribution is strongly affected by international trade as shown by this model. Thus this model can help explain why countries need to negotiate and that is because no single territory contains all the resources needed for diversified production. SFM suggest that factors specific to exports gain from trade while import-competing sectors lose (Krugman, 2000). On the other hand, labor sector may either gain or lose. This model can visibly position the context in the article. Since, most economist believe that trade can benefit more than without it, conceptually, those who benefit can compensate those who lose. But this is not the real case. That is the reason behind the discontent of the losers. Social inequality arise when some people or country gain in the expense of others up to the point of exploitation and deception.
Under trade liberalism, gains from trade can only be achieved by developed nation or those countries with mature economy (Thompson, 1993). The definition of what a mature economy can be based on Rostow’s stages of economic growth. On one hand, when a country is developing it can be classified under the second stage which is the precondition for take-off. It is where improvement in transportation, agriculture, and expansion of imports occur. Thus, the economy is not yet ripe. On the other hand, when the economy is mature it can be considered under the last stage of the model which is the age of mass consumption where the society can choose to become a welfare state or an international military power. It is characterized by a strong, competitive economy, usually under full employment level (Todaro, 1997). In this situation, an economy with full employment level will not be much affected by trade liberalization. The laborers in sector which is affected by strong importation can easily find job and transfer to other sectors which gain more in trade. Unlike in developing nations, laborers which are affected by trade are threatened to lose their job, thus adding to the unemployment rate in the country (Krugman, 2000). High unemployment rate means higher poverty index.
Global trade can cause an unbalanced growth in the economy of the country which engages in it. When a country will specialize in a field where it has a comparative advantage for trade, it would likely lead to a focused development in that specific area which can leave behind other uncompetitive sectors (Krugman, 2000).
The author’s suggestion to reform the mindset of the people as an important part to change the system is supported by Simon Kuznetz’s six features of modern economic growth. In the part of the developing country, they have to change the way they decide towards a policy to, this time, consider it and improve it to be biased on the developing country. If advanced countries really have the will to help the developing country to pursue for development and industrialization, there must be a sacrifice on their part.
The article is short yet it opened up a number of issues and a wide field for discussion. The author has a broad overview regarding the concept of free trade. He critically applied the principles of equitable and efficient global resource allocation among societies. This means that being an economist, he does not only conform to the conventional belief of economics that liberalized trade can benefit more to people. He does not consider efficiency only for capital and land owners but to everyone who is and can be affected by policies implemented. Economics, being a discipline under social science, must consider the welfare of the society (Gomez, et. al., 2000). And that consideration is prioritized by the author in the article. He also embarked upon the different subdivision of the subject. He regarded the international interaction of countries as well as the governing politics in each negotiation. He included his observation on how decisions were made and he discussed about the discrepancies in the institution which facilitates the global interaction of trade.
The article presented issues from a general perspective of development inequality brought about by trade liberalization down to the politics involved in intellectual property rights discussion. The flow of the article leads the reader to see trade liberalism as a deep issue which is not only limited to import and export exchange among countries.
The author was audacious to present ideas usually considered as an open secret- an obvious fact but is constantly denied or kept unnoticed. He identified reasons how and why trade liberalism creates inequality to nations. When the author said that there is something wrong with the world trading system he subsequently offered facts and theories to prove his stand. It is quite good that he gave pragmatic examples but he fall short to show precise data to further defend his allegations and arguments. For instance, he said that trade negotiations left poor countries worse off when they were forced to cut subsidies and bring down tariff level by the advanced industrialized countries. It would be better if he showed an excerpt from the round of trade negotiation which defined the policy and the agreement among the countries. Better if he showed cardinal values which will illustrate the level of tariff in each country. It will help the reader formulate and reason out why or what are other reasons behind the unequal imposition of tariff levels.
There was a shortcoming in the part of the author to give a clear and concise definition of the terms used such as free trade. The author failed to give theories and arguments which define the concept of free trade. It would be better if he presented first the concept of free trade – its pros and cons before bombarding his arguments. If the reader can clearly grasp the author’s perception of free trade it would then be smooth to judge the point of view presented.
There have been no characterizations of what the picture of a developed or a developing country is. Given that the author mentioned that globalization affect each countries based on their nature, he refused to associate the nature of a country on how it can decide to a policy. Yes he mentioned about the abuse of power but not on how these power are asserted to control the votes of each representative systematically; that is aside from his given point of political and self interests.
The kind of development paradigm as the basis for growth measurement was not clearly identified. It is important to be defined especially when talking about growth or failure as a result of globalization. Failure to do so can cause doubt on the conclusion of the article.
It was good when the author suggested the need to change the mindset of negotiators in the way that trading decisions are made as well as encourage each country to promote efficiency, fairness, and development but he should have reflected twice. As Adam Smith recognized the concept of self-interest or utility, it is inevitable to consider that each country will view fairness, efficiency, and development in their own perspective (Pen, 1967). Thus, the change in mindset will follow after the change in system because the way of thinking is developed by the system. Thus the author must suggest alternatives on how the ideology towards global equity will be developed.
