By Francis Lee who looks at the politics of development and under-development for the Saker Blog.
I think it was Sir Ian Gilmour (now deceased) who, as one time member of Mrs Thatcher’s first Cabinet in 1979, referred to her economic policy as ‘Clause 4 dogmatism in reverse.’ (1) This was an apt description from a thinking Tory. The notion that there existed a magic panacea which would banish all the problems associated with Britain’s (and the world’s) economic ills, formed the basis of Thatcherism, Reaganism, and the Third-wayism of Clinton and Blair. The so-called ‘supply-side’ revolution consisted of removing all the controls from capitalism which had been painstakingly put in place over the centuries, and simply letting the system rip – and rip it did. The 1970s was the beginning of the interregnum to the new order of the 1980s and beyond, which had ushered in policies of privatisation, deregulation, liberalisation which were the key components of this policy paradigm.
In international terms free-trade and free-markets were of course at the heart of the system – a system which was to become known as ‘globalization’ and/or neoliberalism packaged and sold as an irresistible force of nature. It was considered, by all the people that mattered, that free-trade was always and everywhere the best policy. This view was codified in what was to become known as the ‘Washington Consensus.’ The new conventional wisdom was conceived of and given a legitimating cachet by political, business, MSM and academic elites around the world.
However, many of the elements – if not all – of the Washington Consensus were hardly new, and indeed many date back to the 18th and 19th centuries and perhaps beyond. It could be said that the newly emergent mainstream orthodoxy represented a caricature of an outdated and somewhat dubious political economy.
The theory that free trade between nations would maximise output and welfare was first mooted by Adam Smith, but its final elaboration was conducted by David Ricardo in his famous work The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation first published in 1817. Briefly, he argued that nations should specialise in what they do best and in that way world output would be maximised. This policy was called ‘comparative advantage’. The hypothetical example he used was England and Portugal and the production of wine and cloth, where he calculated that England should produce cloth and Portugal should produce wine. It was asserted, though no evidence was ever presented, that all would gain from this international division of labour. The theory is in fact full of unsubstantiated and seductive notions, but its practical application is limited. Because it is based upon so many rigid and static assumptions, it is especially appealing to those of a status quo disposition, including most present- day globalist thinkers.
However, even a cursory glance at economic history, and particularly the transition from agrarian to industrial societies, demonstrates the weaknesses, and indeed, serves to falsify the whole Ricardian trade paradigm. The brute historical fact is that every nation which has successfully embarked on this transition – including the UK – has done so adopting policies which were the exact opposite of those advocated by the free-trade school. In the world of actually existing capitalism, free-trade is the exception rather than the rule. Contemporary world trade is mainly a matter of intra-firm trading, that is, global companies trading with their own affiliates and subsidiaries in different countries, mainly for tax avoidance purposes (see below). Next there are regional trading blocs like the EU or US which erect tariff barriers to non-members. Thirdly there is barter trade where goods and services are exchanged for other goods and services rather than money. Finally, only about 20% at most, can be considered to be free trade, and even here there are exceptions involving bilateral specifications and agreements.
Modernisation and industrialisation, wherever it took place, involved tariffs, infant industry protection, export subsidies, import quotas, grants for R&D, patents, currency manipulation, mass education and so forth … a smorgasboard of interventionist policies whereby the economy was directed from above by the state. For example during its period of industrialisation the United States erected tariff walls to keep out foreign (mainly British) goods with the intention of nurturing nascent US industries. US tariffs (in percentages of value) ranged from 35 to almost 50% during the period 1820-1931, and the US itself only became in any sense a free-trading nation after World War II, that is once its financial and industrial hegemony had been established. In Europe laissez-faire was also eschewed. In Germany in particular tariffs were lower in the US, but the involvement of the German state in the development of the economy was decidedly hands-on. Again there was the by now standard policy of infant industry protection, and this was supplemented by an array of grants from the central government including scholarships to promising innovators, subsidies to competent entrepreneurs, and the organisation of exhibitions of new machinery and industrial processes. In addition, ‘’during this period Germany pioneered modern social policy, which was important in maintaining social peace – and thus promoting investment – in a newly unified country … ‘’(2)
It has been the same everywhere, yet the Ricardian legacy still prevails. But this legacy takes on the form of a free-floating ideology with little connexion to either practical policy prescriptions or the real world. It has been said in this respect that ‘’ … practical results have little to do with the persuasiveness of ideology.’’(3) This much is true, but it rather misses the point: the function of ideology is not to supply answers to problems in the real world, but simply to give a Panglossian justification to the prevalent order of things.
