I have two  interesting stories on Apple and the iPad to reflect on today.

First, ABC’s Nightline recently became the first Western journalists actually welcomed into an Apple assembly plant in China. The show recently aired a 15 minute feature on working conditions inside Apple’s Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China last week. Watch the video and then scroll down for what may be some additional surprising news about Apple’s operations in China.

Next, the story that has gone unreported lately is a University of California study titled “Capturing Value in Global Networks: Apple’s iPad and iPhone”. The study’s most interesting finding, in my opinion, is the tiny percentage of the total value of Apple’s iPhone and iPad that actually goes to the Chinese manufacturers of the products. The charts below, from the study, show how the value is divided among the various groups involved it their production and sales:

The Economist provides the analysis:

The chart shows a geographical breakdown of the retail price of an iPad. The main rewards go to American shareholders and workers. Apple’s profit amounts to about 30% of the sales price. Product design, software development and marketing are based in America. Add in the profits and wages of American suppliers, and distribution and retail costs, and America retains about half the total value of an iPad sold there. The next biggest gainers are South Korean firms like Samsung and LG, which provide the display and memory chips, whose profits account for 7% of an iPad’s value. The main financial benefit to China is wages paid to workers for assembling the product and for manufacturing some inputs—equivalent to only 2% of the retail price.

A student today asked why Apple doesn’t produce its products in the United States, where an economic downturn has left 14 million American out of work for the last three or four years. If iPads and iPhones were just made in America, jobs could be created, households would have more income to spend on Apples products, and both the country and the economy would benefit.

The data in the UC study indicates that in fact, more than half the value of an iPad or iPhone does end up in the hands of Americans. But Apple could never achieve the low costs and high profits that it does by assembling its products in the US. After watching the Nightline video above, it should be clear that the type of production involved in Apple factories’ is very low-skilled and labor-intensive. Using American labor, with its unions, minimum wages and 40 hour work weeks, would require Apple to employ such large numbers of workers and raise the company’s variable cost to such a level that the firm’s profits would be reduced significantly and its sales would fall dramatically. Apple would lose out to foreign producers of smart phones and tablet computers, such as LG, Samsung, Sony and others, which would continue assembling their goods with Chinese labor.

Ultimately, any gain to the low-skilled American workers (presuming Apple could even find enough to do the work of the 400,000 Chinese employed in the production of Apple products in China), would be offset by a loss of profits enjoyed by the millions of Americans who hold shares in Apple Computer and the thousands of American who are employed engineering and designing its products, as the firm’s sales would slip in the face of lower-cost competitors.

So this student’s question identifies an interesting paradox: America, with its large pool of unemployed workers, will never be attractive as a place to produce labor-intensive products such as phones and tablet computers, due to the vast wage differential between the US and China. And even if one firm did decide to produce its products in America, the gains to low-skilled workers who may find minimum wage work in the new assembly plants would be off-set by losses to the firms’ shareholders and the high-skilled workers whose jobs would be lost as sales decline due to the lower prices offered by lower-cost competitors.

The lesson here is two-fold: First, Apple and other American technology companies should continue using Chinese labor to assemble their products, and second, America is better off for it: lower costs mean cheaper products and higher sales, thus greater employment in the high-skilled sectors of the US economy, and more profits and returns on the investments of shareholders in American corporations. Americans are richer and enjoy a higher standard of living thanks to the millions of Chinese working in factories assembling the goods we consume.

Keep in mind, this analysis did not even consider the effect on the Chinese economy and the millions of Chinese workers (whose lives are much harder than the typical American) should companies like Apple shut down their Chinese manufacturing plants. That’s a whole other blog post!

Related posts:

1. International Trade Made Simple
2. “Buy American” is Un-American (The U.S. Stimulus Package)
3. America: Land of the free, home of “jackass” economists

Fair trade schemes aim to get more of the money we spend on our stuff into the hands of the workers in less developed countries where they originate. Some examples of goods produces in fair trade cooperatives in poor countries include fruits, tea, coffee and cocoa. Some handicrafts and textiles are also available from Fair trade programs as well.

It is estimated that approximately 7.5 million producers in the developing world participate in fair trade programs, producing $5 billion worth of output.

According to the European Fair Trade Association, fair trade is

a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South.

Fair Trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade”.

Fair trade as a strategy for economic development is controversial, as many argue that either fails at raising the incomes of the farmers it is supposed to serave or that it incentivizes farmers to remain in the low-productivity agricultural sector rather than seeking higher productivity jobs in manufacturing, thereby contributing to poverty in poor countries.

Below are two videos that proclaim the benefits of free trade. After watching the videos, discuss the benefits of fair trade with your class.

On the other side of the issue are several economic arguments against the use of fair trade as a strategy for economic development. First listen to this 19 minute discussion between EconTalk’s Russ Robert’s and Duke University’s Mike Munger over the role that Fair Trade coffee plays in promoting economic development.

Next, read the two articles below a

• The poverty of Fairtrade coffee – Telegraph Blogs
• Fairtrade profits rise, but is the small farmer missing out? – This Britain – UK – The Independent

Discussion Questions:

1. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Fair Trade programs at promoting economic development.
2. Outline the possible advantages of a country specializing in manufactured goods instead of primary products.
3. What factors explain the growth in importance of multinational corporations over recent decades? Illustrate your answer where possible by making reference to your own or other countries. Do multinational corporations work in favor of or against the interests of Less Developed Countries?
4. To what extent has the international trading system contributed to economic growth and development in less developed countries?
5. Discuss the view that increased trade is more important than increased aid for less developed economies.

Related posts:

1. “Fair Trade” coffee and economic development
2. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?
3. Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”

The table below shows the trade balances for the nations from which my year two IB Economics student come. They are ranked in order from the country whose trade deficit makes up the largest percentage of its GDP (Zimbabwe) to the country whose trade surplus makes up the largest percentage of its GDP (Germany). The blue bars represent the value of the deficit or surplus of each nation. As can be seen, Zimbabwe’s trade deficit is very small in dollar terms, but since its economy is also very small this deficit makes up a large percentage of its total GDP. Click on the image to visit an interactive version of the chart on which you can study the data more closely. Then answer the questions that follow.