The article appeared to be comprehensive for economics majors but no so for other social science apprentice whose background in trade liberalism is a nuance.
According to Newton, in every action there is a reaction. That is the reason why controversies and issues pop out. It is certain that different social science disciplines are interdependent in terms of decision making. In the article, the author pointed out the need to reform institutionally and ideologically based on the concept of democracy and transparency. Nevertheless, he lacked in clarifying how can the change be possible, where to begin, and failed to paint a concise picture on how this reform can be achieved.
The author provided a good flow of how social justice can be asserted amidst global trading system. It is good when he emphasized that institutional change would not be possible unless there is ideological change. This can be better if he presented ways on how can this change be realized. To challenge the system will require a lot of effort and perseverance.
The issues regarding the intellectual property rights open a wide horizon for research with regard to its context and further implication in the society. What was raised in the article was the way which the right to intellectual property can pave for monopoly. The author is implying that global trade is controlled not only by advanced nations, more so by few international business elites. This shows how politics can gravely affect international relations.
If a further study will be conducted regarding the advocacies of trade, it can contribute to the analysis on the social implication of global trade. Hence, allegations on free trade as a form of global exploitation for the benefit of the few can be further restructured.
In the case of these gigantic multinational corporations, in their game in the global trade, it was emphasized that they want to gain the highest profit with less cost. Yet they had too much of it when we refer to it financially (Pen. 1967). Is it really all about profit? Can the concept of gigantism be applied in the situation? This concept of gigantism refers to the goal of corporations to expand and earn global control and power. This concept does not consider profit as the main objective for expansion but expansion itself (Pen, 1967).
The article left inquiries which can be a good parting point for research. Some of these are: Does the advanced industrialized country really aim to advance global social welfare through the promotion of free trade or is it still part of their agenda to gain power over humanity? Does trade liberalism imply the existence of neo-imperialism? It was also suggested by the author that there must be changes in the mindset in order to create change in the society but how can be the biased mindset alter the system if it is rooted from the concept of liberalism? In addition, there is a need to define what is a just and efficient trading in relation to the community it affects.
Despite of the international promotion for free trade, issues such as social justice and equity cannot be ignored. As economics majors always say, there is always a tradeoff between efficiency and equity. But what is really the measurement for efficiency and what is for equity? How important is the society in terms of growth and development? These questions may seem to have an obvious answer long time before, yet until the present its application to society seems bleak.

Bibliography

Caves, R., & Jones, R. (1985). World Trade and Payments: An Introduction. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Galbraith, J.K. (1975). Economics and the Public Purpose. United States of America: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gomez, D., et. al. (2000). Reforming Social Policy: Changing Perspectives on Sustainable Human Development. Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Krugman, P. & Obstfeld, M. (2000). International Economics (5th edition). United States of America: Addison-Wesley Reading.
Mankiw, N.G. (2004). Principles of Economics (3rd edition). United States of America: Thomson Learning.
Nyilas, J. (1976). Integration in the World Economy East-West and Inter-State Relations. Hungary: Akademia Kiado.
Pen, J. (1967). A Primer on International Trade. New York: Random House.
Thompson, H. (1993). International Economics: A Microeconomic Approach. Toronto: Longman Publishing Group.
Todaro, M. (1997). Economic Development. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Reading.
2006-69621

على عولمة
Automatically translated into Arabic thanks to WorldLingo
[ستيلغليتز], [جوسف]. عدل اجتماعيّة وتجارة شاملة. مراجعات [فرسترن] اقتصاديّة: [رفيو] [بوبليشينغ] [كمبني] يحدّد. مارس - آذار 2006, حجم 169. رقم 2.

مراجعات على عدل اجتماعيّة وتجارة

شاملة "تجارة يستطيع جعلت كلّ شخص [بتّر-وفّ]". هذا الثاني مبدأ العلم اقتصاد أنّ يجسّد واستعمل بما أنّ النوبة بتجارة حرّ يدافع ([فتس]) أن يدفع المفهوم من تحررية تجاريّة. [فر مركت], تجارة حرّة, تحررية تجاريّة, وعولمة, هذا عبارات مرادفة يستعمل أن يشير تجارة مطلقة دوليّة. هو يثبّط حكومة تدخل في السوق ويروّج دولية بين أمم. هذا المعاصرة سوق نظامة يقدّم ب قليل من أمم مؤثّرة ل ال [رست وف ث وورلد]. الترقية من حالة نموّ وتطوير ل كلّ بلد الذي سيشبك في هو الشعار [فتس].