Turning to the real world it will be seen that ‘’ … history shows that symmetric free-trade, between nations of approximately the same level of development, benefits both parties.’’ However, ‘’asymmetric trade will lead to the poor nation specialising in being poor, while the rich nation will specialise in being rich. To benefit from free trade, the poor nation must rid itself of its international specialisation of being poor. For 500 years this has not happened anywhere without any market intervention.’’ (4)
This asymmetry in the global system is both cause and consequence of globalization. It should be borne in mind that the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are suppliers of cheap raw material inputs to the industrialised countries of North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. In technological terms the LDCs find themselves locked into low value-added, low-productivity, low-research intensive dead-end production, where no discernible development or technology transfer takes place. Thus under-development is a structural characteristic of globalization, not some unfortunate accident. Put another way:
‘’ … if rich nations (the North) as the result of historical forces, are relatively well endowed with the vital resources of capital, entrepreneurial ability, and skilled labour, their continued specialisation in products and processes that use the resources intensively can create the necessary conditions for their further growth. By contrast LDCs (the global-South) endowed with abundant supplies of cheap, unskilled labour, by intentionally specialising in products that use cheap, unskilled labour … will often find themselves locked into a stagnant situation that perpetuates their comparative advantage in unskilled, unproductive activities. This in turn inhibits the domestic growth of needed capital, entrepreneurship, and technical skills. Static efficiency becomes dynamic inefficiency, and a cumulative process is set in motion in which trade exacerbates already unequal trading relationships, distributes benefits largely to the people who are already well-off, and perpetuates the physical and human resource under-development that characterises most poor nations.’’ (5)
The cocoa-chocolate industry (hereafter CCI) of the West African nations, Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria are a case in point. These countries produce the majority of the world’s raw cocoa beans. But of course the industry as a whole is controlled by western multinationals such as Hershey, Nestlé and Cadbury-Schweppes (now Kraft). The structure of this industry – vertically integrated – is very typical of the relationship between the LDCs and the developed world. The low value-added part of the industry – growing and harvesting the beans – is left to individual farmers in West Africa. Buying agencies, either very close to, or in fact subsidiaries of multinational companies (MNCs), then buy the raw material at prices usually dictated by the MNCs. This asymmetrical relationship between supplier and sole buyers (the African farmers) is termed ‘monopsony’ in the economics jargon. It should be understood that large companies not only over-price their products to the final consumer, but also under-price their purchases from their captive suppliers. From then on, the various stages of the processing supply chain are in the hands of the parent company. From raw beans, to roasting, milling, refining, manufacturing of chocolate or cocoa, shipping, and packaging, branding and advertising – all of these stages add value to the product, value which is garnered by the MNC. The exporting African nations are left with the low or no value-added end of the operation, a technological cul-de-sac.
Nor does it end there. MNCs can avoid much local taxation by shifting profits to subsidiaries in low-tax venues by artificially inflating the price which it pays for intermediate products purchased from these same subsidiaries so as to lower its stated profits. This phenomenon is known as transfer pricing and is a common practice of MNCs – one over which host governments can exert little control as long as corporate tax rates differ from one country to the next. Hypothetically it works as follows:
Take a company called World Inc. which produces a type of food in Africa; it then processes it and sells the finished product in the United States. World Inc. does this via three subsidiaries: Africa Inc. (in Africa Malawi ), Haven Inc. (in a tax haven, British Virgin Islands with zero taxes) and America Inc. (in the United States).
1. Now Africa Inc. sells the produce to Haven Inc. at an artificially low price, resulting in Africa Inc. having artificially low profits – and consequently an artificially low tax bill in Africa. 2. Then Haven Inc. sells the product to America Inc. at a very high price – almost as high as the final retail price at which 3. America Inc. sells the processed product. As a result, America Inc. also has artificially low profitability, and an artificially low tax bill in America. By contrast, however, Haven Inc. has bought at a very low price, and sold at a very high price, artificially creating very high profits. However, Haven Inc is located in a tax haven – so it pays no taxes on those profits. Easy Peasy, no?
Bear in mind also that although the IMF and World Bank enjoin LDCs to adopt market liberalisation policies, they apparently see – or conveniently ignore – the past and current mercantilist practices of developed nations. Agriculture for example is massively subsidised in both the US and the EU. But it really is a question of don’t do what I do – do as I say. This hypocrisy at the heart of the problem represents the elephant in the room. We know that countries which attempt to open their markets when they are not ready to do so usually pay a heavy price (in the 1990s with Russia and the free-market shock-therapy for example). The countries which protect their growing industries until they are ready to trade on world markets have been the successes – even in capitalist terms. The wave of development in the 19th century and the development of East Asian economies during the 20th century bears witness to this.
But the object of the free-trade rhetoric and finger wagging posture of the developed world is precisely to maintain the status quo. We should be aware that: ‘’… multinational corporations are not in the development business; their objective is to maximise their return on capital. MNCs seek out the best profit opportunities and are largely unconcerned with issues such as poverty, inequality, employment conditions, and environmental problems.’’ (6)
Given the regulatory capture of the political structures in the developed world by powerful business interests, it seems that this situation is likely to endure for the foreseeable future. Development will only come about when the LDCs take their fate into their own hands and emulate the nation-building strategies of East Asia and in the 19th century by Germany and the United States. These leaders and leading nations were not to sit back and let the British rule the roost. They acted and they overcame.
Germany: Georg Friedrich List (1789-1846). He was a forefather of the German historical school of economics and ‘National System of Political Economy’. He argued for the German Customs Union from a Nationalist standpoint. He advocated imposing tariffs on imported goods while supporting free trade of domestic goods and stated the cost of a tariff should be seen as an investment in a nation’s future productivity.
The USA – Alexander Hamilton In the aftermath of ratification, Hamilton continued to expand on his interpretations of the Constitution to defend his proposed economic policies as Secretary of the Treasury. Credited today with creating the foundation for the U.S. financial system, Hamilton wrote three reports addressing public credit, banking, and raising revenue. In addition to the National Bank, Alexander Hamilton founded the U.S. Mint, created a system to levy taxes on luxury products (such as whiskey), and outlined an aggressive plan for the development of internal manufacturing.
The USA – President – Ulysses S Grant
“For centuries England has relied on protection, has carried it to extremes and has obtained satisfactory results from it. There is no doubt that it is to this system that it owes its present strength. After two centuries, England has found it convenient to adopt free trade because it thinks that protection can no longer offer it anything. Very well then, gentlemen, my knowledge of our country leads me to believe that within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer, it too will adopt free trade.” (7)
Markets have a strong tendency to reinforce the status quo. The free market dictates that countries stick to what they are good at. Stated bluntly, this means that poor countries are supposed to continue with their current engagement in low productivity activities. But engagement in those activities is exactly what makes them poor. If they want to leave poverty behind, they have to defy the market and do the more difficult things that bring them higher incomes – it is as simple as that, and there are no two ways about it.
NOTES
(1) Clause 4 was part of the British Labour Party’s early Constitution. But is no longer in any real sense part of the constitution of the contemporary UK Labour Party, setting out the aims and values of the party (New Labour) as it is now called. The original clause, adopted in 1918, called for common ownership of heavy industry, and proved controversial in later years; the then leader, Hugh Gaitskell, attempted to remove the clause after Labour’s loss in the 1959 general election.