Discussion Questions:

1. Identify and define the four components of an nation’s current account balance.
2. According to the data, which three countries are the most import dependent? Which three countries are the most export dependent? Which country has the most balance trade in goods and services? Which has the most imbalanced trade?
3. If your country is one of deficit countries above, answer the following two questions:
1. Assuming its currencies’ exchange rates is floating, explain how persistent current account deficits will affect a country’s exchange rate over time?
2. Summarize and explain the likely effects of a current account deficit on the following: a) the financial account balance, b) domestic interest rates, and c) national debt.
4. If your country is one of the surplus countries above, answer the following two questions:
1. Assuming its currencies’ exchange rates is floating, explain how persistent current account surpluses will affect a country’s exchange rate over time?
2. Summarize and explain the likely effects of a current account surplus on the following: a) domestic savings rates, b) the financial account balance.
5. What are the various methods a country can take to reduce a current account deficit? What is the benefit of having a balanced current account as opposed to a large deficit or surplus?

Related posts:

1. Yeah, we have a trade deficit, SO WHAT?!
2. The Marshall-Lerner Condition, the J-curve, and the US trade deficit
3. Trade surpluses are not all they’re cracked up to be!

The Global Coal Trade’s Complex Calculation : NPR

Sometimes when I read the news, I wonder what it would be like to NOT understand basic economics, and then I realize how much of what goes on around us can be explained by two simple concepts: demand and supply. The NPR story below talks about how the construction of two proposed coal exporting facilities on America’s west coast could, indirectly, lead to a greener future for America. Listen to the story then read on for more analysis:

China, already the world’s largest coal consumer, continues to build new coal burning electricity plants at an alarming rate. Its appetite for the “black gold” has driven the world price up to $100 per ton, as it has demanded increasing quantities from its own coal producers, but also those in other coal rich areas like Australia and the United States.

However, because of America’s lack of coal transporting and shipping infrastructure, US coal producers have been unable to sell their abundant coal to the Chinese, who are willing to pay 500% the equilibrium price in the US. The US market has remained isolated from the world market, not due to any explicit, government-imposed barriers to trade, rather due to fact that they simply can’t get their coal to the Chinese energy producers who demand it most.

Graphically, this situation can be illustrated as follows:

If the export facilities on the West coast of the US are not constructed, it will remain difficult for US coal producers to sell their output to China at the high price of $100, and the domestic quantity (Q2) will continue to be produced and sold for $20 per ton. But with the new port facilities, US energy producers will now have to compete with Chinese energy producers for American coal, and the US price will be driven up to the world price, since demand now includes thousands of Chinese coal-fired power plants. As the price rises from $20 to $100, the domestic quantity demanded in the US will fall to Q1, as domestic energy producers seek alternative sources of energy, switching instead gas, solar, or wind power.

The irony is that through increasing the ease with which American coal producers can sell their product to China, the US may reduce its own consumption of coal and its emissions of greenhouse gasses. Overall coal production in the US will rise with increased trade, but overall consumption within the US will fall.

Now, this may sound great if you’re the kind of person who thinks only locally. Air pollution will be reduced in the US, health will be improved, our electricity production will be greener and more sustainable. But globally, by making its coal available to China, the US market will contribute to the continued dependence on carbon-intensive energy production, and delay any progress among Chinese energy producers towards a transisttion to greener fuel sources.

The podcast also points out the fact that if the US did undertake the construction of the new coal-exporting facilities, it could be that the current high price of coal will have led to the entrence of several other large coal prodcuing countries into the world market, reducing China’s demand for US coal, reducing the price at which American producers can sell to China and thereby off-setting any domestic environmental benefit that may have resulted from the large decrease in quantity demanded among US producers at the current price of $100 per ton.

The whole conversation about the coal industry is somewhat depressing when the environmental costs of the industry are considered. Another NPR show, Planet Money, ran a story this week about the “gross external damages” caused by the production of coal-powered electricity. They cited a study which found that the damages caused by coal to human health and the environment outweight the benefits enjoyed by society from the generation of cheap electricity by around $10 billion in the United States alone. This means that if the US shut down every coal-powered energy plant in the country immediately, total welfare in the US would increase by $10 billion. There’s no doubt that energy prices would rise, but the gains in human and environmental health would outweight the added costs of electricity generation by $10 billion. If a similar analysis were undertakein in China, I would guess the potential welfare gain of transitioning to alternative energies would be far greater for the Chinese people.

Here’s the chart from Planet Money’s blog showing the net welfare loss of coal-generated electricity and other economic activities in the United States.

*GED = Gross external damages from pollution

Discussion questions:

1. How would the construction of two coal-exporting facilities on America’s West coast ultimately lead to a cleaner environment in the United States? Do you think this prediction is realistic?
2. Who stands to gain the most if the coal-exporting facilities are constructed? Who would suffer? In your opinion, should the facilities be constructed? Why or why not?
3. Interpret the colorful diagram above. What do the green bars represent? What do the yellow and red bars represent? According to the graphic, which type of activity is most harmful to American society? How do you know?
4. True, false, or uncertain. Explain your reasoning. “The burning of coal to make electricity should be completely banned in China, since China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.”

Related posts:

1. Tit, tat, tariff… China and America’s latest shoving match is underway
2. Supply and demand shifters and the price of pork in China
3. Monopoly prices – to regulate or not to regulate, that is the question!

After our lesson on tariffs and protectionism the other day, one of my year 2 IB Econ students emailed me with a few questions she had not had the chance to ask in class. I thought I’d post my responses here, since they were such good questions!

Question: Hi Mr Welker, I asked this on Monday’s blog about self-sufficiency, but no one answered my question and I have been meaning to ask this in class but I always get distracted and I forget. And perhaps you have already answered this, pardon me if you have.

Since Exports and Investment have a great effect on economic growth, why would a government want to protect its nation by imposing barriers to trade? Because by doing so, foreign firms cannot invest in that nation and potentially create job opportunities and also contribute to that nations GDP since, even though it’s a foreign investment, the revenue is collected by that government.

Answer: Protectionism is not typically aimed at reducing the amount of exports from the nation engaging in it, rather reducing the amount of imports or promoting increased exports. You’re exactly right that exports and investment contribute to aggregate demand (and therefore economic growth and employment) in a nation. But imports are a ‘leakage’ from the nation’s economy, and the greater the level of import spending, the lower a nation’s net exports. A nation with a trade deficit actually experiences negative net exports. The purpose of protectionism is to reduce import spending, or increase export revenues, and thereby increase net exports and aggregate demand and employment in the nation.

As for foreign investment, one of the consequences of a large trade deficit is increased foreign ownership of domestic resources or factors of production. Since a country that imports more than it exports spends more on foreign goods than it earns from the sale of its own goods to foreigners, foreign governments and firms end up with large amounts of that country’s money that is NOT being spent on that country’s goods. Much of this ends up back in the deficit country as foreign investment. Sometimes foreigners will buy government bonds (invest in the deficit country’s debt, in other words), but sometimes the money comes back home as foreigners buying up factories and real estate. Foreign investment may indeed help create jobs at home, but so does domestic investment, and when foreigners invest it means the country’s resources are now owned by interests abroad, which many countries view as a threat to their national and economic security. This can also serve as a justification for protectionism: to prevent foreign ownership of domestic assets.