قدّم المادة المحاسن وحجج من شاملة تجاريّة وتضمناته إلى إنسانية. هو أيضا قدّم مفاهيم بخصوص عدل وأحضر عدالة [إين رلأيشن تو] تغيرات في الاقتصاد حوالي بتحررية تجاريّة. هو استنطق الغرض من إتفاقات وإتفاقات دوليّة بخصوص تمثيل مناسبة وإعتبار بخصوص [دسسون-مكينغ] تجاريّة. بالتّالي, دافع المؤلفة تغير تشريعيّة.
أساسيّا, يبحث المادة الإنتباه من مشرعات ومفاوضات [ألّوفر] العالم أن ينظر إلى الخلف على ال [مين رسن] لما هم يكونون في الموقعة [- ثت] أن يمثّل, خدمت, وروّجت خير بين الالناس, أكثر هكذا, في أمتهم شخصيّة. أحبّ المؤلفة أيضا أن يفيق الجمهور من ال [رفري] ال [ولّنسّ] أيّ تجارة حرّة يعد إلى كلّ أمة أيّ يشبك في هو. لذلك, يشجّع هو الالناس أن يكون مدركة, حرجة, وحذرة إلى سياسات أنّ يستطيع أثرت المجتمعة. ومع ذلك, القارئة ينبغي يتلقّى خلفيّة في ال [بسك برينسبل] العلم اقتصاد, حول المفهوم من تجارة حرّة, ويعتبر الالناس بما أنّ اجتماعيّة يكون أيّ [كمبريز] أمة ولذلك يستطيع كنت أثرت ب كلّ سياسة يطبّق.
قدّم المادة إصدارات أيّ يتضمّن التأييدات مختلفة [إكنوميك ليبرليسم]. هذا يتضمّن تحررية تجاريّة, إزالة قيد, والحماية ال [إينتلّكتثل بروبرتي]. تضمّنت [ا نومبر وف] حالات حيث تجارة تلقّى تأثير صدمة في الاقتصاد وشرط اجتماعيّة من أمة مؤكّدة كان أيضا. عيّنت نظريات وإعتقاد عاديّة بخصوص تجارة حرّة كان. رغم أنّ حقائق اجتماعيّة, مثل الفرق في التعريفة مستوى بين بلد كان قدّمت, ما من مادّيّة وأدمجت بيّنة دقيقة تجريبيّة كان في المادة. هو [أبن وب] كيف بعض تقدّم يصنع بلد يعطي جهد أن يظهر ورششت حالات أن يدفع لعولمة. المؤلفة, [جوسف] [ستيغليتز], أيضا يكرّر تأثيرات من حرّة تجارة إلى يطوّر ويطوّر أمم وكيف هذا أمم يتجاوبون نحو النظامة.
الناس وجه تبادلات ([منكيو], 2004). هذا يفسّر لما في شامل يتاجر بعض سيخسر وبعض). شاملة لن [ب] يتاجر يمكن دون مفاوضة تجاريّة وإتفاقات فيما بين سيكسبون ([كروغمن], [2000ش] أمة الذي سيشبك في هو. مؤخّرا, هذا قمة تجاريّة السبب أوّليّة للإستياء من أحزاب مختلفة يتضمّن. ادّعاءات أنّ يصبح أمم غنيّة غنيّة بينما أمم فقيرة يحقّرون ساندت بالحقيقة أنّ حتّى مع الإتفاق أنّ تعريفة يمهّد ينبغي كنت خفّضت إلى أسفل في مطابقة إلى المبدأ من تجارة حرّة; هناك فرض غير متساو من تعريفة مستويات ([نيلس], 1976). يطوّر بلد' تعريفة مستوى أربعة أوقات [هيغر] من ال [دفلوب نأيشن]. أجبرت [دفلوب كونتري] كان أيضا أن يزيل إعانات خلافا يطوّر بلد' يطبّق سياسات أن يساند إنتاج قطاعة أوّلا الزراعة. يزوّد بالمثال من مكسيك شرط تحت شماليّة أمريكا حرّة تجارة إتفاق ([نفتا]) حيث السوق كبيرة من العالم كان [أبن وب] ل هم, كان حالت نموّهم سريعة غير أنّ الأخرى طريق حدث. عولمة يأثر كلّ أمة بطريقة مختلفة. فقط بلد مع إرتفاع إلى يشبع [لفل وف مبلومنت] و[متثر كنومي] يستطيع استفدت من النظامة. أعطيت أنّ, [أت برسنت], يتاجر نظامة متحيّزة نحو يطوّر بلاد. هو كان أسّست خارجا أنّ أنّ سجّلت بلد أنّ لم يتتبّع عولمة سياسات كان مع السريعة حالة نموّ مستوى. كان مثل من هذا البلاد في [إست سا] ([ستيغليتز], 2006). عالجت المفاوضة بخصوص ال [إينتلّكتثل بروبرتي] حق كان أيضا. بما أنّ المؤلفة أكّد, تحت ال [فد] المبادئ من تحررية تجاريّة السياسة بسيطة [سلف ينترست]. يريد يطوّر بلد أن [أبن وب] الاقتصاد عالميّ أن بحرّيّة يتلقّى يوسع سوق لتصديرات ([ستيغليتز], 2006).
