Re: A fairer distribution of the benefits of globalization

At 04:45 PM 3/30/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Mario José:
>To invalidate my argument that a well regulated and supervised
>globalization MUST be beneficial for both sides, you said: "This could
>be true if comparative advantages prevailed. In the truth, absolute
>advantages in the relations between north and south prevail. The results
>of the development of the North, therefore, are harmful & trim the
>populations and the environment of paises in the periphery."
>
>To have a really effective argument. you would have to prove, with
>concrete examples, that international trade NEVER takes account of
>comparative advantages. I do not think, that you could do that.
>
        Or could you for your claim of a context that is decontextualized of the
politics of trade and selective financing of projects which connects with
or ignores certain agendas.


>It is true, though, that many comparative advantages have not yet been
>developed; especially in the 3rd world.
>That is why I am recommending the type of industrial policies,
>that have been so effectively practiced by Japan, South Corea,
>Taiwan and other Asian Tigers. Therefore developing countries
>should NOT accept regular membership in the WTO, defending
>among others, their right to promote investments where they
>could have the greatest beneficial effects.

        The consumptive markets are already closed to 'them', typically by first
world tariff arrangements. 


>
>Allow me to illustrate this argument from a Chilean viewpoint.
>Chile is one of the worlds most important suppliers of copper,
>but exports it as enriched mineral or, at best, after smelting, as
>metallic copper.
>To improve the situation, Chile should condition the granting
>of new mineral concession on the obligation to export only
>products with more added value; e.g. transmission cables etc.
>
>Another example:
>Chile almost completely lacks its own oil or natural gas and
>produces a lot of electricity with natural gas, imported from
>Argentina.
>Nevertheless the country could produce electricity - at
>competitive prices - from their own sources of energy, such as
>geothermal-, hydro-, wind- and (somewhat later) solar power.
>Incentivating investments in such projects, Chile would immediately save
>a lot of badly needed foreign exchange, be able to EXPORT electricity to
>neighboring countries in the relatively near future and could become a
>world-class supplier of hydrogen, once the price of oil multiplies
>(something that could happen within the next 10 or 15 years).

First you would require getting oil and coal politics out of the state,
which is a different matter altogether. The premise of this argument of
yours is that 'what exists' is a type of known optimum for the historical
situation, if I am following you correctly. It's a type of functional
argument. You point out that there are other optimums (wind, thermal,
etc.), of which certainly I agree. However, I feel you lack a perspective
on the embeddedness of particular frameworks of consumption
institutionalization from the level of the state (and those in the state,
or helped by the state), plus who finances certain operations. 


Regards,


Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison