Buy American and Fair Trade Policies to Spur National and Global Economic Recovery
Monday, April 27, 2009PERMALINK: http://www.progressivestates.org/node/23026 [4]
Buy American and Fair Trade Policies to Spur National and Global Economic Recovery
When Congress enacted the federal recovery plan, many state and federal leaders demanded "Buy American" provisions to ensure that the recovery plan funds would be directed to job creation in communities devastated by layoffs, particularly in steel and other manufacturing sectors especially hard hit by the economic meltdown. While these provisions were fiercely resisted by multinational corporate interests (and watered down in the final federal bill), they are one key policy to help revive the U.S. manufacturing sector and reorient the economy away from the neo-liberal "free trade" policies that have undermined wage standards throughout the economy.
The reality is that the U.S. manufacturing sector is in free fall, threatening a core engine of our economy and threatening to lower wages further for workers in our nation. And this is just part of a more general crisis, at home and globally, of falling wages undermining global demand and further weakening the overall economy.
As this Dispatch will outline, Buy American policies are a first step in promoting an alternative to the trade and deregulation policies that fueled the current economic crisis. Ultimately, we need policies that strengthen local tools for economic growth at home, combined with fair trade policies to raise wage standards abroad as well. Also, as corporate interests increasingly use trade agreements to restrict state authority to protect worker, consumer and environmental interests, states are increasingly reviewing those trade agreements in order to restore states' ability to effectively respond to economic crises and protect the long-term interests of working families. Instead of the casino economy of financial excess, rising economic inequality and stagnant wages, we need to restore an economy based on a vibrant manufacturing sector at home and a fair trade system globally that raises wage standards for all workers around the globe. The Problem: The Collapse of the Manufacturing Economy
While the common perception is that manufacturing jobs have been declining for decades, the truth is that between 1967 and 1997, manufacturing jobs cycled between a low of 16.5 million and a high of just over 19 million. After 1997, however, the numbers began to drop precipitously, reaching 13.9 million in 2007—its lowest point since 1949. Between 2001 and 2007-- long before the financial crisis -- states lost 3 million manufacturing jobs [10] with those losses only growing since then.
Corporate Excess, Not Workers' Wages, Drove U.S. Manufacturing Collapse: Despite attacks on workers and unions as the cause of the decline of American manufacturing -- notably present in the rhetorical attack on the auto bailout -- the reality is that manufacturing wages in the U.S. are lower than many other nations as highlighted the Economic Policy Institute highlights in its report, Squandering the Blue-collar Advantage [11] :
While health care costs are a problem for U.S. manufacturers, the real problem is overpaid CEOs and managers. In fact, if the wages of U.S. managerial and non-supervisory labor were similar to the median wages of their counterparts in comparable countries, U.S. manufacturing would have a 6.4% cost advantage over major trading partners. These excessive salaries and compensation at the top, in addition to the wealthy's other bloated gains such as the financial sector's bubble, are what have truly undermined the U.S. economy.
"Free Trade" Deals have been Pushed by the Same Multi-National Companies Benefiting from Low Wages Globally: The companies opposing Buy American policies [12] are the same ones that pushed the deregulation and "free trade" policies that got us into the current economic mess in the first place. As the Economic Policy Institute explains [13], "Companies like Caterpillar...want unfettered access to cheap steel from countries like China, which poured more than $15 billion into energy subsidies [14] into that sector in 2007 alone. Chinese steel imports more than doubled [15] between January and November 2008, while U.S. steel production fell nearly 40%." If manufacturing and a high-wage economy for workers in America is to be saved, it will be in spite of the corporate elite that is interested only in their own global profits. Why "Buy American" is Good for Global Economic Recovery
Despite the myth, "Buy American" provisions are neither a threat to global trade nor are protectionist ("fair trade" policies aren't protectionist either as will be discussed below). In fact, the greatest danger is that without such domestic purchasing provisions in stimulus packages around the world, global production and trade could collapse.