لذلك هناك حاجة أن يغيّر الحاليّة يتاجر نظامة سياسات. هناك دعوة أن يعكس إنحرافه [إين ففوور وف] ال [دفلوب نأيشن]. سوفت هناك يكون تغير في المقاربة حاليّة على مفاوضة تجاريّة يستطيع خفّفت كثير الحالة. تمثيلات مناسبة ل كلّ حزب يتضمّن يستطيع حسنت هديتهم موقعات, عواطف, وتوصيات [ويث رغردس تو] يتاجر اقتراحات ([ستيغليتز], 2006). مع مناسبة تمثيل وإستشارة, الجسم يستطيع تحت مع أكثر قرار مناسبة في ال [سستم وف ترد] يجسر بالمفهوم التطوير. عيّنت المشكلة التمثيل كان لأنّ سياسيات' قرارات كانوا مسكّنة [ويث رغردس تو] يتاجر. هم عادة أثرت ب [سبسل ينترست غرووب] من أيّ هم أيضا أتوا من ([نيلس], 1976). لذلك هناك حاجة أن يحسن النوعية, شفافية, وديموقراطيّة حقيقيّة في الحلبة محلّية سياسيّة. ومع ذلك, سيصدق إصلاحات إنشائيّة أبدا كنت ما لم هناك يكون تغير في المظهر إيديولوجيّة من الالناس يتضمّن. ما لم ال [ميندست] سيفكّر ل [سسل ولفر] وتطوير, سيكون كلّ قرار هم يتيحون فقط متحيّزة على خطّهم الفائدة. هناك دعوة أن يصلح العالم تجارة تنظيم, سياساته, ونظام تعديله. رغم أنّ هذا لن يضمن تغير كاملة [فور ث بنفيت وف] ال يحزن حزب غير أنّ هذا يستطيع كنت وزن أن يخلق ميزان بين أمم بخصوص تجارة.
[إين لين ويث] ال يعيّن فئات أعلاه, المادة وضعة تحدي أن يخلق تغير في النظامة. هناك يتحتّم دعوة للمجتمعة أن يحمي حقوقهم ضدّ أهداف انتهازيّة.
في عمليّة عقلنة اقتصاديّة, التفسير سبب مسيطرة أكثر ل يدفع تجارة حرّة سياسة. مثال من هذا المفهوم أنّ خلف القواعد وسياسات طبّق بالعالم تجارة تنظيم ([وتو]) وأخرى اتّفاقيّة تجاريّة ال [إيمبريليست]' جدول أن يكسب في النفقة تكليف من مجتمعات [ليتّل دفلوبد], يأخذ ميزة جروحيتهم [أس ولّ س] مورداتهم ([غلبريث], 1975). هذا [إإكسبوس] ينبغي كنت اعتبرت ب [بوليسي مكر]. هم يضطرّ كنت [سكبتيك] إلى كلّ إتفاق هم يشبكون داخل لأنّ في هم أيادي وضع الاشتراط من بلدهم. مثال يقدّم بالمؤلفة الاقتراح من تجارة حرّة محامية بلد أن يخفّض تعريفات على كلّ منتوجات إلى أسفل إلى صفر ([كفس] & جونس, 1985). هو ساخرة مع ذلك, لأنّ هذا يطوّر بلد يتمّون ما من هذا أشياء. هذا سياسة يستطيع للغاية أثرت [دفلوب كونتري] اقتصاد. متعدّية إلى الحركة أن يخفّض تعريفات أن يقطع [غفرنمنت سوبسدي] خصوصا إلى قطاعة زراعيّة لأنّ هذا سيغيّر ال [مركت-ست] سعرات وهذا يكون ضدّ القانون ال [فر مركت]. هذا آخر اقتراح ال [فتا] أيّ هم بنفسي تجاهلوا. يجعل إعانات إلى [فرمرس] إنتاج [هيغر] و [لوور] سعر السوق يمكن. لذلك ل هذا بلد, يعطي إنتاجية [هيغر], هو يتيح أن يصدق خصوصا لتعريفة [لوور]. [إين ثيس كس], يخسر بلد الذي أطاع السياسة ال [نو-تريفّ], [نو-سوبسدي] من تجارة ([غمز], [إت]. [أل.], 2000).
الوجود الفروق في تعريفات بين بلد على الرغم من إتفاقات دوليّة أن يمهّد هو أمكن كنت إصدار جيّدة أن يجد خارجا. مع هذا, المؤلفة عرض بسيطة من كيف [دفلوب كونتري]' [إإكسبورت مركت] كان منعت أن ينمو ب يصنع بلد' منتوجات خصوصا مع هم يساعد إنتاج قطاعة مثل زراعة يستطيع كنت حجة جيّدة لباحثات الذي يكون بعض في معروفة لتجارة حرّة وصعبة موضوع أن فنّد ل [فتس].
