China Daily (Hong Kong edition): A revitalized global trading system needed to avert protectionism

By Victor K. Fung

As a key component of the global economy, international trade is a major source of economic revenue and a major source of employment for any country. The present financial crisis and a looming recession will undoubtedly have a negative impact on trade and severely curtail growth because of liquidity and deteriorating consumer sentiment.

To avert disaster, leaders of the industrialised world have reacted swiftly to restore trust and confidence in the banking system. Such a brave move is now required to ensure that the global trading system does not collapse under the burden of an unstable world. But it is vital that, at this crucial moment, we should reflect upon where we have come from, before taking potentially disastrous measures that may precipitate protectionist action.

The last 20 years have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of the global market and unprecedented global economic growth and welfare. During the last two halcyon decades, it perhaps hasn’t been surprising that people were not especially interested in the apparent complex intricacies of trade negotiations.

The stark paradox of the last decade is that while the global market boomed, the global trade policy process stalled. More and more countries joined the WTO — growing from about 90 in 1990 to 153 now — but they then proved incapable of moving the agenda forward.

The paralysis may, in part, be a consequence of the system’s success. The multiple reforms of the latter part of the 20th century in developing countries have resulted in many more actors, big and small, engaged in global trade. The trade regime is no longer the sole province of the OECD countries as it was throughout most of its existence until recently.

Not only the fast-growing economies of China and India, but many other countries, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, Morocco, Kenya, and Egypt, increasingly want to have a say in the trade-policy process, because their stakes in the trade regime have increased significantly.

Vietnam has probably experienced, in proportionate terms, a greater poverty reduction, within the shortest period of time, than any country in history; the growth that drove that poverty reduction in considerable part emanated from the trade regime that Vietnam joined in the mid-1990s.

One consequence of this feverish   activity has been to question why one should bother with what appears remote and arcane trade negotiations, when in the real world, things were going so well.

Another rather different consequence has been that the increase and diversity of actors has made the process far more complex. The repeated failures of the Doha Agenda since its launch in 2001 can be ascribed to two forces: a lack of sustained public interest and support, including from the business community; and incapacity on the part of negotiators to bridge the cultural and economic divides.

In appealing for the application of global solutions to the present financial turmoil, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated: “Successful market economies need trust, which can only be built through shared values”. Given the immense benefits that trade has generally conferred upon the people of many nations, it follows that one of the potentially strongest foundations on which to build shared values is in a solid and fair rules-based multilateral trade system that reflects the new realities of this potentially exciting and dynamic new global age. In this context, it is encouraging to note that China has committed to strengthen multilateral trade and economic cooperation, as stated in the country’s 11th Five-Year Program and in the 17th National Party Congress.

The financial crisis has prompted urgent and unprecedented globally co-ordinated actions. Without doubt, the world economy requires emergency surgery. At the latest Asia-Europe Meeting Summit convened in Beijing, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called for enhanced efforts to prevent the financial crisis from evolving into trade protectionism. The host country also proposed to establish a mechanism for multilateral trade cooperation and facilitation.

What is being recognized is that at the very heart of a global and sustainable economic revival, the multilateral trading system must be strengthened. We still live in perilous times; we live in a global environment in which, as Cordell Hull, Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of state and a subsequent Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote “The welfare of nations is indissolubly connected with friendliness, fairness, equality and the maximum practicable degree of freedom in international trade.”

To escape from the abyss of protectionism, the world needs a revitalized global rules-based multilateral trading system that will provide a robust global framework and restore a sense of global trust.

The author is Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

ICC website

Closing Remarks by USCIB Peter Robinson to OECD Ministerial on the Future of the Internet

Peter Robinson

President and CEO, United States Council for International Business

Closing Remarks for OECD Ministerial on the Future of the Internet

Seoul, June 18, 2008

 

Congratulations to Korea and the OECD on organizing such an impressive ministerial meeting!

