Alworth Institute

After seven years, the Doha Trade talks have collapsed again. It is clear that European Union subsidies and United States Farm Bill subsidies distort world trade in agricultural products. Such distortions are huge. It is equally clear that producers in the developing world would benefit from access to United States and European markets. The Doha Round is concerned with industrial and agricultural trade. Trade is an emotive issue, as David Hume was very clear about in the mid-18th century. Any discussion about trade needs to be clear-headed when it comes to tracing out the gains to be achieved. Trade in agricultural products is even more sensitive as powerful farm lobbies in the developed world argue for protection and anti-poverty groups in the developing world call for the protection of the incomes of poorer rural farmers. Have the talks finally collapsed? What are the issues?

Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, refused to blame any particular country or group of countries for the collapse of the latest talks. India, China and Brazil blamed the developed countries, the United States in particular, for demanding too many concessions from the developing world in return for the reduction in United States and European subsidies. Egypt felt that the biggest distortions were in the United States and within the EU. In India, food supply is still thought of in strategic terms. The impact of any tariff reduction on imported foodstuffs is popularly looked at in terms of its impact on self-sufficiency as well as in terms of its impact on rural incomes rather than simply on beneficial effects on consumers. With the EU offering a reduction in subsidies at around 60% the impact on world trade in agriculture would have been significant.

Mandelson said that the failure to achieve agreement was really based on a very minor issue concerning the trigger at which safeguards for developing countries with respect to the domestic impact of food imports on rural producers would kick-in. The United States felt that this trigger was set ‘too low’ and hence the reintroduction of protectionism by the back door. Brazil felt that the developed countries were asking for too much. Whilst there is much being said about ‘freer’ trade in agricultural products it remains that case that countries negotiate trade deals with a very mercantilist stand in mind (‘I win you lose’) especially with respect to agriculture. For individual big countries, the temptation is to go for bilateral agreements where more power can be exercised over a smaller trading partner. At the same time negotiators tried to limit the damage of the present collapse. Pascal Lamy, head of the WTO, is likely to try again even if the odds are stacked against him.

The main conceptual issue is for most people an abstract one and one that is not so easy to understand. Trade ‘rounds’ are based on the idea that multilateral negotiations, whilst difficult, lead to a better outcome globally than the restricted and necessarily complex world of bilateral agreements. The United States has been negotiating bilateral trade agreements recently with individual countries in Latin America. There are benefits specific to the individual country but power is on the side of the United States. India, China and Brazil now have that potential also given the significance of their economic growth. In this view, what is at stake is the route to trade liberalization, the multilateral process that has seen, since in the post-world war II era, the huge growth in world trade and in comparative advantage. Perhaps the principle is too abstract for most people for it to generate a political lobby internationally capable of overcoming particular sectional interests. There is a strong whiff of deep-rooted sectional interests in the air, particularly in the current political climate in the United States where even the NAFTA seems to be less popular that it ought to be. There may be a growing demand for protectionist policies and if this is a world-wide trend (more unfortunate than bilateralism) then international trade will slow and economic distortions increase. Doha at least gave the opportunity to reduce the significant distortions that flow from United States and EU subsidies.

Posted by William Henderson at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Glasgow East, in the city of Glasgow, Scotland, was created a constituency for the 2005 General Election. It is composed of wards that are amongst the most deprived in Scotland with high unemployment, drug problems and low life expectancy. The area has always been strongly for the Labour Party and its predecessor constituencies were always regarded as one of the strongest Labour seats not only in Scotland but in the UK as a whole. In a recent by-election held on the 24 July, 2008, Glasgow East returned a Scottish National MP. The Labour vote collapsed and the SNP candidate John Mason was returned with a slim majority. What has happened? What are the likely political ramifications in a parliamentary democracy?

The result is a political disaster for the sitting tenant of Number Ten Downing Street, the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. He came to office as the leader of the Labour Party and as Tony Blair’s successor. His leadership has not been tested at a general election and so any by-election defeat, and this is the third major defeat for a parliamentary seat, takes on even greater significance. Gordon Brown is in trouble and according to newspaper reports he is seriously rattled. He will pull himself together from this. He is going to cling tenaciously to office and will use all of his constitutional powers of patronage to help ensure his survival. Cabinet posts will change and change soon. Labour party MPs in marginal and not-so-marginal constituencies will also be rattled at the prospect of job loss in the foreseeable future. Their anger will be directed at Brown, for it has nowhere else to go. This is a vote not only against Brown, however, but against the record of the government as a whole and it has been made by a population that should have been beneficiaries of Labour policies. Too much should not be read in to the SNP win though this will have a huge impact on the Scottish Parliament where the Labour Party is also I trouble. In UK national terms, a lot more should be read into the Labour Party defeat. It is a platitude in British political life that the opposition does not win an election, a sitting government loses it. As the slide in popularity increases the difficulties and errors to which government is prone, multiply.