عرض [ستيغليتز] أيضا بعض شذوذ يورّط في سياسة صياغة و [دسسون-مكينغ] في المستوى دوليّة. عندما أشار هو أنّ مؤثّرة, يطوّر بلاد مثل الولايات المتّحدة الأمريكيّة, اليابان, كندا, والاتّحاد الأوروبي يأخذون المسؤولية أن يوصل فحوصات, دراسات, وأخرى أنشطة أن يبرهن الميزات يحضر حوالي بتجارة حرّة داخل إلى بلاد مختلفة ويتمّ حملة ضخمة دوليّة يدفع ل [برينسبل-بسد] تحررية تجاريّة خلافا السياسات هم يطبّقون في هم خاصّة بلاد, هو أبدى أنّ هذا بلاد يخفون تحت قناعهم خيّرة من يكون فقر [ألّفيتور] بينما بشكل اختلاسيّ يستفيد هذا [ليتّل دفلوبد] و [دفلوب كونتري] أن يكسب ربح, وقوة. يكون إقتصادية, سيأخذ هو [ا لوت] من شجاعة وحرجة يفكّر للمؤلفة أن ينحرف من الفكرة سائدة من تجارة حرّة ترقية. بالتّالي, سيروّج هذا مادة بعيد تحقيق وإنتقاد بخصوص التأثيرات من تحررية تجاريّة عبر بلد.
هناك [إكنوميك مودل] مختلفة, خصوصا [إين لين ويث] تطوير و [إينترنأيشنل كنوميكس] أيّ محاولات أن يفسّر العلاقة التجارة إلى حالة نموّ غير أنّ كلّ من أنّ أعطوا حالة أيّ أخرى أشياء كانوا يمسك ثابتة, لذلك يجعل النموذج أقلّ مناسبة في ال [رل ليف]. اقترحت دراسة بعيدة في هذا موضوع أن يساعد أوضحت إصدارات في المنطقة.
[بوليس-مكرس] ينبغي أيضا اعتبرت الوضع من بلادهم قبل يتزامن في مرسومة. تحررية تجاريّة, وفقا ل المؤلفة, يستطيع استفدت أمة [ويث رغردس تو] [كرّنت ستتثس] ه. [متثر كنومي] يستفيد أكثر بينما يطوّر اقتصاد يستطيع لا ينافس جيّدا, بالتّالي يصبح فقيرة. هذا يستطيع كنت جيّدة مغادرة نقطة لباحثات أن يجد العلاقة بين ال للفرد يقف من كلّ بلاد إلى التأثيرات العولمة إلى [إينكم ديستريبوأيشن]. في يعتبر الإنسانيّة تطوير فهرسة, بخصوص [بوليتيكل-كنومي] نموذج, سيكون الموضوع بخصوص تجارة وتطوير مجال واسعة لدراسة.
ب يقترح للحل أن يغيّر ال [ميندست] من الالناس حصل المؤلفة الجوابة محتملة متطرّفة أكثر. هذا ماذا المجتمعة ينبغي تحمّلت [إين وردر تو] فكّرت من الصندوق وحقّقت الأهمية من وطنيّة وحالة وعي اجتماعيّة. هذا توصية ل كلّ مواطنة أكثر خصوصا إلى [بوليس-مكرس].
هناك تصنيفات مختلفة لبلد. في هذا مراجعات سيصنّف بلد كنت بما أنّ يطوّر, يطوّر, و [لست-دفلوبد]. أسّست هذا تصنيفات على صفة مختلفة من بلد مثل [بر كبيتا ينكم] وإنسانيّة تطوير فهرسة. في النموذج أرثوذكسيّة, سيؤسّس حالة نموّ من بلد فقط كنت في الزيادة ال [بر كبيتا ينكم]. في هذا مراجعات, السياسيّة اقتصاد سيستعمل نموذج كنت أن يعيّن حالة نموّ في بلد, أيّ يكون مع ال [إينكم لفل]; سيؤسّس حالة نموّ أيضا كنت على إنسانيّة شرط ورضاء. سيكون الوضع من كلّ بلد الأساس على كيف هو كنت سيأثر بعولمة. يجعل بما أنّ يقال مبكّرة, تجارة حرّة بلد غنيّة جيّدة باتّجاه آخر في النفقة تكليف من أمم متخلّفة. هذا حساب يمكن كنت شاهدت في [برسبكتيفس] مختلفة من إستيراد وتصدير [أس ولّ س] في تأثيره في وظيفة وصناعة. اعتبرت بلد مع [فولّ مبلومنت] أو [كلوس تو] [فولّ مبلومنت] مستوى و[متثر كنومي] ك ال يطوّر بلد; بالمقابل ال يطوّر وبلد [لست-دفلوبد] ([غمز], [إت]. [أل.] 2000).
