Customer Reviews

Whose Trade Organization?: A Comprehensive Guide to the World Trade Organization, Second Edition

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A MUST read for all citizens and government employees! We have been sold down the river. All of our health, safety, environmental, labor, and manufacturing policies have been compromised by the dictates of the WTO. The only ones benefitting from this organization are multi-national and U.S. mega-corporations and rich countries. They can challenge any and all policies of any country in which they feel there is trade discrimination. Wallach and Sforza do a fantastic job of documenting numerous instances.

Contrary to the typical rantings of Neo-cons and neo-liberals, this book is not a book by and for Socialists (or, more accurately, anti-capitalists of any sort). This book does not have any kind of critique of capitalism. Only the sort of ideologues who lust after Latin American dictatorships like Pinochet's, which meant 'small government' (no social welfare type apparatus) and a strong state (death squads, political executions, smashing of dissent), will find this book threatening.

The book does have a lot of useful information on how the WTO runs and how it is focussed on the needs of corporations, most of which reside in the most developed capitalist countries, and which seek a set of global rules that allows them greater freedom of movement to invest and exploit (wow, I already hear the neo-cons whining because I used the 'E' word.) It also shows that the balance between global capital and the nation state has shifted, though this does not have the dire anti-democratic consequences claimed herein. That would be the liberal assumption that the nation state 'represents the people' and that that is a good thing.

At the same time as some people claim that the WTO is killing the nation state, this book makes it clear that the WTO is a body run by and through nation states. Corporations cannot directly intervene, but must have their concerns addressed through nation state mediators.

The book also does a good job of exposing the total lack of accountability of the WTO, as well as one of its unique features: unlike previous UN organizations, the WTO has disciplinary powers which it can use to enforce its rulings, something no 'humanitarian' part of the UN ever had.

The abscence of any kind of class analysis hinders this book theoretically and means that some possibly interesting questions do not get answered.

This book is better read alongside some other texts, which, even with their failings, fill in some of blanks here, such as Negri and Hardt's Empire.

Overall, a pretty useful and utilitarian overview of the WTO.

Just what are all those protesters so upset about, anyway? This book will tell you. It's a quick, accurate, well-composed book examining the effects of the WTO on developing countries' poverty, health care, natural resources, and human rights.

This review doesn't need to be lengthy: Look, there are lots of books on the WTO. If you want the accurate summary to understand this issue simply, this is it.

This book did a wonderful job of thoroughly covering dispute cases and pointing out structural flaws in the WTO. The writing style was easy to understand and appealed to a broad audience.

This book is merely a compilation of statistics that run counter to WTO claims. There is no history of the WTO, no descriptions of its members, staff, headquarters, etc. There is no continuous narrative. Just statistics and data, data, data.
A good reference book for lawyers, trade-representatives and politicians.

When I purchased this book I was hoping to learn more about the structure of the World Trade Organization, how it functions, etc. Instead I got a very one sided and sometimes emotional third world rant on how it is exploiting people (particularly third world countries and people).

I live in the first world, moreover I don't think very many people in the third world could afford to buy this book. Now the case examples of the WTO in action in regards to patents and trade disputes was disturbing (and thus one of the best parts of the book). For example, it tells how the US got into a trade dispute with Canada and the U.S. was forced to repeal it's legislation prohibiting asbestos because of WTO tribinal decision (the WTO tribunals are ultra secretive which itself is a bad sign, if you are doing what is right why hide it).

However 2/3 of this book goes into a rant talking about how the EU and US are trying to exploit India, Brazil, Indonesia and other third world nations, how those third world nations are fighting back etc.

That page space could be better used explaining how the WTO hurts people in america (which I assure you it does, the mass immigration from mexico was caused by the destruction of the mexican farming sector). Personally, I believe that these various economies shouldn't be interconnected because it creates the possibility of global depression caused by a few major economies having hard times (think of the saying: Don't put all your eggs in one basket), as well as inconsistency in various national laws and host of problems that are hard to solve on a national scale. Sadly, increased pressure for global governance seems to be where the backlash against the WTO and free trade is taking us (An even more ridiculous solution to a ridiculous problem).

This book could have been better instead they (the authors) decided to make it primarily about anti-corporate emotionalism (anti-capitalist emotionalism) and third world victim ranting.

