Trade: A Glass Half Full

The United States is in discussions on what may well become the two most important international trade agreements since NAFTA, a trans Atlantic deal with the European Union and a pan Pacific pact including long time ally Japan and more recent enemy Vietnam. Together the two proposals cover well over half the world's current economic activity. I think the talks are a good thing and hope they are successful.

Economist who don't agree on much generally concede that more trade is better than less. Disagreements usually focus on whose ox gets gored. As an advocate for social justice I like to pay attention to the impact on the poor and vulnerable. On balance I conclude that so called free trade is beneficial and I'm for it. Some of my friends are against it. I think our differences lie mostly in how we look at it.

Take NAFTA. Poor Mexican farmers found themselves competing with modern American agribusiness and it was no contest. Many were forced off the land. Many emigrated north, often enduring harrowing conditions on the trip and not much hospitality on arrival. Some American jobs went south.

But welcome to the world. I went to grammar school with sons and daughters of share croppers. They were driven off the land too, mostly to greater prosperity than their parents ever dreamed of. Mexico today has become a middle class society, a market for an American economy otherwise largely in the doldrums. NAFTA can claim credit for a part of that, economic growth for the lion's share of it.

Or take the World Trade Organization. Critics point to the subsistence farmer in Burkina Faso supporting a family on a few dollars a day while giant corporations rake in billions. I say the poor farmer's plight isn't necessarily caused by the profits of corporations. Billions of formerly third world citizens have lifted themselves out of poverty over the past few decades, in no small part through international trade. The WTO has provided a big boost. Fair trade cooperatives have helped a lot of poor farmers in Burkina Faso. They haven't helped everyone and there have been some abuses. That doesn't mean fair trade is a bad idea.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has been a major promoter of fair trade through  Catholic Relief Services. CRS has its critics too, though I'm not one of them. Some Catholics don't like the company CRS keeps. That can be a fine line but I think they do a pretty good job working in the world without cooperating with evil. The Vatican is a participant in the moribund Doha round of WTO talks, mostly advocating for provisions protecting the poor. USCCB lobbies actively at the national level, also mostly to protect the poor. Neither takes positions for or against any specific trade deal.

I wish they would reconsider. I've noticed it's easier to help the poor if there are fewer of them. Trade has been a major factor in ushering in a period of unprecedented economic progress for much of the world. It does no good to negotiate protections for the needy if talks ultimately fail. Agreements currently on the table exclude the poorest nations but they can be of great benefit to those that are included. There is every reason to think other nations might be incented to join. China wanted WTO membership badly enough to implement economic and even some human rights reforms. They may yet implement more.

One measure of the value of charity is in what it enables others to do for themselves. These trade deals aren't even charity, yet they have the potential to enable more self help than any charitable enterprise I can think of. Let's hope they happen.