The discussions over the last 3 days have been interesting and insightful in looking to the future and the role of all stakeholders along this path.

On behalf of the business community, let me applaud Ministers for signing a Declaration that lays out a clear path to the future Internet economy. We are especially pleased to see that our vision shares many of the same hopes and expectations as those that are outlined in the Declaration.

This Ministerial has successfully built on the previous Ministerial, which focused on e-commerce. The last 10 years have shown us that the Internet is much more than a new platform on which to conduct business.  It has become intertwined with every aspect of our lives and economies. The next 10 years will allow us to further realize the potential of the Internet to better our societies, both developed and developing, and to bring more of the world’s people online to create, communicate and collaborate as part of their business and personal lives.

Our vision of the future Internet is characterized by a virtuous circle of investment and innovation, fueled by creativity and empowering users. The future Internet will also be characterized by increased user participation and choice of applications, products and services provided through a wide variety of high capacity platforms that are more available, affordable and user-friendly. The Internet will facilitate greater productivity and expanded access, to, and quality of, education, skills development and healthcare. Innovative ICT solutions will help us address challenges such as the environment.

 

Role of business

The Ottawa ministerial established a precedent for a regulatory framework that recognized the need for private sector leadership and flexibility to enable innovation. Since, the convergence of voice, data, video and audio on the Internet, driven by the extensive deployment of competing IP-based networks, has enabled innovation to thrive , empowering consumers and enhancing opportunities for further growth and innovation.

Going forward, we need to understand how the next level of convergence will impact business. Further investment will be needed to provide adequate capacity, security and capabilities for future Internet-supported development and connectivity.  Business will also work with other stakeholders to develop market-driven technical standards that will enable the Internet’s ongoing expansion.

 

Creativity

The Internet is also facilitating an unprecedented level of collaboration and interaction in commercial as well as social settings. The application of ICTs to learning, health, the environment and professional and social networking enables the robust exchange of information and knowledge. A confluence of factors—has created a fertile environment for users to become creators and publishers in their own right.  Pervasive, speedy, intelligent and affordable broadband access, provided through capable high capacity networks is vital to the future growth of these and other innovative offerings. Preserving and fostering the incentive to create is also vital to the continued migration of content to the online world. The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, which supports and encourages users to make legitimate use of content, play an important role in this regard.

 

Confidence

Security and privacy will be increasingly important- not just because of increased threats, but also because emerging technologies may provide more seamless ways of collecting and using information. User trust and confidence in these new technologies will enable faster adoption and greater access to the benefits they can provide.

Today, businesses deploy a variety of technologies to meet customer needs and to build confidence in the online environment, and also actively leads educational initiatives in Internet privacy and safety.  While there is no silver bullet to stop cyber-crime, business is committed to working with governments and other stakeholders to effectively address this problem.

But in the end, improved education, innovative technology widespread dissemination and adoption of industry best practices; and effective law enforcement will be most effective in addressing these threats to Internet users’ privacy and safety and ensuring the continued integrity of the Internet.

 

Role of governments

We commend Ministers for their commitment to establish and maintain policy frameworks that will promote a trusted Internet-based environment, continued investment and increasing competition that will lead to expanded Internet access worldwide, increased innovation and user choice.  Indeed, such frameworks are essential for the future Internet economy.

Ministers have taken the important step to reaffirm the principles that enabled a new platform for commerce to evolve into a new platform for all aspects of life and declaring to contribute towards further development of the global Internet economy. While a framework that promotes continued technology innovation is crucial, we must keep in mind that ICTs are a means to achieve growth and societal benefit rather than an end in themselves.

