US ‘leadership’ in more mercantilist demands on South
Geneva, 2 July (Chakravarthi Raghavan) - The United States announced in Washington DC Monday that it had formulated and sent to other WTO members ‘specific requests’ (which are really mercantilist market-access demands on them), for access to their markets of US service suppliers - such as in financial services (including banking and insurance), telecommunications, express delivery, energy services, computer services, distribution services and environmental services.
The European Communities, the other major ‘demandeur’ has already formulated and sent out to the developing countries, its demands on them for market access openings in the services sectors.
The US administration of President George W. Bush, which has increased the barriers for developing countries seeking to export to the US markets - in agriculture, industry among others - in formulating its demands on developing countries, has (in a press release) described it as “US Leadership spurs momentum to fulfill Doha Agenda.”
“Liberalizing services has a force-multiplier effect, reverberating across an entire economy - every product, idea or consumer benefits from a more effective and efficient services sector,” the USTR Robert Zoellick declared in a statement in Washington. He placed the services proposals in the context of what he calls offers by the US in recent weeks of “proposals to liberalize global trade in agriculture... and a framework for easing WTO rules to allow poor countries to gain greater access to drugs needed to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other public health crises.”
Not to be outdone, the WTO secretariat put out last week more propaganda on the same lines, in the form of a fact-sheet and press release about how “Services negotiations offer real opportunities for all WTO members and more so for developing countries.” That fact sheet makes several claims about the benefits to the developing world of services liberalization, and cites a World Bank claim that liberalization of services in developing countries could provide “as much as $6 trillion” in additional income in the developing world by 2015, four times the gains that would come from trade in goods liberalization.
A number of academic studies and papers have been coming out in recent weeks and months, looking at the data and other claims from the World Bank, WTO etc and re-examining them, to conclude that there is a great deal of hype and computable general equilibrium model projections, based on stated and unstated assumptions (including about the efficiency gains in perfectly competitive markets) that have little resemblance to the reality of life and the real economy.
Though WTO trade officials and mercantilist economists in trade establishments of Europe and America, often try to suggest that liberalization of trade in services, including financial services, is different from liberalization of capital markets and capital accounts of countries, a careful look at the various studies (from mainstream and non-orthodox economists) shows it is not a real distinction in practical life, but merely different means of achieving the same ends.
At UNCTAD-X in Bangkok, at a seminar on new financial architecture, Mr. Yilmaz Akyuz, Director of UNCTAD’s Globalization and Development Strategies Division and Mr. Jose Antonio Ocampo, Executive secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, were both agreed that developing countries would do well to push for and retain autonomy over their financial systems and capital inflows and outflows rather than move towards any kind of capital or financial market liberalization.
In a study on capital account liberalization, commissioned for the World Bank Economic Review, Barry Eichengreen of the Berkeley campus of the University of California, notes that models of perfect markets suggest that international capital movements benefit both borrowers and lenders and poses the question “if domestic financial markets can be, and increasingly are, counted on to deliver an efficient allocation of resources, why cannot the same be assumed of international financial markets?” The answer, he points out, is that this efficient-markets paradigm is fundamentally misleading, and that capital and financial liberalization and removing distortions in markets need not be welfare enhancing when other distortions are present.
“There are any number of constellations of distortions, especially in developing countries, for which this is plausibly the case,” he says, and cites the view of Joseph Stiglitz (2000) to the effect “If information asymmetries are endemic to financial markets and transactions, then there is no reason to assume that financial liberalization, either domestic or international, will be welfare improving.”
Referring to the various arguments for and against liberalization, Eichengreen also notes that while there is theoretical support for both positions, “the unfortunate fact is that the evidence on them does not speak clearly.... attempts to move beyond anecdote and assertion to systematic empirical analysis have not yielded conclusive results...”
Claims of welfare enhancing efficiency gains by liberalizing services are mostly based on anecdotes, and have not so far produced empirical evidence that stand up when tested and yield conclusive results that could be used by policy-makers.
Perhaps there has been a case of being unnerved by announcements of civil society movements like ATTAC and various Swiss and European NGOs about their intended demonstration against the WTO on 29 June, and hitting the panic buttons.
