DEVELOPMENT POLICIES - plus answer to STING2 (NatSecThread continued)

[hiphop]

National security is anything that has a serious effect on our country whether it be from within are borders or outside our borders.

Domestic security is defined as security within US national borders and this distinction is often used when questions of whether federal troops, meaning the US military can participate in operations. Domestic security is primarily the job of police and FBI and US military are prohibited normally from participating in such things.

Profit can be defined as a security matter. The more a company or business profits, the more money is available for expansion and the employment of more workers. In addition, the more a business profits, the more money goes to the federal government to in the form of taxes to pay of debt, support education, build roads, pay the military, and other important things for a country. This is important and the invasion of another country that is an important trading partner of the USA would have a major impact on the United States economically which effects everything. The difference between security and need? Security is something that everyone needs.

Homeland security is domestic security and an aspect of National security. National Security involves both domestic and international security.

National security involves the threat and use of violent force or foreign military force used in a way that somehow adversely effects the the country in some way. This could involve invading a trading partner or several trading partners or countries that we have a strong relationship with to directly attacking the within its national borders.

Not going to Mcdonalds might hurt Mcdonalds, but the fact is you have to eat and your going to buy something else and someone else is going to profit unless of course you grow all your own food. There is a massive difference between citizens of one country restricting their purchases of goods and services and the military of another country invading and stealing a countries goods and services whether they be foreign or domestic with in that country. Both effect the country economically, but a military invasion could involve an immediate cut off business, where as consumers restricting their spending does not have as drastic an effect. If oil from the middle east were somehow completely cut off, there would be a massive jump in the world price of oil that would endanger the economic health of the world, which would endanger everyone's jobs which are their means to support themselves. But if consumers simply restrict their spending, such an effect would not happen and is caused by individuals within a country acting freely, and not coercion by a foreign military power.
Its in the national interest of a country for its citizens to spend, it becomes a national security issue though, when a foreign military or domestic group engages in violent action which among other things hurts the economic well being of this country and other countries.

Your entitled to your views but I strongly support Globalization. My sister is apart of it. An American, working for a British Company, in Dublin Ireland. U2 is apart of Globalization and could be considered one of the largest Multi-National corperations in the world. Few business whether small are large see profits like they do. Of course they are not in the big leages. Economic research has shown that free trade and capitalism properly regulated, are the way to achieve prosperity.

I think you have failed to understand somethings that I have said. I never said the USA necessarily saw at the begining of World War I that the world was becoming interdependent. It went to war in Europe because of its national and economic ties with the Allied countries in World War I. An interdependent world is a very decentralized world. Power is not nearly as centralized as it was 100 years ago. Globalization is partly responsible for this.

The world is not completely interdependent but becomes more interdependent everyday. Yes, there is extreme poverty in many parts of the world and the way to wipe out this poverty is to allow free trade and globalization to continue. It may take decades or over a century, but it will lead to a more prosperous world for everyone. Countries like South Korea that were a poor primarily farm country in 1950 are now Economically strong and growing. There are dozens of countries around the world that have greatly improved their standards of living over 50 years or 100 years ago.

In a very few points I can agree with you, but the data I have access to show that "third world" countries, the so-called periphery, have not profited as much from globalization as you may think.

Keep in mind that our opinions and our thoughts are all based on an Euro/US-centralistic point of view.

So your opinion is that globalization benefits anyone, or at least allows developing countries to improve the standards of living for a big part of their society.

Lets take a look at development policies. The "classical" economists, like Adam Smith (1723-1790) or David Ricardo (1772-1823), thought that free world trade would be a precondition for rising wealth. All nations who were supporting free world trade, should follow Ricardos theory of comparative cost advantage and to specialize in production of what they were best at. In Ricardos example, England concentrates on the production of clothes/ drapery, Portugal on the production of wine - so finally both profit.