 

The role of governments is fundamental for four key objectives:

  1. Ensuring that any new measures or incentives have a positive impact on infrastructure investment, innovation and the growth of the Internet
  2. Enforcing existing laws, particularly criminal laws, which address harmful and/or illegal online activities and coordination across relevant agencies and jurisdictions
  3. Recognizing the continued importance of market-driven, consensus-based global standards and the leadership of the private sector in their development
  4. Developing policies that stimulate the availability of and demand for network development, deployment, and interconnectivity, and the availability of different devices and modes of connectivity to increase Internet penetration

 

Role of OECD:

Finally, after Seoul,  as governments work towards further implementation of the commitments made here, careful attention should be paid to the important, unique and beneficial role that the OECD plays. The OECD will continue to be instrumental in working with all stakeholders to further the achievements of the Ottawa and Seoul Ministerial Conferences, in particular by producing neutral, fact-based economic reports that examine current market conditions and the impact of new developments, emerging technologies and any potential policy questions. The OECD also facilitates co-ordination and consistency of broad policy frameworks across Member economies by providing a forum for dialogue, involving all stakeholders.

In closing, I’d like to emphasize that all stakeholders must continue to work together, each according to their role, to address the challenges faced by the global economy, to promote the continued growth of the Internet and bring its benefits to more of the world’s people. Today, the private sector continues to lead the way in the innovation and development of ever-more efficient and focused services, applications, content, devices and networks that allow more users to share in the benefits of the Internet. We look forward to working with governments, civil society, the technical community and the OECD to nurture the powerful potential of the Internet economy.

More on USCIB’s Information, Communications and Technology Committee

OECD website

The New York Times: Saving Our Oceans

To the Editor:

Your timely Jan. 21 editorial, “Until All the Fish Are Gone,” correctly underscores the growing negative environmental and social effects of overfishing. What once seemed simply a conservation concern is now a global issue with tremendous social and economic ramifications.

We are fast approaching a critical crossroads in the future of our oceans. But unlike many other global issues, where business and the environmental community are often at odds, here we completely agree on a solution.

Members of the World Trade Organization are now negotiating new trade rules to reduce the government subsidies that promote overfishing. These subsidies provide fleets with money, fuel and incentives to fish longer, harder and farther than ever before. As a result, fish populations are declining, along with the quality of life of people around the world who depend on fishing for food and livelihood.

Reducing fishing subsidies is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world’s oceans.

Will the W.T.O. members seize the opportunity to stop overfishing and begin restoring the health of the oceans, and in turn, the health of mankind? That is the question.

Peter M. Robinson
Andrew F. Sharpless
New York, Jan. 22, 2008

Mr. Robinson is president and chief executive of the United States Council for International Business. Mr. Sharpless is chief executive of Oceana, an international environmental ocean advocacy group.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Oceana website

Journal of Commerce: Year-End Essay

The major challenge facing U.S. business is in keeping markets open to investment at a time when many seek to close them, often for protectionist purposes. The U.S. economy benefits enormously from inward investment in terms of jobs created, R&D expenditures and outlays for new plants and equipment. U.S. investors likewise spur world economic growth, ensuring the most productive use of the world’s financial and natural resources.

However, the sheer volume of foreign investment, coupled with the entry of new players often using sovereign wealth funds to place their new-found fortunes, have sparked calls here and abroad for greater governmental control over investment flows. Several governments have tightened regulations regarding foreign investment, while others threaten to do so. Many countries also use informal barriers to restrict outside investment, declaring that certain industries are off limits and must be protected as national champions. Is this the wave of the future? Do we really want investment protectionism?

Congress last year enacted a sensible reform of the process for reviewing the national security implications of proposed foreign takeovers. The Bush administration followed with a major statement – the first in 10 years – reaffirming long-standing U.S. policy of openness to foreign investment. That is the right direction for the U.S. and world economy.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Shipping Digest: Losing the bigger picture

By Peter M. Robinson

The thing that saddens me at this time of declining confidence in trade is that people are losing the bigger-picture perspective of the benefits of trade, while reaching for the latest and closest facts and figures, many of which are questionable, to supposedly justify their negative opinion.

Two of those bigger-picture benefits are particularly timely in today’s world: peace and climate. In the first case, trade is a deterrent to war. It is the exchange of goods and services that necessarily brings people together from different cultures and bridges political divides. Without trade, the world would be in an even more dangerous state.