I had to read Whose Trade Organization for a graduate level political science course. The books is perfect for those arguing on the anti-globalization side of the debate and may be somewhat useful for those who argue for limited or slow globalization reforms.

Unfortunately the book has clouded and conflated issues, subscribes to fallacious reasoning, and blatantly ignores empirical evidence. Whether she is pushing an ideological viewpoint or ignorant of reality is another question that I won't answer..

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests more free trade creates poverty. Evidence suggests the opposite. The real income of third world labor (As happened in the first world in the 19th century) is on the rise, not decline. Yes there is an "inequality" in this rise, but global society is rising as a whole. To suggest this inequality is wrong or bad is to make the assumption that the wealth of the world is a zero sum game...which it is not. Looking at relative gains in economics is a fallacious way of viewing the world.

There is also no evidence that suggests that more economic openness, also known as economic freedom, reduces democracy. As a matter of fact the overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that the more open a society is the more civil and political freedoms citizens enjoy. Countries who suppress economic trade tend to be far less democratic but most often tyrannical dictatorships.

The author seems to subscribe to an idea that democracy is defined by action a government can take, specifically, action in regard to the political majority. She believes that increasing globalization (more importantly classic liberalism: for non political and econ types this means free trade and limited government) will reduce democracy by reducing governments ability to take action to "solve problems" or through accountability to the people.

The reality is...again the opposite. In no way can anyone construe a political majority as being an example of governmental accountability. This is what classic theorists described as a tyranny of the majority, where a group votes themselves the wealth of the nation at the expense of the minority. In modern times such notions of majority rule led to segregation, discrimination, and everyone's favorite: Nazi Germany, who by the way were elected to lead Germany democratically. Who seriously wants to argue that democracy is defined by majority rule?

She also confuses government action with government sovereignty. Yes, governments will lose sovereignty over economic policies through globalization. But this by no means demonstrates a loss of accountability to the people. Again she is conflating government action with the will (tyranny) of the majority and assuming this is accountability.

The fact is that the policy preferences she desires produce the results she hates. Governments who retain the ability to economically discriminate (set up protections) give a great deal of power to the capital owners in that society. They are effectively able to protect their capital from outside competition at the expense of the domestic consumer who must now pay high prices for goods. At the international level, foreign producers find themselves restricted as to where they can import and as a result labor in those countries find themselves unable to develop and pull themselves up from poverty. Corporations learn to use government intervention to their own advantage at the expense of society.

She also operates under the fallacious assumption that corporations seeking their own advantage under a free market will reduce democracy and, as the anti globalization protestors like to scream, a "tyranny of profits" or rule by corporation. That simply isn't the case, nor possible. Competition between corporations will increase greatly, reducing any political power you think they wield now. Because voluntary transaction is the rule of the game for free trade, corporations will only be able to attract profits by getting customers to purchase products or services. With competition in the mix each company must do their best to attract customers by being the best, having the highest quality, the lowest price good, or a combination of these or other issues. The result is simple, corporations are accountable to the people because their survival depends on it! Those corporations who are unable to give the people want the want in the market either die out or innovate and try again. Furthermore, limited governments under free trade won't be able to take action to give corporations special privileges...special privileges that make "special interests" possible.

I find it absolutely silly to argue that corporations are taking advantage of everyone and then follow it up with an argument for more government intervention. I find it even sillier to want to help the third world poor and then argue economic protection for first world industries and agriculture from weak and developing third world industries and agriculture.

The problem is not the WTO it is globalization that is maturing in a world that still accepts an archaic form of global trade: mercantilism. Scholars like these conflate mercantilist-capitalism with free trade-capitalism and assume all the negative aspects of protectionism (a mix of voluntary and coercive transactions) will occur under a system of free trade (voluntary transaction). Mercantilism and Free Trade are polar opposites and neither are necessary conditions for globalization (that is globalization can occur under either, I believe). The on balance will ONLY be positive for the world if Free Trade is the rule set, which is what the WTO pushes. Mercantilism, socialism, communism will only make poverty worse, stagnate economies, restrict innovation, exploit the consumer, and result in a very privileged elite at the expense of society.

Overall, the book is incorrect in its assessment of opening trade and reducing trade restrictions. The results of which will not be more poverty or a reduction in democracy. The book is the result of years of fallacious reasoning, clouded facts, and illogical arguments. (I own this)