But the practical experiences show that free trade - different from theory - only advantages and benefits the economies that are already strong; some rulers realized that as early as in the 17th century, and if their economies were weak, they tried to protect themselves with mercantile practices. Consequently, 19th century Germany, which was still economically weak compared to England at this time, formulated a different position on free trade: protective duties/ tariffs were essential, to keep growing industries protected from almighty foreign competition (details see the economist Friedrich List, 1841).

Now, that?s a quarrel that continued far into the 20th century; two different positions, protectionism vs. free trade, the instrument of economically weak against the instrument of economically powerful.

Those strategies only had an inferior role at the time of the worldwide economic crisis ?29, and WWII, when trade and commerce broke down and the powerful centers had to concentrate on "their own business". The peripheral countries that produced raw materials (forgive my bad english, but you can follow me, I think) were trying to build their own production capacities, because imports weren?t available or couldn?t be afforded. With that strategy they were able - with all their structural weaknesses - to spread their own economic base until the start of the 60s. The economic code of practice was theoretically based upon the New Deal: active state role, strategic planning, and industrialization concentrated on the domestic market (after the reactivation of world trade).

Import-substituting industrialization was theoretically established by the CEPAL (Comision Economica para America Latina), a UN - commission, in 1948. An important part of this theory was defined by Raoul Prebisch, a conservative economist, who researched on the terms of trade, and concluded that the average prices of industrial goods in compare to the average prices of raw materials were heading in different directions, meaning that industrial goods get more expensive while raw materials stay on the same price level, or get "less more expensive" (lower inflation rate).

This is why developing countries, in order to be able to import the same amount of industrial goods every year, have to rise the amount of raw materials they export continually. The way out of that trap was importsubstituting industrialization, regional economic cooperation and, coming with this, a change of the rules of international division of labor.

Also other growth theories of the 40s-60s tried to achieve a "catch-up" industrialization for developing countries, one example being Walt R. Rostow (1960), who said that "traditional societies" - hierarchic, fatalistic, much agriculture, less technology - would finally reach mass consuming status after three steps. The take-off phase, Rostow said, would be crucial for success.

However, modern theories were not thinking to historical pre-conditions, or to worldwide trade structures (defined throughout history). They stated that the reasons development didn?t work out were based on endogenous factors, f.e. not enough plans for raising efficiency (social psychology) or (an important point of economic theorists) blamed it on the absence of enough capital.
Economical stagnacy was every countries? own fault, and always had its reasons in having not enough of something: of motivation, of education, of rationality, of democracy, of capital.

About the start of the 70s - after the crisis of 68, Vietnam, and oil crisis - it became obvious that importsubtituting industrialization had its borders as well, that capitalism didn?t guarantee development for everyone, and was far from keeping its promises of fast paced economical development for everyone.

Development theories started to concentrate on (socio-)economic general conditions that were defined by the interdependent and asymmetric capitalist world system. Structural dependency theories, neo-imperialistic theories, theories of unequal barter,...

The most important "think tank" was the dependence theory, which was formulated mostly by representatives of countries of the periphery, from India, from Northern Africa, and from Latin America. Many authors (including F.H. Cardoso, R. Cordova, R.M. Marini, O. Sunkel, A.G. Frank) dealt with questions like
a) how economical and social structures were influenced/ directed by colonialism
b) international division of labor on the "third world"s account
c) the roles and methods of foreign capital and multinational corporations.

(Collective) self - reliance or de-linking were concepts to sheer out of the world market dependencies. But apart from theoretical debates, development planning acknowledged a problem: even if (or because?) there were industrialization and modernisation measures in peripheral regions, the unequality of income and land distribution continued and grew, and the big part of the population stayed in absolute poverty. The answer to that problem seemed provision of work, fight of poverty, and more attention on the agricultural sector.