In the second case, trade can help save our climate. It is trade that will facilitate the necessary transfer of clean, affordable technology to countries with the biggest emissions problems, a situation that ultimately knows no boundaries and which all the citizens of the world will share.

When we think of the world that we are preparing our children to inherit, I want one that will have as much peace and stability as possible, and one that will be as clean as possible. Trade is a big facilitator of those things and we too often lose that perspective as we go for shortterm, quick-fix solutions in response to the necessary adjustments and changes that trade does involve.

America is the land of innovation, of strength, and the proven ability to compete. Trade clearly benefits our society in the long run. Our leaders need to recognize this and act accordingly.

Peter M. Robinson is president of the United States Council for International Business. He can be reached at (212) 354-4480 or probinson@uscib.org.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

The International Herald Tribune: U.S. trade policy

Letters to the Editor

Regarding the editorial ”Beating up on trade is not the answer” (July 28): How ironic that Congress has been considering yet another incomprehensible farm bill, yet it cannot be bothered to take the necessary steps to ensure the country benefits from future trade agreements, nor even to ratify the bilateral trade agreements America has signed with Korea, Peru and others.

The business community agrees that we need to invest in the future of our people and to deal better with the problems caused by trade. But it is hard to engender strong support for these positions with the strident anti-trade rhetoric emanating from so many in Washington.

To retain America’s leadership in the world, we must better engage emerging markets like China and India, where so much of tomorrow’s economic growth will take place. But we will never do so as long as America’s leaders cannot see beyond tomorrow’s elections.

Peter M. Robinson, New York

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

The New York Times: The Costs and Benefits of Free Trade

To the Editor:

Congratulations for ”The Case for Trade” (editorial, July 27). We need to stop blaming the Chinese for problems that are essentially home-grown and get on with the business of ensuring that American workers and companies can compete in a globalized world market.

One key element of that process will be an expanded program of assistance, in the form of retraining, for workers who lose their jobs for whatever reason.

Congress also needs to be serious about reducing our absurd farm subsidy programs.

There are enormous benefits to be gained from approval of the pending free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, Colombia and South Korea and from conclusion of the Doha round. This is where the administration and Congress should direct their attention.

Thomas Niles

Scarsdale, N.Y., July 28, 2007

The writer is a vice chairman of the United States Council for International Business.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Remarks by Ronnie Goldberg at G8 Labor Ministerial

Remarks by Ronnie L. Goldberg

EVP and Senior Policy Officer, USCIB

Regional Vice President, International Organization of Employers

Delivered to the G-8 Labor & Employment Ministers Consultation

Dresden, Germany, May 6, 2007
  1. Introduction

I am honoured to express the views of the IOE, which represents 145 Employers Organizations in 140 countries around the world, on the subject of social protection. I would like to begin with a few general remarks:

Importance of Social Protection

Employers understand that social safety nets are an essential policy accompaniment to globalization. Indeed, fiscally responsible and sustainable safety nets are integral to well functioning and peaceful societies and therefore to economic growth and job creation.

But it would be counterproductive if social protection became a barrier to employment or the competitiveness of businesses. Job creation is both the best means of providing social security, as well as the key to sustaining it. And social security is a shared responsibility.

No one Size Fits All

Our message to you today is that while G8 and developing countries all face significant challenges in providing social protection to their citizens, these challenges vary profoundly. G8 governments have a role to play, both in addressing the coverage and sustainability of their social safety nets, but also in assisting developing countries in capacity building for sound social protection systems appropriate to their economies.

Regardless of the system adopted (public, private or a combination), we would like to highlight four characteristics of a well-functioning system that strikes an appropriate balance between the provision of social security and job creation, competitiveness and economic growth:

Sound administrative and financial management is essential;

Social benefit systems must make work pay and should encourage people to stay in the workforce.