Protectionism is when private purchasers of any product are required to buy only domestic versions of a product or are required pay such a high tariff on foreign products that it creates the same result. The "Buy American" provisions in the recovery plan, on the other hand, are quite limited [16], applying only to the purchase of iron, steel and manufacturers goods by government agencies using recovery funds. Though this is hardly enough to undermine the global trading regime, fears that federal spending would not lead to creating domestic jobs threatened to undermine support for the overall hundreds of billions needed for the stimulus.
How Domestic Buying Mandates Can Spur Global Trade Growth: Globally, all nations would be better off if each would engage in fiscal stimulus, but any individual country doing so might be hurt if they are the only ones. Requirements to buy domestically may be the key to convincing enough nations to pass sufficient amounts of stimulus to jump start the global economy.
The problem right now is that nations fear that going into heavy amounts of debt could undermine their economies in the future. Even worse, if stimulus spending goes to buy foreign products, that debt will do little to revive their own economies in the immediate future. The Economist magazine recently highlighted [17] resistance to stimulus spending by countries like the Netherlands out of fear that money spent would just flow through trade to other countries because of the European Union's internal trade rules, where the gains to growth "will not remain within one country’s borders, nor will that growth be controlled by any one government." Domestic buying provisions tied only to the debt being used to pay for stimulus funds can solve this dilemma. By enacting domestic buying requirements, each nation can expect to reap immediate job creation results from that stimulus debt, while their citizens will be free to spend their new salaries on all manner of goods, foreign and domestic, thereby adding to global demand. If domestic buying requirements tied to stimulus debt encourage nations to engage in greater stimulus, the end result will be greater global spending, greater global demand and expanded global trade -- despite the tut-tutting of the "flat earth" free traders [18]. Implementing Recovery Plan's "Buy American" Provisions in the States
The core of the Buy American provisions in the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are in Sec. 1605:
There are exceptions for particular projects where the lack of availability of U.S. alternatives would increase the price too much or where doing so would undermine international trade agreements to which the U.S. is a party. This builds on the 1933 Buy American Act, which applied to federal contracts, and the 1982 Buy American Act, which applied to transit-related projects funded by the federal government.
"Buy American" Policies Don't Violate Current Trade Rules: As this report [19] by the Association for American Manufacturing outlines, the Buy American provisions in the Recovery Act are designed to be consistent with both international law and the practice of many of our trading partners. The U.S., for example, did not subject any state level procurement actions to NAFTA, including state procurement financed with federal funds, and it has specifically excluded federal funds for mass transit and highway projects from all trade agreements to which it is a party. Also, other countries maintain domestic spending requirements for government procurement:
Because the U.S. and thirty-seven states have signed onto the World Trade Organization's General Procurement Agreement (GPA), the recovery plan's Buy American rules can only be applied in a limited fashion to other signatories of the GPA, but this does not apply to major steel producers such as Russian, China, Ukraine, India and Brazil which are not GPA signatories.
Even with sources from countries that are members of the GPA, one independent corporate legal analysis [20] of the Buy American provisions noted that whatever the constraints on the federal government due to trade agreements, the 13 states and District of Columbia which have not themselves signed onto the GPA "should be free to apply ARRA funds for public building and public work projects in accordance with the Buy American provision." Other states that agreed to the GPA may be able to rely on certain exemptions, such as for construction-grade steel, motor vehicles and coal, as well as improvement of environmental quality or mass transit, highway projects and potential funding going to local communities not covered by the GPA.
States and Communities Support Buy American provisions: A recent poll [21] shows that 84% percent of Americans support “Buy America” provisions. So far, more than 350 “Buy American” resolutions have been passed [22]around the nation, with notable action in a number of key industrial states:
Other Buy American bills include Alabama's HJR 346 [26], Kentucky's HCR 147 [27]/HCR 144 [28], and Minnesota's S 241 [29]/H 352 [30]. The United Steelworkers has a "Buy American" Resolution Tool Kit [22] including model resolutions [31], fact sheets [32], and other resources to help spread support for Buy American resolutions in other states and communities. Using State Spending to Raise Wages Globally
Beyond buying American goods, governments can work to raise wage standards globally by requiring that all contractors, whatever their country of origin, meet labor, environmental and human rights standards.
