http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/trump-climate-change.html
The article above covers the uncertainty of the Paris Climate Accord that was agreed to last year in the wake of Donald Trump being elected president. It is widely known that Trump has stated that he wants to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord. The international political community is currently divided on this issue, and now they are trying to decide what they will do if Trump does withdraw the US from the Accords, "some diplomats turned from talking of rising seas and climbing temperatures toward how to punish the United States if Mr. Trump follows through, possibly with a carbon-pollution tax on imports of American-made goods". This tax would be based on the amount of emissions that US companies have. If a company goes and switches to renewables and substantially reduces their footprint, then the tax would be decreased. Essentially they are trying to go through with the Paris Climate Accord by going around Trump.
I personally believe that this is an important discussion for world leaders to be having right now. So much is uncertain with a Trump presidency, and it is important to plan for the worst. This deal is extremely monumental because it got countries to come together and agree about something they usually do not agree about. I think that it is great that they are planning on how they can still implement this on the US, even if Trump backs out. However, I do believe that they need to be careful. Trump can often be irrational and as a result, he might resort to extreme measures if they go through with this.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Monday, December 5, 2016
Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Colombia
This New York Times article discusses a rather interesting case in what pertains to Green IPE. In 2008, the British Colombia Liberal Party, a right-leaning party in Canada that shares many of the anti-tax, pro-business beliefs of U.S. Republicans that deny the existence of climate change, introduced a tax on the carbon emissions of businesses and families, cars and trucks, factories and homes across the province. Despite remarks by Marco Rubio that government efforts to combat climate change would destroy the economy, British Colombia's provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors' even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined. The tax reduced emissions by up to 15%, encouraged people to drive somewhat less and be more careful about heating and cooling homes, and incentivized businesses to invest in energy efficient measures and switch to less polluting fuels. Moreover, opposition for the tax has decreased from 47% of voters to 32% of voters and businesses found it to be the most efficient, market-friendly instrument available in the quiver against climate change. The province, though, has run into a couple dilemmas. Carbon emissions are rising again since the tax has frozen at 30 Canadian dollars, they're missing their goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a third from 2007 to 2020, and the collapse in gas prices is making people stray away from things like electric vehicles. Moreover, cement makers argue that imports from China and the United States grew from 5% to 40% since the introduction of the tax. It's problems like these that must be addressed in order for United States Republicans to embrace a carbon tax if they ever recognize the threat of climate change.
This article hits on just about all the focal points we discussed in class about Green IPE. The first is the set of market externalities as a result of the trade-offs created from this carbon tax. Reduction in emissions, more environmentally friendly and mindful living, and the potential creation and growth of a new market and economic growth based around new sources of energy is encouraging, but increases in imports in certain industries and gas still being seen as a more economically reliable energy source seems problematic. The Republican party would ask: how does one adopt policies to internalize social costs without stagnating economic growth? Moreover, how does one know how to correctly price carbon, especially when it seems that the tax must keep rising or else people will get used to it and keep emitting carbon? Furthermore, it doesn't seem that historic and current responsibility and the fact that the US has one of the highest emission rates per capita is heavily affecting the direction in policy change. It seems that it comes down, at its purest form, to the fact that if the right wing recognizes climate change as a threat, realizes responsibility, and realizes that reform wouldn't be detrimental to the economy, it would ultimately require states coming together to figure out a plan for reform.
This article hits on just about all the focal points we discussed in class about Green IPE. The first is the set of market externalities as a result of the trade-offs created from this carbon tax. Reduction in emissions, more environmentally friendly and mindful living, and the potential creation and growth of a new market and economic growth based around new sources of energy is encouraging, but increases in imports in certain industries and gas still being seen as a more economically reliable energy source seems problematic. The Republican party would ask: how does one adopt policies to internalize social costs without stagnating economic growth? Moreover, how does one know how to correctly price carbon, especially when it seems that the tax must keep rising or else people will get used to it and keep emitting carbon? Furthermore, it doesn't seem that historic and current responsibility and the fact that the US has one of the highest emission rates per capita is heavily affecting the direction in policy change. It seems that it comes down, at its purest form, to the fact that if the right wing recognizes climate change as a threat, realizes responsibility, and realizes that reform wouldn't be detrimental to the economy, it would ultimately require states coming together to figure out a plan for reform.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Treating Workers Like People?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/11/a-new-business-strategy-treating-employees-well/383192/
The article cited above references corporations that are working to treat their empolyees like people and not having their needs or wants come in last place. As we discussed in class, the mistreatment of workers has had a long history in both the U.S. and around the world. Many corporations seem to believe that profits must be made this way. However, I do not believe this to be the case. As this article referenced, there is a long-term view for these companies that treat their workers with respect and dignity. As the world spreads information more and more rapidly, gaining a good reputation becomes more important for companies. People do not look to work at companies they have heard horrible things about when they know of other options where they can be paid more and treated better.