Even if Brown’s authority unravels, in the Cabinet and more publically in the House of Commons, which is likely to be the case, the party is in a difficult position. Brown has very little popular political capital left and has made many enemies in the party over the last few years. There is no obvious alternative leader. Not only that, but, the British public will not take very kindly to be foisted with a new Prime Minster so quickly before a General Election. Significant MPs who still have the respect of the party and of the country will need to either come to his aid, for his authority is ebbing away, or they will need to force the issue of his resignation. Neither road is a sure-fire winner. Asserting authority over the party on Brown’s behalf will take a lot of doing. Forcing his resignation will bring huge costs and even with the experience of getting rid of Tony Blair behind them, the Labour Party is still not as ruthless as the Conservative Party. Unless some clear alternative leader emerges quickly, there is no clear benefit to be gained from ruthless action. Threats to Brown’s leadership as a result of any failure in Glasgow East made before the by-election result will be reconsidered in the cold light of political reality. The most likely outcome is turbulence, recurrent governmental problems and a sustained decline in popularity not just of Brown but of the Labour Party as a whole. Time will tell!

Posted by William Henderson at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

European Energy Policy (approved in 2005) calls on member states to diversify their sources of power as well as to consider greater scope for competition. Europe imports much of its energy and this is not seen as a sustainable proposition. In the mix, including nuclear power stations (with France and Britain for and Denmark against), renewable energy sources have a significant part to play. Wind power is seen by a number of countries to have considerable potential. Germany is the world’s biggest producer of electricity generated by wind power. It is estimated that German electricity generated by wind power can support the electricity demands of approximately 8 million households. Germany intends to increase the number of sites including sites at sea. Its position in the production of wind power has boosted its knowledge of engineering for production and has given it a leading role world-wide. Denmark has the biggest wind-power engineering sector and the skilled labor force to back it. Scotland, under the leadership of the Scottish Executive, has just agreed to the development of Europe’s biggest inland wind farm. The farm will provide enough electricity to meet the needs of 320,000 households. Yet some inshore schemes have been turned down. What do people in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe see as the issues?

The need to see new sources of clean energy is popularly recognized in many European countries. The Scottish Executive (responsible to the Scottish Parliament) hopes to see renewable energy sources supplying 50% of electricity demand in Scotland by 2020. It has recently taken the decision to speed up the application process for the development of wind farms. In UK national terms, the Scottish executive is taking a lead. In Germany wind farms are seen as an investment in the future even although it is recognized that the costs of generating power by wind are higher than by other means. It is also recognized that as the technology becomes more advanced, costs will fall, eliminating the need for subsidies. Another positive aspect of wind farm development is the boost in short-term jobs in usually remote areas with some small additions to permanent local employment, directly through the project but also indirectly through secondary economic impact. Denmark encourages privately owned wind turbines and such ownership overcomes the problems of ‘outsider’ development. Scottish enthusiasm has lead to an ‘explosion’ of applications for the development of easier inland sites as opposed to difficult offshore developments.

The case against wind farms is also made, especially by local communities that see proposals being developed from outside. Rural dwellers dislike the visual impact of wind turbines on the rural landscape. ‘Eyesore’ is the usual complaint and this has led to demands for bigger turbines to be located at sea where winds are stronger and more reliable. Denmark has a number of such marine sites and the consensus is that such sites do not damage the marine environment. Danish expansion of wind energy production will be through offshore sites. Where communities rely on tourism, the ‘eyesore’ issue is not insignificant though even in such locations, those who aim for a diversified rural economy may campaign in favor of the development. The project for the development of a significant wind farm on Lewis in the Western Isles of Scotland, divided the local community. The Western Isles Council supported the project but this decision was unpopular with many islanders. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was opposed (many hundreds of birds die in the blades), as were the representatives of Crofter communities who opposed the potential losses of crofting land. There is also the question of the noise made as the giant arms slice through the air. The Rambler’s Association has made protests against wind farm development in other scenic locations.

Sites for wind farms are often in sensitive environments, moorland and wet land being prime examples, and each site needs to be carefully assessed. Planning applications must satisfy a careful environmental assessment, including the impact on humans as well as on the environment. Where the issue is politically contentious, a public enquiry is the preferred method of dealing with the application. Those who are generally opposed to wind farms argue that better insulation of homes and for a mixed approach to energy needs, including offshore, tidal and wave power.

