Free Trade, Fair Trade, and Gender - Essay Example

Free Trade, Fair Trade and Gender Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: 1. About Free Trade, Fair Trade Free trade is a concept used in reference to minimal to no barriers in trade among nations. The concept indicates that trade should be characterised by general openness among sellers and buyers in different countries. On its part, fair trade is a concept denoting that trade should occur in even and equitable terms among nations. Fair trade proposes that market exchanges should be conducted in a manner that meets justice demands (Eisenberg 2005). The question about whether free trade is good to developing countries is hard to answer because, free trade has been found to have its good and bad sides. According to Eisenberg (2005), free trade enables countries to produce commodities in which they have comparative advantage in. It also enhances production efficiencies through better resource allocation, benefits consumers by availing a wider choice of products, creates employment, enhances economic growth and increases foreign exchange gains. On the counter side however, Eisenberg (2005) observes that free trade can lead to: the increase of structural unemployment such as the one witnessed in China, exposure of domestic economies to instabilities in the global markets, dumping, environmental problems especially where environmental legislation is low, and problems related to competitiveness especially when industries from developing countries are trying to compete with large foreign multinationals from the developed countries. On the whole however, it would appear that free trade would be comparatively bad for developing nations, since it would expose them to unfair competition from the developed countries. As Eisenberg (2005) notes, a free trade scenario would lead to the rich (developed) countries becoming richer, while the poor (developing) countries would end up becoming poorer. Notably, the free trade concept is contentious after the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Round of talks in 2008. In the post Doha era, countries are stepping up to liberalise their markets by signing regional pacts and bilateral trade agreements. One such country is Indonesia, which by 2012, was negotiating free trade agreements (FTAs) with the European Free Trade Association, and with Chile (Yulisman 2013). Critics quoted by Yulisman (2013) however observe that Indonesia is risking posing major threats to local businesses through such FTAs, which would be handicapped in growth if the Indonesian market was liberalised. Other cautionary messages indicate that if Indonesia carries ahead with its liberation intentions, the country will give up on the dream of ever having home-grown industries or the added value of having its own industries. As the part of the global market, developing markets need a market for their goods and a source of goods for what they do not produce. Finding the right form of trade is inevitable. In its website (www.wto.org), WTO (2013, para.1) says it is “NOT for free trade at any cost”. Rather, it encourages countries to bargain with each on a request and offer, give and take basis. WTO however advocates for lower trade barriers, which it admits would necessitate freer trade. Each country – developing or developed – has the right to lower its trade barriers as it deems fit. Some of the considerations that WTO argues developing countries should make include the importance of trade to create independence, poverty reduction and domestic economic empowerment. WTO strongly believes that the current trade system, where it provides the forum for negotiating liberalisation, is the answer to the world’s trading challenges (WTO 2013). However, poor nations feel that the current multilateral form of trading only benefits the rich nations, while leaving the poor nations at a disadvantage (Shah 2007). The WTO system has other principles such as non-discrimination, transparency, reciprocity and special and differential treatment (Shah 2007). The latter is especially relevant to developing countries since it recognises that they (the developing countries) may “require ‘positive discrimination’ because of historic unequal trade” (Shah 2007, n.pag.). Reciprocity is also a contentious principle since critics argue that developing countries cannot be expected to reciprocate equally to developed rich countries since the result would be unequal trade terms (Shah 2007). The divergence between what governments and different groups want is also a major issue in free and fair trade debates. While individual country and global prosperity seems to be an underlying theme in camps, governments and groups seems to hold different priorities when it comes to justice and human dignity. Proponents of fair trade uphold the need for human dignity more, while free traders appear to focus on the need for voluntary trade as a way of enhancing justice. Additionally, free trade does somehow echo colonialism since domestic industries are overrun by multinational corporations often from developed countries, and in places like China, it has been argued that the economy is in the hand of foreigners (Shah 2007). 2. Gender Different genders have historically had different roles in development. The male gender was predominantly expected to pursue more meaningful developments outside the home, while the female gender was expected to help in family-based chores and family upbringing. Buvinic (1986) for example observes that productive employment for members of the female gender – i.e. women, was meant to enhance their capacity to meet their family needs. Buvinic (1986) also noted that interventions meant to enhance women’s productive roles were designed and directed at issues such as nutrition, children welfare and environmental degradation. Unfortunately and as noted by Goetz (1994, p. 30), most of the gendered debates about development have led to an intensification of the workload that women have to bear, which include working as “feeders, healers and teachers of children to include the provision of basic services to the community”. Influential writings in the 1970s (e.g. Edholm et al. 1977), brought about a distinction between social gender and biological sex. Through such writings, it emerged that the maleness or femaleness of a person was understood based on the cultural ideologies of the societies people live in. In social relationships, writings in the 1970s demonstrated female gender subordination as portrayed in practices and rules in not only households, but also in communities, markets and the state (Razavi & Miller 1995). While it is hard to generalise the approaches that gender critique and development has taken over the years, it is important to note that ‘gender’ has become critical in policy-making and planning in most jurisdictions across the world. Razavi and Miller (1995) for example note that there is great emphasis on “women’s empowerment in the women and development literature” (p. 14). Further arguments that surfaced in the 1980s indicated that economic efficiency and gender equity were synergistic. In other words, for economic efficiency to be realised, gender equity is necessary. On its part, gender equity is defined as the access and control of resources based on one’s potential and actual contribution to production (Razavi & Miller 1995). The constitutive relationship between development and gender is perhaps best understood from a social relations perspective where the social structures and processes place women at a disadvantage in relation to their contribution to development. For example, men are given a greater capacity to access economic resources compared to women; hence they are more likely to invest in development projects. Based on the foregoing, Razavi and Miller (1995) observe that women’s participation in development is characterised by not only a re-allocation of resource, but also a redistribution of power. Notably, developments shape gender relations, and gender relations shape development outcomes. Specifically, Razavi and Miller (1995) observe that developments in the civil society will demand for more inclusive government policies, which will most likely lead to the implementation of equitable policies in development. A gender-equitable society is more likely to enjoy superior development considering that people of both genders will have equitable access to resources and opportunities based on their capacity to participate in development. Gender mainstreaming and development studies also recognise that women face different circumstances especially because of differences in religion, race, class and other cultural factors. Women in Islamic cultures may for example have less chances of participating in development activities due to dictates in Islam that position women as subservient to men. Women of African descent in America are informally required to work twice as hard as their white counterparts to access the same opportunities. The foregoing supports the earlier assertion that gender and development cannot be generalised since the female – or male gender – is not a homogenous group. Overall, gender considerations are commonplace in most societies, with an exception of those whose cultures demand otherwise (e.g. in some Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia). Regardless of the foregoing, gender activists still fight for gender equity. Notably however, change is slow especially because women have to play multiple roles as nurturers, caregivers, mothers and wives, and there are interests groups (especially those that uphold patriarchal agendas) that root for the status quo. Perhaps the most important lesson in the gender and development discourse is that no gender is a homogenous category. As such, helping people become involved in development is likely to be successful if their cultural and historical construction of gender is put into consideration. In conclusion, development is a serious matter which is driven and will continue being driven by policies. It is important that such policies are based on facts about gender rather than myths that have misrepresented women in the past. References Buvinic, M 1986, ‘Projects for women in the third world: explaining their misbehaviour’, World Development, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 653-664. Edholm, F, Harris, O, & Young, K 1977, ‘Conceptualising women’, Critique of Anthropology, vol. 3, nos. 9/10, pp. 101-130. Eisenberg, J 2005, ‘Free trade vs. fair trade’, Global Envision, viewed 13 June 2013, . Goetz, A M 1994, ‘The politics of integrating gender to state development processes: trends, opportunities, and constraints in Bangladesh, Chile, Jamaica, Mali, Morocco, and Uganda’, Occasional Paper. Pp. 1-74. Razavi, S & Miller, C 1995, ‘From WID to GAD: Conceptual shifts in the women and development discourse’, Occasional Paper – United Nations Development Programme, pp. 1-57. Shah, A 2007, ‘The WTO and free trade’, Global Issues, viewed 13 June 2013, . WTO 2013, ‘The WTO is not for free trade at any cost’, viewed 13 June 2013, . Yulisman, L 2013, ‘Local firms reel under free trade deals’, The Jakarta Post, Paper Edition, March 04, p. 3. Read More