Acton Commentarybringing moral reflection to bear upon current events October 24, 2007 Free Trade: Latin America’s Last Hope?Costa Rica’s recent referendum ratifying the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) was good news for Costa Ricans. Against a coalition of American and Costa Rican protectionists, trade unionists, and religious activists, the Costa Rican people voted for economic openness -- and for a future. But Costa Rica’s 51 percent vote for CAFTA (confirmed in a recount on Monday) was also important because it was a sign of hope amidst many clouds darkening Latin America’s economic prospects. Naturally, there are some Latin American success stories. After adopting CAFTA in July 2006, Guatemala experienced a tripling of foreign direct investment. Its trade also expanded from 5 percent in the first half of 2006, to 17 percent in the second half. The World Bank’s recent Doing Business 2008 survey (www.doingbusiness.org) suggests, however, that much is going wrong in many Latin American economies. This annual survey provides objective measures of business regulations and their enforcement across 178 countries. Doing Business 2008 bluntly states that Latin America “is falling further behind other regions” in the area of economic reform. When it came to “ease of doing business,” for example, Argentina dropped from its previous ranking of 101 to 109. Chile -- the region’s economic reform superstar -- fell from 28 to 33. To no one’s surprise, Venezuela now ranks 172 (out of a total of 178 countries). In Venezuela, it takes approximately 141 days to start a business and, as Doing Business 2008 comments, “The time to export stretched to 45 days, barely faster than in landlocked Burundi.” Doing Business 2008 does highlight some positive Latin American developments. Small improvements in ease in doing business were recorded by Paraguay, Honduras, Costa Rica, El Salvador, and Guatemala. Columbia is listed as the region’s best reformer, rocketing from 83 to 66 on the list. Apart from reducing corporate tax rates, Columbia introduced an electronic tax filing system, “cutting the average time businesses must spend on tax compliance each year by 188 hours, or 41 percent.” Nevertheless it is worrying that all other Latin American nations dropped in their ratings. It is especially concerning that a country with Brazil’s immense human and material potential dropped from 113 to 122. An associated problem undermining Latin America’s economies is the region’s steady drift toward the populist-left. Doing Business 2008 reveals that all four countries with such governments -- Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua -- declined in competitiveness. On October 12th, Bolivia’s Catholic bishops pleaded with President Evo Morales not to turn Bolivia into another Venezuela. Clearly the bishops understand what is at stake. Doing Business 2008 observes, for instance, that “Venezuela extended its prohibition on dismissals of workers earning up to 3 times the minimum wage. The result is a loss of job opportunities: the Venezuelan economy has lost about 850,000 jobs in small businesses since 2002.” Yet another cloud darkening the continent’s economic future is a brutal fact many Latin Americans may not want to hear. It is simply this -- much of the world is losing interest in Latin America. As China and India’s economies continue to grow impressively, investment opportunities expand in the Persian Gulf, and economic reform accelerates elsewhere, foreign investors are shifting their attention away from Latin America. Why, they say, should we invest in Latin American countries when (with the exception of Chile) it is easier to do business in such unlikely nations as Botswana, Georgia, Fiji, and Namibia? Even more disturbingly, Latin Americans should know that protectionist sentiment is rising in America. An October 3rd Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll revealed that six in ten Republicans believe free trade has been bad for America and wanted Republican politicians to limit foreign imports. As Republicans have been America’s pro-free trade party since the 1970s, these results ought to concern Latin Americans anxious to access the world’s most prosperous economy. Given these trends, it is conceivable Americans will increasingly narrow their thoughts about Latin America to immigration issues. In short, this is not the time for Latin America to abandon free trade agendas. As tempting as populist policies may be, free trade does effectively integrate Latin Americans into the global economy. This makes it harder for those forces in Latin America desperate to preserve the deadening mercantilist status-quo to resist economic reform’s liberating effects. A continent without hope is a continent without a future. Free trade gives Latin America hope for the future. The alternative is unthinkable. Dr. Samuel Gregg is research director at the Acton Institute and author, most recently, of The Commercial Society (2007). |
![]() Dr. Samuel Gregg is Director of Research at the Acton Institute and author of On Ordered Liberty (2003), A Theory of Corruption (2004), Banking, Justice and the Common Good (2005), and The Commercial Society (2007). Recent articles by this author:“No Morality, No Markets” “The Credo of Credit” “Under Siege: Freedom in Ecuador” “Liberation Theology's Civil War” “Wealth Grows in the Desert” More commentaries by |
Comments
Meghan:- A puzzling fact to consider--an example from Guatemala--regarding free trade and cheaper prices for the poor: "One year after CAFTA the imports of grains grew, as did prices to the consumer. This hurts the agricultural sector and the consumer, but greatly benefits the importer. ... Since 2005 the price of bread to consumers has gone up 23.6%, corn 26.2%, and rice 10.5%" (Mazzei, "Guatemala's KAFTA-esque Year", Center for International Policy). Too bad that basic grains are the subsistence food for the poor...