[كر-بريفري] عرفت نظرية ([كبت])
هذا نظرية أيضا ك ال [نيوكلونيل] حالة اعتماد نموذج أيّ جرى خارجا من المذهب ماركسيّة. هذا يبدي العلاقة من مركز/أكثر أمة قوّيّة إلى ه مستعمرات/أمم ضعيفة. يسيطر اللب قصدا أو دون وعي, يقمع, ويستنزف الموردات من البلد قوّيّة أقلّ. أحيانا إن اللب نية يكون أن يعين المستعمرة, ينهي هو فوق ينهب البلد إلى النقطة أنّ البلد استطاع [نو لونجر] وقفت دون المساندة من اللب. الذي يبقي هذا نوع العلاقة أنّ الناس الذي يكسب, يستمتع من هم دخل, اجتماعيّة وضع, وقوة سياسيّة من النظامة. فقط من خلال ثورة أو من خلال كبريات يركّب من الرأسمالية نظامة يستطيع حرّرت المستعمرات من اللبّ إضطهاد ([تودرو], 1997). ال [كبت] يستطيع كنت صحبت مباشرة إلى النظامة حاضرة موجودة بما أنّ يصوّر بالعلاقة من الشماليّة نصف كرة أمم, ك ال "لب", إلى في الأغلب [أفريكن] وبلد آسيويّ ك هم إمتداد سوق/مستعمرات/قمر صناعيّ/محيط بلد. باسم [فر مركت], يدفع هذا أمم قوّيّة لأسواق [تريفّ-فر] [أس ولّ س] [نو-تو] إعانة سياسة لذلك هم يستطيع يتلقّى سوق لمنتوجاتهم فائضة وكسبت كثير ربح. في اقتصاد [تريفّ-فر], ال "محيط" يستطيع بحرّيّة صدقت بعض من هم زراعيّة/[رو برودوكت] أيّ يكون المصدر رئيسيّة من [رو متريلس] رخيصة ل ال يصنع وصناعة اقتصاد من ال "لب" ([غلبريث], 1975). كيف ساخرة هو يمكن بدات غير أنّ ال "لا يتبع لب" في حقيقة السياسة أن عن تخلّى إعانة خصوصا إلى [فرمرس] ه ([ستيغليتز], 2006). لذلك اللب يستطيع أنتجت أكثر في سعر [شبر]. مع إنتاجية [هيغر], اللب يستطيع الآن صدقت منتوجات (منتوج فلاحيّ) أيّ يكون أساسيّة إلى [دفلوب كونتري]' [إإكسبورت مركت] مثل ذرة, أرز, [إتك.]. بما أنّ اللب يستطيع الآن صددت هذا بضائع, يتبع هو أنّ هم [نو لونجر] يحتاجون أن يستورد مثل هذا. سيكون هناك الآن صغيرة أو مريضة ما من سوق للمحيط. تركت بما أنّ الحكومة [نو لونجر] يساعد, رأي ال [ريس سكتور], تكلفة [هيغر] لإنتاج من هذا منتوج تكبّدت. الأكثر غالية محلّيّا ينتج أرز يستطيع [نو لونجر] نافست مع ال [شبر] يستورد أرز. سيثبّط هذا شرط [فرمرس] محلّية أن ينتج الجيّدة. هذا البداية من المحيط حالة اعتماد إلى اللب لأرز إنتاج. في الأخرى يد, في بحث لربح [هيغر], اللب يمكن اخترت إلى [أوتسورس] بعض من شركاته إلى المحيط بسبب عمل رخيصة ([ثومبسن], 1993). هذا الحالة من الحاضرة دعوة مركز شركات أو العمل يعالج مناولة ([ببو]). [أف كورس] هذا يستطيع زوّدت أشغال, أشغال تعاقديّة, بين القمر صناعيّ مواطنات. في أخرى إحساس, أجبرت هذا مواطنات كان أن ينحرف من [تيم سكهدول] هم معتادة أن يكيّف على الطبيعة من زبوناتهم. رغم أنّ هذا نوع الشغل يستطيع زوّدت [سورس وف ينكم] جيّدة للمواطنات, بخصوص الخير من الموظفات, هذا يستطيع كنت حقّرت. هذا يستطيع ضرّرت الصحة من العاملة, يزعج [تيم سكهدول] هم نظاميّة, يركد هم يعلم وتطبيق من هم لامتخرّجة درجة [أر فن] مهنتهم ([إين ث كس وف] بعض معلمات الذي أصبح دعوة مركز عاملة). هذا يستطيع أيضا أثرت أسرة علاقة. يعطي هذا مثال, هو يستطيع ساندت الفكرة أنّ تجارة حرّة يستطيع آذى [متثر كنومي] أقلّ. خلافا [كبت], الحاليّة عولمة يعلن خطة أو [أوتريغتلي] يستعمل ال "لب" قوة أن يجبر بلد تابعة أن يقبل وطبّقت تجارة حرّة سياسات من خلال مؤسسات مختلفة مثل المال دوليّة نقديّة (صندوق النقد الدوليّ), [وورلد بنك] ([وب]), [وتو], وأخرى إتفاقات ودورات أيّ يعالج تجارة دوليّة إصدارات.