Question: Also if the country is not exporting, it’s not enjoying the benefits of revenue from exported goods that could boost their economic growth. And anyway, isn’t the point of making money to spend it? Otherwise what is the incentive of being employed and earning an income? Unless of course, one can argue that income earned can then be spent on domestically produced goods.

Again, the purpose of protectionism is not to reduce a country’s exports, rather to reduce its imports and to increase its exports. But you have made a very important observation here that points to a major flaw in the argument for protectionism. The purpose of exporting goods it to make money to spend on imported goods, otherwise, WHY TRADE? A country gains from trade not only because it has a wider market for its own goods, but because the people of the nation have a wider market from which to choose the goods they themselves can consume. When a nation erects barriers to trade, it will ultimately have the effect of reducing not only imports, but possibly the nation’s own exports. Since foreigners earn less money from selling goods to the protected nation, they have less money to spend on that nation’s goods!

All protectionism can hope to do is increase the welfare of particular industries while reducing the welfare of the rest of society. It is rarely justifiable on the grounds that it will increase the total welfare of society as a whole, unless of course the protected industry is one vital to national security, such as the defense sectors or the energy sector (even this one is debatable!)

Question: Or do government spending (through subsidies, and creating job opportunities) and increased consumption due to income gains caused by government intervention overcome these factors and compensate for the lost opportunity of exports and investments.

Increasing government spending to off-set the fall in social welfare resulting from protectionism will only lead to greater inefficiency in society. Government may have to spend more on unemployment benefits for workers whose jobs are lost due to protectionism, which may require higher taxes on those workers whose jobs are being protected. As explained above, one industry’s gain leads to a loss of welfare for society as a whole. This is the problem with protectionism. It favors certain industries but imposes higher prices on consumers and higher costs of production on other industries. It should not be the government’s job to “pick winners and losers” in the global economy. By protecting certain industries, however, government attempts to do just that, but society as a whole loses.

I hope you understand what I am asking for here. Whenever you have time, I would love to hear your perspective.

Maphrida

Great questions, Maphrida!

Discussion Questions:

1. How might protectionism lead to an increase in aggregate demand and domestic employment?
2. Why does a large trade deficit lead to a build-up of foreign ownership of domestic factors of production?
3. Discuss the view that protectionism in the form of tariffs on particular goods helps certain industries but harms the rest of society. Can you imagine an example of a protectionist policy that could increase the welfare of society as a whole?
4. Explain how a protectionist policy that makes imports more expensive and thus reduces demand for imported goods can ultimately lead to a reduction in demand for the protected country’s exports abroad.

Related posts:

1. US / China Trade War – Could this be the beginning?
2. The high cost of tariffs
3. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?

Last Friday my favorite podcast, NPR’s Planet Money, did a feature story called “Switzerland’s too Strong for it’s own Good”. The gist of the story is that the uncertainty over budget deficits and the national debt in the US and Eurozone at this time are causing international investors to put their money into the Swiss franc and Swiss franc denominated assets. Switzerland’s reputation for financial discipline and fiscal responsibility makes it a safe-haven for international investors feeling jittery over the large budget deficits in Euro countries and in the United States.

The Planet Money team discusses why the rising value of the franc poses a threat to the Swiss economy. To understand just how much the franc (CHF) has strengthened against the currencies of its trading partners, examine the graph below, which shows the rise (and recent decline) in the value of the CHF against the currency of Switzerland’s neighbors, the Euro.

As can be seen, earlier this year on CHF was worth only around 0.76 euros, but as recently as August 10 one CHF could buy nearly 0.95 worth of goods from Euro countries. Of course, cheaper imports is a benefit to Swiss households, but what we need to realize is that this upward trend in the value of the CHF also means that all Swiss goods are becoming more expensive to European consumers. And here’s the problem with the stronger franc. Over 50% of Switzerland’s output is exported to the rest of the world (meaning a large proportion of Switzerland’s workers depend on strong exports), and the more expensive the country’s currency, the more expensive the goods produced by Swiss businesses become in the countries with which Switzerland trades.

A simple example would help: A Swiss chocolate bar that sells for two CHF would have cost a European consumer only 1.50 euros in February of this year (when one CHF = 0.75 Euro). But in early August the same bar of chocolate would have cost the European consumer 1.90 Euro, an increase in price of nearly 30%. This may not seem like much to a casual observer, but when you realize that Switzerland’s biggest exports are capital goods and financial services, which cost far more than 2 CHF, a 30% price hike placed on foreign consumers is much more noticeable. If a train engine that sold for 1 million Euros suddenly costs a European transport agency 1.3 million Euros, you can imagine such a transaction would become much less appealing, and demand for Swiss rail engines will begin to fall, putting Swiss jobs at risk.

Here on the ground in Switzerland, the effects of the strong franc have definitely not gone unnoticed. One point of discussion in the podcast is the fact that Swiss retailers have strangely not begun lowering the prices for their imported products. For example, one would expect that a bike shop selling bikes made by American companies in Taiwan would be able to lower its price for those bikes as one franc now buys about 30% more US goods than it could earlier this year. Logically, a $1000 bike that used to cost 1,100 CHF for a Swiss bike shop to import now only costs that shop around 800 CHF to import. The Swiss consumer should begin to see lower retail prices reflecting the lower costs to Swiss importers. Strangely, however, this has not materialized, and most retailers have kept their prices at the same level they were before the rise of franc’s value.

Perhaps retailers are unwilling to lower their prices because they are uncertain whether or not the franc will remain strong, and they would not want to have to be in a situation in which the franc suddenly weakens and their costs rise once again. Perhaps retailers are simply enjoying the greater profits resulting from falling costs and the same high prices. However, as a consumer myself living in Switzerland, I would guess that this is not the case, because I and many other people I know here have reduced the quantity of goods we buy from Swiss retailers. In the age of online shopping, it is now cheaper than ever to order goods like bicycles, clothing and electronics from foreign retailers through the internet.

For example, I recently ordered a bicycle from the United States that sells for $1,100 there. At current exchange rates, I was able to order this bike for only 800 CHF from the US. The same bike in Switzerland has a retail price on it reflecting the US dollar/CHF exchange rate of several years ago, and sells for 1,500 CHF. Of course, any imported product is charged a duty by customs, but even after paying around 160 CHF in duties, I still am saving nearly 500 CHF on this bike. The result is Swiss bike shops selling foreign brands have experienced a decline in sales as consumers like myself have chosen to order their good from foreign retailers, whose prices are much lower due to the stronger franc.

