....a few comments on the "global pay equity etc." discussion ...
(1) GEORGI DELUGUIAN's quote from a Russian newspaper -- I think it is
quite remarkable that the world-system school and Wallerstein are
explicitly and affirmatively quoted in a Russian newspaper.
(2) TERRY BOSWELL's points on global pay equity --
(2a) measurement issues -- this problem has, in part, been solved by the
Kravis/Heston/Summers group with/at the World Bank. Purchasing power parity
statistics are now available for most countries (see, e.g., World
Development Report 1997, or, Penn World Tables) so that the actual
purchasing power of wages can be more accurately assessed between countries.
(2b) enforcement issues -- a big problem. In my opinion, this could and
should be an ongoing fight by sectoral, national and transnational labour
organizations and their political allies, at all levels from local to global.
(2c) cost of business of Third World firms -- another difficult issue. If a
single firm pays higher wages than the competitors, it may be out of
business before long. Perhaps, the corporations which could most easily
absorb a higher wage would be TNCs operating in peripheral countries
(rather than indigenous small businesses). A Canadian businessman stated on
a radio talk show that the boots made by his company incorporate CAD$20 of
labour costs if made in Canada and CAD 20 cents if made in some Asian
country. A doubling of the Asian wage would hardly be noticed in his
overall profit. -- Other targets for collective action could be the global
monetary / exchange rate system.
(2d) While many more minds must mull over this multidimensional monster of
global pay inequity, I am very happy that you also think that, in your
words, "(r)aising global labor standards is...the most important task for
transnational progressive movements." Thanks.
(3) DAVID FRASER -- the problem of "global pay equity management", as you
call it. You doubt whether the industrialized countries will be interested
in creating global pay equity, given their "white positivist north
american-centric paradigm", as you say. -- I agree with you 100%. In my
opinion, the 175 NON-OECD countries and their labour etc. organizations
must put pressure on the 25 OECD countries in order to get a fair deal. By
comparison, the western women's movements did not wait for "male society"
to be nice and kind to them; they organized pressure and ignored all that
market propaganda.
(4) REBECCA PEOPLES / ANDREW WAYNE AUSTIN / ARNO TAUSCH on "unequal
exchange" -- the concept of "unequal exchange" was controversial among
leftists from the beginning. Raffer quotes Bettelheim as accusing Emmanuel
of "harbouring Keynesian tendencies." I side with Emmanuel and Raffer in
this, taking my cue from two observations, namely: (a) socialists from the
Third World (Emmanuel, Amin) are likely to be highly qualified to speak on
this issue and may know this better than Bettelheim and Marx (Europeans);
(b) Ernest Mandel's introduction to the Penguin edition of 'Capital'.
Mandel points out that Marx had planned to write additional volumes dealing
with the world market etc. more thoroughly; but he did not live long
enough. In my opinion, there is a theoretical gap in Marx's theory of
exploitation, and "unequal exchange" fills that gap. The definition of
exploitation as per Marx has trouble covering adequately the reality of
"rip-off of the low- and middle-income countries by the high-income
countries." That's why Emmanuel, Amin, Raffer and the world-system school
are needed.
(5) To conclude my comments -- Wallerstein called for renegotiation of
historically grown wage bargains in the world-system. When you
"renegotiate", you must have some clout and you must know what you want. A
common labour strategy is that "my workers want the same deal as those
other workers" [i.e. those with better wages]. For the workers of the
peripheral countries that means "my workers want the same deal as those
rich-country workers". A Mexican car factory worker puts the same number of
doors, wheels, etc. on a car as a Canadian automotive worker. If the
Mexican does not get the same wage, then he is relatively more exploited
than the Canadian friend, according to the LTV. In addition, I take a
global-Keynesian view on this as well, namely, if the Indonesians,
Mexicans, Russians, etc. earned higher wages, then they could buy more of
our commodities / goods and services -- which would create more jobs in
Canada, etc. For this reason, even labour in high-wage countries should
support global pay equity.
-gk