In 1995, under the leadership of Tony Blair, a new (revisionist) Clause IV was adopted. This was seen as a significant moment in Blair’s redefinition of the party as New Labour, but has survived and become a centrist party along with sister parties in Europe and the Democratic party in the US beyond the New Labour branding.
(2) Kicking Away the Ladder – Ha-Joon Chang
(3) The Trillion Dollar Meltdown – Charles Morris
(4) How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor – Erik Reinert.
(5) Development Economics – Todaro and Smith
(6) Ibid – Todaro and Smith
(7) Collected Works
Francis Lee wrote:
When Reaganism first started, I remember thinking:
Voila.
Forty years later America has staggering income inequality, a brutally impoverished working class and an absurdly wealthy upper crust.
The violence is just starting and more violence is only a matter of time.
But Reagan is still considered an American hero, even to many of those whose lives are now ruined by Reaganism.
That just shows you how poorly educated Americans actually are.
It’s the party thing which far to many cling to like a comfort blanket or as Reagan said don’t speak evil of our party, and you are correct the American people on the average are an ignorant group as they get all their news from the MSN and as we all know they wouldn’t dream of telling a lie..
The past year has convinced me that it is not just Americans.
“Reagan is still considered an American hero”
So is John Wayne, and for the same reason.
Reagan was controlled by his VP who controlled the WH for 28 years: Reagan; himself; his partner in crime and adopted son, Bill; and Boy George. When you realize that he was a M0ssad agent, everything makes sense including JFK who was assassinated because he opposed transferring nuclear weapons technology to lsrael. Papa Shrub even admitted to being “near” Dallas that day. Bill’s Mena Airport in Arkansas helped Shrub’s organization with the distribution of their product. He carried out M0ssad’s orders regarding 9ll during his 28 year reign. 9ll triggered the forever wars for the Zionist Empire’s pursuit of world domination. Now the empire wants its vassals (NAT0) to wage war against Russia. They have no concern for human suffering just like they had no concern for it in the 20th Century when they caused the world wars. This is why our “educational” system discourages the skills of dot connection and Gestalt learning to hide the truth that would expose the guilty.
Francis has a clear picture of essential realities regarding economic organization. A well constructed essay.
The essential point he also makes clear. That being it is not a matter of reality. It is a matter of immediate personal self interest that drives policy. The purpose of economists is to obscure the difference between reality and the self interest of dominant egoists. As I keep trying to remind folks the historically dominant spiritual cultures (i.e., “religions) share an understanding that it is fatal to let the merchant class (in Marxist language – the bourgeoisie) control the government and the intellectual establishment. For the very sound reason that they will turn all critical decisions about policy into simple issues of private personal profit for the immediate benefits of the ruling egoists. Private interest controlling money and economic policy has led to ever greater spiritual decay ever since the Greco-Roman era. Private oligarchies play God. Michael Hudson has got this clearly worked out. So if you are going to have godless egoists running the world then it just becomes a denial game wherein egoism is determined to subject reality to its fantasies. This ultimately results in a global system run by what President Johnson admitted was “a murder Inc.” See the Saker’s essay about Biden and Belarus.
When UK’s Thatcher regime was put in power in parallel to U$A’s Reagan regime I called it the advent of the Gospel of Greed.
Their coming was heralded by Milton Friedman preaching Chicago economics. Friedman misled the sheep with his anti-government revelation: “The government are the only people legally entitled to print counterfeit money”. True, Uncle $cam gave himself legal permission to print as many $Dollars as he likes — but he has also given Rothschild legal permission to charge the U$ people to interest on each new $ that Uncle prints. Chicago economics cleverly drew people’s attention to POTU$A the Puppet, and away from Rothschild who pulls the strings. Chicago’s next financial product was Obama; remember “Quantitative Easing” of bankers who are “Too big to fail”? Naturally, British prime minister Brown echoed that call in sync with the POTU$. It’s not called **Anglo** Zio Capitalism for nothing.