But whatever the reason, on 28 June, came the WTO fact sheet on services talks, with a para about the concerns over the effects of services liberalization on education and health services.
“These negotiations have been inaccurately portrayed in certain quarters as facilitating the liberalization or privatization of government services, including health, water distribution and education. This is untrue. The facts are that such sectors have rarely been discussed in the negotiations and that the principal focus of the talks lies in other service sectors.”
Perhaps the emphasis in the last sentence of the para are on the words “rarely” and “principal.”
Article 3 of GATS, which is a definition clause, has a definition of services in Art. 3 (b) of GATS which says: “services” includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority.
The next subpara ( c) is a kind of proviso to this and says: “a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority” means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.
Any ordinary reading of the GATS would show that in terms of the definitions of ‘measures’ and of ‘services’, any measure covered by the Agreement would automatically attract Article II of the GATS (the most-favoured-nation requirement), unless it had been listed as an MFN exemption in a country’s Annex on Article II exemptions.
In the runup to Seattle, and thereafter, WTO officials in the services division (then headed by David Hartridge, who has now retired and joined a law firm in Geneva), cited the definition to rebut the concerns and apprehensions of NGOs about the effects of the services talks on the privatization of services issue - then very much on the domestic agenda of Europe and North America.
They were asked to explain what would be the effect of the subpara ( c) in developing countries where the IMF and the World Bank were forcing governments, providing basic water and sanitation to the public in urban areas as a government service to collect user fees, or in places like Latin America and Asia where there is a drive for privatization, or in countries like the UK where the private sector was being considered for competition with the public sector.
They were also asked about the situations in countries where the education systems allow private schools and colleges to be run by private authorities, and some of them even ‘compete’ for foreign students and they are portrayed as ‘education services’, while other such ‘service suppliers’ want to go into developing countries to provide similar services.
The trade officials, initially advanced the view (in relation to developing countries) that some amount of ‘competition’ from foreign service suppliers would be good for their consumers.
However, after some hedging, they ultimately agreed that there was some ambiguity in the definition clause, but that the situation could be clarified by an authoritative interpretation adopted in an appropriate way.
These are not theoretical issues. In New Delhi, India, a controversy has already erupted over a decision giving a licence for a foreign firm to invest in a water treatment and purification plant, drawing on a public water resource (from a controversial hydro-electric project) to supply water and services to a residential colony inhabited by the upper middle class and the rich.
And in Latin America, where privatization and opening up of service sectors for foreign investment in competition was presented as a way to improve services and provide cheaper services to consumers, such services as water, electricity etc, have proved costlier - particularly since the foreign service provider costs them in the foreign currency.
On 28 June, the same day as the secretariat fact sheet was released, came another press release where Mike Moore, Director-General of the WTO and Ambassador Alejandro Jara of Chile, Chairman of the Special Session of the WTO Services Council, underscored that “WTO negotiations to liberalize trade in services were no threat to Government services and that such sectors of the services economy were in fact excluded from the negotiations.”
No one, neither outside the WTO these days, nor inside the secretariat and among trade ambassadors, would pay serious attention to Mr. Moore and his views; Mr. Alexandro Jara and the government which he represents may be entitled to his views about the ‘ordinary’ dictionary meaning (perhaps it reads the same in Spanish too) of the definition of services in the GATS. But his views as Chair is another matter.
For, the Chairman of the Special Sessions on the Committee on Trade in Services where the negotiations take place, like other chairpersons, have been told by the Trade Negotiations Committee (February 2002): “Chairpersons should be impartial and objective, and discharge their duties in accordance with the mandate conferred on the TNC by Ministers.”
Until and unless, the GATS is amended to make clear that health, water, sanitation, education and other such public utility services, whether actually provided by a government directly or by private parties under authorization or licence of the government, will be excluded from the scope of the WTO, no one can remain content or confident on the basis of views of the secretariat or the public statements about the scope of GATS. Even if no one makes a demand now, it could come up two rounds down the road, or the meaning could be provided in a binding way by the appellate body at some future time. – SUNS5152
[c] 2002, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user subscriptions please contact: email@example.com