Problem of Rising Wage Inequality is Global: The wage inequality problem in the United States is just an extreme version of a global problem of low wages undermining global growth. An International Labor Organization study last fall, entitled Global Wage Report 2008/09 [33], found that since 1995 inequality between the highest and lowest wages has increased internally in more than two-thirds of the countries for which there is data. The U.S. leads the advanced economic world in rising inequality, but there has been similar rising wage inequality in countries ranging from Germany to Poland to Thailand to China. As the Center for American Progress argues [34], "declining wages mean a decrease in global purchasing power and a slow down of global consumption," fueling the loss of manufacturing jobs since consumers around the world lack the income to purchase goods.
Combating the Global Race to the Bottom: Sweatshops and the "race to the bottom" of lower global wages is not actually a foreign problem but one driven by our own multinational corporations. For example, while China has contributed to stagnant wages through ruthless suppression of organizing by independent unions, multinationals from wealthy nations have been a chief driver of the low-wage expansion in China. Morgan Stanley’s chief economist Stephen Roach estimates [35] that 65% of the tripling of Chinese exports —from $121 billion in 1994 to $365 billion in mid 2003 — is traceable to outsourcing by Chinese subsidiaries of multinational corporations and joint ventures. The problem is that there are 150 million [36]unemployed [36]workers in China [36], far more than the actual number of workers in the United States. With so many workers competing for jobs, wages are likely to remain at rock-bottom rates, hovering at about $100-$120 month for industrial workers .this for long hours 6 or 7 days a week in often toxic and unregulated work conditions. Global Labor Strategies wrote in 2008 in a comprehensive evaluation of strategies [37] for raising wage standards in China and globally:
Many right-wing leaders have sought to scapegoat undocumented immigrants for wage problems in the U.S., but Jeff Faux of the Economic Policy Institute has explained the dilemma [38]: "Since NAFTA's inception in 1994--indeed, for the 20 years of neo-liberal 'reform'--the Mexican middle class has shrunk and the number of poor has expanded . . . So the northward migration continues." Raising living standards in Mexico and other countries where migrants are suffering from failed trade policies is a far better solution to immigration concerns than the punitive policies proposed by the right.
While any comprehensive solution must include global trade deals that include requirements to respect the right of workers to form unions and collaboration to promote higher wage standards, state governments can take action through their government contracts to effect wage standards in countries from which they purchase goods and services.
Ending Subsidies for Sweatshops: Subsidizing Sweatshops II [39] released this month by Sweatfree Communities details a range of U.S. government contracts going to sweatshops around the world that "inadvertently use tax dollars to increase the downward pressure on labor rights and wages, hastening a race to the bottom which is costing many U.S. workers their jobs." It doesn't have to be that way, as communities and states increasingly are toughening procurement standards to require that government contractors raise wage, safety and environmental standards at their overseas operations and subcontractors.
