interstate competition and sustainable development
The end of trade barriers, barriers to the movement of capital, and development of rapid transportation and inexpensive lead to almost complete deregulation and detrimental to a harmonious development.
Over the "rounds" (cycles) the GATT (General Agreement we Tariffs and Trade, in 1994 became the World Trade Organization) has spread worldwide, and the few who are not members are now exception (Russia, Belarus ...). The heart of the WTO lies in the now famous "clause of the most favored nation." This clause is a simple principle: if a WTO Member State grants a tariff favored for its products, then this country must accord all WTO member countries the same benefit to the entire class of this product without possible discrimination (1). Each state is therefore obliged to apprehend his policy Customs globally (almost globally), not in a context of patronage, with all that that implied political intrigue, and political preference or ideological, or economic sanctions to stifle another member state of WTO. Is approached from a "Hayekian" of market regulation, as we have mentioned in a previous article (see Consuming just or fair use), and one can only rejoice at the supposed end discrimination against rival countries economically or politically.
Second instrument created after the Second World War : International finance as embodied by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. It should be noted that the loans (which are rarely grants) of these organisms are conditioned by respect "criteria of good governance." While some of these criteria are those that we should legitimately expect the recipient of the funds released: project viability, guarantees of integrity, compliance with accounting rules, compliance standards including sanitary and phytosanitary measures, but other criteria cons are clearly ideologically connoted: elimination of tariffs, privatization particular. (2) The goal is to ensure free movement of capital and goods, to establish a global market.
Add to this technological advancement that has drastically reduced transportation costs, the collapse of communism rotted by corruption and obsolescence of economic tools, the dissemination of business English, disparities in living standards and law, and we get all the elements of a forum shopping, which deregulates the market completely.
forum shopping, butchering and legal deregulation Forum shopping is the ability to choose the right case for each which is more favorable. For example, a strong currency like the euro or the dollar, while locating production in China, Thailand or elsewhere, to take advantage of cheap labor without social rights, and where the obligations security are fewer, if they exist, and therefore less expensive. Regarding some states particularly complacent, Army and Police are even available to employers, such as ousting a strike that would turn s'insurrection. Thus, the legal conditions are more disparate, more economic agents operating at the international level are favored. How is this legally possible? Unable to deal with private international law simply without shortcuts. To provide an appropriate vision, note that (s) right (s) applicable (s) varies / nt according to the subject matter: the right of the person, company law depend on the nationality or location of the seat social, labor law often depends on the place of performance of the service, etc..
Prior to the Forum shopping, states were competing to attract investment, and had to build a politico-legal and socio-economically attractive, but should not neglect none of these aspects, because the choice of one could not be separated from the others. Thus the U.S. could argue a strong currency, a large domestic market, but suffered from a labor cost and a litigious trend. Germany had for her excellence in its industry, dragging a heavy unionization, but a culture of peaceful collective bargaining. France argued the effectiveness of its public services, and productivity per hour worked great, while his weaknesses were the constant threat of strikes (and if you go back a little further in time, its tendency to revolution). Now, time is no longer a choice for society, but in a choice of activity, for which we must offer the best conditions for investors to curry his favor, if not to say ignore the interest of his country. Take for example the case of sex tourism: some countries do not see any interest in taking effective measures against sexual exploitation of minors as long as there is a market for such degradation. It is the same working conditions or environmental, that would be a charge that the company would not assume. 
Because the investor is a free rider (rider), by very definition that gave Olson. Motivated by his own interests accounting, it does not try to fill the cracks, but can operate at without taking into account the public interest and will carve its business by producing and selling there, and transported by a third (butchering: Also used in private international law when different parts of a contract are subject to different rights). We also include in this respect John Nash. The father the "game theory" has shown that in many games where the pursuit of individual interest led to one or more sub-optimal equilibria (Nash equilibria). Skinning and deregulation true if the investor himself alone, there is no reason to blame him as such. Capitalist society is profit, and is far preferable to the company sunk. It is also written in the definition in the Civil Code "in order to share the profits." The problem is that competition states between them leads to a frantic race ahead in a bidding war that leads them to consider only the requirements of investors, whose entire economy needs, it goes without saying, contempt, if necessary, the interest. They are also the states that become free riders because of the premium to the highest bidder, in defiance of global concern. This is manifested by a disregard for the environment, natural resources, for Human Rights. This has led to a de facto modern slavery in lawless areas specially equipped as in China, Mexico, Haiti (EPZs). Skinning allows research the law less restrictive in any case has led to widespread deregulation regarding matters of law flowing freely, ie goods and capital, but alone. To maintain a sufficiently attractive (though France is the second country that receives the most foreign capital behind China which has him steal the first place), the Western states to deregulate everything goes.
Before the flight of his companies prefer London or Rotterdam, the more favorable legal level of corporate law, France established a very flexible SAS (simplified joint stock company). The free movement of workers across Europe were aligned using the Bolkestein directive on employment law regimes most of Europe has minima: those new member countries from the former Soviet bloc. The first employment contract and his twin brother the new contract would allow the hiring of foreign companies come to seek employment in France, hyper flexible and precarious work in their country through a services directive that would sanction a state of affairs: inefficient for cross-border workers protective regimes.
The
rightful place in the competition interstate Yet the competition among states could and should be rich and fertile. This could be the competition, which makes rival their scientific research, their expertise, their art, their education, urban infrastructure, their industries, their agriculture, their creativity, well-being of their populations, in short their genius. And this competition is the indispensable sword of Damocles over the heads of governments so that each act of kindness, so that each sees neglect is reflected immediately on the country's competitiveness, and thus citizens are demanding of them and still be active factors in their democracy.
To do this, that this competition should be done on a site chosen by the people through their states, and some are deliberately banned bidding. There would be a way: the International Convention reciprocal, universal and effectively enforced. But it is precisely this logic of the free rider who gets in the way, as in the prisoner's dilemma (3) where each betrays fear of being betrayed, to the detriment of both actors. And so there is nothing to wait for decisive government development sustainable self-restraint. However, an outside authority will necessarily have to intervene to secure another balance which, if not optimal, will be at least sustainable. This role is the consumer and no one else who plays in a market economy. We will see in a future article how he will regain his position.
1 An exception is recognized for regional agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade), or the EU (European Union), but since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, the EU has abandoned " Community preference "which allowed States to the EU to grant tariff preferences without having to benefit all partners. The EU finds itself without tariff barrier to stem imports from abroad, and each of its member states is seen in direct competition with developed countries economic development and societal choices, when other economic zones to protect from outside. The EU countries are particularly vulnerable to global market deregulation.
2 It is of course no question of any advocacy of economic centralism and state planning, leading often too far from competition to monopolies exploiting the consumer, by providing goods at high prices, and lower quality than competitive situation. This is by cons in mind that these bodies should not be tools to promote ideological, and that state sovereignty must be respected as the well-being of citizens is improved (it is after all the alibi raised by these funds).
3 The Prisoner's Dilemma is an illustration of the type of game theory of John Nash. Following investigations, we managed to arrest two robbers that we assume about to shine a bank. To obtain confessions, they are separated then they are offered the following market: everyone can terminate or not terminate the other. If neither condemns it pay the price of one year imprisonment each. If both condemning the other, they have 7 years in prison each. If one denounces the other and not one who has complained of is released, and the other takes 10 years in prison. The paradox is that each person has an interest in denouncing. Indeed, suppose that A robber does not denounce, he has an even chance of being denounced, and two not to be, so on average 1 / 2 + 10 / 2 = 11 / 2 = 5.5 years. For if cons denounced it an even chance of being denounced and a chance of not being so average 0 + 7 / 2 = 3.5 years. A report will therefore B, especially since he is convinced that the latter has more interest to report that not doing so, he will denounce it, so much to cover. And so both players miss the best balance: mutual silence with which they would be one year in prison. The most fun in the prisoner's dilemma is that experiments have shown that even leaving the prisoners to agree before separating them, even when they end up being betrayed by lack of trust (or opportunism ultimately unsuccessful).
Reprinted by Agoravox
TRACKBACK URL: http://www.agoravox.fr/tb_receive.php3?id_article=10470
0 comments:
Post a Comment