These companies are forming these policies and ideas without national or international regulations demanding that they do such. These companies make a great deal of profit and have been around as long as (and longer than many) companies that treat their workers horribly. Obviously, a profit is important in the world of business but these corporations have realized that by treating employees better they have a higher productivity, are more likely to stay, and gain more qualified employees in the long run as well.
The article cited above references corporations that are working to treat their empolyees like people and not having their needs or wants come in last place. As we discussed in class, the mistreatment of workers has had a long history in both the U.S. and around the world. Many corporations seem to believe that profits must be made this way. However, I do not believe this to be the case. As this article referenced, there is a long-term view for these companies that treat their workers with respect and dignity. As the world spreads information more and more rapidly, gaining a good reputation becomes more important for companies. People do not look to work at companies they have heard horrible things about when they know of other options where they can be paid more and treated better.
These companies are forming these policies and ideas without national or international regulations demanding that they do such. These companies make a great deal of profit and have been around as long as (and longer than many) companies that treat their workers horribly. Obviously, a profit is important in the world of business but these corporations have realized that by treating employees better they have a higher productivity, are more likely to stay, and gain more qualified employees in the long run as well.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
What Globalization means for Developing Countries, and the Effects on the Home Front with the 2016 Election (Post for 11/20/16)
This article critiques the agenda that the IMF had set out on the impact of globalization on workers and their trade unions. It starts out by discussing the positive and negative aspects of globalization and how these will play a role in what the IMF has set to accomplish. It discusses the importance of fulfilling certain aspects to make sure that globalization benefits all keeping in mind what developing countries want. Trade unions in many Asian countries have great difficulty in establishing workers' rights to organize where one and a half billion live off of less than one dollar per day. Countries in Latin America worry about implications of trade liberalization for workers and their trade unions as well as complaining about privatization of public enterprises. Not only is there an issue in developing countries, but industrial countries as well such as the increase of unemployment in the U.S. The importance of this article is to show social solidarity and how due to competition it becomes impossible to fulfill in today’s world. “We have a responsibility to help promote fair income transfers, from the rich to the poor, the healthy to the sick and from employed to the unemployed.” (Camdessus)
This relates to what we had talked about in class on globalization and the 2016 election. This article stuck out to me because of Loomis’ argument where he eventually wanted globalization to help foreign workers, and that it needed to be done correctly. Yes this is ideal, but I think this article does a great job in showing the complexity of this issue. Globalization of capital moving overseas means loss of output, trade, and employment on the home front. This is where the 2016 election comes into play, and why a lot of the working class citizens in the U.S. voted for Trump. One of Trump’s main focal points in the election was that he was going to bring the jobs back to the U.S, and is why the silent majority in rural areas of every state voted Trump. As we had talked about in class, businesses were being outsourced to developing countries in order to avoid regulations in the U.S. after the 1911 Triangle fire. This therefore causes problems for the environment and domestic labor in developing countries. The question is if corporations will bring jobs back to the U.S. and risk losing money by following those regulations. I think that by the time these jobs come back to the U.S. it wouldn’t benefit the original people who lost these jobs to outsourcing. Therefore, building on Camdessus’ social solidarity, and improving working conditions for developing countries will result in a better outcome. According to Camdessus this will help unemployed people at home, and give foreigners safe and stable jobs fulfilling Loomis’ goals.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Economists Take Aim at Wealth Inequality
In a New York Times article, Nelson D. Schwartz attempts to tackle the global phenomenon of growing income inequality and understand new perspectives as to why it's growing and shaping both the national and global economy. It first comes with economists acknowledging the indisputable truth that the percentage of income being earned by the top one percent is going up while wages for the rest of the country are relatively stagnant. Nicholas Bloom points to inequality being magnified by technological change and what's known as skill bias, where workers with a particular expertise reap the biggest reward. Moreover, Enrico Moretti points to the fact that state tax increases prompt the highest earners to move to lower-tax locations. In addition, Bloom found a sharp divergence between pay at the most successful companies and also-rans in the same field. The highest-paid workers cluster at the winners, heightening income disparities in the overall work force. Bloom and Moretti acknowledge that the free market itself won't be able to solve this income inequality conundrum, and most academics are leery of any solution and academics' traditional tools are inadequate for the task.
I wanted to write about this article for this week's blog because it presents a couple of problems that have origins in the setup of traditional capitalism, are explicitly acknowledged in Marxism, but neither have clear solutions. Marxism argues that, in essence, the economy is negative-sum and a game of exploitation of the poor by the rich. As the rich get richer and the poor don't get any richer, this argument becomes increasingly more numerically evident. Who's to say growth is a tide that rises all ships? Although this argument exists, there's also the argument for skill bias; those who are more skilled will earn more wages. One can argue that that's simple competition. If you're better at what you do, you'll be be compensated more than the person who's less competent. Who's to say that's unfair? Same goes with more successful companies having people who make more wages. If the company is better than another company in the same industry, there's going to be a larger flow of capital and therefore more wages distributed. Although this may hold true, Moretti also points that those with more money have more opportunities to work around the tax system, creating even more of a divergence. So this leads to the broad and difficult question: If the free market itself won't fix income inequality, what can the government do? Marxist beliefs have been proven to be too extreme and detrimental to the economy, but there needs to be some form of regulation to ensure fair competition and ensure that workers will be compensated fairly for the amount of work they're doing. How much, exactly, is still to be determined.
Wealth Inequality in America
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/3-tvs-and-no-food-growing-up-poor-in-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2
I read this article over the past week and it spoke to me on many levels. The article talks about what I believe is a untouched and pushed aside topic in American Politics, Child Poverty. The article talks about several children who live in poverty and what their life is like. A day in the life includes, trying to stay away from recruitment into gangs, the temptation of drugs and other substances, stealing to get by, being too embarrassed to go to school because of the close they are wearing, and going to bed wondering when their next meal will come. The article states that "The United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialized world." with, about 1/5 of children living in low income and poverty situations. This is a serious struggle and problem in our society that not only no one wants to talk about, but also it is a problem that many do not have a solution for.
I think this applies a lot to what we have been learning in class in regards to wealth inequality. I believe that often times ideas are centered around the international community, and that is what our class focuses on. But wealth inequality is very damaging even in America. Often times I hear the phrase "poor people in America really aren't poor". But I think that this phrase is untrue and hits America just as much as other countries. I believe that this can also tie into some of the critiques of Free trade. America is a society that has virtual free trade, yet even the people who live in the US don't seem to be benefitting.
I read this article over the past week and it spoke to me on many levels. The article talks about what I believe is a untouched and pushed aside topic in American Politics, Child Poverty. The article talks about several children who live in poverty and what their life is like. A day in the life includes, trying to stay away from recruitment into gangs, the temptation of drugs and other substances, stealing to get by, being too embarrassed to go to school because of the close they are wearing, and going to bed wondering when their next meal will come. The article states that "The United States has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the industrialized world." with, about 1/5 of children living in low income and poverty situations. This is a serious struggle and problem in our society that not only no one wants to talk about, but also it is a problem that many do not have a solution for.
I think this applies a lot to what we have been learning in class in regards to wealth inequality. I believe that often times ideas are centered around the international community, and that is what our class focuses on. But wealth inequality is very damaging even in America. Often times I hear the phrase "poor people in America really aren't poor". But I think that this phrase is untrue and hits America just as much as other countries. I believe that this can also tie into some of the critiques of Free trade. America is a society that has virtual free trade, yet even the people who live in the US don't seem to be benefitting.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Marxism in the Modern World
http://marxiststudent.com/solidarity-with-south-african-students-feesmustfall/
This article was taken from a website kept by a group of students in England in support of Marxist ideas worldwide. They write a series of articles about social movements all over the world from this perspective. This article is written in criticism of the Republic of South Africa and supporting the student movement of fees must fall. The government stated that fees would not rise again after 2015. However, the fees have been raised multiple times since then. Students started this movement to demand that university must be cheaper in order for more students of color to afford a higher education and bring an end to the racial/economic divide left over after the end of Apartheid in 1994. The article also sites government corruption and bribery occurring in the country. The article also discusses the violence that is being done against the students in these movements.
In class we have discussed the Marxist ideals. I did not realize these ideals were still alive and well within the world but this website seems to show otherwise. I became familiar with this movement while I was at a University in South Africa and witnessed the anger and frustration with the current governmental policies surrounding higher education. The students who write this website work to educate people about how inequality and corruption is causing suffering throughout the world. This inequality is causing divides, violence, and revolts in many countries throughout the world. In my view, inequality is not the answer to the economic development of individual countries or the world as a whole. Equality should be the goal as it assists in the development of people as well as industries and countries. Marxism is an ideal way to view the world but that does not mean it is not to be strived toward.
This article was taken from a website kept by a group of students in England in support of Marxist ideas worldwide. They write a series of articles about social movements all over the world from this perspective. This article is written in criticism of the Republic of South Africa and supporting the student movement of fees must fall. The government stated that fees would not rise again after 2015. However, the fees have been raised multiple times since then. Students started this movement to demand that university must be cheaper in order for more students of color to afford a higher education and bring an end to the racial/economic divide left over after the end of Apartheid in 1994. The article also sites government corruption and bribery occurring in the country. The article also discusses the violence that is being done against the students in these movements.
In class we have discussed the Marxist ideals. I did not realize these ideals were still alive and well within the world but this website seems to show otherwise. I became familiar with this movement while I was at a University in South Africa and witnessed the anger and frustration with the current governmental policies surrounding higher education. The students who write this website work to educate people about how inequality and corruption is causing suffering throughout the world. This inequality is causing divides, violence, and revolts in many countries throughout the world. In my view, inequality is not the answer to the economic development of individual countries or the world as a whole. Equality should be the goal as it assists in the development of people as well as industries and countries. Marxism is an ideal way to view the world but that does not mean it is not to be strived toward.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Reconstructing the Definition of Peace and what Globalization can contribute
http://www.polity.co.uk/up2/pdf/sample_chapter.pdf
Worldwide globalization can cause a new definition of what peace means especially to a state's citizens’ which will eventually democratize other nations as well following on the track of peace and globalization. In “Peace Operations in Global Politics,” the article discusses the importance of how globalization has affected the way peace is portrayed amongst states. With states being interconnected because of globalization it brings new issues to all states as well. Peace is difficult to conceptualize because it can mean a number of different things such as peace meaning no war, but then is a nation who has its citizens socially enslaved in peace? This is the difficulty that globalization introduces because if states are interdependent on one another, the other has the responsibility to create peace for that nation. Competition amongst states has caused a great deal of disadvantage towards citizens of a particular state. If democratic states are unlikely to result to war then that means states take on more responsibility. If a state doesn’t take care of its citizens then it becomes another state's responsibility. These responsibilities in return can cause more hardships for a particular actor in the world economy. For some states peace isn’t the best solution where war can be which represents the difficulty in maintaining peace in today’s collectivity of globalization.
In class we had talked about how war today is not a common event in world politics and how this can be from globalization. Without war means there is peace, but is peace desirable in today’s world? Peace can equal domination such as North Korea or any authoritarian state. The argument is whether globalization can change the meaning of peace, causing countries to democratize and unite together. A decrease in war globally in today’s world means there are other issues states have to deal with. In Peace Operations in Global Politics, “Peace operations need to be in the business of protecting human rights where host states prove unwilling or unable to do so, and of helping to build states capable of fulfilling their responsibilities in the long term.” If more responsibility is what creates peace then globalization should be effective since it is what liberal and democratic states have created. Therefore, globalization has been the factor for peace and the decrease of war. Even though there are difficulties with how globalization is conducted, there are still benefits rather than resorting to war. States should be able to take on more responsibility, and focus on uniting together instead of going against each other.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Brexit and the WTO
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-trade-idUSKCN1220GF
The above article discusses the need for Britain to negotiated a new deal with the WTO. Because they were part of the EU, they themselves did not have a deal with the WTO. So they must negotiate new deals with the other nations and have them approved. Trade Minister Liam Fox said that " terms with the World Trade Organization will not be simple but should be done in a way that causes minimal disruption to global trade". He also believes that because Britain was a founding member and is in good standing they will not need to re-apply for membership.
This is one thing that I had not thought about with the Brexit vote. I knew that Britain would have to re-negotiate trade deals and certain things with each EU member. But I did realize that they would have to do the same thing for the WTO, because the EU is just one body. I think this will be a lot on their plate having to negotiate deals with both the EU and every country in the WTO. What also makes this a difficult task for them is that the WTO is not necessarily a place where things get done fast. As we talked about last class, the WTO has had the DOHA round waiting for approval for almost 20 years. This is not a very speedy process, which is something that Britain is hoping for. While I believe this will not be an easy task for them to complete, I think that it is completely doable.
The above article discusses the need for Britain to negotiated a new deal with the WTO. Because they were part of the EU, they themselves did not have a deal with the WTO. So they must negotiate new deals with the other nations and have them approved. Trade Minister Liam Fox said that " terms with the World Trade Organization will not be simple but should be done in a way that causes minimal disruption to global trade". He also believes that because Britain was a founding member and is in good standing they will not need to re-apply for membership.
This is one thing that I had not thought about with the Brexit vote. I knew that Britain would have to re-negotiate trade deals and certain things with each EU member. But I did realize that they would have to do the same thing for the WTO, because the EU is just one body. I think this will be a lot on their plate having to negotiate deals with both the EU and every country in the WTO. What also makes this a difficult task for them is that the WTO is not necessarily a place where things get done fast. As we talked about last class, the WTO has had the DOHA round waiting for approval for almost 20 years. This is not a very speedy process, which is something that Britain is hoping for. While I believe this will not be an easy task for them to complete, I think that it is completely doable.
Why Are Some Countries Rich And Others Poor?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/05/21/why-are-some-countries-rich-and-others-poor/#1be2eca1272b
This Forbes article discusses a question asked by Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations as well as discussed extensively in our class about a week and a half ago: why are some countries rich and others poor? In an article we read, links of poverty included poverty, fiscal, and demographic traps, cultural barriers, lack of innovation, and (what I felt was most prominent) governance failures. The Forbes article simplified the problem by reflecting three fundamental factors - capital, labor, and the "efficiency factor" - and asked which one of these was responsible for differences in GDP per person in countries around the world. A study concluded that it was the "efficiency factor," mainly due to misallocation of resources because of the system in which the economy runs. Capital, as valuable as it is, has an output ratio - how much extra output one gets from an extra dollar of capital - that is even across countries. Moreover, input contributions - education and skills - is modest when differentiating the level of human capital per worker. The study found that the largest difference in GDP per workers was the difference in economic institutions and misallocation of resources. Adam Smith discovered this two hundred years ago, when Britain's government established labor monopolies, currency controls, tariffs and quotas, and controlled outputs and prices for industries. Stable government and the rule of common law was taken for granted, and the economy suffered greatly because of it.
This article jumped off the page for me because it reflected what I thought was the largest factor as to why countries were poor: government failure and incompetence. Physical landscape can be manipulated, families can have less children and save the minimal income they have, people in poorer countries are capable of innovation, and cultural barriers and be broken at a microeconomic level. But if a government can't provide basic functions, provide access to a system of courts that enforce contracts, protect property rights, be free from instability and corruption and most importantly, open up the market to private investors then none of that matters. Capital and labor are valuable in every market on Earth, but it's the institution in which they reside and the efficiency in which they operate that determine how well an economy grows. An incompetent institution will inevitably lead to an incompetent economy.
This Forbes article discusses a question asked by Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations as well as discussed extensively in our class about a week and a half ago: why are some countries rich and others poor? In an article we read, links of poverty included poverty, fiscal, and demographic traps, cultural barriers, lack of innovation, and (what I felt was most prominent) governance failures. The Forbes article simplified the problem by reflecting three fundamental factors - capital, labor, and the "efficiency factor" - and asked which one of these was responsible for differences in GDP per person in countries around the world. A study concluded that it was the "efficiency factor," mainly due to misallocation of resources because of the system in which the economy runs. Capital, as valuable as it is, has an output ratio - how much extra output one gets from an extra dollar of capital - that is even across countries. Moreover, input contributions - education and skills - is modest when differentiating the level of human capital per worker. The study found that the largest difference in GDP per workers was the difference in economic institutions and misallocation of resources. Adam Smith discovered this two hundred years ago, when Britain's government established labor monopolies, currency controls, tariffs and quotas, and controlled outputs and prices for industries. Stable government and the rule of common law was taken for granted, and the economy suffered greatly because of it.
This article jumped off the page for me because it reflected what I thought was the largest factor as to why countries were poor: government failure and incompetence. Physical landscape can be manipulated, families can have less children and save the minimal income they have, people in poorer countries are capable of innovation, and cultural barriers and be broken at a microeconomic level. But if a government can't provide basic functions, provide access to a system of courts that enforce contracts, protect property rights, be free from instability and corruption and most importantly, open up the market to private investors then none of that matters. Capital and labor are valuable in every market on Earth, but it's the institution in which they reside and the efficiency in which they operate that determine how well an economy grows. An incompetent institution will inevitably lead to an incompetent economy.
The 2016 Financial Crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/12/beware-great-2016-financial-crisis-warns-city-pessimist
This article above explains the scare of a 2016 financial crisis, and that it can be just as bad as the financial crisis of 2008. There recently has been deflation in emerging market economies that central banks are not aware of since the beginning of the year. The article makes a point to say that with the recent conflict in markets share prices have fallen, “along with the decrease in cost for oil which has left Brent Crude Oil trading at barely thirty dollars per barrel.” Credit expansion has also given a false representation of where the U.S. economy is due to how successful the central banks are doing. The banks are “borrowing to finance share buybacks.” The article says that bankers haven’t learned their lesson from the 2008 financial crisis, it is mostly because they didn’t understand the system, and they don’t understand it now.
This relates to the video we watched in class on the 2008 financial crisis. The problem comes back to that there is not enough capital being put aside for loans given out. As we had learned from class, credit default swaps don’t work, and don’t reduce trade loan risks. Making more credit swaps might make the market grow for the time being, but will eventually come around to bite you as it did in 2008. With deflation being a problem now, banks need to see that a crisis can be upon us again. Bankers weren’t aware that a crisis could have been as bad as the 2008 financial crisis until it happened. They need to stop avoiding that it could be a possible threat again, and to examine the decisions being made. Thinking that oil prices would never fail is an assumption or gamble that central banks have made that shouldn’t have been made. This was the same reason for the collapse of 2008 because central bankers thought that real estate prices would never raise and always stay at a low rate. I imagine also that derivatives will play a role in a collapse of many other industries because of the amount of investments in oil. Central bankers have to get a better understanding of how the system works in order to prevent these issues, and have to stress the importance of education on the economy before being allowed to carry out their job.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Millennium Development Goals: Why They Don't Work Everywhere
http://www.webster.edu/arts-and-sciences/affiliates-events/2015-conference.html
The article linked to above discusses the 2015 conference held to gage where the world was in achieving the UN Millennium Goals. One of the focuses of the article is universal education and points out that though this is the case in more countries since the goal was set, sub-saharan Africa still has a long way to go. Of course, the question becomes why progress is being made in some parts of the world and not in others. As stated in the article, "Many of the obstacles to education are things that Americans would never think of." These obstacles include malnourishment, geography, conflict, and infrastructure. In addition to the obstacles countries have for each goal to be achieved, many speakers also discussed the obstacles to data collection faced by the UN and individual countries. Many of the goals cannot be measured accurately due to societal/social reasons for data not being accurate.
Many of the Millennium Development Goals are intertwined. It is impossible to take one without the other. Too often people think education is the answer to poverty. The problem is that education in many countries means children are not able to work or take care of their siblings. This could end up being a financial hardship their families cannot afford in the short-term. Education should be universal and is a great long-term solution to poverty. However, it is hard for families who are living in survival mode to look at the long-term when they are working to survive the day-to-day life and the challenges it brings. As the article pointed out, many of the reasons that children are not being sent to school or why education is not working for many countries as a way to end poverty, are not even thought of in America or other developed nations. This points back to the problem with the Washington Consensus and other such plans being written and implemented by the developed countries with little to no understanding of or input from the countries being targeted to develop. Not every country has the same goal and certainly not every country is starting from the same place. In order for development goals of any kind to work, they need to be tailored to each country and what the people/government of that country want. This is idealistic, I know, but it is the only way such a plan will work.
The article linked to above discusses the 2015 conference held to gage where the world was in achieving the UN Millennium Goals. One of the focuses of the article is universal education and points out that though this is the case in more countries since the goal was set, sub-saharan Africa still has a long way to go. Of course, the question becomes why progress is being made in some parts of the world and not in others. As stated in the article, "Many of the obstacles to education are things that Americans would never think of." These obstacles include malnourishment, geography, conflict, and infrastructure. In addition to the obstacles countries have for each goal to be achieved, many speakers also discussed the obstacles to data collection faced by the UN and individual countries. Many of the goals cannot be measured accurately due to societal/social reasons for data not being accurate.
Many of the Millennium Development Goals are intertwined. It is impossible to take one without the other. Too often people think education is the answer to poverty. The problem is that education in many countries means children are not able to work or take care of their siblings. This could end up being a financial hardship their families cannot afford in the short-term. Education should be universal and is a great long-term solution to poverty. However, it is hard for families who are living in survival mode to look at the long-term when they are working to survive the day-to-day life and the challenges it brings. As the article pointed out, many of the reasons that children are not being sent to school or why education is not working for many countries as a way to end poverty, are not even thought of in America or other developed nations. This points back to the problem with the Washington Consensus and other such plans being written and implemented by the developed countries with little to no understanding of or input from the countries being targeted to develop. Not every country has the same goal and certainly not every country is starting from the same place. In order for development goals of any kind to work, they need to be tailored to each country and what the people/government of that country want. This is idealistic, I know, but it is the only way such a plan will work.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
What will Brexit really mean?
I'm doing my first blog on an Economist article titled, "So what will Brexit really mean?" It entailed prime minister Theresa May establishing a new Department for Exiting the EU and what leaving the EU meant for which market Britain will be a part of, how migration and border control laws would change, and whether or not it'll stay in Europol. Furthermore, publications from Japan's foreign ministry advised Mrs. May to retain full access to the single market - which domestic businesses and finanical lobbies want to stay in - on the account that a "hard" Brexit, which involves leaving that single market without free-trade deals with the EU and third-world countries, would lead to a large drop-off in investment and output. Moreover, Japan advised to avoid customs controls on imports, to preserve the "passports" that allows banks in London to trade across and to let employers freely hire EU nationals. All of these decisions are now in the hands of the British government who are pushing and pulling on different opinions regarding these issues.
What I was most interested in regarding this article was the list of policies Japan insisted Britain should implement; it reminded me greatly of of the ten points in the Washington Consensus and Thomas Friedman's five pillars for economic growth. While they're not all the same they revolve around the theme of limited government intervention in the economy, liberalizing the economic environment and trade and policies within it, and keeping borders open to workers and to allow trade. According to traditional economic models, decreasing intervention on things like trade across borders will increase investment and influx of capital in the long run, especially for British financial institutions. Making this choice seems relatively simple until the Brexiteers realize that they have to make a very tough decision that goes against some of their top priorities. Making the decision to stay in the single market is an economically more sound decision for the country but it also means that Britain has to compromise having full control of money, border control, and laws. It's a really intriguing push-and-pull that Brexiteers in what choices they want to make that'll shape this referendum.
Thursday, September 15, 2016
G-20 and The Developing World
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/08/31/china-to-push-ambitious-global-agenda-on-wary-world-leaders/#392148634f2b
This article by Forbes discusses the G-20 summit that just happened last week. The article examines possible proposals and stances that China will take/push during the summit. The article basically explains that China will pursue a strong economic plan. They believed that china would cover “consolidation of cross-border investment rules and the industrialization of Africa” as two of their possible points. But the writers believed that China’s plans would not be eagerly accepted because of China’s own economic problems. One point that was made towards the end was that there was a possibility that some leaders would reluctantly accept some of what china wants. This is because currently it is tough for foreign companies, so they are hoping this will soften china’s approach.
I personally found this article interesting because it pointed out largely that China had its sights set on Africa and parts of Asia, with hopes to develop it further. This was similar to what we read about the Washington consensus. The Washington consensus aimed to open up trade and introduce free markets into post-communist countries. But this was critiqued in the reading because as it pointed out this did not always work, and actually hurt some counties. I think this is important for the leaders at G-20 to remember when tackling this issue. It is important that we help the developing world, but we have to go about it carefully. What they think is helping these developing nations, could end up hurting them down the line.
Another subject the article touched upon was consolidation of cross border consolidation. It seems like China wants to model after the EU system but on a global scale. As part of this they want to reduce trade costs and increase its financing. These are things that are very similar to what the EU does. Whether or not this is a good thing is something that had been untested on such a large scale. I think it is important that we see how the Brexit situation works out before we go any further. This could essentially prove to be a domino effect of countries leaving the EU, or the EU could just not be sustainable. I think that it is good that they are looking forward and are being ambitious. They seem to be aware that there is a problem, and are trying to figure out ways to solve them.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
The Post Washington Consensus Consensus
The post Washington consensus discusses the importance of the failures of the Washington consensus, and the failures in understanding the economic structures of developing countries. The Washington consensus failed to recognize the constant change of free markets which consisted of updated technology, and that every state develops differently. "The consensus policies often assumed the worst about the nature and capability of governments and made that one size fit all." (The Post Washington Consensus) A successful developmental strategy cannot be reached in the confinement of Washington alone. Developing countries must be involved just as much as Washington. Each developing country must have their own personalized rules because what might work in one country might not work in another. For example east Asian economies which were successful, and didn't follow the Washington consensus. We also have to succumb to the fact that some areas in the field have not yet been provided by sufficient evidence to result in a direct answer of what countries should do.
John Williamson's ten reforms don't provide specific information on how to deal with certain developing countries. For example Africa put a sufficient amount of belief in the market when referring to liberalization of agricultural prices without paying attention to the elements that make that effective such as functioning markets, credit availability and infrastructure. Allowing the market to let the prices go where they go as Williamson believed, resulted in higher interest rates without improving Africa's credit. If there were positive elements to the Washington consensus they still haven't been enjoyed. Weak financial institutions still existed in the United States and other global north countries which really never gave countries in Latin America a chance. Privatization served as another core problem in Latin American countries that Williamson implemented in his Washington consensus. Privatization led by corruption resulted in a monopoly which generated higher prices for consumers. Instead of still relying on the Washington consensus as a guide for developing countries we must start looking at this issue from a different angle. First we must ask, "What can each country, on its own, do to enhance sustainable, stable, equitable, and democratic development?" (The Post Washington Consensus) Along with asking, "How should the global economic architecture be changed, to make the global economy more stable, to promote equity among countries, and to enhance the ability of developing countries to pursue their objectives," (The Post Washington Consensus) especially in reference to the first question which can result in a movement towards change in achieving the goal to help developing countries.
A Competitive Economy
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/South-Africa-INTERNATIONAL-TRADE.html
South Africa is one of the five countries (along with Brazil, Russia, India, and China) that are predicted to grow as economic powers in the world. This article discusses the effect of South Africa opening its economy to international trade and relationships and becoming an international competitor in the process. During Apartheid, sanctions were put on trade with South Africa and this severely hurt trade and the economy more generally. Since the end of Apartheid (1994), exports have become an increasing percentage of the countries economy with a large percentage of exports going to the U.S. and Europe. South Africa now has a trade surplus which continues to grow as the country comes further and further out of the Apartheid Era.
As we started to discuss in class, international trade is an important part of growing economies. Upon reading the list of reforms suggested as a part of the Washington Consensus, I noticed a few that strongly related to the post-Apartheid economy of South Africa. Reordering public expenditure priorities, trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation were among the ones I first noticed. South Africa has worked to liberalize trade with other countries however, it was not all in their hands to trade sanctions. The political reasons for economic sanctions against a country can be seen time and time again throughout the world as the U.S. and Europe sanction countries with large amounts of abuse of workers, child labor, etc. These sanctions proved effective in the case of South Africa though this has not always been the case. Trade is becoming more and more instrumental to having a strong economy in the world and South Africa refuses to be left out of the competitiion. The countries who have closed off their economies or who import substantially more than they export are the ones who are falling behind. This can be seen throughout the developing world as they try (and fail) to compete with industrialized nations low prices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)