| FPIF Home | IPS Home | IRC Home | Site Index | Search | Subscribe | Feedback | Donate |
FPIF Special Report After the FTAA: Lessons from Europe for the Americasby Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh | June 23, 2005 This report was first published by the Institute for Policy Studies (online at www.ips-dc.org). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONTENTSAbout the AuthorsAcknowledgementsI. IntroductionII. Resource Transfer
III. Social and Environmental StandardsIV. MigrationV. AgricultureVI. Public ParticipationVII. ConclusionNOTES
Sarah Anderson is the Director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. John Cavanagh is IPS Director. IPS is an independent center for research and education founded in Washington, DC in 1963.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top 10 Arms Importers in the Hemisphere, 1989-1999 |
|
|
1999 constant $ US millions |
United States |
18,414 |
Canada |
5,367 |
Brazil |
3,202 |
Venezuela |
2,549 |
Mexico |
2,143 |
Colombia |
1,747 |
Peru |
1,594 |
Chile |
1,506 |
Ecuador |
807 |
Argentina |
785 |
Bolivia |
164 |
hemisphere total |
44,802 |
source: US State Department |
|
2. Taxation of financial transactions: The joint report supports a long-standing proposal to place a low level of taxation on financial transactions. Again, while this would ideally be imposed at the global level, regional mechanisms should also be explored.
3. Coordination to prevent tax evasion: One benefit of economic globalization for corporations is that it creates greater opportunities for evading tax responsibilities. Through accounting tricks like transfer pricing, corporations maximize losses for subsidiaries in countries with high tax rates and maximize profits in tax havens. A new type of hemispheric agreement could require countries to work together to crack down on such practices. Proceeds from these efforts would go directly to national tax coffers.
In the document “Alternatives for the Americas ,” the Hemispheric Social Alliance lays out an innovative proposal for holding corporations accountable for violations of worker rights. Under their scheme, the International Labor Organization would monitor compliance with internationally recognized worker rights. Unions or other nongovernmental organizations could file complaints regarding violations. The ILO would investigate and if necessary provide assistance to help achieve compliance. Only if this stage is unsuccessful would an enforcement mechanism be applied. If the perpetrator is a specific company, it would face fines or sanctions. Although the Hemispheric Social Alliance does not specifically suggest this in the document, it seems that these fines could be used as one more source of alternative financing for development.
Many questions remain about how best to go about resource transfer to narrow the economic divide in the Americas . Who would ideally have decision-making authority over the resource transfer mechanism? How can a mechanism be designed to ensure that resources benefit the poor and support sustainable development? What would the criteria be for receiving the funds? Continued dialogue is needed to address these and other important questions, but the EU experience underscores the need for some type of resource transfer in our region.
The EU requires member states to comply with high standards on labor rights, gender equity, racial discrimination, health and safety, environment and other issues. By setting a floor for the region’s social and environmental policies, the EU has tried to encourage a high-road path to development, instead of competition based on exploitation in areas of weak standards.
The EU’s social standards have evolved and expanded over the years. In 2000, they consolidated the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights into one text, the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. While the Charter itself has not been legally binding, parts of it are the basis for EU directives, regulations, and decisions that must be transposed into national legislation. And soon the full charter may become legally binding, since it is included in a proposed EU Constitution now being considered in national referenda.
The EU has taken a particularly strong stance in defending women’s rights. In the 1970s, regulations established requirements for equal treatment for men and women in employment and training.9 Directives in the 1980s and early 1990s dealt with equal treatment in social security and protections for pregnant workers.10 The Irish government tried to negotiate a waiver from the pay equity directive, but the request was refused.11 Likewise in Austria , it was only when the EU issued a directive on parental leave that Austrian unions won a long-standing battle to obtain that right.12
In addition to the progress on women’s issues, there is considerable optimism that two relatively new directives will have a positive impact in the broader area of discrimination. Adopted in 2000, these directives cover sex, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation, age, and racial or ethnic origin. One is known as the Race Directive and provides protection in education, social security, access to goods and services, and cultural life. The other is the Employment Directive, which covers employment, self-employment, working conditions, membership in workers’ organizations, and whistle-blowing. One way in which EU anti-discrimination standards are having an impact is in addressing long-standing problems of racism against the Roma (sometimes referred to as Gypsies), Europe’s largest ethnic minority. In the new member state of Slovakia , for example, the EU has pressured the government to adopt anti-discrimination laws to protect the Roma from common abuses, such as the practice of wrongly placing Roma children in schools for the disabled.
