How America is Responding to the Flat World - Essay Example

How America is Responding to the Flat World Management 479 October 27th 2006 Technological advances and globalization are changing the shape of things to come. Columbus might have been wrong, ‘the world is flat after all’, quips Thomas Friedman .(Friedman April, 2005) According to Friedman the world is flattening in the sense that modern technology has advanced to a point where people from around the globe are at liberty to communicate at anytime and at any place. As a result, global competition in the business world is consistently aggressive. Friedman notes that while the rest of the world is responding aggressively to the new flat world, American’s are responding with lethargy. He said, ‘compared with the young, energetic Indians and Chinese, too many Americans have gotten too lazy.’(Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) This indeed sums up how America is responding to the Flat World. Globalization and the flat world Globalization is synonymous with internationalism. It encompasses greater worldwide participation in commerce, exchange of information, greater movement of people as well as money. In the Commanding Heights documentary, globalization is characterized by its free and open world markets. It is driven by a free exchange of information. (Commanding Heights: The Battle for The World Economy) In order to facilitate these rising international exchanges and transactions worldwide technological, legal and infrastructure development is improving rapidly. Science and technology is therefore key to keeping up with globalization and is the cornerstone of successful ecommerce. Without question, globalization is having a positive impact on developing nations. For instance, in the last twenty years the percentage of people living below the poverty line has been reduced by at least half. (The World Bank Group. 2004) Approximately 472 million people living in the East Asian and Pacific region were subsisting on less than a dollar a day income. However, eleven years later that number dipped to 271 million and current projections put that number considerably lower to about 19 million. (Brooks November 27, 2004) This improvement in poverty serves to bolster Friedman’s argument that the world is flat. As Brooks noted, ‘the growth in the worlds poorer regions also supports the argument that we are seeing a drop in global inequality.’(Brooks November 27, 2002) Life expectancy and infant mortality has also improved impressively since the end of the Second World War. Life expectancy has doubled in that timeframe while infant mortality has decreased in the developing world. ‘Everywhere, except in some countries of the former Soviet Union, people live longer than did their grandparents and great-grandparents. Child mortality has declined in every developing region of the world.’(Pferrermann. April 19th 2002) As Pferrermann points out this improvement of life expectancy and infant mortality is directly a result of globalization. As poverty declines, the quality of life improves. ‘In the course of two generations, the gap between the industrial and the developing regions has narrowed substantially — and overall poverty has diminished.’(Pferrermann April 19th 2002) Indeed this is the flat world that Friedman has identified in his work, The World is Flat. Globalization includes the inception and development of free enterprise and trade expansion on an international level. Food and other basic necessities such as clothing is cheaper to acquire. As the quality of life improves on an international level, illiteracy declines. The fall-out is not only a wealthier world, but a smarter one. The world has changed dramatically and Friedman demonstrates this best by pointing out the following: ‘When I was growing up, my parents used to say to me, Tom, finish your dinner -- people in China are starving. But after sailing to the edges of the flat world for a year, I am now telling my own daughters, Girls, finish your homework -- people in China and India are starving for your jobs.’(Friedman April 2005) International response to globalization and the flattening world is competitive. There is a ‘quiet crisis’ as Friedman points out in a chapter baring the same name in his work The World is Flat. (Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) Education and ambition is on the rise, and America may not be up to the challenge. Friedman maintains that American response to a flattening world is in dire jeopardy if ‘people wont even acknowledge that there is an education gap emerging and that there is an ambition gap emerging and that we are in a quiet crisis.’ (Friedman2005 pp 250-275) Globalization versus Americanization In order to fully understand the general view that America’s response to a flattening world is lethargic one has to first understand America’s position with regards to globalization. At one time globalization was synonymous with Americanization. Keith Porter examines the issue and offers some though provoking conclusions. He said that ‘the most visible sign of globalization seems to be the spread of American burgers and cola to nearly every country on earth.’(Porter) This however, according to Porter is more than infiltration of American culture or Americanization of foreign cultures. America is responding to a flattening world in far more significant ways. It has made itself vulnerable to the creation of competition for its own country folk by its centuries’ long ‘open door’ policy. The United States has one of the most diverse cultures in the world.