ثورة [نيوكلسّيكل] مضادّة
هذا المذهب أنّ يجسر المفهوم من تحررية تجاريّة - النظامة معاصرة يروّج ب يطوّر بلد. يتلقّى هذا نظرية ثلاثة مقاربة: [فري-مركت], إختبار [بوبليك-], وال [مركت-فريندلي]. يدعم ال [فري-مركت] الفكرة أنّ سوق فحسب فعّالة لذلك ما من حكومة تدخل في السوق روّجت. Neoclassicists uphold their advocacies through obtaining control over the world’s major institutions such as the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and in the United Nation Development Program (UNDP). The above mentioned countries plus other influential countries – members of the Group of 8 (G8), greatly dominates the world trading system. They lead the formulation of international trade agreements as well as presenting rules and policies for referendum for countries. These trade agreements and the hocus-focus underlying in the pacts is the main issue of this article. According to Stiglitz trade agreements are dominated, manipulated and biased to the interest of developed countries, worst, for few interest groups alone.
Specific Factors Model (SFM)
This model presents how differences in countries’ resources can cause international trade. Income distribution is strongly affected by international trade as shown by this model. Thus this model can help explain why countries need to negotiate and that is because no single territory contains all the resources needed for diversified production. SFM suggest that factors specific to exports gain from trade while import-competing sectors lose (Krugman, 2000). On the other hand, labor sector may either gain or lose. This model can visibly position the context in the article. Since, most economist believe that trade can benefit more than without it, conceptually, those who benefit can compensate those who lose. But this is not the real case. That is the reason behind the discontent of the losers. Social inequality arise when some people or country gain in the expense of others up to the point of exploitation and deception.
Under trade liberalism, gains from trade can only be achieved by developed nation or those countries with mature economy (Thompson, 1993). The definition of what a mature economy can be based on Rostow’s stages of economic growth. On one hand, when a country is developing it can be classified under the second stage which is the precondition for take-off. It is where improvement in transportation, agriculture, and expansion of imports occur. Thus, the economy is not yet ripe. On the other hand, when the economy is mature it can be considered under the last stage of the model which is the age of mass consumption where the society can choose to become a welfare state or an international military power. It is characterized by a strong, competitive economy, usually under full employment level (Todaro, 1997). In this situation, an economy with full employment level will not be much affected by trade liberalization. The laborers in sector which is affected by strong importation can easily find job and transfer to other sectors which gain more in trade. Unlike in developing nations, laborers which are affected by trade are threatened to lose their job, thus adding to the unemployment rate in the country (Krugman, 2000). High unemployment rate means higher poverty index.
Global trade can cause an unbalanced growth in the economy of the country which engages in it. When a country will specialize in a field where it has a comparative advantage for trade, it would likely lead to a focused development in that specific area which can leave behind other uncompetitive sectors (Krugman, 2000).
The author’s suggestion to reform the mindset of the people as an important part to change the system is supported by Simon Kuznetz’s six features of modern economic growth. In the part of the developing country, they have to change the way they decide towards a policy to, this time, consider it and improve it to be biased on the developing country. If advanced countries really have the will to help the developing country to pursue for development and industrialization, there must be a sacrifice on their part.
The article is short yet it opened up a number of issues and a wide field for discussion. The author has a broad overview regarding the concept of free trade. He critically applied the principles of equitable and efficient global resource allocation among societies. This means that being an economist, he does not only conform to the conventional belief of economics that liberalized trade can benefit more to people. He does not consider efficiency only for capital and land owners but to everyone who is and can be affected by policies implemented. Economics, being a discipline under social science, must consider the welfare of the society (Gomez, et. al., 2000). And that consideration is prioritized by the author in the article. He also embarked upon the different subdivision of the subject. He regarded the international interaction of countries as well as the governing politics in each negotiation. He included his observation on how decisions were made and he discussed about the discrepancies in the institution which facilitates the global interaction of trade.
The article presented issues from a general perspective of development inequality brought about by trade liberalization down to the politics involved in intellectual property rights discussion. The flow of the article leads the reader to see trade liberalism as a deep issue which is not only limited to import and export exchange among countries.
The author was audacious to present ideas usually considered as an open secret- an obvious fact but is constantly denied or kept unnoticed. He identified reasons how and why trade liberalism creates inequality to nations. When the author said that there is something wrong with the world trading system he subsequently offered facts and theories to prove his stand. It is quite good that he gave pragmatic examples but he fall short to show precise data to further defend his allegations and arguments. For instance, he said that trade negotiations left poor countries worse off when they were forced to cut subsidies and bring down tariff level by the advanced industrialized countries. It would be better if he showed an excerpt from the round of trade negotiation which defined the policy and the agreement among the countries. Better if he showed cardinal values which will illustrate the level of tariff in each country. It will help the reader formulate and reason out why or what are other reasons behind the unequal imposition of tariff levels.