Tax policies should not place undue burdens on workers or employers; and

Social policies should be linked with active labour market policies that serve economic growth and job creation anywhere.

  1. The Demographic Context

To a large extent, this policy response will be shaped by demographic reality. Let me share a few facts with you:

By 2050, world population is set to increase by some 2.5B people (from 6.7-9.2 B), the vast majority of whom will be born in less developed regions. Indeed, were it not for projected net migration the population of developed countries would decline.

Over this period the population of the 50 least developed countries will more than double. The populations of Afghanistan, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Timor-Leste and Uganda are projected to at least triple.

In sharp contrast, the populations of 46 countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, most of the successor States of the former USSR are expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005.

What does this mean for social protection? The answer lies not just in total numbers, but in distribution of population. Between 2005 and 2050, half of the increase in the world population will be accounted for by a rise in the numbers of those aged 60 years or over, and the number of persons under age 15 will decline. This trend is particularly acute in the developed world, where the population aged 60 or over is expected to nearly double.

In short, the vastly different economic, political, fiscal and social challenges facing policy makers in the developing and developed worlds are shaped and exacerbated by their differing demographic situations.

III. Developing Countries

Social protection in low-income countries typically confined to the minority of workers who are employed in the formal sector. Strengthening the capacity of these countries to design and implement social protection programs, should enable them to cope better with the social impact of economic reforms as well as help to increase popular support for the reforms themselves.

Thus, social protection policies need to be geared towards reducing the economic vulnerability of households. To have sustainable interventions, a more comprehensive approach is needed, one that draws attention to the large numbers of risks (e.g. illness; crop failure; conflict etc), and that proposes a variety
of instruments to deal with these diverse risks.

  1. OECD Countries

A very different context applies to most OECD countries, where policymakers must confront the challenge of an aging workforce.

Older workers represent an enormous pool of wisdom, skills and knowledge, and it is in everyone’s interest to create the right environments to keep all workers employable throughout their careers, from youth to old age.

Policies should aim at facilitating active aging and reducing obstacles to productive employment opportunities for older workers – for example, providing policy frameworks that increase the effective age of retirement, and making this feasible through pension schemes that do not penalize or make it impossible for older workers to continue gainful employment.

Longer working lives will require cultural shifts for both employers and employees. A climate conducive to workforce participation and ‘active ageing’ can be encouraged through such measures as

— Increasing the effective age of retirement;

— Diversifying working times and work organization, including encouraging part-time and temporary work;

— Increasing emphasis on lifelong learning;

— Analysing the effects of employment protection measures on enterprise creation and sustainability;

— Encouraging more wage flexibility; and

— Promoting effective job placement

  1. Conclusion

In sum, business calls upon the G8 to assist developing countries in capacity building for sound social protection systems. Here at home, we urge the modernization of social benefit systems in ways that are financially sustainable, and that encourage work across all age brackets.

Thank you.

Ronnie L. Goldberg’s Bio

More on the International Organization of Employers

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

ILO website

Striking the Balance Between Open Investment, Mergers and Acquisitions, and National Security

Remarks Delivered to the Federation of German Industries (BDI) G8 Business Summit

Berlin, April 25, 2007

William G. Parrett

Chairman, United States Council for International Business and

CEO, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

  1. Introduction

Thank you Herr Gloss.

It is a pleasure to be here and participate in this timely and important event.

I wish to congratulate Chancellor Merkel for the vision and foresight to seek the views of the private sector on three critical issues being considered by G-8 governments: investment, intellectual property rights, and climate change.

I have been asked to speak on striking the right balance between keeping markets open for foreign investment/mergers and government measures to protect the national security.

Let me state the U.S. business position at the outset:  Governments need to re-gain self restraint in the use of national security as a reason to interfere with foreign investment and mergers and acquisitions!

  1. Why Liberal Investment Regimes Are Important

As the Chairman of the United States Council for International Business, an organization representing some 300 multinational companies who trade and invest globally, the benefits of open investment regimes are readily apparent.

Our members know that open investment regimes by governments enables them to compete in global markets on the basis of their best offerings—their product design, development, production, sales and service.

And over the years, governments have recognized and welcomed the contribution foreign investment brings to their economies in terms of increased employment, output, productivity, technology and managerial skills and the like.  Increasingly from the mid 1990’s and into the mid 2000s, governments tore down their barriers to foreign investment.

The data on foreign investment flows reflect this attitude of governments.  In 2005, the value of global cross border investment flows throughout the world exceeded ten trillion dollars, nearly triple the amount of 1995.

III.  The Beginnings of Change

In the early years of this century, the drive to continue liberalization of barriers to foreign investment began to change in the United States and throughout the world.

September 11, and subsequent bombings in Spain, UK, India and Bali led to heightened security concerns in the U.S. and eventually these concerns found their way into the world of international investment.    

The failed attempt by a Chinese firm, CNOOC, to acquire a medium size U.S. oil company Unocal, raised questions in Congress and the public about foreign investors acquiring vital assets in the U.S.  Subsequently, the Dubai Ports transaction, which cleared the U.S. CFIUS national security review process, was unwound in the face of intense Congressional and public pressure.

Examples of government interference or potential interference with foreign takeovers are not limited to the U.S.:

  • Legislation has been proposed in Canada to amend the Investment Canada Act to provide clearer authority to review and prohibit if necessary foreign investments that could threaten the national security.
  • Japan is enhancing its pre-notification system regarding foreign takeovers of Japanese firms.
  • China has issued new rules that allow the government to vet foreign investments that involve a major industry, the impact of the investment on its economic security or the transfer of famous Chinese trademarks.
  • India is considering a new law to intensify its rules to restrict foreign investment in sensitive areas.
  • Russia is adopting legislation that would restrict foreign investment in natural resources and selected other industries and the ability of foreign enterprises to develop natural resource industries.

Beyond these pending legal changes there are a number of other disturbing developments:

  • The investment community has witnessed public declarations by political officials that certain industries were “off limits”
  • Market observers readily noted Pepsico’s failed bid for Danone Yougurt and Arcelor’s bid for Mittal Steel to foreign investors.
  • Italy had informed a foreign bidder for its toll road system that their investment “would not be welcomed” and the potential investor withdrew. (Since then Italy’s new Central Banker stated that Italy will not interfere with foreign takeovers in the financial sector).
  • French Presidential candidate Sarkhozy stated in a campaign speech that if elected President, French owned companies would be off limits to foreign buyers.

The investment community also witnessed seizing of property or forced sale of companies by Bolivia and Venezuela and Russia’s pressure on a large Western oil company (Shell) to sell a major stake in its Sakhalin Island oil project to a state-owned firm, Gazprom.

The point here is not to cast stones at the practices of others, but to demonstrate that in my view the cumulative effect of these actions has created a new policy challenge for global business and governments—to combat investment protectionism

  1. The Task Ahead

Business recognizes governments’ responsibility to protect the national security whether the threat comes in the form of military action or is imbedded in some aspects of a commercial transaction.

The difficulty for business is that governments seem to be losing self-restraint as the concept of national security has become extremely elastic when applied to foreign takeovers.  Moreover, in addition to national security constraints, governments are using their political influence to protect “strategic industries” and establish “national champions” from foreign takeovers.

Contributing to these developments, informal barriers such as public declarations or statements from high level officials that a bid for one of their companies “would not be welcomed,” and/or tacit arrangements with leading firms/financiers in the private sector supported or condoned by the authorities also have a deleterious effect on foreign investment.

Structural and cultural barriers may also have an adverse impact.  In many countries shares are not listed, some countries maintain a golden share, which can be used to block a takeover, and there may be cross holdings of shares that deter takeovers.  In some countries it just is not possible to undertake a “hostile” takeover.

