According to The New York Times, Harvard economist Dani Rodrik was given three minutes to give the other side to globalization in a session attended by high-powered business taipans and government leaders at the recently concluded World Economic Forum. He used his time to suggest how to make globalization work better – greater labor mobility.
According to the Times, the Harvard economist said it was a mistake of the Doha agenda of the WTO to be silent on the issue of labor mobility. The next free trade agreement should include rules that allow people from poor countries to work for three to five years in rich countries, he said, sending home part of their pay and eventually going home themselves to use their newly acquired skills to help spur economic growth and lift incomes.
Such a strategy, Rodrik asserts, "would yield gains for poor countries that would surpass all the gains in income that are likely to be achieved from the proposals that are on the agenda." Mr. Rodrik and his colleagues stress that for them, too, globalization – that is, integrating economies across the globe – is the correct final goal. Getting there is the trick.
There is no one absolute pattern for adopting the free trade dogma of Globalization. With regard to open markets, it is not correct to say we have to totally open our market to everything at once. Even the industrialized countries are still protecting some of their industries. In our case, there is an obvious need to protect some of our industries that need just a little bit more time and resources to become world class competitors.
But the key element of real globalization is open borders, more than open markets. As whole industries are dislodged due to open markets, labor should be able to move elsewhere. Keeping them trapped in an economy after they have lost their jobs to free trade is not only inhuman and unfair, but socially disruptive. Eventually, even the G-7 countries are affected by this outburst of social anger. To some extent, 9-11 is one such catastrophic example.
It is ironic that a strong anti-migration bias is now evident in countries that were built up by migrants. America and Australia have lost their sense of their roots as they are overtaken by a rightist inspired racist bias.
Unfortunately too, the developing world is also unable to get together to protect their interests as illustrated by the problems brought out by Trade Secretary Mar Roxas during the Doha talks. Somehow, the Third World succumbed to the divide and rule tactics of the North which rendered the Cairns alliance ineffective in protecting us and Thailand.
Our own experience with our OFWs validates the position taken by the Harvard economist at the World Economic Forum. Next time we talk or get talked to about globalization, let us insist on our own definition: Globalization means open borders as well as open markets.
The Pulse Asia survey debunks an earlier supposed survey by Ibon, a known leftist group. But even the Ibon survey couldn't hide a large number of Filipinos supporting Ate Glo. Between Ibon and Pulse Asia, Prof. Miranda's group is the more credible by a mile.
You don't have to have a PhD in Statistics or Political Science to know that people are increasingly frustrated with the stand-off in Basilan and Sulu. Things like sovereignty are much too complex to understand or to matter in contrast to the life and death concerns in the affected areas in the South.
It is also pretty obvious that the left is desperate to stop the alliance with the Yanks for the simple reason that long after the Abus are gone, a stronger armed forces will be around to get a better grip on the communist insurgency. Right now, our AFP is so weakened that the leftist guerrillas have been able to bomb buses and telecom towers at will.
Still, the ordinary Pinoys hope an improved law and order situation will result from this cooperation with the Yanks, by whatever name you call it – exercise or downright invasion. But Ate Glo is not home free until the objective of rescuing the hostages and finally crushing the Abus are accomplished. This could still politically boomerang on her if nothing happens despite all the firepower now in the South.
Little David comes home from first grade and tells his father that they learned about the history of Valentine’s Day. "Since Valentine’s Day is for a Christian saint and we’re Jewish," he asks, "will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"
David’s father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don’t think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"
"Osama Bin Laden," David says.
"Why Osama Bin Laden," his father asks in shock.
"Well," David says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish boy could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we’re not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little bit. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he’d love everyone a lot. And then he’d start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn’t hate anyone anymore."
His father’s heart swells and he looks at his boy with newfound pride.
"David, that’s the most wonderful thing I’ve ever heard."
"I know," David says, "and once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."
(Boo Chanco's e-mail address is bchanco@bayantel.com.ph)