What happening though is the monetary inflation is setting off trade deficit agreements due to basically cola’s.
Now if the trade #’s are adjusted to suit gvt needs, but the domestically created ones years ago are not.
This would confirm intention of the gvt inflating their way out of the cost of living nightmare but leaving the citizens severely hamstrung to gvt financial control and rules that discriminate.
Your sentences are not grammatical/logical. Therefore, their meaning is unclear.
“In the world of actually existing capitalism, free-trade is the exception rather than the rule. ”
And yet the neo-liberal project always claimed to be implementing ‘free-trade’ while doing the opposite. The ‘left’ always accepted the neo-liberals’ word that they were doing what they said they were doing, the more ‘radical’ they were the more they accepted that the neo-liberals were creating free trade rather than a scheme to transfer tax money to rich people via sub-contracters for public services. Psy-op anyone?
First and foremost, what a fantastic article that you have written, Mr. Lee! Considering the scope of what you have undertaken, you have accomplished your mission in amazingly few words ……….. which is important in a world is which anything over 200 words is pushing the attention-span limit of the Genteration T(weet).
“But the object of the free-trade rhetoric and finger wagging posture of the developed world is precisely to maintain the status quo.” Ain’t it the truth. Ain’t it the unvarnished, ultimate truth. I would add here that when “the West”(ern transnational coporations) conquer nations, they (the US) does not make them new states of the United States of America. Why? Because, as you allude, it’s much better for the US to install in those nations corrupt puppet governments who will obey those transnational corporations’ orders to the letter in order to acquire the rewards for doing so. Their populations can/will end up living in abject, never ending poverty. (Better to be master than a slave ……….. a hammer than a nail.)
” Stated bluntly, this means that poor countries are supposed to continue with their current engagement in low productivity activities. But engagement in those activities is exactly what makes them poor. If they want to leave poverty behind, they have to defy the market and do the more difficult things that bring them higher incomes – it is as simple as that, and there are no two ways about it.“
And to do that they’ll literally have to fight for their lives. The military forces of Terminatior Nation, actting on behalf of the transnationnal corporations, will force them to do that. The world Smedley Butler described many decades ago carries on today, but far more extremely. Talk about harsh reality.
(Now, let’s all go and enjoy “our” inexpensive hot chocolate, inexpensive coffee and inexpsnsive bananas on our inexpensive cereal while the slaves that produced them starve.)
Again, you have written a fantastic, concise article, Mr. Lee. Thanks very much for it.
(PS The first casualties of war really are the truth and, almost always, those who tell it, so please be careful, Mr. Lee. Maybe the Charles Dickens strategy might be the way to go in our 1984 future. You know, writing “fiction”.)
Hail I -thanks to Mr Lee and Mr Hudson for their kindness and love for humanity to put in clear and simple words what’s happening in the real world.Anyone having read their works -will now say ‘aha so that’s how they have us by the cojones’.Well no more my eyes have been opened the scales have fallen away ah the light.Thanks too Saker for put it out there- for us.Peace
The “Washington Consensus” policy mentioned in this article is more aptly described as America’s rapacious Free Market Capitalism in general.
John Perkins’ book _Confessions of an Economic Hitman_ describes his own personal experiences as an economic hitman for the American Empire and the tactics that the USA uses to impose its predatory capitalist system on other nations.
Perkins himself was specifically involved in perpetuating this type of American economic terrorism in Latin America and thus provides eyewitness testimony to the tactics that the USA employs. This terrorism involves economic bribery, political regime change/destabilization, and, if all else fails, military aggression.
And “Freedom and Democracy” are the propaganda mask of this American state terrorism.
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
https://resistir.info/livros/john_perkins_confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man.pdf
Thank you for the wonderfully explained article explaining the true nature of the economic and financial aspects of globalization.