There was a shortcoming in the part of the author to give a clear and concise definition of the terms used such as free trade. The author failed to give theories and arguments which define the concept of free trade. It would be better if he presented first the concept of free trade – its pros and cons before bombarding his arguments. If the reader can clearly grasp the author’s perception of free trade it would then be smooth to judge the point of view presented.
There have been no characterizations of what the picture of a developed or a developing country is. Given that the author mentioned that globalization affect each countries based on their nature, he refused to associate the nature of a country on how it can decide to a policy. Yes he mentioned about the abuse of power but not on how these power are asserted to control the votes of each representative systematically; that is aside from his given point of political and self interests.
The kind of development paradigm as the basis for growth measurement was not clearly identified. It is important to be defined especially when talking about growth or failure as a result of globalization. Failure to do so can cause doubt on the conclusion of the article.
It was good when the author suggested the need to change the mindset of negotiators in the way that trading decisions are made as well as encourage each country to promote efficiency, fairness, and development but he should have reflected twice. As Adam Smith recognized the concept of self-interest or utility, it is inevitable to consider that each country will view fairness, efficiency, and development in their own perspective (Pen, 1967). Thus, the change in mindset will follow after the change in system because the way of thinking is developed by the system. Thus the author must suggest alternatives on how the ideology towards global equity will be developed.
The article appeared to be comprehensive for economics majors but no so for other social science apprentice whose background in trade liberalism is a nuance.
According to Newton, in every action there is a reaction. That is the reason why controversies and issues pop out. It is certain that different social science disciplines are interdependent in terms of decision making. In the article, the author pointed out the need to reform institutionally and ideologically based on the concept of democracy and transparency. Nevertheless, he lacked in clarifying how can the change be possible, where to begin, and failed to paint a concise picture on how this reform can be achieved.
The author provided a good flow of how social justice can be asserted amidst global trading system. It is good when he emphasized that institutional change would not be possible unless there is ideological change. This can be better if he presented ways on how can this change be realized. To challenge the system will require a lot of effort and perseverance.
The issues regarding the intellectual property rights open a wide horizon for research with regard to its context and further implication in the society. What was raised in the article was the way which the right to intellectual property can pave for monopoly. The author is implying that global trade is controlled not only by advanced nations, more so by few international business elites. This shows how politics can gravely affect international relations.
If a further study will be conducted regarding the advocacies of trade, it can contribute to the analysis on the social implication of global trade. Hence, allegations on free trade as a form of global exploitation for the benefit of the few can be further restructured.
In the case of these gigantic multinational corporations, in their game in the global trade, it was emphasized that they want to gain the highest profit with less cost. Yet they had too much of it when we refer to it financially (Pen. 1967). Is it really all about profit? Can the concept of gigantism be applied in the situation? This concept of gigantism refers to the goal of corporations to expand and earn global control and power. This concept does not consider profit as the main objective for expansion but expansion itself (Pen, 1967).
The article left inquiries which can be a good parting point for research. Some of these are: Does the advanced industrialized country really aim to advance global social welfare through the promotion of free trade or is it still part of their agenda to gain power over humanity? Does trade liberalism imply the existence of neo-imperialism? It was also suggested by the author that there must be changes in the mindset in order to create change in the society but how can be the biased mindset alter the system if it is rooted from the concept of liberalism? In addition, there is a need to define what is a just and efficient trading in relation to the community it affects.
Despite of the international promotion for free trade, issues such as social justice and equity cannot be ignored. As economics majors always say, there is always a tradeoff between efficiency and equity. But what is really the measurement for efficiency and what is for equity? How important is the society in terms of growth and development? These questions may seem to have an obvious answer long time before, yet until the present its application to society seems bleak.

Bibliography

Caves, R., & Jones, R. (1985). World Trade and Payments: An Introduction. Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
Galbraith, J.K. (1975). Economics and the Public Purpose. United States of America: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gomez, D., et. al. (2000). Reforming Social Policy: Changing Perspectives on Sustainable Human Development. Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Krugman, P. & Obstfeld, M. (2000). International Economics (5th edition). United States of America: Addison-Wesley Reading.
Mankiw, N.G. (2004). Principles of Economics (3rd edition). United States of America: Thomson Learning.
Nyilas, J. (1976). Integration in the World Economy East-West and Inter-State Relations. Hungary: Akademia Kiado.
Pen, J. (1967). A Primer on International Trade. New York: Random House.
Thompson, H. (1993). International Economics: A Microeconomic Approach. Toronto: Longman Publishing Group.
Todaro, M. (1997). Economic Development. United States of America: Addison-Wesley Reading.
2006-69621