Already, eight states, thirty-five cities and many other local government units have adopted "sweatfree" procurement policies [40] to require contractors to raise workplace standards. These include California [41], Illinois [42], Maine ( 2001 law [43], 2006 law [44], 2007 law [45]), New Jersey [46], New York (2006 law [47], Apparel [48], Sports Equipment [49]), Ohio [50], Pennsylvania (Policy, March 2004 [51], Resolution, July 2008 [52]), and Vermont [53]. In Oklahoma last year, state Representative Rebecca Hamilton filed HB 3067 to address the trade-driven causes of immigration [54]. The bill repealed portions of last year's anti-immigration law, and instead, made it illegal for the state of Oklahoma to contract with any company that has closed American facilities and opened new factories outside the country, unless they operate those factories in compliance with United States wage, safety, and human rights guarantees. Rather than punishing hardworking immigrants, legislators can support American-made goods and fair labor standards. Reviewing Trade Agreements to Strengthen States' Ability to Respond to Economic Crisis
As we detailed two years ago [55], and various allies such as Global Trade Watch [56], the Forum on Democracy and Trade [57], and the AFL-CIO [58] have documented, a key threat is the increasing encroachment of trade agreements on state authority over a range of labor, environmental and consumer concerns. Here are just a few threats to state procurement rules detailed in this recent Global Trade Watch fact sheet [59] :
New proposed trade agreements could not only further limit state procurement powers but undermine other areas of state authority. Proposed WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) [60] rules could undercut efforts to promote universal health insurance [61] by barring certain health regulations and state professional licensing laws as illegal "service monopolies" or undercut state powers over zoning and land use [62] or gambling [63] limits. States Taking Action: Various states have established oversight committees [64] to develop expertise on the effect of international trade agreements on state powers and better position states to weigh in during the trade agreement negotiating process to highlight states' interests in pushing for fair trade agreements. For example the Maine Citizen Trade Policy Commission [65] (CTPC) was created by statute in 2003 [66] and held public hearings on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2004 and has lobbied U.S. trade representatives on an ongoing basis.
More generally, what have also been called "Jobs, Trade and Democracy Acts [67]," establish not only oversight authority but would prevent governors from signing on to trade agreements without approval by state lawmakers.
New Jersey's legislature has engaged in one of the most thorough reviews of how its state policies impact outsourcing and offshoring and the final report of the commission [68] set up the legislature has a range of recommendations for changes in policy, from enacting trade oversight commissions, discouraging contracts for businesses eliminating in-state jobs by offshoring them, discouraging privatization more generally, strengthening anti-sweatshop rules, requiring a living wage for all contractor employees, and strengthening public transparency of the contracting process.
Building Coalitions for Fair Trade: Critical to any successful fair trade will be building a broad coalition of legislators, community groups, unions, environmentalists and human rights groups. Such a coalition must work together to promote a global vision of growth through raising wage standards globally as an alternative to the reining neoliberal "free trade" regime of limited local autonomy and a race to the bottom of lowered wages and expectations. For a good example of such a coalition and its principles, see Washington State's Platform for Fair Trade [69] which includes, among other provisions:
Conclusion: The Need for a Bottom-Up RecoveryInvesting in the manufacturing economy is the first step in promoting policies that raise living standards for working families. Rather than focus economic growth on the favored few at the top of the economic pyramid as was true throughout recent decades, we need a new global economic system that encourages cooperation in helping each nation raise wage standards for all workers. ResourcesThe Problem: The Collapse of the Manufacturing Economy
Center for American Progress - Wage Inequality Is a Global Challenge Implementing Recovery Plan's "Buy American" Provisions in the States
Thompson-Hine - How Will the Buy American Provision of the ARRA/Stimulus Package Conform With U.S. WTO Obligations? Using State Spending to Raise Wages Globally
Global Labor Strategies - Why China Matters: Labor Rights in the Age of Globalization Reviewing Trade Agreements to Strengthen States' Ability to Respond to Economic Crisis
New Jersey Commission on Outsourcing and Offshoring Final Report [68] 3 Steps Forward1. OK: Henry vetoes "sovereignty" resolution that called for giving back recovery funds [78] 2. IA: In Iowa, a historic day for gay couples [79] 3. CO: Tax breaks for in-state capital gains challenged [80] 2 Steps Back1. US: State budget gaps top $200 billion; fees, tax hikes in the works [81] 2. MO: Regressive Income Tax Changes and Income Tax Elimination Both Pass the House of Representatives [82] MastheadThe Stateside Dispatch is written and edited by:
Nathan Newman [9], Interim Executive Director
Please shoot us an email at dispatch@progressivestates.org [90] if you have feedback, tips, suggestions, criticisms, or nominations for any of our sidebar features.
|
