|A Raspberry for Free
Protectionists serve up tainted fruit and red herrings.
Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at MIT whose books include The Age of Diminished Expectations and Peddling Prosperity. His home page contains links to many of his other articles and essays. (posted Thursday, Nov. 20)
Would President Clinton
have suffered his humiliating rebuff over fast-track trade legislation
if the administration had not wasted crucial months failing to take the
issue seriously? I don't know. Will that rebuff severely damage the world
trading system? I don't know. Is this the beginning of a more fundamental
backlash against globalization? I don't know that, either.
the story: Last spring, there was an outbreak of a nasty disease known
as cyclosporiasis, which was eventually traced to Guatemalan raspberries.
Together with some other incidents, this led to a demand for tougher controls
on imported produce. A few weeks ago, Clinton asked for legislation that
would allow him to ban food imports from countries that do not follow adequate
sanitary standards in agriculture. Intellectual opponents of globalization
gleefully noted a double standard: We're willing to seize shipments of
foreign berries to protect yuppie consumers (the sort of people who eat
raspberries out of season) from inadequate foreign sanitary standards,
so why aren't we willing to protect U.S. workers from inadequate foreign
labor standards? Isn't it the same thing?
It isn't the same thing, as the example of Kathie Lee Gifford will now demonstrate. A few months back, you may remember, the infernally perky Gifford got some bad press when it turned out that some of her clothing line was produced in Central American sweatshops employing child labor. Since then she has had other problems, which are more up Bob Wright's alley than mine. But it is useful, as a thought experiment, to ask how opponents of imports would have reacted had the story been slightly different.
that the United States imported a lot of clothing from the nation of Freedonia.
Without question, the growth of these imports had cost some jobs in the
United States, and possibly exerted some downward pressure on American
wages. Economists might point out, in their tiresome way, that the jobs
lost in the clothing industry were more than matched by jobs gained elsewhere.
They might point out that trade, by allowing each country to specialize
in doing what it does relatively well, normally raises productivity and
incomes in both countries. But these arguments would not be much consolation
to the displaced workers, or to the owners of the affected clothing factories,
and we would surely see a campaign against Freedonian products--a campaign
that would make the most of stories about the low wages and terrible working
conditions in Freedonian factories.
Now suppose that an investigative journalist visited Freedonia and discovered that it was all a sham. In reality, Freedonia was a high-tech, high-wage economy: The Freedonian government had been faking poverty in order to avoid paying U.N. dues. And Freedonian clothing manufacturers were able to undersell their U.S. competitors not because of low wages but because robots and computers made them highly efficient.
the question: Would the people demanding limits on Freedonian exports say,
"Oh well, I guess that's OK, then"? Whom are we kidding? The
demands for protection would not abate because for the U.S. industry competing
against imports, it doesn't matter how the clothing was produced.
When the U.S. consumer is offered cheaper shirts from abroad, the United
States loses the same number of shirt-making jobs regardless of whether
the shirts were produced by workers making 30 cents an hour or $30 an hour.
Now I come to berry seizures--not to praise them (sorry, I couldn't help myself) but to point out how different the case is. For consumers of berries, it does matter how the berry was produced: If it was watered with sewage, eating it will make you sick. And for now the only practical way to enforce health standards on the product is to enforce sanitary standards on its production. But if we impose the Inverted Kathie Lee Gifford test--asking how our attitude would change if it turned out that farmers in Guatemala were actually much cleaner than rumor had it--we immediately see that our concern about foreign sanitary standards, unlike our alleged concern about foreign labor standards, is genuine.
those who want to impose import restrictions against countries with low
labor standards willing to lift those restrictions against countries that
start to pay decent wages? Circa 1970 Japan was still a low-wage country,
accused of keeping its workers in "rabbit hutches" in order to
pursue its relentless export drive. By the early 1990s Japanese wages were
actually higher than those in the United States. Did the Japan-bashers
relent? In 1975 South Korean wages were only 5 percent of those in the
United States; by 1995 they had risen to 43 percent. Did opposition to
Korean exports dissipate?
The real complaint against developing countries is not that their exports are based on low wages and sweatshops. The complaint is that they export at all. And so the supposed friends of poor workers abroad are no friends at all. If they got their way the result for the poor Freedonian would not just be no sweatshop--it would be no job. And manufactured exports, initially based on low wages, are the only route we know for rapid economic development.
I pointed out in an earlier
column in Slate, the growth of labor-intensive exports
from Third World countries, a development possible only because those countries
are able to offset their disadvantages by competing on the basis of cheap
labor, has brought about a huge improvement in the human condition, even
if the wages look miserably low by our standards.
It is hard to believe that people who have spent years, even decades, writing about economics are really so fuzzy-minded that they cannot see the difference between protecting consumers from tainted produce and protecting workers from competing products. On the other hand, I doubt that they are purely cynical. It is more likely that some kind of double-think, some convenient ability to stop thinking clearly when the situation demands it, is at work. But the truth is that I don't know--and I don't think it matters.
The FDA released an advisory on tainted berries. Live Regis & Kathie Lee has pages on upcoming guests and recipes. Kathie Lee's biography does mention her lobbying against inhumane working conditions, but it does not mention her troubles with her husband. A Reuters article covers President Clinton's "Last Ditch Pitch for Fast Track." To learn more about fast track, read Slate's "Gist."
Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at MIT whose books include The Age of Diminished Expectations and Peddling Prosperity. His home page contains links to many of his other articles and essays.
Illustrations by William L. Brown.