  1. Recommendations

Transparency:

Last fall, the OECD Secretariat compiled an inventory of member practices to restrict investment on grounds of national security. Transparency of such measures can be an extremely helpful tool to hold governments accountable to their commitments.

Recommendation:

The OECD should update this inventory on an annual basis, and expand its scope to include the use of informal barriers, as these types of barriers can be quite powerful in deterring foreign takeovers.

Protecting the National Security:

Business recognizes that the world has changed dramatically since 9/11 and that governments must pay more attention to national security issues. But a legitimate concern for national security should not serve as an excuse to impede foreign investment. Blocking a foreign takeover for reasons of national security should be an extremely rare occurrence and should be taken as a measure of last resort, only when all other rules or tools that are designed to protect the national security are not adequate or effective. Further, blocking a foreign investment should not be used to obtain a commercial advantage for domestic firms.

Recommendation:

Governments need to take action at the highest level to avoid investment protectionism and to affirm in word and practice, their commitment to open, cross border investment.

Further, the G-8 should encourage the OECD to reach out to the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD to provide their input on the ways in which informal barriers can impede foreign investment and engage in a dialogue with OECD governments on ways in which these barriers can be reduced.

Taken together, these actions can make a difference and will serve to encourage the free flow and benefits of foreign investment.

Thank you for your attention!

Trade and Labor remarks by Abraham Katz

Remarks by Abraham Katz

President, International Organization of Employers

(also former U.S. Ambassador to the OECD and President Emeritus of USCIB)

“Trade and Labor”

Delivered to the ILO Governing Body

Geneva, March 25, 2007

I am not a member of the Governing Body: others will speak for employer members of the Governing Body. I speak to you on behalf of the world’s employers as organized in IOE.

Any observation: I was impressed by the study. It sheds valuable light on the policy issues in both employment and trade and their interaction.

But we must, recognize, as the study does, that trade is only one of the factors impacting employment on labor markets.

FDI swamps trade in size – some aspects of FDI are mentioned but there is much to be said. On the negative side, I have seen domestic companies fight FDI because it generally brings more progressive labor relations and productivity and competitiveness. FDI was one of the issues not included in the Doha Round Singapore 1996 Declaration.

But there is no denying beneficial effects on receiving, as well as on sending countries, of most FDI in terms of bringing needed capital, technical skills and spurring local industries.

Technological change is recognized but it is increasingly clear that it is far more significant than trade in affecting wage structures. And of course there are macro policies and financial developments.

All are included in the concept of globalization, and by now there is oft commented fact that perceptions in my country, in Europe and other developed countries is that globalization is the source of considerable anxiety in many countries about increasing insecurity and inequality.

The study correctly raises necessary policies to alleviate these anxieties – examples:

  • country social dialogue
  • active labor market policies
  • retraining; education for lifelong learning
  • portability of pensions, health insurance

All this implies an assumption that globalization is inevitable and irreversible and lets put a human face on it by policies which mitigate the pain and facilitate adjustment.

But I personally am concerned that globalization can suddenly go into reverse. Perhaps it’s the Cassandra in me but I fear we are today in danger of that happening and again the possible cause lies in the trade arena.

The paper speaks of trade reforms. I do not know what that means. Economists have often said trade liberalization is good for you and can well be done unilaterally – in fact, it might be better if tailored to a country’s needs.

However, we know that politically trade liberalization can only be accomplished by negotiating tit for tat balancing off import access for export access whether multilaterally (which I think we all agree in the best way) or bilaterally or regionally – most should feel it is a winner.

Assume then with me that one or more major trading power – I mean large markets – is suddenly impaired significantly its ability to negotiate.

Assume therefore that trade liberalization suddenly stops cold or is severely reduced – what does this do to confidence which is essential to globalization, to investment, to growth, to employment, to workers’ welfare, to decent work, to work.

We are in danger of this happening now. A populist wave expressing the anxieties that we are all aware of gives new impetus to the old 19th century idea of the social clause.