In the middle of the 70s, the World Bank introduced its "basic needs development" strategies. By openly stating that everyone has basic needs, the World Bank had to admit that industrialization in a western form, or Rostows? mass consuming status, were unreachable goals for peripheral regions; that in fact development (first and above all) meant the achievement of absolute minimum standards, like food, water, probably housing. This pessimistic view was not only strengthened by economic data, but also by the idea of the "Limits to Growth", like the document by the Club of Rome 1972, stated.

In the 80s, the positions that quoted capitalism as the root of all evil, slowly disappeared. With the restauration of the dominant capitalist governance system, neo-liberalism and the expertises of its think tanks were on the rise. Their model, pretending to show a way out of the crisis, was based (very different from the dependence-theoretical assumptions) on extensive integration into the capitalist world market. Exports should be accelerated, goods traffic and monetary transactions liberalized, foreign investments be eased and supported,... another phase of globalization hit peripheral countries. Deregulation should not only shape the economic relations of peripheral countries to the central countries, no, also home-policy-wise every economic activity had to follow the machinery of the market.

This model was implemented about everywhere and the reason for its "wide acceptance" is that most of the highly indebted countries of the "third world" had no other chance than to accept the adjustment of structural (economy) programs that were forced upon them by their creditors and international finance institutions.

With the end of the Cold War and strengthened world trade, development now is an inner problem of each and every country again. The neoliberal model postulates conformation and economic adjustment, while it doesn?t offer any specific development goal. There seems to be no place for development strategies based on the needs of peripheral countries.

The widespread protests (Seattle, G?teborg, Genova etc.) against the representatives and beneficiaries of globalization show that capitalism is in doubt and questioned again, not only by peripheral countries, but also by citizens in the so- called first world. We will see if that leads to a renaissance of development theories.


(A lil?postscriptum to STING2: The assumption that U2 are a part of globalization is bewildering - they are a rock band whose products are sold globally. The assumption that your sister is a part of globalization is questionable as well; just because she lives in another country doesn?t make her "politically" a part of any globalization process.... you may say globalization affects her, but I think that ain?t an effect of globalization, but of international work permit)

 

[STING2]

I've already said that much of the world continue's to experience wide spread poverty. I never said that Globalization would be quick fix for anything. I emphasized that it could take over 100 years before we would see major improvements in many area's of the third world.

The USA currently leaves itself almost totally open to trade, buying over 1 Trillion dollars in goods and services from around the world. Thats over 1 Trillion dollars that benefits the global economy. I have already mentioned the economic transformation of countries like South Korea in addition there is Tawain, Singapore, and Malaysia. China and India are way ahead of where they were 20 years ago because they are increasingly following privatising their economies and opening themselves to free trade in order to gain access to other markets. Although Eastern Europe(excluding former Soviet Union) still has a long way to go, they are better off than they were decades ago.

Many countries in the Third World will need debt relief, political stability, and some foreign before they can be positively effected by Globalization. Increasing trade over the past century among "First World Countries" has produced very positive results for those countries as the standard of living and wealth in those countries has tripled since World War II.

I think you have a very different definition of the word Globalization from me. I consider anything that crosses a national border, whether it be a person, a product, or a service, to be apart of Globalization. The decreasing tarrifs and other barriers to trade that we see today is another part of Globalization. So is the increase of technology that has facilitated an increase in international travel. Communications, the interenet is a huge part of Globalization! A forum like this where people around the world could debate topics from the basements of their own homes was unthinkable 25 years ago by the average person. One day language will not be a barrier, as devices that can translate any language proliferate around the globe.

U2 like any band that crosses a national border, with the sell of albums and records, concerts or anything else, is apart of Globalization. How many music artist mounted 157 date tours to 20 different countries around the world on nearly all the continents over 100 years ago? My sister is also a perfect example of increasing Globalization because she is an American working for a British Company in Dublin Ireland. By the way, I look at it more as she is postively effecting business by a British firm in Dublin, they are lucky my sister decided to work for them because of her incredible tallent. International work permits are also another good example of Globalization. There has been a massive increase in this over the past 100 years and inside the EC you no longer need this to work in another country. This is the future, this is Globalization, the world is continueing down this road because most people benefit in some way from the process.

Globalization is broad term the includes many different things. You seem to define Globalization in very narrow political terms and certain effects on third world countries. What Globalization is is much larger than that. Globalization simply put is the increase in people, products, services, communication, moving in between national borders for a multitude of different reasons and purposes.

 

[hiphop]

I've already said that much of the world continue's to experience wide spread poverty. I never said that Globalization would be quick fix for anything. I emphasized that it could take over 100 years before we would see major improvements in many area's of the third world.

...Thats over 1 Trillion dollars that benefits the global economy. I have already mentioned the economic transformation of countries like South Korea in addition there is Tawain, Singapore, and Malaysia. China and India are way ahead of where they were 20 years ago because they are increasingly following privatising their economies and opening themselves to free trade in order to gain access to other markets.

Many countries in the Third World will need debt relief, political stability, and some foreign before they can be positively effected by Globalization. Increasing trade over the past century among "First World Countries" has produced very positive results for those countries as the standard of living and wealth in those countries has tripled since World War II.

I think you have a very different definition of the word Globalization from me.

Globalization is broad term the includes many different things. You seem to define Globalization in very narrow political terms and certain effects on third world countries.

We have very different definitions, true. Anyway, we are the same opinion about debt relief, it seems; it is important though to note that debt relief must not be bound to foreign direct investments (you meant fdi?s with foreign....?).

To mention that "globalisation" is not a quick fix, is cynical, when you look at the following data. To emphasize that "it could take over 100 years" may be true, but only for the one reason that development is slowed down by the actors of neo-liberalism.

The "development optimism" of the 50s and 60s was based on the formula development=economic growth=industrialisation. R. Kapuscinski f.e. tells us of a debate between Walt R. Rostow (mentioned before) and Rene Dumont in Addis Abeba in 1963, in which they were discussing if Africa would reach the development status of Switzerland in 20 or in 40 years (Kapuscinski 1995). So, 40 years have passed, and the economical status of Africa is further away from the one of Switzerland than ever. If the GDP per person was 10% of Switzerland in 1950, in 1998 the GDP p.P. was only 6,4% of Switzerlands GDP p.P. (Maddison 2001). Also the difference in terms of life expectancy has grown. If, at the start of the 70s, a man that lived in Sub - Saharan Africa, was dying an average 28,5 years before of a Swiss man, the difference in the second half of the 90s was 29,8 years (United Nations Development Programme UNDP 2001).

So, has development been a dishonored promise? You could answer that question twice. In absolute terms, we can see some positive changes. Life expectancy of the third world has risen in the 70s - to an average 64 years - , child mortality rates were sinking, from 11% to 6,1% (which is still a lot). Then, the rate of illiteracy amongst adults went from around a third to around a fifth. Income, defined as GNP p.P. (in real purchase power) of countries of the third world has nearly doubled between 1975 and 1998. Also the number of people that have to make a living with less than one US$ per day, has decreased from 28,3% in 1987 to 24% in 1998. All states except of Zambia were able to advance their HDI (human development index), - BUT the absolute number of poor people ascended from 1,18 billion to a depressing 1,98 billion (UNDP2001, World Bank 2001).

Now, the successes of development that you could read out of this data, are spatiotemporally unequally distributed. Life expectancy increased in all the third world, but in South Asia it increased disproportionately, compared to Sub - Saharan Africa. Measuring income increase, we can conclude that South Asia and Africa are below average, whereas Latin America and East Asia are above average.

