Author Archives: jdingel

Obama’s free trade instincts

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.

Obama's free trade instincts

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.

Obama's free trade instincts

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.

WB committee: Wolfowitz broke rules

LA Times:

World Bank President Paul D. Wolfowitz violated his contract, broke the bank’s code of conduct and trampled on numerous staff rules in arranging a promotion and a series of raises for his companion, a bank employee, according to a scathing report by an internal committee investigating the controversy.

Citing “the damage done to the reputation of the World Bank Group and to that of the president,” the seven-member committee recommended that the institution’s board “consider whether Mr. Wolfowitz will be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible” in its mission to fight world poverty.

The report, delivered to the board and released Monday evening, also skewered Wolfowitz for “questionable judgment and a preoccupation with self-interest over institutional best interest.”

37 country directors ask the Bank to resolve the issue quickly.

Galbraith on progressive trade policy

Echoing his February piece in The Nation, James K. Galbraith writes in The American Prospect:

Senators Byron Dorgan and Sherrod Brown articulated a trade policy that typifies the consensus view of the party’s labor-liberal wing. They criticize “free trade,” call for strong labor and environmental standards in future trade agreements, and argue for aggressive policies to open foreign markets to American goods. Their critique reflects a genuine anger, and the concerns their piece embodies deserve to be met. Their program is populist, nationalist, muscular, and in tune with the mood of the Democratic base.

But it is not reality-based.

Galbraith would like progressives to ditch the narrative that America needs to block manufactured imports (either through standards or tariffs) in order to protect jobs. Why?

Continue reading →

Petition to reform WB & IMF leadership selection

In the wake of Paul Wolfowitz’s troubles, New Rules for Global Finance is collecting signatures for a petition supporting reform of the selection of World Bank and IMF directors. It concludes:

We therefore call for timely adoption of reform of the selection procedures at both institutions. We recommend as an initial constructive step that European governments and the U.S. administration publicly state that the 1940s convention should be jettisoned and commit themselves now to reformed selection procedures whenever new leadership choices have to be made for either the World Bank or the IMF.

More info here. Signatures due by Monday afternoon.

WTO needs bigger HQ

I have no idea if these rumors are credible:

The head of the World Trade Organization, WTO, confirmed Wednesday that the group was looking for bigger headquarters but refused to comment on rumours that this could be outside Geneva or even Switzerland…

‘Above all we need to be under the same roof,’ added Lamy who refused to be drawn on claims that the WTO had been approached by Hong Kong and Singapore with a view to moving the operation there. He said he would not fall into a trap of negotiating in public.

AP story.

IP in PTAs

John Bennett points to this short New Yorker piece by James Surowiecki criticizing the United States’ inclusion of intellectual property in its preferential trade agreements. If you have read Bhagwati or Panagariya (pdf) on this topic, you already know Surowiecki’s arguments, but it’s nice to see them receive more exposure.

Bush and Dems formulate labor standards compromise

WaPo:

The Bush administration and Democratic leaders have struck a compromise that would insert stricter labor rules into future trade treaties, potentially lending fresh momentum to the global effort to promote free trade… Under the plan, the trade deals signed with Peru, Panama and Colombia would have to be renegotiated with their governments before they can be revised and submitted to Congress for a vote, raising the possibility they could be killed by opposition in those countries.

I read the story as saying that this compromise is a deal to pass already completed trade agreements — it “does not apply to the president’s quest for an extension of his so-called fast-track authority.” But the lead paragraph implies that it has implications for Doha. The confusion ought to clear up when the compromise is actually announced.

UPDATE: Plenty of newspapers carried the story this morning. See Bloomberg and NYT.

Fredrik Erixon asks: “Some sources says labour and environmental standards should be invoked in trade deals, but does that only apply to future negotiations or also to already finished agreements that awaits Congress approval? Furthermore, some media sources mentions Doha in their reports, but does this deal contain a new TPA for the round as well?”

The deal isn’t concrete yet (Bloomberg: “It seems some of the details are still getting ironed out.”), but it’s certain that the current agreement only applies to Peru and Panama. Colombia and South Korea are being discussed. No TPA.

The deal may serve as a template for future discussions of trade, but it has no legal bearing on them. As far as I can tell, the newspaper accounts mention Doha because USTR Susan Schwab is saying that the deal will help her at the WTO negotiations, but I see little basis for that claim.