The US likes to think that if poor countries simply open up their markets, greater prosperity will follow. Unfortunately, where agriculture is concerned, this is mere rhetoric. The US pays only lip service to free market principles, favoring Washington lobbyists and campaign contributors who demand just the opposite. Indeed, it is the US' own agricultural subsidies that helped kill, at least for now, the so-called Doha Development Round of trade negotiations that were supposed to give poor countries new opportunities to enhance their growth.
Subsidies hurt developing country farmers because they lead to higher output -- and lower global prices. The Bush administration, supposedly committed to free markets around the world, has actually almost doubled the level of agricultural subsidies in the US.
Cotton illustrates the problem. Without subsidies, it would not pay for the US to produce much cotton; with them, the US is the world's largest cotton exporter. Some 25,000 rich US cotton farmers divide US$3 billion to US$4 billion in subsidies among themselves -- with most of the money going to a small fraction of the recipients.
The increased supply, meanwhile, depresses cotton prices, hurting some 10 million farmers in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
Seldom have so few done so much damage to so many. That damage is all the greater when we consider how the US' trade subsidies contributed to the demise of the Doha Round.
Rather than offering to do away with its cotton subsidies, the US offered to open up its markets to cotton imports -- an essentially meaningless public-relations move that quickly backfired. Owing to its huge subsidies, the US exports cotton, and it would import little even if formal barriers were removed.
Thus, recent trade negotiations have a surreal air about them, because, whatever their outcome, ultimately cotton subsidies will have to go.
Brazil, frustrated with the US' intransigence, brought a case against US cotton subsidies before the WTO, which ruled as almost any economist would: the subsidies distort world trade and are therefore prohibited.
Faced with the WTO order, the US will try to comply with the letter of the law and avoid its spirit, making changes in the subsidy program to ensure "technical" compliance. But these attempts will almost surely fail; in the end -- though it may take years -- cotton subsidies will be eliminated.
Of course, the EU's subsidies are far larger, but, in contrast to the US, Europe has made some effort to reduce them, especially export subsidies. While export subsidies appear more obviously "trade distorting," the US' cotton and other subsidies are in fact almost as bad. When subsidies lead to increased production with little increase in consumption, as is typical with agricultural commodities, higher output translates directly into higher exports, which translate directly into lower prices for producers, lower incomes for farmers, and more poverty in the Third World, including millions of cotton farmers eking out subsistence incomes in semi-arid conditions.
The US and other advanced countries are the real losers from the demise of the Doha Round. Had the Bush administration fulfilled its commitments, US taxpayers would have benefited from the elimination of huge agricultural subsidies -- a real boon in this era of yawning budget deficits. Americans would have been better off as consumers, too, with increased access to a variety of low-cost goods from poor countries.
Likewise, migration pressure would have been reduced, because it is the huge disparity in incomes more than anything else that leads people to leave their homes and families to immigrate to the US. A fair trade regime would have helped reduce that disparity.
Citizens throughout the rich developed world all stand to benefit from a more prosperous globe -- especially a world in which there is less poverty, with fewer people facing despair. For we all suffer from the political instability to which such despair gives rise.
But it is the US that perhaps now stands to gain the most by reviving the Doha talks with a more credible and generous offer. The US' influence in the world has suffered greatly in the last few years; the Bush administration's hypocritical use of free-market rhetoric while pursuing protectionist policies has made matters worse.
US national interests thus dictate a change of policy. But there is also another powerful rationale for doing so: treating fairly those who are poorer and less powerful is the morally right thing to do.
Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS