Limiting Protection

In his chapter "Making Trade Fair," Stiglitz explores the issue of the misuse of nontariff barriers to control markets. He divides all such nontariff barriers into the categories of safeguards, dumping duties, technical barriers, and rules of origin and then demonstrates how each has been used by developed countries to limit developing nations' abilities to export their goods to the United States. Operating under the assumption that a nation should not protect its domestic markets, Stiglitz makes some very convincing arguements concerning the misuse of such tactics. It seems, however, that the solutions he offers do not adequately address the difficulty of moving developed nations away from protectionist tactics. At the end of each of these sections, Stiglitz returns to his suggestion that an international tribunal of some sort is needed to resolve all disputes concerning the misuse of such nontariff barriers.

I agree that such a tribunal would be needed to effectively resolve such disputes, yet I am not convinced of the possibility for the existence of such a tribunal. Convincing any developed nation to submit to the judgment of an international tribunal that might (or would definately) limit its ability to protect certain domestic markets will be a difficult task indeed. If one were successfully created, I am doubtful that its authority would hold. If the people of these nations cannot be made to understand the need (moral, economic, or else) for preventing protectionism, the corresponding governments will be hardpressed to make changes. I am anxious to see if Stiglitz explores, in further depth, what such a tribunal would look like and how its authority would be maintained when developed nations believe they have a legitimate cause to protect a certain market.

The Morality of the Market Economy

The most striking aspect of today's readings for me were the differing perceptions of the morality of market economies and globalization offered by the authors. Stiglitz, for example, expresses a great deal of concern that economic globalization has been conducted in a largely immoral manner. This he demonstrates by pointing to the inability of globalization to decrease poverty and inequality on a global scale. He argues that globalization has, thus far, succeeded only in making the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer. Such "global imbalances" he states, "are morally unacceptable and politically unsustainable." By using such charged phrasing as "morally unacceptable" Stiglitz elevates his discussion of economic globalization to new levels.

Wolf, on the other hand, while entering into a lengthy discussion of the morality of market economies largely ignores the the effects of such markets' interactions with the rest of the world. Though he persuasively argues that market economies are more moral than any other past arrangment, he does not address the potential such economies have for behaving immorally in the global sphere. At one point he says that the free market makes "people richer and more concerned about environmental damage, pain and injustice," yet he does not discuss (at least not at this point in the book) whether or not this heightened concern or awareness actually produces positive changes internationally. Stiglitz also acknowledges this heightened awareness of damage, pain and injustice but does not seem convinced that this heightened awareness has led to any strong pushes to offset them.

I am very interested to see how and if Wolf addresses this potential that the free-market has for producing immoral outcomes on the international scale. How do we extend the democratic principles which govern the market here at home to international activities and so prohibit immoral outcomes abroad which would never be tolerated here at home?

Test Post

Testing this blog out. Gonna add a hyperlink to the Mavericks home page. They better not lose another one to the Warriors.