Is the newly announced deal between the White House and Democrats to include labor and environmental protections in trade agreements a good deal? It is hard to know, because the details are not available, and the devil in trade agreements is always in the details. But as a general rule, I do think this approach makes some sense. Can anyone seriously be against the principle that countries that want to intensify their integration with the U.S. should be asked to uphold basic labor rights, such as the freedom to organize and bargain collectively? So Dan Drezner is right: this does make me sort of happy.
At the same time, I recognize that this new direction is full of pitfalls--not just disguised protectionism as free-trade fundamentalists fear, but also an inevitable tendency to want to impose our own ways of organizing society on our trade partners. The principle of the right to organize is fine, but different democratic societies have different labor laws, all arguably equally "democratic." If we start judging the adequacy of other countries' laws from the perspective of what WE think is the right set of requirements, we will soon be in trouble.
Which is why I don't think the attempt to enlarge trade agreements to incorporate social and other considerations can go really far (unless you are really serious about it and want to create legal and political integration along with economic integration, as in the case of the EU).
That leaves two options. One is to keep pushing for more trade deals, but in their supposedly "pure" form without any labor, environmental, or other considerations. This strategy is no longer working, for good political AND economic reasons. The other--well the other is what I wrote about here.
Prof. Rodrik, have you been following the debate between James K. Galbraith & Jeff Faux at the American Prospect? Galbraith seems to believe that "labor & environmental standards" in trade agreements won't accomplish much.
Posted by: DRR | May 12, 2007 at 04:07 PM
"One is to keep pushing for more trade deals, but in their supposedly "pure" form without any labor, environmental, or other considerations. This strategy is no longer working, for good political AND economic reasons."
Would you expand on this statement? First, it isn't clear to me that "pure" agreements are doing any better or worse than "mixed" agreements. Perhpas some examples?
Assuming, however, that this claim is true, what are the "good...economic reasons"?
Posted by: Justin Rietz | May 12, 2007 at 09:20 PM
The principle of the right to organize is fine, but different democratic societies have different labor laws, all arguably equally "democratic." If we start judging the adequacy of other countries' laws from the perspective of what WE think is the right set of requirements, we will soon be in trouble.
The trouble is, of course, that China isn't democratic. If it were you could bet your (cheaper now, thanks to globalisation) cotton socks that it would have independent trade unions.
Posted by: terence | May 12, 2007 at 09:37 PM
doh - Type Pad doesn't let html tags in comments. Here's my last comment reposted:
________
"The principle of the right to organize is fine, but different democratic societies have different labor laws, all arguably equally "democratic." If we start judging the adequacy of other countries' laws from the perspective of what WE think is the right set of requirements, we will soon be in trouble."
_______________
The trouble is, of course, that China *isn't democratic*. If it were you could bet your (cheaper now, thanks to globalisation) cotton socks that it would have independent trade unions.
Posted by: terence | May 12, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Re: "such as the freedom to organize and bargain collectively"
On a somewhat tangential note, do you see this 'basic labor right' as a pure good? I would assume not, but I would be interested to hear what you think the extent of union power/development should be in a perfect world, and then if/how unionization sabotages the cause of "the workers."
I am not so quick to spread the seeds of unionization that has produced such a mixed batch of results in the US and much worse results elsewhere.
Again, that's not saying that forbidding organized labor is the right answer. But I think it needs to be a freedom with clear limitations.
Posted by: Christopher | May 13, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Environmental supplements to trade agreements can be a good thing, but like all trade policy the devil is in the details--and (like the discussions above on labor) they are not enough to save the environment.
To date, the environmental side agreement to NAFTA is the most ambitious yet the Mexican government estimates that the economic costs of environmental degradation have been ten percent of GDP per year since 1985. See: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/FreeTradeEnvBook.htm
That said, the secretariat set up by the side agreement has engaged in cooperative activities that has led Mexico to adopt some environmental laws that are even more stringent than in the US.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has been rolling back the environmental gains in trade agreements since it came to office. The question now is: what exactly will the Democrats propose for environmental measures to these agreement?
Posted by: gallagher | May 15, 2007 at 09:46 AM
This is clearly replica watches the job for our legal fraternity to engage the establishment to necessary breitling watches steps by filing petitions in various courts. IF one fails another should be cartier watches filed taking every one to task. It is rolex watches useless to suggest ways and means to solve tag heuer watches the day to day problem to well paid employees tissot watches of government controlled establishments. Only active omega watches judiciary will resolve this problem.
http://www.watchvisa.com
http://www.watchvisa.com/breitling-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/cartier-watches.html
Posted by: rolex watches | February 25, 2010 at 10:10 PM
Why is everyone just montblanc watches willing to accept power cuts? Don't you think that patek philippe watches having continious power is your right? If people aren't going to demand rado watches 24X7 power, don't expect anything zenith watches to change. The government needs to look at other sources parmigiani watches of power generation. The only solution is more power panerai watches production. Nothing less.
http://www.watchvisa.com/montblanc-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/patek_philippe-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/rado-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/tudor-watches.html
Posted by: rado watches | February 26, 2010 at 12:05 AM
They should take up building BVLGARI Watches dams for power generation. We should FRANCK MULLER watches learn from china. They have the world's largest dam for power CHANEL Watches production, it alone produces 22,000 MW of LONGINES Watch power. So, unless the government opens up the economy more for iwc watches foreign investors, this power cut problem is a life long disease every hublot-watches india will need to face.
http://www.watchvisa.com/bvlgari-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/chanel-watches.html
http://www.watchvisa.com/franck_muller-watches.html
Posted by: bvlgari watches | February 26, 2010 at 01:40 AM
People usually say :"Seeing is believing." http://www.tt88times.com
Each attempt has a corresponding gain, in part or obvious, or vague. At least we have the kind of satisfaction After I bought this watch ,in a sense,it means a great deal to me. http://www.fashionhairfu.com
Posted by: rolex watches | April 19, 2010 at 09:06 PM
I am a senior student too, I Love this post as i love study english, This article is to my feelings, thanks for your sharing, hoping to see more useful content.
Posted by: mbt shoes | August 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM
The web of losses that you describe in NC are offset by a web of gains in Boston. Restrict trade, and I pay more for my socks, do not eat dinner in Boston, and the web of losses you described in NC happens in Boston
Posted by: Moncler | August 27, 2010 at 05:27 AM
raf sistemleri
Thanks so much for article.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 23, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Raf
raf
I like it ... Thanks !!
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 29, 2011 at 08:03 AM
Raf
raf
Thanks to you !!!
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 04, 2011 at 12:19 PM
Raf
raf
Thanks for comment ...
Posted by: Account Deleted | June 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Thanks for sharing your article. I really enjoyed it. I put a link to my site to here so other people can read it
sexyshop
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 05:58 PM
Many places and centers offer business and trade promotions to both buyers and supplier
sexshop
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 05:59 PM
What about the differences in skill intensities across industries? The job losses in the relatively unskilled-labor intensive battery industry should have little effect on the relatively skilled-labor intensive machinery
sexshop online
Posted by: Account Deleted | July 19, 2011 at 06:00 PM
Thank you, I have recently been searching for information about this topic for ages and yours is the best I have discovered so far.
organic seo service
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 13, 2011 at 12:43 PM