And apart from that, rise of income doesn?t mean improvement of living standard. Worldwide, cash requirements have substantially increased, meaning that a double income is far from double consuming possibilities. Historically we can see that the improvement of development indices was decreasing with the start of the 80s; in the 90s numerous countries had to accept losses. Twenty states, all of them situated in Africa and part of the Comecon in the past, were showing decreased Human Development Index in 1999, compared to 1990 (UNDP 2001, Table 2,8 Feat. 1.1; World Bank 2001/ 1.1)

Another possibility to answer the question, if there have been substantive development successes, is comparative: Has the third world made up leeway in relative comparison to the first world?

Life expectancy was 16 years below the one of the first world in the 70s, 25 years later the difference was "only" thirteen years. Different from the child mortality rate, which, in developing countries, was four times higher than in the first world in the 70s; 25 years later the child mortality rate - even if there was an absolute reduction - was nine times as high as the one of developed countries.

As I have stated, UNDP data tells us of an increase of real income. If you are interested in any answer whether those increases could reduce the gap between poor and rich countries, - the answer is a simple No.

In 1960, the average GNP p.P. in the third world was 4,7% of the average (100%) GNP of a citizen living in the first world, in 1999 it was astonishing 4,8% (World Bank). This minimal improvement only happened because of East Asia - in all other regions of the third world income, in compare to OECD - countries, has dropped down in the last 40 years (World Bank 2001: Table 1, UNDP 2001: Fig. 1.5). Third world countries could improve their income standards in compare a little in the 60s and 70s, but since then the polarisation between center and periphery has deepened again (Firebaugh 1999).

The richest tenth of world population could rise its part of the world income about 20% to a total of 56,1% between 1965 and 1990, while the income part of the poorest 60% of this planets population has fallen from 9,3% to 5,3% - same timespan, figure it out. The "global lower middle class" had to accept a bisection of their income as well, increase of income was reserved for seven developing states: Portugal, Greece, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (Korzeniewicz/ Moran 1997) - (...not Malaysia, Indonesia or China yet - guess why?).

The continuing deep gap in the diversification of richness is even more noteworthy if we acknowledge that, in big parts of the third world, substantial industrialization progresses have been undertaken. Especially Asia and Latin America could reduce their industrial "production-backwardness" compared to the U.S. and Western Europe. The World Bank shares data that the part of industrial production of the GDP is higher (35%) in periphery than (30%) in the center. Industrial exports make up 52% (low income countries) of all exports and 71% (medium income countries), compared to 82% industrial (of all) exports in rich countries... so there is a difference, but the gap is significantly smaller than the income/ property gap.

From this it follows that the old formula development=economic growth= industrialization was wrong. Even if there is some development in certain areas, like life expectancy or education, after half a century of development aid, the world is still characterised by "a fundamentally stable global hierarchy of wealth" (Arrighi/ Silver 2001). The gain/ catchup race by copying free market economy and industrialisation has been proven to be an illusion. Even the Financial Times admits that (but only in its Christmas issue): "About two thirds of the world?s population have gained little or no substantial advantage from rapid economic growth" (Financial Times, 24.12.1993, cit. Hobsbawm 1995).

 

[hiphop]

.

 

[STING2]

Hiphop,

Yes we do indeed agree on debt relief. The reasons that development throughout the third world most likely will take more than 100 years is based on a number of reasons and not just one. Development will not start to occur in much of the third world until there is more political stability which in some cases may require heavy international involvement. The failures of the past 40 years are due to political instability, poor choices made by countries with the use of foreign aid, corruption in those countries partly because of the lack of real democracy, war, and the overall scale of the problem in comparison to the funds and and choices made by many governments in the third world. On top of this, the mounting debt problem prevents many countries from even attempting to combat the problem.

Interesting statistics with the Switzerland comparison to Africa. The problem is that its primarily representitive of the increases in the standard of living in Switzerland and does not actually represent a decrease of the standard of living in Africa. Statistics that compare countries starting to go through development to first world countries already on a fast track will only produce misleading conclusions and will not answer the key question of whether, the actual standard of living in the third world country is improving or not.