As an American working in Switzerland, I also benefit from the strong franc in that all of my debts are in dollars. I own a house in the States, and still have about four years left on my student loans from grad school. The strong franc reduces the burden of these debts and allow me to keep more of my income in Switzerland, sending home less and less money each month to cover the same expenses back home.

The big question on everyone in Switzerland’s minds right now is whether the rise of the franc will continue, or whether it will return to an equilibrium exchange rate against the euro and the dollar closer to levels seen earlier this year. Swiss exporters (chocolate companies, watch makers and train engine manufacturers) are hoping the franc will fall again. Households, on the other hand, will continue to enjoy the cheap online shopping opportunities, and may eventually enjoy cheaper retail products in Switzerland if importers become more comfortable lowering their prices to reflect the lower costs of their imports.

I predict that the rise in the franc is over, but that in the next few months it will reach an equilibrium against the dollar and the euro somewhere well above its historic level (around 1.5 francs per Euro and around 1.1 francs per dollar). I believe the franc will settle around 1.1 CHF per Euro and around 0.85 CHF per dollar. Once these exchange rates have settled and the wild fluctuations of the last month come to an end, Swiss exporters and importers alike will begin adjusting their costs and prices to reflect the more stable equilibrium to which we will become accustomed.

Living and working in one of Europe’s and the world’s strongest, most fiscally sound economies has its advantages. But in a world of free trade and floating exchange rates, panic among investors abroad has the potential to fire a devastating blast into the ship that is a healthy economy like Switzerland’s. But over time, just like in any speculative bubble, the rise in the value of the franc will stop, it will begin to fall once again, and everyone will come to their senses as import and export prices once again begin to reflect the true exchange rates between the franc and the currencies of its trading partners.

Discussion questions: 

1. Strong is always better, right? A strong army, a strong economy, a strong leader. But when it comes to currencies, strong is often not better. Why is a strong currency potentially harmful to a nation’s economy?
2. How would an increase in online shopping among Swiss households affect the prices Swiss retailers are able to charge for their imported products?
3. How would a Swiss exporting firm, such as Rolex (a watch manufacturer) be affected by the rising value of the Swiss franc? What would such a firm have to do to keep its products at a competitive price in foreign markets?

Related posts:

1. Stability – the greatest Swiss virtue?
2. Fiscal stimulus, the Swiss way
3. Some good news for Swiss businesses and workers during hard economic times

Should President Obama consider writing a thank you note to Chinese leaders for artificially manipulating the Chinese Yuan in the foreign currency markets?

For many years now, Chinese authorities have artificially intervened in the foreign currency market by buying up U.S. dollars spent on Chinese products and, in turn, investing those same U.S. dollars in U.S. Treasury Securities (ie, bonds and notes). For those that are not familiar with the foreign currency market, Chinese authorities buy the same U.S. Dollars provided by the U.S. to purchase Chinese products and, thus, leave or supply Chinese Yuan to the currency traders resulting in a decrease in the price of the now more plentiful Yuan and an increase in the price of the now more scarce dollar.  The Chinese authorities intervene in the foreign currency market for the sole purpose of depreciating (weakening) the Yuan relative to the U.S. Dollar, thereby helping Chinese exporters to become more price competitive in global markets. It is estimated by many economists, that the Yuan may be overvalued versus the U.S. dollar by approximately 30% due to this foreign currency intervention by China.

So while it is true that this action taken by Chinese authorities clearly depreciates the Yuan and appreciates the Dollar, thus, unfairly harming U.S. exporters; it is also hitting the “sweet spot” by sending those same U.S. dollars back to the U.S. Government to fund the record federal deficit spending expecting to total $1.3T in 2011 and providing American citizens with reduced prices on imports via the stronger dollar! More specifically, this currency intervention by Chinese authorities provides needed loanable funds back to the U.S. Government lowering borrowing costs or interest rates during this important U.S. economic recovery time. It also appears that US leaders are sending mixed messages to China as just last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Beijing to encourage Chinese leaders to continue to purchase U.S. Government securities. This seems at odds with US officials cry for China to stop intervening in the foreign currency markets because by doing so needed federal deficit funding would dry up from the Chinese, forcing the US to borrow elsewhere and raise interest rates to entice that lending.

In summary, perhaps in the short term the United States should consider not pressuring China, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geihtner, Obama and the media have done regularly. Perhaps US officials should lay low, at least for awhile, and start pressuring the Chinese again in about three or four years, after the Government’s budget no longer calls for such large spending deficits.

Review Questions

1. What specifically are Chinese leaders doing to keep the Yuan weak against the U.S. dollar?
2. Why are Chinese leaders intervening in the foreign currency market?
3. Which parties, both American and Chinese, are helped and hurt by this intervention?
4. What would happen, other things equal to U.S. interest rates if Chinese authorities immediately stopped intervening in the currency market? Why?
5. What would be the immediate impact on the U.S. poor and working class if the Chinese immediately stopped intervening in the currency market?
6. What policy position would you take as President of the United States on this issue?

Related posts:

1. Is An Obama “Thank You Note” Owed to the Chinese?
2. Excuse me, China… could you lend us another billion? Understanding the imbalance of trade between China and the United States
3. China’s “silver bullet” – a strong RMB could solve her biggest economic woes…

Russell Roberts of George Mason University is a well-known advocate of free trade. This article is one of my favorite and certainly one of the clearest explanations of the mutual benefits resulting from free trade that I have read.

Foreign Policy: Why We Trade – by Russ Roberts

To hear most politicians talk, you’d think that exports are the key to a country’s prosperity and that imports are a threat to its way of life. Trade deficits—importing more than we export—are portrayed as the road to ruin… Politicians are always talking about the necessity of other countries’ opening their markets to American products. They never mention the virtues of opening U.S. markets to foreign products.

This perspective on imports and exports is called mercantilism. It goes back to the 14th century and has about as much intellectual rigor as alchemy, another landmark of the pre-Enlightenment era.

The logic of “exports, good—imports, bad” seems straightforward at first—after all, when a factory closes because of foreign competition, there seem to be fewer jobs than there otherwise would be. Don’t imports cause factories to close? Don’t exports build factories?

But is the logic really so clear? As a thought experiment, take what would seem to be the ideal situation for a mercantilist. Suppose we only export and import nothing. The ultimate trade surplus. So we work and use raw materials and effort and creativity to produce stuff for others without getting anything in return. There’s another name for that. It’s called slavery. How can a country get rich working for others?