Yes, free trade can have positive effects due to greater integration and can be a very good thing--IF there are methods to protect the vulnerable/poor, the country has a competitive economy, and the country has a fairly equitable means of resource distribution. Unfortunately free trade cannot provide these things. The Brazils, Argentinas, and Chiles of the world had more of this than Central America.
Miguel A. Cervantes: migcerva@yahoo.com- Great article Dr. Gregg, God bless you
To answer Christ Manes, free trade helps the poor, because it provides goods at low prices, access to goods that under protectionist mesures it would only be available to the rich.
Those who advocate protecionism are really elitists, they don't care about the poor and the suffering. They say they defend ther poor in an abstract way, because they detest the real poor in reality. The lobbyst who lobby for protectinism, they care only about their money, they want to earn extra profits at the expense of the poor. They don't care about oppressing others, they talk nationalist stuff to mask their mesquinnery
Latin America is poor because of decades of protectionism and regulation, 60 years are enough!!!. protectionism basically impoverished potentially rich nations like Brazil, and Argentina!, and created huge inequality.
Chris Manes: lokcism@aol.com- Read The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein. She queries why the majority of people in the world do not want market fundamentalism to dominate their lives, but it is being forced on them nonetheless
And the reason is obvious: it enriches the rich and makes exploiting the poor and weak easier.
It's uncanny how the Acton Institute always takes the side of the oppressors, the powerful, the self-interested, and never bothers to ask what working people need and want.
Elitism? -- you're soaking in it.
Psalms 14:6 - You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge
Meghan:- I think any research article that labels economic policy as “simply” and “clearly” this or that shows little understanding of how economic policy interacts with a country’s development. Free Trade agreements have a multitude of effects on all levels of society. Was Costa Rica’s referendum “good news for Costa Ricans”? Not in the eyes of a whopping 49% of them who voted against CAFTA. For Guatemala, the Banco de Guatemala’s statistics show a fall in export revenues in the second half of 2006, combined with a marked increase in imports (=a growing trade deficit). Yes, FTAs often create more FDI which is good for a country. They also cause many of the poorest and most vulnerable--the unskilled workers and smallholder farmers--to lose their livelihoods and migrate, as NAFTA proved. I am surprised to read this article from someone who has written about ethics in economics. Even more, how can one state that free trade equals hope for the future for Latin America, and then turn around and point out that FTAs are even losing popularity, or in other words economic benefits, in the US too?
I find this article self-contradictory and relying on empty catch-phrases (“a continent without hope is a continent without a future”) to attempt to substantiate poorly-conceived arguments, and I am an American. For the sake of both the US and Latin America, now that there are so many free trade agreements, I sincerely hope that you are right and free trade will “simply” provide economic hope on both sides, including people who are not fortunate enough to own their own businesses. I would hope that those who are in charge of making economic policy decisions take a more thorough and balanced approach to evaluating the effects of free trade.
Palomudo: qlopluo@hotmail.com- What a pile of garbage this is. Dr. Samuel is a research director converted mercenary writer for the empire. We will se Costa Rica in a few years and confirm that free trade is bad for the people.
Thank God for Hugo Chavez and his vision that help defeat the FTA in South America.
Jessica: Jessica@floridaftaa.org- Free trade
Free Trade: Latin America’s Last Hope?