GLOBALIZATION AND THE ETHICS OF TRADE
By Jean-Yves NAUDET
Professor at the Université Paul Cézanne (Aix-Marseille III)
Centre Director Research in business ethics
(Reprinted in "Moral report on the money in the world in 2002"
published by the Association for Financial Economics)
The trial focused on the critical globalization movement is often placed on the map ethical globalization increase inequality, deplete natural resources at the expense of future generations would keep the third world in poverty, destroy the environment, exacerbate social problems. All these observations are largely on a moral and often result in a conviction of the principle even with globalization or at least its current arrangements.
A more balanced judgments on globalization should not lose sight of these ethical considerations. But for the economist, this decision may be brought only by returning to the base of what globalization: a generalization of the exchange, a phenomenon which, it is natural. Not since the source and whether the exchange that globalization only makes it universal is ethical in principle, globalization will be. This takes nothing away from problems or scandals that may come with globalization, but it prevents criticize in principle, by considering itself as immoral.
We observed previously that there is an ambiguity in the critical anti-globalization, which includes two diametrically opposed: one considers that globalization destroys the third world, preventing its development, increasing global inequality, and So globalization is against the third world, to its detriment, the second on the contrary think that globalization is ruining the country rich, invading by unfair competition from low wages and poor social conditions, ruining businesses in developed countries , threaten their agriculture by the invasion of cheap goods and destroying jobs. Both criticisms are contradictory and there is at least two types of arguments in the current anti-globalization.
exchange, a positive sum game
In both cases, the starting point is a zero sum game, with a winner (the poor countries or rich country, according to cases) and a loser. That actually would make globalization immoral, because the exchange would be well. Now there is a contradiction on what exchange. It is in all cases it is free and voluntary, a positive sum game, a source of wealth creation. There are two winners in the exchange (both partners) which makes the ethical superiority. This comes from the subjective value of traded goods: the value is assessed by each co-exchangers differently. Whoever sells attaches more value to what they are buying only what separates it (otherwise it would not do) and who buys in turn gives more to this than what it buys it sells, otherwise it would not: motivation is a free exchange that everyone is benefiting. So there is a net gain that benefits both parties and the exchange may be uneven since each derives subjective satisfactions, of which there is no objective measure: it will depend on the use that we will do good purchased. It is these differences of opinion which in fact cause the exchange.
More fundamentally, the exchange is based on a fundamental ethical principle: that of two free wills who meet in a contract, also negotiated freely, exchange their properties and legitimate themselves obtained by creating a work or another exchange. The exchange is thus based on a moral principle, that of freedom of consent and one is never obliged to accept an exchange, at least if you are, as globally, in a general climate of competition: there is monopoly in the trade can be constrained.
EXCHANGE AND BURST OF KNOWLEDGE
To understand the ethical nature of trade, we must go back to its source, which is due to the bursting of knowledge and information. None of us, no company, no country, no person can know everything and that's why we practice the division of labor, specialization that allows for the qualities and knowledge of others and to benefit more of our own information and qualities. The market, which relies on the exchange, is nothing but a vast system of information processing and we know that attempts at centralized processing of information through a mandatory planning, have all failed. Authors such as FA Hayek emphasized the role of ignorance in economic life. Unlike believed that neoclassical economists, we are not perfect information, but partial information. The prices are nothing other than a system of information processing. More generally, the division of labor and the resulting exchange is a way to acquire, in finished products, knowledge, know-how, skills, information from others. The exchange leads to progress for all, where again its ethical dimension, because it enhances the overall stock of knowledge that everyone can benefit. It is clear that generalized exchange globally, it increases the overall field of knowledge which everyone can benefit.
To these basic arguments in favor of trade as general as possible, we can add that the globalization of trade has other more ethical consequences applied this time.
First, it is obvious that if the exchange is mutually beneficial, it also has positive consequences when he made between companies in countries of different levels of development for poor countries like rich countries.
For poor countries, allows the exchange to purchase goods needed for development, property that can not produce themselves (capital goods) and to find outlets for what they produce (exports). Globalization is a factor of development here and we know that trade is the best form of development assistance, much greater public support, often wasted. History shows that countries closed dug more into poverty and that development has benefited (from the South-East Mauritius) countries playing the game of the opening International. All countries, even the poorest, have assets to bring in terms of human capital and low cost of labor may give them an advantage offset lower productivity: Gradually development will improve wages and social protection.
For rich countries, we know that trade has supported economic activity and is a stabilizing economy and in the opposite direction can be clearly seen in 1929, for example, how isolationism has worsened conditions. Also must see the benefits for the producer (through exports), but also for the consumer ( through imports), which can get cheaper products: what is often presented as a danger to the contrary is a benefit in a consumer society: it enjoys comparative advantages of others and their efforts and productivity gains.
FREE TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND POLITICAL
Then it is true that economic openness does not always come with political openness and this is hindering the benefits of trade: countries who refuse fundamental freedoms derive less from trade than those who play the game democracy and human rights. But it is clear - it was clearly seen with Eastern Europe - or as close to us with Portugal, Spain and Greece - that the exchange of products is not without an exchange of ideas , men, information and values. In this sense, free trade may be a factor in political liberalization, which, again, gives it an ethical superiority. The exchange is typical of public companies and not closed and impersonal relationships. The generalization of trade mark a movement - accentuated by the fall of the Berlin Wall for companies freedoms, economic freedoms which form a part. There is an ethical respect for human rights and respect can, through the exchange, extend the economic sphere to the political sphere: it's what you can expect gradual participation in trade countries like China.
Certainly, opponents of globalization are concerned about risks to the ethics of domination by one country (the United States in this case) or group of countries (OECD for example) over others. It is true that the hegemony has no ethics. but it rests on a contradiction: we reason as if the exchange is made from state to state, government to government, between countries, as in a state trading. But the exchange is not unlike the 'current term, international, and it is between firms - even between people in our everyday purchases - and there is no substantive difference between an exchange between two entities in a country and an exchange between two companies in two countries different. The same principle is at stake and this is especially true that no product can be considered as 100% of a single country. The smallest has manufactured components, raw materials, subcontractors or services from numerous countries and the traceability of all would be very difficult to reconstruct, as the interpenetration of economies is already a fact.
GLOBALIZATION IS A FACT
Globalization is a fact is a reality. Like any human action, it has weaknesses, risks, limitations. But the principle can not be disputed, at least ethically. As to the practical level, even the fiercest opponents of globalization by using all instruments, all means, communicate via the internet using their laptop, take the plane and send faxes and use of all technologies that eliminate boundaries between people. In this sense everyone, even opponents of globalization, recognizing as a fact.
remains that globalization raises concerns because it conveys, like all human action, good and evil, the strengths and weaknesses of men and that it is in the real world, that of 'imperfect men, and not in an ideal world, one that would give perfect men. Among these concerns, one is more interesting than others, is the fear of cultural uniformity that would result from globalization and the preservation of national cultures and local course has an ethical dimension. In reality, globalization is acting here as any economic phenomenon: there is destruction and creation (as in "creative destruction"). And if some differences disappear, others appear.
But it reminds us that the more our economic vision is broad, across the planet now, it becomes essential for each root locally in traditions, in communities, in civil society. The globalization trend will be more "humanized" that we will realize that the economy is not the right man and that man has dimensions that are cultural or emotional, too, is develop, take root and serve as a counterweight to economic globalization. If globalization is the diversity of trade and products, it must also be accompanied by greater diversity, with a strong and vibrant civil society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment