Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • A critical look at BC’s new tax breaks and subsidies for LNG May 7, 2019
    The BC government has offered much more to the LNG industry than the previous government. Read the report by senior economist Marc Lee.  
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver April 30, 2019
    The 2019 living wage for Metro Vancouver is $19.50/hour. This is the amount needed for a family of four with each of two parents working full-time at this hourly rate to pay for necessities, support the healthy development of their children, escape severe financial stress and participate in the social, civic and cultural lives of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Time to regulate gas prices in BC and stop industry gouging April 29, 2019
    Drivers in Metro Vancouver are reeling from record high gas prices, and many commentators are blaming taxes. But it’s not taxes causing pain at the pump — it’s industry gouging. Our latest research shows that gas prices have gone up by 55 cents per litre since 2016 — and the vast majority of that increase […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • CCPA welcomes Randy Robinson as new Ontario Director March 27, 2019
    The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to announce the appointment of Randy Robinson as the new Director of our Ontario Office.  Randy’s areas of expertise include public sector finance, the gendered rise of precarious work, neoliberalism, and labour rights. He has extensive experience in communications and research, and has been engaged in Ontario’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • 2019 Federal Budget Analysis February 27, 2019
    Watch this space for response and analysis of the federal budget from CCPA staff and our Alternative Federal Budget partners. More information will be added as it is available. Commentary and Analysis  Aim high, spend low: Federal budget 2019 by David MacDonald (CCPA) Budget 2019 fiddles while climate crisis looms by Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood (CCPA) Budget hints at priorities for upcoming […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

More free trade: Australia & China

Well, I finally got my name into the Australian papers.  So I guess I can come back to Canada now.  (We’re flying home, sigh, in another few weeks.)

I worked with the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (sister union, sectorally and politically, to the CAW) to produce a critique of the proposed Australia-China free trade agreement.  We used a similar “job content / input-output” methodology as in the earlier study I worked on with Daniel Poon, regarding the employment effects of a Canada-Korea FTA.  Based on an extrapolation of import and export patterns under Australia’s other FTAs, we estimate the first-order employment effects of an FTA with China to eliminate 170,000 jobs here — about 15 percent of the whole sector.  This is only very partially offset by small job gains in agriculture and mining.

Here’s the link to the full study:

http://www.amwu.asn.au/default.asp?Action=featured&ID=2

A couple of aspects to the story may be interesting to Canadian readers:

* As usual, the Walrasian CGE modelers have been shamelessly promoting the FTAs with their idealized simulations.  There’s only been one published CGE study of the Australia-China FTA (which the John Howard government here has been trying to negotiate for a couple of years now with the Chinese).  It’s worse than most.  At the core is the standard CGE BS (full employment, income-expenditure equilibrium, representative household, etc.).  It projects utterly tiny gains from standard factor reallocation following the FTA.  Then the modelers imposed, exogenously and on top of the CGE itself, additional assumptions that the FTA would: independently improve productivity in several manufacturing sectors and the entire services sector, independently boost productivity economy-wide (through the effect of liberalized investment), and independently enhance investment in all sectors (through the effect of enhanced investor confidence).  Lo and behold, when the model assumes higher productivity and investment, then it predicts more substantial (but still small) GDP gains.  I don’t think you need a PhD economist to make that kind of “prediction”: more productivity and investment is good.  Duh.  Nevertheless, the model (built by economists at Monash university, on commission to the federal government — go figger) has never been challenged until now.  We give it a good critique in our AMWU study.

* We also reviewed Australia’s experience with the 3 FTAs that have already been recently signed by the Howard government: Singapore, Thailand, and the U.S.  In every case, Australian imports grew far faster than Australian exports (in Singapore’s case they actually fell).  Moreover, there hasn’t even been the predicted “comparative advantage” specialization (with Australia’s abundant agriculture and mining industries getting a hypothetical Heckscher-Ohlin-style boost from trade liberalization).  In practice, no such pattern is visible — which suggests to me that Australia’s resource-based exports are limited more by global market conditions and supply constraints, not by trade barriers.  There is a clear anaology here to the Canadian experience.  My & Poon’s review of Canada’s recent FTAs found exactly the same pattern: much faster growth of Canadian imports than exports, and not even a boost to Canadian resource exports.  For two economies (Australia and China) which are rapidly devolving into resource suppliers to the world economy, a fair question can be asked: what is the benefit of an FTA, anyway?  All we are exporting is resources, which our customers need anyway.  They won’t get a boost from the FTA — but our imports sure will.

* The politics of globalization debates are downright bizarre Down Under.  The Labor party, and even most of the unions, have been supporting free trade — a holdover from Labor’s embrace of so-called “economic rationalism” in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  There are a few critics, but not many.  The new Labor leader, Kevin Rudd (who is miles ahead of Howard in the polls, with an election required later this year) is very business- and market-friendly.  He is also a real China-phile: he speaks Mandarin, and spent time in China as a diplomat.  So he is not well disposed to cancelling the FTA talks with China, even if he wins.  There will be a fight about this within Labor, however, with the AMWU leading the way.  Our best hope is that the FTA quietly dies after Labor wins.  But who knows.

Enjoy and share:

Write a comment





Related articles