(Porter) Virtually every American citizen is characterized by some hyphenated ethnic origin. For instance there are Afro-Americans, Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Irish-American, Latin-American and so many more that the list is exhaustive. Therefore when American products are marketed abroad it is only a reciprocal measure. All across America there are just as many Chinese eateries as steak house. A McDonalds in China is only fair given the circumstances. The reality is that the United States has always led the way in leveling the playing field but has always had the edge economically. Now that the rest of the world is catching up, it seems American foreign policy is stifling its ability to keep up with the remainder of the flattening world in this new age of globalization. American Foreign Policy, Globalization and the Flat World Before we can fully understand how America is responding to the flat world, we must be able to understand and identify key U.S. foreign policy issues and its role in the global economy. Economists worldwide appear to typically agree that the U.S. foreign policy is predicated solely on the theory that democratic initiatives are the focal point economic and political harmony. The United States attempts to achieve these goals through stabilizing world economy by the development of third world nations, the spread of democracy, the unseating of despots and sustaining a measure of economic and sovereign superiority among the world powers. America has a history of perpetuating military and diplomatic intervention on lesser developed nations which has been justified on the following grounds: 1. Safeguarding the freedom and security of American citizens on the home front as well as on foreign soil. 2. Offering protection from invasion to all of its allies with the implementation of international militia such as NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). 3. The advancement of democratic values such as freedom of speech and expression throughout the world. 4. The promotion of free enterprise with the lifting of economic tariffs and impediments to this goal with a view to encouraging the development of capitalism, economic diversity, the betterment of the quality of living standards abroad and to introduce American goods to parts of the world where they are on demand; and 5. Consistent development and humanitarian assistance where necessary. (Meernik 1996) Globalization in the context of U.S. foreign policy necessarily involves the closing of economic gaps between nations. The result of globalization influenced by U.S. foreign policies is not a positive one. It comes at a cost to the United States. ‘As corporations seek low-cost opportunities in the debtor nations, the wealthy nations experience a loss of employment abroad and suffer an influx of cheap products that destroy home markets. There is also the need constantly to step in when famine occurs due to over-emphasis on export crops; the obligation to act when, as so often, debt has caused civil or regional wars and cope with immigration in flight from poverty and conflict.’(Rowbotham 2001 p.6) While American foreign policy is driven by a need to reach out to the less fortunate, globalization is making it possible for competing world powers to race ahead of the United States. Opportunities abound where they didn’t exist before. The playing field is more level than ever and the United States is stuck in neutral in the sense that it is not responding effectively to a continuously flattening world. Instead, the United States is arming lesser developed nations with the tools to compete against it in the new age of globalization and while doing so is turning its eye away from the steady progress of fiercely competitive first world nations. The facts will speak for themselves. As Friedman so rightly illustrates, foreign graduates in Science and Engineering outnumber American graduates by far. In 2003 there were 2.8 million such graduates world wide, with 1.2 million Asians among them.. American universities graduated 400,000 students to Europe’s 830,000.(Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) The underlying theory behind this aspect of US foreign policy is that if developing nations are advancing to a comfortable economic level, capitalism and democracy will flourish and the risk to homeland security is minimized. Even Friedman acknowledges the merits of this theory by comparing it to the Dell Theroy of Conflict Prevention. He wrote, ‘no two countries that are part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.’ (Friedman 2005 p 421) The Americans’ slow response to a flattening world is obviously based on the Dell Theory of Conflict of Prevention. This appears to be consistent with the goals entrenched in US foreign policy. Thomas Barnet points out that ‘real freedom exists within defined rule sets that reduce life’s uncertainties to the point where individuals can efficiently run their own lives, avoiding the tyrannies of extreme poverty..." (2004, page 124). According to Barnet, the globalization policy and practice of America is necessary and requires no action on the part of officials. It is viewed as a necessary evil. ‘In this century, it is disconnectedness that defines danger... Just as important, however, is the result that by expanding the connectivity of globalization, we increase peace and prosperity planet-wide.’ (Barnett, 2004, page 8). US Corporate response to a flattening world The US corporate culture is driven by pure economical ambitions. Unlike the US Government, US corporations are not bothered by Dell’s Prevention of Conflict Theory. The only they interest that they have in the developing world is securing cheap labor and the establishment of new markets. Friedman asks a thought provoking question. ‘To what degree are the elites in the country concerned with the masses and ready to invest at home, or are they indifferent to their own poor and more interested in investing abroad?’ (Friedman, 2005, page 325). According to Friedman there is a number’s gap which indicates that the United States is not turning out enough engineers and scientists and those that are qualifying are not qualifying fast enough. This has a direct impact on the response of US corporations to the flat world. US corporations are outsourcing in their response to the flat world. They are increasingly turning to the importation of scientists and engineers from abroad. (Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) This trend has become a common practice among the U.S. corporate culture. Freidman maintains that this is a natural response. Not only do foreigners require less pay than their American counterparts, but they are also more skilled and more ambitious. This scenario, according to Friedman is the quiet crisis. It results in three dirty little secrets. The three dirty little secrets are the numbers gap, the education gap and the ambition gap. (Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) The US corporate culture has succumbed to these three dirty little secrets. They have responded by capitalizing on the flat world rather than make any attempt to contribute to domestic economy. Dr. William Raynor, Professor of Finance at New York State University suggests that U.S. policy makers need to implement changes to counter the US corporate response to the flat world. He warns that ‘just as there is danger with nations that are disconnected from the global economic system, there is also danger with individuals disconnected from the domestic economy.’ (Raynor 2005) The US corporate culture is consistently outsourcing white collar jobs in response to the flat world. This is perfectly understandable with the large numbers of low-salaried workers graduating from universities in developing nations. ‘These days, tasks such as drawing up detailed architectural blue-prints, slicing and dicing a companys financial disclosures, or designing a revolutionary microprocessor can easily be performed overseas.’(Engardio, Bernstein, and Kripalani. Feburary 3 2003 p. 52 & 58). Offering some examples, Engardio, Bernstein and Kripalani point out that highly skilled accountants from developing nations are familiar with standard US Accounting practices. Professional Information Technologists are prepared to take on tasks for far less than the American professional in the same area. Moreover, ‘Proctor & Gamble Co.s 650 Manila employees, most of whom have business and finance degrees, help prepare P&Gs tax returns around the world.’ (Engardio, Bernstein, and Kripalani. February 3, 2003. p. 58) Outsourcing is not the only way that the US corporate culture is responding to the flattening world. In the last decade the 8,000 US corporations have sold entire stock interest to foreign companies. This is entirely due to the economic power gained by Japan and China as a result of the globalization. ‘Japan has accumulated $1 trillion surplus currency reserve. China has also accumulated $1 trillion surplus currency reserve through their balance of trade surplus with the United States.’(America Defeated in Economic War) The table below reflects foreign interests in US corporate concerns. Sound recording industries 97% Commodity contracts dealing 79% Motion picture and sound recording industries 75% Metal ore mining 65% Motion picture and video industries 64% (America Defeated in Economic War) From March 23, 2006 to May 23, 2006 United States’ corporations have sold at least 94 companies’ entire stock or a large portion of it to foreign entities. The table below reflects the foreign acquisitions. (America is Bleeding to Debt and losing Ownership and control of the Country. 2006) How US Educators are Responding to a Flat World In a study written by former Education Editor of the The New New York Times, Edward Fiske, it was revealed that several States in the US are implementing measures to improve and develop international awareness in school s. The study entitled ‘States Prepare for the Global Age’ was prepared by the Asia Society. The study unveils plans to internalize high schools by including Chinese language in the curriculum, as well as Information Technology and other international courses. (States Prepare For the Global Age. 2005) Vice President, Education, Asia Society, Vivien Stewart observed that ‘business, education and political leaders are grappling with the question of how to produce workers and citizens who can remain competitive in a world that seems to be shrinking before our very eyes.’ (States Respond to Challenges of a ‘Flat World’ December 6th. 2005) The Asia Society notes that global literacy is key to alleviating the handicap to Americans in competing in the flat world. (States Prepare For the Global Age. 2005) Competition among students is no longer on a domestic level, rather, students in American schools now have to compete with students worldwide. American students are basically challenged in the area of foreign languages, countries and their respective cultures. They ‘are in danger of being educationally and economically handicapped in an increasingly interconnected and global economy.’(States Respond to Challenges of a ‘Flat World’ December 6th. 2005) The report prepared by The Asian Society reveals that having conducted a survey of seventeen US states they found that the following action was taken in response to the flat world: 1. Eleven of those states closely examined the level and standard of international education within the school system. 2. Twelve states conducted summits designed to highlight the significance of global education. 3. Another six states prepared reports for state legislatures on the importance of a curriculum geared toward international education. 4. Ten US states have already implemented international education policies. 5. A number of states have adapted methods for new curriculums that are aimed at teaching programs, investment and technology. 6. Many of the seventeen states are also initiating programs that promote Asian languages and make provisions for student exchange programs. (States Respond to Challenges of a ‘Flat World’ December 6th. 2005) Despite these changes, The Asia Society is calling upon a restructuring and reorganizing of schools throughout the United States. The Society recommends four significant variations which are: ‘Expansion of teacher training to deliver rigorous study in world history, geography, global science and economics; key subjects in a transformed economy. Development of world languages pipelines from primary school on, especially focused on critical languages such as Chinese; High school redesign and new graduation requirements to motivate better achievement and promote key international knowledge and skills; Innovative uses of technology to expand the availability of international courses and assure that every school in the U.S. has ongoing virtual links to peers in another country.’ (States Respond to Challenges of a ‘Flat World’ December 6th. 2005) The US Federal Government’s Response to the Flat World The US Federal government has implemented the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program by virtue of the authority provided for under the Trade Act 1974, as amended. The US Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration states that the mission of TAA is to form ‘part of ETA’s Office of National Response, works in partnership with state and local agencies to enable American workers affected by international trade to rejoin the workforce by providing them with the means to attain competitive and marketable skills for today’s increasingly competitive work environment’. (US Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration) The TAA program is designed to render support to workers who fall prey to the outsourcing that has become prevalent among the US corporate culture in the new age of globalization. It also seeks to lend aid to US workers who suffer lay-offs or reduced work hours as a result of international trade. The TAA program lends aid by organizing training for new employment and for the identification of employment opportunities. Additional aid is available in the form of re-location funding as well as increments during ‘re-employment services.’(US Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration) The US Department of Commerce has also implemented a mechanism for recovery by manufacturers who are adversely affected by the flat world. By virtue of his program called Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms, the Federal Government offers to pay for half of the costs of consultancy in respect of projects undertaken by manufacturers for the improvement of competitiveness on the global market. (Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms) On August 6, 2002 President Bush indorsed the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 (TAA Reform Act). The purpose of the Reform Act is to extend the fiscal provision for federal funding in the re-employment and manufacturers’ consultancy assistance to the year 2007. (Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002) The Federal Government’s response is encouraging, but experts fear it is not enough to meet the challenges posed by a flattening world and the new global economy. Robert D. Atkinson discusses the Government’s role in responding to economic issues of this kind in his book The Past and Future of America’s Economy: Long Waves of Innovation that Power Cycles of Growth. Noting that this is not the first time that a ‘new techno-economic production systems emerged,’ the US Government has experience responding to these challenges. (Atkinson 2004 p 12) As a result of economic changes in the world during the late 1800’s and the 1900’s the Government was forced to change its economic policies. ‘The progressive reforms of the early twentieth century were a response to a factory economy that presented a vast new array of challenges. The creation of the New Deal and later Great Society reforms of the 1960’s were a response to a new mass production, managerial economy that required a stronger and more centralized federal government role.’ (Atkinson 2004 p12) Likewise, the domestic economic implications of the flat world call for major Government reorganization. Atkinson criticizes the Federal Government’s response to the flat world as being too antiquated or rather too backward thinking. Far too many policy makers ‘remain rooted in earlier eras’. (Atkinson 2004 p13) Moreover ‘Conservatives are even more backward looking, seeking though their doctrine of supply-side economics to resurrect the economic policy system of the early 1900s factory era.’ (Atkinson 2004 p13) In other words, Atkinson is saying that the US Government is relying on traditional tools in response to the flattening world. Traditionally, US economic policies were based on enhanced productivity. In the new age and new technology the US response will have to adjust to the times. The US is no longer the world’s clear economic leader and perhaps that is a result of their archaic response to globalization. It will be necessary to redefine productivity in light of emerging technological advancements worldwide. These new policies will have to ‘support the digital revolution, boost technological innovation, enhance workforce skills, promote entrepreneurship and ensure competitive and open markets’. (Atkinson 2004 p 13) The Government will have to look inside and reorganize itself by placing more reliance on ‘networks than hierarchy, more on civic and private sector actors than bureaucracy, and more on technology than on rule-based, bureaucratic programs ’.(Atkinson 2004 p13) Atkinson charges that the US Government’s current response to the flattening world is flawed by its failure to look into the past. As it is, he feels the Government and policy makers are ‘flying blindly.’(Atkinson 2004 p 14) At the very least, if the US Government ventured to look into the past economic adjustments they might be able to learn from mistakes and can take measurements against repeating those mistakes. (Atkinson 2004 p 14) Conclusion When the United States foreign policy turned its attention to the development of third world countries and development nations, it had one single goal. That goal was to promote the independence and the freedom that comes with democracy. Education and to some degree Americanization was the key to achieving this goal. An educated nation was free to pursue economic incentives which in turn promoted peace and harmony. America was the world financial leader, and developing nations were only too willing to follow in her footsteps. In a nutshell, America endeavored to close the economic gap between the world’s haves and have-nots. According to Friedman, however, by doing so the U.S. may have widened the gap between the haves and have-nots at home. (Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) Michael Mandelbaum in his book The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the Twenty-first Century likens America to the Roman Empire of old. This he does as a means of emphasizing American military and financial power together with its cultural influence. America emerged into the twenty-first century as a super power without rivals or peers. That said Mandelbaum hastens to add that America does not seek world dominance and subordination as the age-old Empires once did throughout history. Mandelbaum back tracks a little and said that although America has the power and influence of an Empire, it uses it in such a way as to play the role of world Government in the twenty-first century.