Then there’s the mercantilist nightmare: We import from abroad, but foreigners buy nothing from us. What would the world be like if every morning you woke up and found a Japanese car in your driveway, Chinese clothing in your closet, and French wine in your cellar? All at no cost. Does that sound like heaven or hell? The only analogy I can think of is Santa Claus. How can a country get poor from free stuff? Or cheap stuff? How do imports hurt us?

We don’t export to create jobs. We export so we can have money to buy the stuff that’s hard for us to make—or at least hard for us to make as cheaply. We export because that’s the only way to get imports. If people would just give us stuff, then we wouldn’t have to export. But the world doesn’t work that way.

It’s the same in our daily lives. It’s great when people give us presents—a loaf of banana bread or a few tomatoes from the garden. But a new car would be better. Or even just a cheaper car. But the people who bring us cars and clothes and watches and shoes expect something in return. That’s OK. That’s the way the world works. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the goal of life is to turn away bargains from outside our house or outside our country because we’d rather make everything ourselves. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.

And imports don’t destroy jobs. They destroy jobs in certain industries. But because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones. That’s why we trade—to leverage the skills of others who can produce things more effectively than we can, freeing us to make things we otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.

Discussion Questions:

1. “Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty” – Discuss…
2. Explain the logical economic fallacy of the mercantilist philosophy of “exports good, imports bad”
3. “…because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones”. What basic economic principle is Professor Roberts alluding to here?

Related posts:

1. International Trade Made Simple
2. Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”
3. US / China Trade War – Could this be the beginning?

This post was originally published on September 15, 2009. It is being reposted today for my year 2 IB Econ students, who are studying free trade and protectionism as part of Unit 4 of the IB Econ course.

US president Barack Obama made a speech directly to Wall Street today. In his speech, Obama reflected on the many lessons America has learned in the last year since the financial crisis began. He urged his audience of investors, bankers and brokers that

“Normalcy cannot lead to complacency,” Obama said. “Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them.”

“They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s,” the president added.

In addition to his warnings about the threat posed by overly risky financial markets to the US economy, President Obama expressed his commitment to free trade and “the fight against protectionism”.

Obama says:

…enforcing trade agreements is part and parcel of maintaining an open and free trading system.

The enforcement of existing trade agreements Obama refers to is his way of justifying a decision his administration made over the weekend that actually limits free trade between America and one of its largest trading partners, China.

Trade relations between two of the world’s biggest economies deteriorated after Barack Obama, US president, signed an order late on Friday to impose a new duty of 35 per cent on Chinese tyre imports on top of an existing 4 per cent tariff.

In his first big test on world trade since taking office in January, Mr Obama sided with America’s trade unions, which have complained that a “surge” in imports of Chinese-made tyres had caused 7,000 job losses among US factory workers.

So, in his speech today, Obama decries protectionism and calls for expanded trade and free trade agreements which are “absolutely essential to our economic future”. But only three days ago, he supported a blatantly protectionist measure aimed at keeping foreign produced goods out of America in order to save a few thousand American jobs.

Obama’s decision is a bad one for several reasons. As an economics teacher, I will turn firstly to a diagram for an illustration of the net loss to the American people of higher tariffs on imported tires:

The key point to notice in the above graph is that a tariff on imported tires results in a net loss of welfare in America. The blue area represents the increase in the welfare of tire manufactures (this could be interpreted as the jobs saved in the tire industry and the profits earned due to higher prices); the black areas, on the other hand, are welfare loss. Since all tire consumers in America pay more for their tires due to the 35% tariff, real income is affected negatively for the nation as a whole.

One effect of the protectionist policy the graph does not illustrate, and perhaps the most serious negative impact of the tariff on America, is the response the Chinese are likely to take to what they interpret as a violation of existing free trade agreements between the US and China.

“This is a grave act of trade protectionism,” Mr Chen said in a statement. “Not only does it violate WTO rules, it contravenes commitments the US government made at the [April] G20 financial summit.”

Beijing said it had requested WTO-sanctioned consultations with the US over Washington’s new duties on tyres. Yao Jian, a commerce ministry spokesman, said the duties were in ”violation of WTO rules”.

China said it would now investigate imports of US poultry and vehicles, responding to complaints from domestic companies.

The problems with protectionism are myriad. Clearly American consumers suffer through higher tire prices. In addition, Chinese manufacturers will see sales fall as their product becomes less competitive in the US market. According to the CCTV report below, as many as 9,000 workers in the Chinese tire industry will lose their livelihoods due to declining demand from the US. But the unforseen effects of the US tariff on Chinese tires is the retaliatory measures China will almost certainly take. If China imposes new tariffs on American automobiles and poultry, the scenario in the graph above will be reversed, and Chinese consumers will face higher prices, Chinese car and poultry producers will experience rising sales, while the American auto worker and chicken farmer will suffer.

Free trade tends to result in net benefits for economies that choose to participate in it. American tire manufacturers are certainly harmed by cheap Chinese imports; however, America as a whole benefits through cheaper goods, more consumer surplus, higher incomes in China and therefore greater demand for imports of products made in America. The road to protectionism is a dangerous path to take for the Obama administration. Justifying these new tariffs by claiming that they “enforce existing free trade agreements” is a political maneuver aimed at covering up the truth, which is that the Obama administration has sided with a special interest group to save a few thousand jobs and garner political favor at a time when 700,000 American jobs are being lost each month. By doing so, he is calling into question his own commitment to free trade, and harming America’s image as a global proponent of global economic integration.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is the Chinese government so upset about a new tax on such an insignificant product as automobile tires?
2. “Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty”: Do you agree?
3. Some would say that it is a small price to pay for Americans to face higher prices for one product like tires in order to “save” 7,000 Americans’ jobs. Would you agree? Why or why not?
4. If 7,000 Americans were to lose their jobs due to free trade with China, what would we call the type of unemployment experienced by these workers? Is this the same type of unemployment experienced by the 700,000 workers who have lost their jobs each month during the last year of recession in the United States?

Related posts:

1. McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
2. Tit, tat, tariff… China and America’s latest shoving match is underway
3. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?

CBC News – Money – Shipping industry gets tariff break

A tariff is a tax on imported goods or services aimed at raising the price of foreign products to make domestically produced substitutes more attractive to consumers. A tariff is a form of protectionism, which we study in unit 4.1 of the IB Economics course.

Tariffs are appealing to policymakers as a tool for protecting domestic firms from foreign competition. Used wisely, a barrier to trade such as a tariff can promote the development of certain vital industries in the domestic economy that might otherwise not exist due to the existent of more efficient, lower cost foreign competition. Tariffs benefit domestic producers but harm domestic consumers, who must pay a higher price for the imported good than they would have to under purely free trade.