Green peace takes the view that a ‘windswept’ island like Great Britain should be taking the lead in all forms of renewable energy. It thinks that UK national policy has been confused by the search for a viable nuclear option and hence supports, in principle, the idea of a faster planning process as outlined by the Scottish Executive. Whatever problems wind power has, it is in Green Peace’s view better than the nuclear alternative.

It is clear that the issues are complex and that key to public acceptability is a proper but also timely planning process with careful environmental and public evaluation capable of weighing local versus national concerns. There is now enough good practice across Europe for the development of a careful policy that satisfies most parties, in Scotland and elsewhere. Denmark is probably key place to look when thinking through the issues, particularly with respect to the development of offshore sites.

Posted by William Henderson at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Robert Mugabe was the leader of the war against the Smith regime. As the problems in the country mounted he was seen by the people as the man who could bring order and restore prosperity. For a time he did this but the issue of rewarding the people who fought with him in the the bush with land did not go away. In the end he rejected a planned and ordered land reform and simply took it. The economic consequences for Zimbabwe have been dire. Now, as a result of the abuse of the democratic process and violence directed against the party of the candidate who won the election of the 29th March, he is seen internationally and in some places domestically too as a man who has moved from freedom-fighter to state terrorist. Gordon Brown has described those who surround him as a ‘criminal cabal’. Yet he has managed to convince many Zimbabweans that Morgan Tsvangirai is a colonialist puppet and that UK opposition to Mugabe’s rule in a ploy to re-colonize Zimbabwe. What is the case against Mugabe? Why are other African leaders so hesitant to take a stand against him?

Zimbabwe ought to be one of the most economically successful countries in Africa. When its neighbor Botswana became independent in 1966, Zimbabwe was by far the richer country. Now Botswana, thanks to a rational planning process, to careful administration and a stable though to some extent limited democracy, is several times better off in economic and social terms than Zimbabwe. Such levels of economic change and social progress were more likely not less likely in Zimbabwe but this never really happened. In just about every socio-economic indicator, Zimbabwe has been moving down the scale as the country has repeated and compounded economic mistakes made earlier in other parts of Africa. Mugabe’s regime has systematically removed the tax-base on which sound government finance depended and has resorted frequently to the printing press. The current lack of goods in the shop testifies to the huge rate of inflation that has been generated. What ought to have been a vibrant and successfully exporting economy over a broad-base is constrained within the China-sponsored mineral exporting base. In the meantime ordinary people suffer low standards of living, high unemployment and deteriorating life-expectancy.

The case that the G8 make against Mugabe is based not on his economic record (which is dire) but on the political and human rights abuses that have in recent years been a hallmark of his regime. The recent presidential election, from which Tsvangirai withdrew because of the level of violence, including murder, against his supporters, prompted strong condemnation (‘revulsion’) by the G8 leaders. The main impetus for the sanctions proposed against a group of Mugabe’s henchmen comes from the UK and the USA. Whilst the move is good, the fact that the UK is so strongly committed will give Mugabe further ammunition to play the re-colonization card. Mugabe in his mind has achieved a complete revolution by obtaining the land of the white farmers. It is this revolution, he seems to argue, that Britain is trying to undermine by undermining his regime. In some sense Mugabe is not the problem. Rather it is the group behind him who are absolutely intent on keeping the spoils gathered from office and who have nowhere to go. The personal embargo that is to be directed against such men could simply strengthen their willingness to resist international pressure and to increase the repression at home.

The unwillingness of African leaders, especially in neighboring countries to take too strong a line against Mugabe needs to be explored. First Mugabe was a freedom-fighter and hero for those people who acted against colonialism and apartheid. This makes it difficult to take to active a stance against him though this is starting to change. There are limits to the degree of tolerance. Second, Zimbabwe is a country with a number of ethnic divisions but where the Shona-Ndebele divide is a considerable importance. There is also an urban-rural divide as well as the division between the ZANU PF and the Movement for Democratic Change. Leaders in South Africa see the possibility of civil war if there is too much outside intervention. Tsvangirai withdrew because of the level of violence which he feared would tip over into something much worse. This speaks strongly for his political wisdom and experience. His courage is not in doubt. A civil war would have devastating consequences both for Zimbabweans and for the surrounding countries. Refugees and the potential instability that large numbers of refugees brings is a problem well-understood in Botswana and in South Africa. Thirdly, South Africa itself needs to resolve some of the land-issues that have been inherited from the apartheid regime. When taken together this insights give leaders food-for-thought. In this context action lead by the G8 through the United Nations would seem to be a possible way out. However China and Russia may not be over willing to lend their support in the Security Council and even then the options are limited. Mugabe may be around for some time to come.

Posted by William Henderson at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)