|
Action for Community and Ecology in the Regions of Central America
|
|
|
ACERCA |
by Bob Naiman Center for Economic and Policy Research Supporters of the FTAA claim it will benefit people in Latin America through greater access to U.S. markets for goods they produce. The simplest answer to this claim is that the economic model we now call "globalization" has been in place in Latin America for the last twenty years: if these policies were benefiting the majority of people in these countries, we should be able to see some clear evidence of this by now. But the last twenty years in Latin America have seen very slow economic growth by historical standards. Average incomes in Latin America ("per capita GDP˛) rose only 6% from 1980 to 1998, whereas between 1960 and 1980, average incomes rose by 75%. Yet in the previous period there was less "globalization": international trade and investment represented a smaller share of national economies, and economic development was more internally-directed. Increasing trade with the United States isn't likely to help people in the region if they're not allowed to have national economic policies that spread the benefits. For example, it's not going to do Bolivia, a "heavily indebted poor country," any good to increase its exports to the United States if all of the export earnings are siphoned off to pay debts to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Increasing exports in such a situation actually diverts production from domestic consumption to paying debts. Moreover, although the text of the agreement is still secret, the FTAA is certain to have provisions that will further restrict the ability of Latin American countries to build their domestic economies: requirements to observe patents and copyrights held by U.S. corporations, prohibitions on governments imposing "performance requirements" on U.S. corporations, and provisions allowing U.S. corporations to sue Latin American governments. |