The Canadian government has, until recently, charged a 25% tariff on cargo ships, tankers and large ferries built in foreign countries. As of this month, however, this tariff is being removed.

Imported cargo ships, tankers and large ferries will no longer be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Friday.

The measure is aimed at making it cheaper for Canadian shipowners to replace aging fleets with more modern and more efficient vessels.

Waiving the tariff will save the industry $25 million a year for the next 10 years, the government estimates.

“These were tariffs that don’t serve any purpose because … the ships to which they apply are not capable of being made competitively in Canada,” Flaherty told reporters…

The effects of a tariff in the Canadian ship market can be illustrated using a simple supply and demand diagram. The diagram below shows the Canadian ship market before the removal of the 25% tariff and after its removal.

The domestic supply and demand curves for ships in Canada are shown above. Notice that the domestic equilibrium price for ships in Canada without trade is very high. This is because Canadian ship builders have high costs of production and therefore would require a very high price in order to be able to build ships domestically.

So where do Canadian ship buyers get their ships from? The article mentions that one Canadian company bought ships from a Turkish ship builder. Besides Turkey, some of the other countries that specialize in ship production include Denmark, South Korea, China and Japan. The world supply of ships is represented by the blue line. In a purely free trade environment, the price of ships in Canada is determined by the intersection of domestic demand and world supply, at a price of Pw.

The world price of ships is completely unresponsive to changes in demand from Canadian ship buyers. This explains why world supply is horizontal. Since the Canadian market makes up such a small proportion of the total market for ships, an increase in demand in Canada will have no impact on the world price of ships. Therefore, the world supply curve as seen by Canada ship buyers is perfectly elastic. Canadian ship buyers can buy as few ships or as many ships as they like without affecting world price.

A tariff is a tax, and a tax is a determinant of supply. A tariff of 25% increases the costs of imported ships, and shifts the world supply curve upwards. This raises the price of imported ships, and decreases the quantity demanded of ships in Canada from Q3 to Q2 ships. Notice that at the higher world price of Pwt, there are a few domestic ship builders in Canada willing and able to produce and sell ships, so domestic quantity supplied increases from 0 to Q1.

The existence of a tariff reduces the number of imported ships in Canada from 0Q3 to Q1Q2. Domestic producers of ships, who without protection would not be able to compete and therefore produce zero ships, instead produce Q1 and enjoy producer surplus represented by the triangle X. The Canadian government collects taxes on the imported ships represented by the area Z, found by multiplying the number of imported ships (Q1Q2) by the amount of the tariff (Pwt-Pw).

The tariff on imported ships did little good for the Canadian ship market. Canadian ship builders were already uncompetitive and benefited little if at all. While the government did earn revenues from the tax, the net effect on the market was a loss of welfare represented by the triangles labelled Y in the graph above. These gray areas represent the net welfare loss (or dead weight loss) of the ship tariff.

The consumers of ships, which are in fact Canadian companies that produce other goods and services, such as the ferry companies that provide access to Canada’s several remote coastal and island communities, were clearly harmed by the 25% tariff, since the price of ships is a resource cost and the tariff translated into lower supply and higher prices for consumers of ferry services. The tariff’s effect on ship buyers in Canada is visible in the graph above. At a price of Pw, the total consumer surplus in the ship market is the area of VXYZ. With the higher price resulting from the tariff, however, consumer surplus is only the are V, while producer surplus increased only to the area X and government surplus (the tax revenue from the tariff) is area Z. The net effect, however, is a loss of total welfare of the triangles labelled Y.

The tariff’s removal, on the other hand, increases the welfare of ship consumers back to VXYZ, eliminating the dead weight loss and increasing total welfare and efficiency in the ship market. This also benefits the customers of the companies that buy ships, including ferry passengers, as evidenced in the article

“The duty remission to BC Ferries will allow it to implement a two per cent rate reduction for its users later this month, the Finance Department said.”

A tariff on imports is a protectionist measure aimed at increasing domestic producer surplus in a market in which domestic firms face competition from lower cost foreign producers. However, it should be observed that a tariff generally creates a net loss of welfare for society as a whole, as the consumers of the taxed good face a higher price and demand a lower quantity of output. While a tariff reduces imports may increase domestic production, the benefit to producers comes at the cost of lost consumer surplus and a net loss of welfare in the market as a whole. The tariff also leads to allocative inefficiency in a market, as domestic resources are over-allocated towards the production of a good on which imports are subject to tariffs.

Removing tariffs on ships increases the benefit to ship buyers, who in turn pass that benefit on to their own customers, lowering the prices of important services such as shipping and ferry service to Canadian consumers. In addition, foreign producers of ships increase their sales in Canada and experience greater demand, benefiting foreign producers and workers. The increase in foreign income may mean more demand for Canada’s exports in turn, increasing employment in other sectors of the Canadian economy in which they do have a comparative advantage over their trading partners. Overall the elimination of tariffs increases total welfare, eliminates dead weight loss, and leads to a more efficient allocation of a nation’s resources towards the goods it is able to competitively produce in the global economy.

Discussion Questions:

1. What was the intended purpose of the 25% tariff on imported ships? Was this a valid reason to tax foreign built ships?
2. Who are the various “stakeholders” affected by a tariff on imported ships. Try to identify five different stakeholders who are affected by the tariff and its removal.
3. Why does the removal of a tariff improve allocative efficiency in a country? Does it also improve productive efficiency?

Related posts:

1. IB – Graphing and understanding the economic impacts of protectionism
2. Tit, tat, tariff… China and America’s latest shoving match is underway
3. What’s Korea’s “beef” with the US on free trade?

Today in class, my IB year 2 students undertook a debate on the extent to which free trade has contributed to or hurt the well-being of the world’s people. In preparation for this debate, students were asked to research and bookmark to our class’s Diigo group one article offering evidence in support of their argument.

The debate was framed around a quote from Paul Krugman from chapter 11 of the excellent book, Naked Economics.

“You could say that globalization, driven not by human goodness but by the profit motive, has done far more good for more people than all the foreign aid and soft loans provided by well-intentioned governments and aid agencies.”

Christopher: Foreign Trade, Not Foreign Aid « John Stossel

The exercise of debating the pros and cons of free trade for rich and poor countries was rewarding and provided an interesting and engaging way to introduce Unit 4 of the IB Economics course. The final two units, on International Trade and Economic Development, are closely tied, as one of the main strategies for achieving improvements in people’s standards of living is to improve the unfettered access to resource, good and service markets across national boundaries. We will be revisiting the debate on the effectiveness of trade versus aid at promoting the objectives of economic development repeatedly throughout the rest of the second year of IB economics.

For now, some questions went unresolved in today’s debate, and I will ask my student and any other interested reader to respond to those questions in the comments below.

