From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

3 POVERTY AND WEALTH GOING FOR GROWTHSecond, Viet Nam has been far more successful in redistributingresources to poorer regions and maintaining high levels of publicspending in education, health, water, and sanitation. In contrast,China opted for ‘fiscal decentralisation’, limiting central governmenttransfers to poorer provinces, leading to a widening gulfbetween dynamic coastal regions with their booming exportindustries and a largely neglected interior. (This is something theChinese government has sought to correct through its ‘Go West’programme of encouraging investment in infrastructure awayfrom the coast).Third, Viet Nam’s recent history of war and national threatreinforces a strong collective sense of ‘national mission’,imbuing the country’s Communist Party with a sense of nationallegitimacy.Enormous challenges await both countries as they seek to buildon their achievements. Viet Nam’s accession to the WTO in 2006will constrain the government’s ability to use subsidies and otherelements of industrial policy to guide the economy and redistributewealth. The country must also deal with increasing inequalitybetween its ethnic minorities and the Kinh majority, rampantcorruption, and the increasing need for political participation.If anything, China faces even more extreme versions of thesechallenges, and on a grander scale.Source: P. Chaudhry (2007) ‘Why Has Viet Nam Achieved Growth With Relative Equity, andChina Hasn’t?’, internal paper for Oxfam International; Le Quang Binh (2006) ‘What HasMade Viet Nam a Poverty-Reduction Success Story?’ background paper for OxfamInternational.A developing country’s success or failure at achieving growth isincreasingly linked to its ability to participate in international trade.Global trade is booming, growing much faster than the world economyas a whole. Global exports of manufactured and agricultural productsincreased by 15 per cent in 2006, to a value of $11.8 trillion. Trade inservices such as banking and tourism rose by 11 per cent, reaching$2.7 trillion. 180Not surprisingly, trade is heavily skewed towards the rich andmiddle-income countries (including better-off developing countries).Today, for every $100 generated by world exports, $97.28 goes to the185

FROM POVERTY TO POWERhigh- and middle-income countries, and only $2.72 goes to lowincomecountries, even though they contain nearly 40 per cent of theworld’s people. 181Under the aegis of structural adjustment programme agreementswith aid donors or bilateral and regional trade agreements, manydeveloping countries have sought to improve their trade balance andattract investment by reducing border tariffs and import and exportquotas and, more widely, by reducing state regulation of trade. Tradeliberalisation also includes cutting subsidies or restricting the abilityof governments to impose rules on investment, and can cause surgesof cheap imports against which small farmers or local labour-intensivemanufacturers are unable to compete. 182 As firms have sought tomodernise production and recruit more skilled workers, the differencebetween skilled and unskilled wages has risen.In its 2006 World Development Report on equity, the World Bankconcluded that opening up to trade has been associated with risinginequality in earnings in many countries over the past two decades.Trade liberalisation has also cut into one of the few easy ways for poorcountrygovernments to raise revenues.In agriculture, the success of exporters such as Chile and Botswanagives some credence to the liberalising agenda. However, in countriessuch as Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia, smallholder developmentstrategies were underpinned by government use of tariffs to stabilisedomestic prices (protecting floor prices for farmers as well as ceilingprices for consumers) and thereby encourage investment. Retainingtariff flexibility is particularly important because other instruments,such as quotas, were largely prohibited in the WTO’s 1994 UruguayRound agreements. 183In manufacturing, countries with successful growth records –such as South Korea, Taiwan, Viet Nam, China, and Mauritius – havedeveloped core industries behind protective barriers. Trade barrierswere gradually lowered once these sectors started to becomeinternationally competitive. Rich countries are now demanding thatdeveloping countries cut tariffs significantly, even though theythemselves once used high tariffs to protect their own fledgling industries.When they were at the same level of development as sub-SaharanAfrica is today, the USA had an average tariff of 40 per cent, Japan186

FROM POVERTY TO POWERhigh- and middle-income countries, and only $2.72 goes <strong>to</strong> lowincomecountries, even though they contain nearly 40 per cent of theworld’s people. 181Under the aegis of structural adjustment programme agreementswith aid donors or bilateral and regional trade agreements, manydeveloping countries have sought <strong>to</strong> improve their trade balance andattract investment by reducing border tariffs and import and exportquotas and, more widely, by reducing state regulation of trade. Tradeliberalisation also includes cutting subsidies or restricting the abilityof governments <strong>to</strong> impose rules on investment, and can cause surgesof cheap imports against which small farmers or local labour-intensivemanufacturers are unable <strong>to</strong> compete. 182 As firms have sought <strong>to</strong>modernise production and recruit more skilled workers, the differencebetween skilled and unskilled wages has risen.In its 2006 World Development Report on equity, the World Bankconcluded that opening up <strong>to</strong> trade has been associated with risinginequality in earnings in many countries over the past two decades.Trade liberalisation has also cut in<strong>to</strong> one of the few easy ways for poorcountrygovernments <strong>to</strong> raise revenues.In agriculture, the success of exporters such as Chile and Botswanagives some credence <strong>to</strong> the liberalising agenda. However, in countriessuch as Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia, smallholder developmentstrategies were underpinned by government use of tariffs <strong>to</strong> stabilisedomestic prices (protecting floor prices for farmers as well as ceilingprices for consumers) and thereby encourage investment. Retainingtariff flexibility is particularly important because other instruments,such as quotas, were largely prohibited in the WTO’s 1994 UruguayRound agreements. 183In manufacturing, countries with successful growth records –such as South Korea, Taiwan, Viet Nam, China, and Mauritius – havedeveloped core industries behind protective barriers. Trade barrierswere gradually lowered once these sec<strong>to</strong>rs started <strong>to</strong> becomeinternationally competitive. Rich countries are now demanding thatdeveloping countries cut tariffs significantly, even though theythemselves once used high tariffs <strong>to</strong> protect their own fledgling industries.When they were at the same level of development as sub-SaharanAfrica is <strong>to</strong>day, the USA had an average tariff of 40 per cent, Japan186

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!