The Charter on Fundamental Rights includes extensive protections for workers and trade unions. They encompass:
On some more controversial matters, the EU thus far has chosen not to take action, for example on minimum wage levels and the right to strike. These matters are left in the hands of national governments.13
EU regulations also cover a wide range of environmental issues, including water quality standards, nature conservation, waste management, climate change, industrial accidents, nuclear safety and radiation protection, and protection of coastal and urban areas. Environmental impact assessments are also required on all relevant EU policies.
Critics charge that enforcement is constrained by the fact that the European Commission must rely on national-level environmental reporting systems, which are lacking in many countries.14 Nevertheless, there are examples of EU environmental laws that have had significant impact. For example, a directive on large combustion plants sets emissions limits that are more easily attained with cleaner natural gas technologies.15 This law is cited as at least partly responsible for a reduction of energy-related emissions in the energy supply and industry sectors of 43 and 23 percent, respectively, during the past decade.16 The European Commission also points to a law on urban wastewater that has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of heavily polluted rivers. Organic matter discharges fell by 50 to 80 percent over the last 15 years.17
Environmentalists are particularly hopeful about two new regulations to reduce toxic hazards that will go into effect in 2006. One will require electronics manufacturers to take back and recycle their products and the other will require manufacturers to eliminate a number of highly toxic substances from all new equipment.18
The EU experience with enforcing basic social and environmental standards offers a number of lessons for the Americas . Many developing country leaders and civil society representatives have justifiable concerns that any enforcement mechanism would be manipulated by the richer countries, especially the United States , for narrow protectionist purposes. The EU has attempted to ameliorate such concerns in at least three ways. One is by emphasizing compliance, rather than punishment, and offering poorer countries considerable financial and technical support to help them achieve the required standards. The second is that the authorities responsible for monitoring and adjudication, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, are supra-national, which helps to distance them from narrow national or political interests. And finally, governments accused of noncompliance are given generous (some say overly generous) amounts of time to correct problems. It is the rare case that reaches the point where the European Court of Justice imposes sanctions, which can range from fines to the ultimate punishment of EU expulsion.
Perhaps the most important general lesson from the EU experience with social and environmental standards is that these regulations are vital, but insufficient to significantly improve living and working conditions in poor countries. Strong regulations are most effective when they are complemented by financial support and other assistance necessary for compliance. This concept has been largely absent from the debate over integration in the Americas . In the United States , a growing number of elected leaders, including seven of the eight men who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004, support the position that labor and environmental provisions should be included in trade agreements. While the recognition that trade has social and environmental impacts is important, a far broader response is necessary to address concerns about the U.S. government’s approach to trade policy.
Another important lesson from Europe is that there are ways to design a process for enforcement that includes some positive incentives for compliance and is largely insulated from manipulation by the more powerful countries. While it may not make sense to duplicate the European approach in the Americas , it is an important example of national governments accepting some limitations on their sovereignty in certain areas for the purpose of promoting broader social and environmental goals. Government leaders and civil society representatives in the Americas should engage in a dialogue over how we could best design mechanisms for lifting up social and environmental standards in our region. As in Europe , an important part of the process would be identifying the specific social and environmental issues in our region that would benefit from being addressed at the supranational level.
One of the most obvious benefits of the EU’s efforts to narrow disparities is that it makes possible an “open border” policy that grants EU citizens the right to live and work in any member state. These policies have not been entirely non-controversial. During the early negotiations over the enlargement to include the “poor four,” there was much fear of a flood of brain-draining migration, especially from Spain and Portugal.
Hundreds of thousands of Spanish and Portuguese workers had already sought employment in the manufacturing-intensive regions of France , Germany , and Switzerland . Thus, while both Iberian nations became official members in 1986, the EU postponed their right to free labor mobility until 1991. During this transition phase, EU structural funds and other supports, combined with a surge in private foreign direct investment, helped improve economic opportunities and social standards to the point where emigration pressures subsided. In stark contrast to the predictions prior to EU accession, Spain and Portugal not only did not flood the rest of the Union with migrants, they turned into labor-importing countries. Native Spaniards and Portuguese who once sought work in Northern Europe in droves found increased job opportunities at home. In Spain , net migration levels dropped 90 percent from the period 1962-64 to the period 1990-1994.19 Moreover, workers unable to find work in Spain were able to stay in their communities because of higher levels of social protection.20 Throughout the EU, migration levels are low. Eurostat reports that during the period 1990 to 2002, annual net migration in the EU ranged from 1.3 to 3.5 inhabitants per 1,000.21
It must be noted that the EU’s openness to migrants does not extend to those from non-member states and in fact barriers to entry from outside the EU are high. The vast majority of asylum requests are rejected by EU member governments. As a result, thousands of immigrants are forced to live in Europe without documentation and are subject to widespread exploitation.
However, the EU will soon be allowing migrants from the 10 new member states in Eastern Europe free labor mobility. As in the 1980s, there are once again concerns about the potential impact of open borders with countries that have much lower average wage levels than current member states. In fact, the gaps in per capita income between current and new members are far greater than during expansion to the “poor four.” As a consequence, the EU is allowing once again for a transition period of up to seven years (until 2011) during which the current EU member states may restrict migration from new member countries.It would be foolish to argue that the countries in the Western Hemisphere could adopt an open border policy any time in the near future. But the general lesson from the EU experience is the importance of establishing a plan to move towards the possibility of open borders by lifting up living standards in the poorer countries. With the new EU member states from Eastern Europe , they have a seven-year transition plan. Perhaps in our region it would need to be a 20-year transition plan. But this would be far better than the current situation. Although some developing countries have attempted to raise the migration issue in the context of trade negotiations, the United States has rejected these proposals, except for granting some additional visas for professionals. Meanwhile, U.S. taxpayers spend billions of dollars every year on efforts to block people from Mexico and other poorer countries from seeking economic opportunities in the United States . And while the militarization of the border has made it more dangerous for people to cross illegally, immigration levels continue to climb.
n this, perhaps the most controversial issue in the Free Trade Area of the Americas talks, the past experience of the EU offers few lessons. For the first two decades or so, the EU approach centered on boosting yields and production levels. This exacerbated a problem of massive surpluses that drove down world market prices for many commodities. It also encouraged intensive farming practices that had substantial negative environmental impacts. Over the years, the EU’s agricultural policies have gone through numerous reforms, in part to encourage better environmental practices.
But despite many changes, there continue to be strong questions over whether the eye-popping sums spent on EU agriculture policy are worth the cost. Between 1963 and 2001, the EU spent $870 billion on agriculture, mostly to cover price supports, the cost of buying up and storing surpluses, and direct payments to farmers. Smaller amounts are now available for measures linked to the environment and rural development. Agriculture makes up about half of the EU’s annual budget, which is down from more than 70% in the past. But while spending levels have dropped, critics argue that farm subsidies are still too high, particularly because they make it difficult for developing country producers to compete with EU farmers.
Moreover, despite the massive spending, the EU also experienced a rapid decline in small farms, since subsidies disproportionately benefited large producers. Every EU member state has experienced a significant decline in agricultural employment, with small farms declining most rapidly. Because of the linkage between payments and production, the largest 20% of farms have received 70% of subsidies.
Even if the results had been more positive, it would be unrealistic to propose such an expensive approach to agricultural policy in the Americas . However, more recent attempts to reform the EU agricultural policy, while too early to judge, may prove more fruitful. These changes have focused on de-linking subsidies from production and conditioning them on respect for environmental and other standards. The EU is also planning to cut payments to large farmers. These reforms can inform the debate in the Americas region, where small-scale agriculture remains highly significant in terms of employment, as well as social, environmental, and cultural welfare. Like the EU, the Western Hemisphere should recognize that increased exports and other trade liberalization policies will not solve the serious problems facing rural residents.
The EU is more advanced than any other region in the world in offering official roles for civil society in policymaking. As American author Jeremy Rifkin describes it, whereas most nations’ political systems are dominated by the two poles of government and the market, EU politics operates between three nodes: commerce, government, and civil society. While recognizing weaknesses in the system, he argues that “the shift from two-sector to three-sector politics represents a radical progression in the evolution of political life, with profound import for how we human beings organize our future.”22 Three of the most significant avenues for civil society inputs are:
One of the factors in the failure of the FTAA process was the lack of meaningful civil society consultation. The civil society committee set up as part of the FTAA negotiation process was widely criticized as nothing more than “mailbox,” since it solicited public input but had no obligation to respond. And there was nothing in the draft FTAA text that would insure any continued role for civil society after the agreement went into effect. At the company level, the draft FTAA did not offer any consultation rights to workers.
While all of the EU mechanisms for public participation have their shortcomings, they have at least made some progress towards creating an institutional framework for ensuring that policies reflect a measure of public consensus. Any future efforts to develop hemispheric agreements should draw from these examples to build mechanisms for civil society input.
There are many justifiable reasons for being skeptical about the idea of applying lessons from the EU to the Americas . First, the EU is not perfect. While its institutions and treaties are designed to ensure a balance between economic and social/environmental interests, market forces often take precedence. In recent years there has been a particularly high level of public concern over strict EU budget rules that have forced many national governments to make spending cuts that have hurt the poor. Moreover, it is important to point out that the EU itself has not attempted to apply the innovative aspects of their approach to the internal integration to their trade negotiations with countries in Latin America , such as Mexico and the Mercosur bloc. In fact, EU trade policy toward poorer countries outside Europe is not that much different from what the U.S. government has been pursuing.
Secondly, there are understandable reasons for questioning whether lessons from Europe could be applied in a region that is different in so many ways. As former President Carter stated, the EU evolved out of the ashes of World War II, an experience that we thankfully have not had in our hemisphere. The gaps between rich and poor are also wider in our region. While Latvia, the poorest country in the expanded EU, is about on par with Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica, it is rich compared to Haiti, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. Inequalities are also deeper within the countries of the Western Hemisphere .
Nevertheless, the EU offers important guiding principles for combating many of the challenges of our region – particularly the inequalities that continue to grow between our nations and our peoples. The lessons of their nearly 50-year experiment can inform a reinvigorated discussion around a long-term cooperative strategy for just and sustainable development in the Western Hemisphere. And given the vacuum created by the failed FTAA, this is an opportune moment to learn from the European experience and begin setting a new, more equitable course for the future of the Americas.
1 Hemispheric Social Alliance, “Alternatives for the Americas ,” December 2002 version in English and Spanish, see: http://www.art-us.org/. Venezuelan Government, “ALBA,”in see: http://www.alternativabolivariana.org/.
2 Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, “Lessons of European Integration for the Americas ,” Institute Policy Studies, February 26, 2004 . see: http://www.ips-dc.org/EUlessons/index.htm
3 Transcript of a May 5, 2004 conversation between Kirchner and Paul Krugman published on the web site of the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). See: http://www.nacla.org/bodies.body76.php.
4 European Commission Regional Policy web site: http://europa.eu.int/pol/reg/overview_en.htm
5 European Commission, “Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion,” 2004, p. xviii.
6 Calculated by the authors based on data in World Bank, World Development Indicators online.
7 Group de travail sur les nouvelles contributions financiers internationals, “Rapport àMonsier Jacques Chirac President de la Republique,” (English version), December 2004, p. 49. See: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actual/pdf/landau_report.pdf.
8 Based on data in U.S. Department of State, “World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers,” February 6, 2003 .
9 Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 ; Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 .
10 Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 ; Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 .
11 Press Release, Joan Carmichael, Assistant General Secretary of the Irish Confederation of Trade Unions, Comments to Launch the Congress Campaign for a Yes Vote in the Nice Referendum( Sept. 16, 2002).
12 Gerda Falkner, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne & Simone Leiber, Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna , A Europeanization of Governance Patterns in Smaller European Democracies? 8 th Biennial planInternational Conference, European Union Studies Association, Mar 27-29, 2003 , available at http://www.mpi-fg-koeln.mpg.de/socialeurope/downloads/FalknerLeiberEUSA2003.pdf.
13 Lance Compa and Lowell Turner, “Paths to Global Social Regulations—What Can Americans Learn from the European Union?” in European Integration as a Social Experiment in a Globalized World by Reiner Hoffman, et al (Duesseldorf: Hans-Boeckler-Stiftung, 2003).
14 Christopher Demmke, Towards Effective Environmental Regulation: Innovative Approaches in Implementing and Enforcing European Environmental Law and Policy, jean monnet center, n.y.u. sch. l. , 2001, available at http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/01/010501-01.html.
15 Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, OJ (L 309) 1. available at http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/128028.htm.
16 European Environment Agency,Energy and Environment in the European Union, 2002, at 30, available at http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2002_31/en/eni-env.pdf.
17 European Commission, Global Assessment: Europe ’s Environment: What Directions for the Future? 2000, at 12, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/newprg/99543_en.pdf.
18 Elizabeth Grossman, “New European Regulations May Reduce Toxic Hazards Around the Globe,” Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures, Spring 2004.
19 Norbert Fiess and Marco Fugazza, “European Integration: A Review of the Literature and Lessons for NAFTA,” background paper for Daniel Lederman, et al, “Lessons from NAFTA for Latin American and Caribbean Countries” ( Washington , DC : World Bank, December 2003), p. 16.
20 Wayne A. Cornelius, Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield, editors, Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), pp. 331-332.
21 Eurostat, “Net migration, including corrections,” http://europea.eu.int/comm/eurostat.
22 Jeremy Rifkin, The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream ( New York : Penguin, 2004, p. 234.
23 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, “Bargaining at European Level? Joint Texts Negotiated by European Works Councils,” 2001, p. 71.
For media inquiries, email media@irc-online.org or call (505) 388-0208.
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the International Relations Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). ©2005. All rights reserved. Recommended Citation Web location: Production Information |
This page was last modified on
Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:17 PM
|