Discussion questions:

Related posts:

1. Fair versus Free Trade as means to promote Economic Development
2. The Lord of the Ring of Free Trade: Is globalization really a force of evil in the world?
3. Does free trade really mean lower prices? A debate between two economists much smarter than me

Obamas Efforts To Boost Exports Face Hurdles : NPR

President Obama thinks the key to recovering the millions of American jobs lost during the recession lies in boosting exports to the rest of the world:

The plan sounds great. As we learn in AP and IB Economics, free trade leads to benefits for nations that choose to participate in it. Of course, promoting free trade will harm some industries and workers whose jobs end up being “off-shored” or “out-sourced” to countries with cheaper or more qualified labor; but Obama’s hope is that promoting free trade will result in a net gain of 2 million American jobs.

The goal of doubling US exports in 5 years, however, may be overly ambitious. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US is currently the fourth largest exporter in the world, sending just around $1 trillion worth of goods and services abroad in 2009, behind the EU with $1.9 trillion, China with $1.2 trillion and Germany with $1.18 trillion of exports. Obama’s goal to double US exports would propel the US to the single largest exporting nation in the world, putting it right around where the 27 nations of the European Union are today.

To achieve his goal, Obama proposals include three strategies for boosting demand and supply of US exports.

• On the supply side he suggests continuing recent guarantees for payment by foreign buyers. Essentially such a scheme reduces the risks that often accompany international commerce, reducing the “costs” of exporting firms, which in essence increases the supply of exports from the US.
• On the demand side the US must pressure China to revalue its currency. A stronger RMB (and a weaker dollar) will increase China’s demand for US goods and services.
• Also on the demand side, the US should push through free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, which have encountered obstacles among US lawmakers who fear that more free trade may actually mean a loss of US jobs.

Free trade agreements, export payment guarantees and a weaker US dollar in China will help Obama reach his goal. Chances are, however, that it will ultimately be unattainable. Doubling US exports would propel the US to the top of the list of exporting countries, surpassing even China, today’s current leader, by $700 billion more than the country exported last year. The impact on US GDP would undoubtedly be enormous, adding upwards of  $1 trillion to the US economy.

Creating jobs through trade is controversial, as many Americans still believe trade is partially to blame for the loss of American jobs in recent years.

“The average voter in the U.S. has been pretty on the fence about whether they want more trade coming into the United States,” Slaughter says. “The income pressures that a lot of households have faced in recent years have sort of shifted that balance where more voters now are a lot more wary of globalization than they used to be.”

While his goal is lofty, Obama is on the right track towards growing the US economy and promoting job creation. Trade benefits Americans not just because it will increase demand for our goods and services abroad, but because it will lead to lower prices for many of the things we enjoy consuming at home, ultimately increasing real incomes in America while also creating jobs.

The graph below presents a simple explanation of how the above strategies can result in more jobs in US export industries.

Discussion Questions:

1. How does China manipulate the value of its currency? Why is such manipulation harmful to US exporters?
2. How does a government payment guarantee for exporters actually reduce the costs of doing business for US exporting firms?
3. Do you believe that more free trade agreements with countries like South Korea and Panama will create jobs or destroy jobs in the United States? Explain.

Related posts:

1. “A glimmer of hope” – rising incomes in China lead to rising demand for US exports
2. McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
3. Exports, good – Imports, ALSO GOOD!

America, a champion of free trade between the world’s nations… right?

Actually, the United States places tariffs (taxes on import) on virtully every item it trades for with the rest of the world. Below is just one tiny section of the 75 page table of contents (!!) of the “Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States”.

JOGGING SUITS knitted or crocheted . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 6112.11-19
JOINERY of wood, for builders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4418
JOINTS artificial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 9021.11
JOJOBA OIL . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1515.90, 1516-1518
JOKE ARTICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9505.90
JONGKONG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . Ch. 44
JOURNALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 49-3, 4902
JUDO UNIFORMS of cotton . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . 6203.22, 6204.22
JUICES fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20-US1-3
fruit and vegetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-5, 2009.11-90
meat, fish, or aquatic invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1603.00
JUMPSUITS men’s or boys’ . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6211.32-33
women’s or girls’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6211.42-43
JUNIPER seeds of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …0909.50

Yes, folks. Even “Joke Articles” made overseas are taxed before ending up in the hands of American consumers (by 70% as it turns out!). But tariffs are no joke. The podcast below offers an excellent evaluation of the effects of America’s tariffs on various stakeholders, including American consumers, producers, and workers and on foreign producers, consumers and workers.

[podcast]http://welkerswikinomics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Tariffs.mp3[/podcast]

After listening to the whole podcast, respond the the following questions in a comment.

Discussion Questions:

1. How does a tariff on Chinese tires affect American tire manufacturers? Why are American firms that make tires actually opposed to the tariff on Chinese imports?
2. Which group is the main proponent of higher tariffs on Chinese tires? Why does this group favor higher tariffs?
3. How have the Chinese responded to the American tire tariff? Why are American chicken farmers upset about the tax on Chinese tires?
4. Why do “97% of economists say tariffs are a bad idea?” The commentator says economists hate them because “they are so inefficient”. Discuss the economic reasoning behind this statement.
5. Do you think it is likely that the 35% tariff on Chinese tires will save or create jobs for Americans? Why or why not? What are your conclusions regarding the economic wisdom of tariffs?

Related posts:

1. US / China Trade War – Could this be the beginning?
2. Red Storm Rising!! China bashing picks up steam…
3. In the meantime, retaliatory regulations contribute to China’s inflation!

YouTube – Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring of Free Trade

Free trade: one of the most contentious issues in economics. The consensus seems to be in among economists: specialization and trade among nations based on the principle of comparative advantage leads to improvements in access to goods and services, as well as increased wealth and welfare among all countries involved. But that does not mean it’s easy to convince everyone in society to adopt free trade.

In his book “Bound Together”, Yale University Economic Historian Nayan Chanda has this to say about the word “globalization”:

Since the word globalization appeared in the dictionary, its meaning has undergone a massive transformation. Just two of the dozens of definitions of globalization illustrate the problem in grappling with this phenomenon. Writing in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Jeffrey L. Watson defines globalization in cultural terms-as “the process by which the experience of everyday life, marked by the diffusion of commodities and ideas, can foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.”

The official World Bank definition of globalization is stated, not surprisingly, in purely economic terms, as the “freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries.”

Left-wing critics, echoing Karl Marx’s observation about the “werewolfsh hunger” of capitalism reaching the four corners of the world, see globalization as synonymous with expansionist and exploitative capitalism.