The IOE’s social partner, the International Trade Union Confederation, has posited new regulation of trade and investment to cope with the perceived iniquities and although they speak of doing this in the long run, they clearly mean the social clause.

But the discussion today is not theoretical or hypothetical; it is imminent and extremely political.

As an American, I do not think it appropriate to go into details about current policies in my country nor as President of the IOE about the movements and various signals coming out of other countries.

Let me simply cite Jagdish Bhagwati and other academics as well as Rod Abbot. If Doha fails it may be because of the political elevation of the social clause. I fear the entire study may become moot and we may suddenly find ourselves in a World reminiscent of the thirties when there was national legislation in major markets implementing the social clause, the spread of protectionist policies and drastic shrinking of foreign trade – sauve qui peut.

Not only will the trading system become a victim, but also the ILO, which is based on voluntarism and cooperation will become an anachronism.

Quoting from the letter of Rod Abbot to the FT, former European Commission trade negotiator and Deputy Director-General of the WTO:

“Given the fragile state of the Doha Round negotiations at present, and the past history of developing country members rejecting ideas for broader rules in the WTO (on investment and competition issues, and on procurement), any renewed effort in the labor arena would likely be the “kiss of death”.

and further from a more trenchant letter to the same newspaper from Jagdish Bhagwati, speaking of major developing countries they:

“…oppose the demands for inclusion of such standards in trade treaties, seeing them as continuing generalized, non-transparent and invidious export protectionism by fearful rich-country trade unions and politicians acting out of fear and self-interest to raise the cost of production abroad rather than from the altruism and empathy they occasionally profess.”

What are we talking about? Aren’t we all in favor of improving and assuring workers’ rights? Giving the benefit of the doubt to all those who seek to impose and improve those rights, especially in developing countries, for altruistic motivations we should look to their own statements for a clarification.

I cite part of a recent statement on TPA by the American trade unions:

“Congress should lay out “readiness criteria” to assess any potential trade agreement partner. These criteria should include economic opportunities for U.S. workers, firms and farmers; a country’s legal framework and enforcement regimes; a country’s compliance with International Labor Organization Standards, multilateral environmental agreements and fundamental human rights; and the existence of a democratic governance system. Only countries that meet these readiness criteria would be eligible for trade negotiations.”

Thus one major trading power would judge the eligibility of other trading partners for trade negotiations, both bilateral and multilateral. Let us assume further, however, that we could multilateralize this judgment of eligibility through some reform of trade and labor regulations and while ILO would judge transgression, the WTO would apply or authorize trade sanctions. Would it be likely to attain the unanimous consent of WTO and ILO members who would always be suspicious that the social clause cannot be repeated from its protectionist roots and impulses?

This is an old issue – the framers of our ILO Constitution eschewed compulsion or coercion through the trading system as some advocated at the time and adopted a voluntary approach, which informs the procedures and all the activities of this House.

Employers – the IOE as their organized representative – do still believe and support the principles, which are our foundation. They recognize that much remains to be done in the area of workers’ rights. This is why we actively supported the conclusions of the High-level meeting of 1987, which dealt with the problem of adjustment to exigencies of globalization and which spelled out nine tasks the ILO should undertake to facilitate adjustment. This is why we sponsored and supported what became the Convention on the worst forms of child labor. This is why we initiated and actively promoted the Declaration of Principles and Rights at Work.

Employers recognize that much remains to be done to assure the effectiveness of the Declaration. We have indications that our worker colleagues share this view and we stand ready with our tripartite partners to work on new ideas to accomplish this. In testifying before the Senate on the same issues after the Uruguayan Round, my colleague from the AFL/CIO complained that the ILO lacked teeth. Making the Declaration follow-up more effective is the way to go and not the surgical implantation of teeth – through the trade mechanism, which can lead to disastrous results for the world economy and especially for the workers themselves.

More on the International Organization of Employers

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

ILO website