The next paragraph that has more detailed statistics on the countries themselves and the improvements they have made makes my point. The number of people living in poverty going from 1.2 Billion to 2 Billion is simply explained by rapid population growth that will eventually, after several decades, slow as development continues.

Its true that Sub-Sarahan Africa may not have changed at all on some countries might be worse off. But this is not do to Capitalism or Globalization. But rather political instability and crushing debt. Globalization and Capitalism have yet to touch Sub-Sarahan Africa in the depth that is needed for change to occur. Debt has to be relieved in addition for the need for more political stability and democracy before Capitalism and Globalization(as I define it) can have more of an impact.

Statistics that show Income when adjusted for purchasing power parity and inflation will show whether a country has in some ways increased its wealth.

"Another possibility to answer the question, if there have been substantive development successes, is comparative: Has the third world made up leeway in relative comparison to the first world?"

Although the above question may be important much later in the future, it would not be accurate to measure success at the begining of the development process using these questions. The First world is already on a fast track. Often the gap that grows between firstworld and undeveloped third world countries is simply do to the mass success of the first world country economically, not the failure of development in that third world country. Improvements in development take time and come slowly even when the right conditions for development to take place at all are there.


Nope, I do not agree that the formula of development=economic growth was wrong or has failed, rather it has not been correctly implemented or applied in many area's of the third world. The fact that there is still a first world and a third world after 40 years is simply a reflection that, development has not be correctly applied to many countries because the environment is not yet conducive or the choices of the government in power have been contrary to what would be necessary for prolonged economic development. It is also a reflection of the scale of the problem and the simple fact that development takes extensive amount of time and can only begin if certain conditions exist.

There are many countries that have been successes of the model you claim to be a failure over the past 50 years. Their success is proof enough, that when conditions are right, with a little help from other countries, western models of democracy and capitalism are the best methods to achieve a high standard of living.

 

[hiphop]

So we partly agree.

Do you know "Globalization and its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz, publ. 2002 by W.W. Norton & Company, NY? I think you should read it. Stiglitz worked for the World Bank, got the nobel prize for economy, and shows deep insight into processes of development plus fundamental critique. Read it!

After you have read it, you will probably agree that the IMF plays its part in slowing down development as well.

Do you think debt relief should be based on economic conditions the "donoring countries" put up?

 

[STING2]

I think debt relief should be based on political development of the country and whether the government is taking the steps necessary to bring about longterm economic growth.

 

[hiphop]

What would the necessary economic steps be, in you opinion? Doesn?t this vary a lot? Doesn?t every state have different "necessary economic steps"? yes, it does. Longterm economic growth can only be reached when there?s enough infrastructure, enough schools, enough medical treatment, etc. etc. The workers need roads to go to work, they need education to do their work properly, they need a minimum set of social standards. Then, longterm economic growth means economic "independency" too (not in the sense of not-interdependent-economy, but in the sense of decision-making, stability, security). Look at South Korea. They ignored the conditions of the IMF/ U.S. Finance. Now they got Daewoo and a few others - their own transnationals. No foreign direct investment by, say,... Ford manufacturing there.

I think debt relief should not be based upon any condition. The conditions that were forced upon some states slowed down development. It has no sense to base debt relief upon conditions, because if those conditions force the countries to take new credits, its all worthless, no effect. Sure, if the only condition would be that the country is run by a democatic form of leadership/ gov, that might work out (but did that ever make a difference? - no...).

I think (dunno) you believe that most actors of U.S./European economy have the very best intentions for minimizing poverty in developing countries. I don?t believe so. Can you tell me why the U.S. left the UNIDO?

I think the best way for securing the right use of donors is to secure that they are shared publicly, with the people. Then, a town can still get together and say, ok, now with this money we will build a fountain, with this we buy med against HIV, with this we buy food, etc. etc. That would be a way worth trying.

But that?s not how it works. If banks give credits to political leaders, those will keep part in their own pockets. And they will change the laws so they fit the expectations of f.e. IMF. So the winners will be the banks/investors, who get their interests/ production plants; the IMF, because it has pushed through its policies, - and the political elites of the country who steal the harvest that was (maybe?) meant for poor people; neither the country as a whole or its economical data, nor the hungering families will benefit.

Really, you should take a look at the book mentioned above.

 

[hiphop]

I think this thread has interesting points.

Its up and alive for your comments, too.

*bump*

 

[follower]

This is from www.maketradefair.com. Some interesting info and facts about trade in our globalized world.

Subsidies

The rich world tells the poor world to get rid of subsidies, but continues to spend $1 billion a day subsidising its own farming enterprises

Rich countries dump subsidised produce on developing countries, driving down the price of local produce - with devastating effects on the local economy. This unlevel playing field has made many poor farmers even poorer, or forced them off their land completely.

Dumping

Rich countries grow more than they can wear, eat or use and create mountains of wheat, rice or even chicken wings that no one wants and then dump the excess in poor countries. Farmers can?t compete with the imports and they are going under.

Trade Barriers

If Africa, East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America each increased their share of world exports by just one per cent, the resulting gains could lift 128 million people out of poverty

Rich countries limit and control poor countries' share of the world market by charging high taxes on imported goods. As a result, many poor countries can only afford to export raw materials, which give far lower returns than finished products.

For example, the rich world buys cheap cotton and cocoa and turns them into expensive clothes and chocolate - reaping all of the profit. At the same time, poor countries are threatened with having loans withheld unless they open their markets to rich countries' exports.

Commodities

Coffee prices have fallen by 70 per cent since 1997, costing poor countries $8 billion

Poor countries produce most of the coffee, chocolate, cotton, and copper that the rich world consume - but the rich world sets the price.

Low prices make huge profits for the big companies that sell them on to consumers, but leave millions of producers barely able to survive.

Transnationals

A major fashion retailer pays $2 in wages for a pair of trainers costing $67

Powerful transnational corporations (TNCs) employ millions of workers - either directly or through sub-contractors - on low wages and in often hazardous conditions that violate basic labour rights.

Because of their size and power many TNCs operate beyond the control of national governments, who are often desperate for foreign investment and unlikely to complain.

Patents

Increased patent protection for companies in rich countries costs developing countries $40 billion each year

Under pressure from powerful corporations, the rich world is insisting on stringent patent protection. This will push up the price of essential products like seeds, medicines, textbooks, and software.

Vital drugs will be priced out of reach of poor people. Fourteen million people die from treatable diseases every year. Many of these lives could be saved if cheap drugs were available.

Hard Facts about Trade

One billion people live in poverty.

If Africa, East Asia, South Asia and Latin America each increased their share of world exports by just one per cent, they could lift 128 million people out of poverty.

In Africa alone, this one per cent increase in the share of world trade would generate $70 billion - five times what the continent gets in aid.

More than 40 per cent of the world's population live in low-income countries - yet these countries account for just three per cent of world trade.

For every dollar given to poor countries in aid, they lose two dollars to rich countries because of unfair trade barriers against their exports.

When exporting to rich countries, producers in poor countries pay tariffs that are four times higher than those paid by producers in other rich countries.

Africa has lost the equivalent of 50 pence for every pound received in aid because of the falling prices it gets for its commodities.

Coffee prices have fallen by 70 per cent since 1997, costing exporters in poor countries $8 billion.

Rich countries spend $1 billion a day on agricultural subsidies, putting farmers in poor countries out of business and driving down their income.

A Ghanaian cocoa farmer only gets 1.2 per cent of the price we pay for a bar of chocolate. Between 1996 and 2000 Ghana increased cocoa production by almost a third but was paid a third less.

About one-third of manufacturing workers in developing countries are women. They earn about 25 per cent less than their male colleagues.

Increased patent protection will cost developing countries $40 billion each year. The new rules were designed by the transnationals that stand to reap the benefits.