Looking at globalization through the prism of business and economics helps one to understand the Internet, the mobile phone, and the cable TV-connected world we inhabit, but it does not explain how human life was globalized long before capitalism was formulated or electricity invented.

According to Chanda, globalization and the internationalization of our markets has been going on for thousands of years throughout human history. The anti-globalization views expressed in the video below portray the phenomenon as a recent, oppressive, capitalistic phenomenon. Watch the video and discuss the questions below.

Discussion Questions:

1. Describe the view of free trade depicted in the video. Which of the three definitions in Chanda’s book does the video seem to align itself with?
2. Why does the anti-globalization movement unite such disparate groups as environmentalists, liberals, and labor unions?
3. What is free trade and how can it “foster a standardization of cultural expressions around the world.” Is this a bad thing or a good thing in your opinion?

Related posts:

1. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?
2. Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”
3. Mankiw on free trade in politics

allAfrica.com: Africa: G20 Leaders Promise Billions for Low-Income Nations

While the G20 leaders meet in England to formulate their plan for increasing aid to Africa, the message from the continent seems to be that not aid, bur more trade, foreign direct investment and the establishment of free markets is the key to achieving meaningful economic growth and development. Dambisa Moyo explains the problem with aid on Colbert Nation on April 1:

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Dambisa Moyo
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

What, exactly do the G20 leaders have planned for the less economically developed nations of Africa in the $1.1 trillion global stimulus package?

The leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies, recognizing that the global financial crisis has “a disproportionate impact” on vulnerable people in poor countries, have promised to make hundreds of billions of United States dollars available to these countries as part of a $1.1 trillion plan to rescue the world economy.

In a communiqué released by the Group of 20′s London Summit on Thursday, the leaders announced what they called “a global plan for recovery on an unprecedented scale.”

They said the rescue package would include resources totalling $850 billion, to be channelled through global financial institutions, “to support growth in emerging market and developing countries by helping to finance counter-cyclical spending, bank recapitalisation, infrastructure, trade finance, balance of payments support, debt rollover, and social support.”

Outlining allocations for materially poor nations, they promised:

• An increase in lending of at least $100 billion by multilateral development banks, including loans to low-income countries;
• An amount of $50 billion for social protection, to promote trade and to safeguard development in low-income countries; and
• The selling of gold reserves to help the International Monetary Fund (IMF) provide $6 billion for the world’s poorest countries over the next two to three years.

The increase in aid from the rich world to sub-Saharan Africa comes mostly in the form of loans from the IMF and the World Bank. Development aid such as this is meant to help poor countries improve their human capital through investments in education, health and infrastructure. Historically, loans from the “multilateral development banks” have been made on the condition that the recipient nations adopt certain “structural adjustment policies”:

Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

• Cutting social expenditures, also known as austerity,
• Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction,
• Devaluation of currencies,
• Trade liberalization, or lifting import and export restrictions,
• Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment with the opening of domestic stock markets),
• Balancing budgets and not overspending,
• Removing price controls and state subsidies,
• Privatization, or divestiture of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
• Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
• Improving governance and fighting corruption.

Critics of such SAPs, which developing countries are forced to adopt as conditions of receiving loans from the IMF and World Bank, say that they limit the extent to which the poor country can direct the loan money towards combating poverty, reducing inequality, and thereby achieving meaningful economic development for the poor.

Recently TIME magazine had an article in which the efficacy of such financial aid from the rich world to the poor world is challenged.

Africa is hopeless, a place of war and famine seemingly populated almost entirely by tyrants and children with flies in their eyes. According to this view, if Africa generates any kind of growth, it is in suffering — and in the overseas aid sent to address that, now a $40-billion-a-year industry. Naturally, with a new appeal every year and a new disaster every other, some people have begun to wonder if all that money is doing any good. They argue that aid creates dependence, fuels corruption, undermines democracy and stifles development.

Aid in any form, at a fundamental level, positions Africa as a dependent child, and the “rich world” as the paternalistic benefactor. Aid, despite the good intentions of the west, does little to do promote meaningful economic development in poor countries:

Though it rarely occurs to Westerners who’ve been instructed that Africa needs their help, charity is humiliating. Not emergency charity, of course: when disaster strikes, emergency aid is always welcome, whether in New Orleans or Papua New Guinea. But long-term charity, living life as a beggar, is degrading. Andrew Rugasira, 40, runs Good African Coffee, a Ugandan company he set up in 2004 to supply British supermarkets under the motto “Trade, not aid.” He is emblematic of a new generation of African antiaid, antistate entrepreneurs. For Rugasira, aid not only “undermines the creativity to lift yourself out of poverty” but also “undermines the integrity and dignity of the people. It says, These are people who cannot figure out how to develop.” Aid even manages to silence those it is meant to help. “African governments become accountable to Western donors,” says Rugasira, “and Africa finds itself represented not by Africans but by Bono and Bob Geldof. I mean, how would America react if Amy Winehouse dropped in to advise them on the credit crisis?”

The G20 nations should keep this view of aid in mind as they further develop their plans to help the poor nations of the world achieve economic growth and development. Trade, not aid, is what Africa needs to achieve meaningful progress towards economic development, defined as an improvement in the quality of life, health, education, and incomes of the people of a nation. Despite over $40 billion a year of aid that has flowed into Africa over the last decade, it is foreign investment and trade that has only recently led to sustained economic growth for the continent.

In 2006, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, foreign investment in Africa reached $48 billion, overtaking foreign aid for the first time. That gap has only widened, reflecting a quadrupling of foreign investment since 2000. As the senior adviser in Africa for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), David Nellor, noted in a report last September, sub-Saharan Africa today resembles Asia in the 1980s. “The private sector is the key driver,” wrote Nellor, “and financial markets are opening up.” War is down. Democracy is up. Inflation and interest rates are in single digits. Terms of trade have improved. Crucially, said Nellor, “growth is taking off.” The IMF puts Africa’s average annual growth for 2004 to ’08 at more than 6% — better than any developed economy — and predicts the continent will buck the global recessionary trend to grow nearly 3.3% this year.

Despite the platitudes from Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Ban Ki Moon about the “disproportionate impact” of the financial crisis on the poor nations of the world, it is Africa that is likely to achieve economic growth this year, even while the rich nations of the world enter recession. It is little thanks to aid that the people of Africa are finally experiencing meaningful growth; rather, the economic ties between the continent and, not the West, but China, have fueled this movement towards higher incomes and quality of life. Perhaps it’s more and fairer trade, not aid, that Africa needs now. And maybe that’s what we in the West need too in this time of economic chaos.

Related posts:

1. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?
2. “Fair Trade” coffee and economic development
3. Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”