3 ms·
>Moreover, by its very nature globalization enables regulatory arbitrage, so you can live in a country with relatively good EHS rules, and produce in a country
by blablabla123 7y ago
>Moreover, by its very nature globalization enables regulatory arbitrage, so you can live in a country with relatively good EHS rules, and produce in a country with bad or no EHS rules.
It could be solved by making transitive EHS rules. I.e. rules that require the source also applying these rules. This is still some kind of rarity but they do exist. For instance for years it has been very difficult/impossible to import US meat into the EU because of that. (Mostly because of different antibiotics usage AFAIK.) To some degree such rules also exist in other industries. For example it makes little sense to import a cheaply produced car from a non-EU/non-US vendor into the EU (or probably US) because it won't match the safety regulations and would at least have to go through an expensive individual (re-)certification process, and might even need customizations for that. Of course nobody does this and people buy a cheap FIAT or VW instead.
Globalization is really nice I think because it connects countries and people through economy and thus also fostering peace. ;) It could become even much nicer by adapting regulations in the destination markets. Custom tariffs and local subsidies are another way to solve this but those are obviously much less fine-grained (25% on everything :)) and come from a time when there was no globalization. In fact the high EU subsidies on agricultural products still seem to be the reason that impede African countries to export agricultural products into the EU. On the other hand the African market is flooded with subsidised EU produce, making it hard to sell products for small farmers.
Probably markets could be far less distorted if the regulations in the industry nations would be modernized... I'm not in favour of any form of turbo capitalism but free markets cannot really be blamed for this because we don't have them anyways.
- piva00 7y agoIdeal free markets simply cannot exist when the safety of people is our primary goal. I'm not sure if you meant that with the statement "because we don't have them anyways" so I'm pointing this out loud because on every discussion about regulations and free markets this is one argument I still would haven't heard a good counterpoint to.
- rossdavidh 7y agoI don't think free trade between countries is so likely to foster peace. There are many examples, but "gunboat diplomacy" of the U.S. in Japan, and the Opium War in China, are two that come to mind. Even Russia's invasion of Ukraine was in large part because of the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU. But, to your main point, most 3rd world countries don't have the resources to enforce or abide by 1st World EHS rules. That's understandable; we didn't have them in the 1st world when we were at those income levels, either. Plus, most of the trade between the 1st and 3rd worlds exists primarily in order to get lower costs, and most of those lower costs are due to the lack of EHS rules; if you eliminate the EHS arbitrage, you eliminate most of the trade. Which is fine by me, but just eliminating the trade directly is much more plausible than somehow forcing 3rd world countries to spend their money on 1st world levels of government regulatory apparatus.