(Mandelbaum 2005 pp 1-30) Government is a more appropriate description for America’s role in the twenty-first century since it is not imperialistic in the sense that the word Empire implies. ‘The term "government," from the Greek for "to steer," is older than "empire," which derives from the Latin word for "command." It is more nearly neutral, without the negative baggage that "empire" has come to carry. It is a more general concept: Empire is but one of many forms of government.’ (Mandelbaum 2005 pp 1-30) In its role of world Government, the United States has provided the kind of services for other nations that one would expect from a Government duly elected. (Mandelbaum 2005 pp1-30) It has grown tenacious in its desire to reduce the debt of third world countries. ‘There is also the need constantly to step in when famine occurs due to over-emphasis on export crops; the obligation to act when, as so often, debt has caused civil or regional wars and cope with immigration in flight from poverty and conflict.’(Rowbotham 2000 p. 6) America’s role as world Government is directly responsible for the new age of globalization. As a result of its consistent aid to developing nations and third world countries, these countries have benefited to a point where they have infiltrated the America economy and leveled the playing field. They are equal economic partners and can compete with America on any level at anytime. This is the flat world that Friedman refers to in The Flat World. This is the quiet crisis that Friedman warns America to pay attention to. (Friedman 2005 pp 1-30) Certainly America is paying attention but it is not responding in a satisfactory manner. That may be because America is far more concerned with security and safety goals than domestic economics. American corporations are out of control. They ‘seek low-cost opportunities in the debtor nations, the wealthy nations experience a loss of employment abroad and suffer an influx of cheap products that destroy home markets.’ (Rowbotham 2000 p. 6) The American Government’s response is to pass laws and implement programs designed to encourage Americans to subscribe to globalization. But Friedman fears the American people’s response is just as unsatisfactory as the Government’s. The American culture has long since valued materialism as a way of measuring self-worth. They prefer to find get-rich quick schemes rather than seek validation through education. And if they do no rise to the challenge of the flat world more and more Americans might find themselves ‘flipping burgers’. (Friedman 2005 pp 250-275) Perhaps the American Government’s foreign policy did indeed backfire. The desire to end conflict and discord by the eradication of poverty would have sufficed. Jeffrey D. Sachs suggests that poverty could have and can be terminated at a relatively low cost to America. Washington, need only commit 0.7 per cent of its gross national product to the advancement and development of anti-poverty programs. This way, America could end poverty by the year 2025. (Sachs 2005 pp 26-50) Be that as it may, America has single-handedly rescued many third world nations from meager subsistence and it has been somewhat detrimental to the US internal economic policies. A collective response is necessary, but it must be spearheaded by the US Government. The submission to the internationalization of America and the shift away from Americanization by foreign nations demands serious attention. Perhaps rather than internationalization policies, American policy makers should concentrate on emphasizing pursuit of science and technology in the American school system. American’s themselves might want to become more ambitious in the pursuit of the sciences themselves. Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….2 Globalization and the flat world………………………………………………….2-4 Globalization versus Americanization……………………………………………4-5 American Foreign Policy, Globalization and the Flat World…………………...5-8 How US Educators are Responding to a Flat World…………………………….8-11 US Corporate response to a flattening world…………………………………….11-13 The US Federal Government’s Response to the Flat World…………………… 13-16 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..16-18 Bibliography America Defeated in Economic War. http://www.economyincrisis.org/?content=eicad1&gclid=CJPb3KGCl4gCFSdtVAodKEc1Qg Viewed October 26, 2006 America is Bleeding to Debt and Losing Ownership and Control of the Country. (2006) http://www.economyincrisis.org/showarticle.asp?ID=115 Viewed October 26, 2006 Atkinson, Robert. (2004) The Past and Future of America’s Economy: Long Waves of Innovation that Power Cycles of Growth. Elgar Edward Publishing. Barnett, Thomas P.M.( 2004) The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace In The Twenty-First Century. G.P. Putnam’s Sons. New York. Brooks, David. Good New About Poverty. The New York Times. November, 27, 2004. Commanding Heights: The Battle for The World Economy. 2002. WHEG DVD Engardio, Pete; Bernstein, Aaron; & Kripalani, Manjeet. (February 3, 2003.) "Is Your Job Next?" Business Week. Friedman, Thomas. (April, 2005) The World is Flat, After all. The New York Times Magazine. Available online at: http://web.cocc.edu/pcasey/CIS120/flat_world/flat_world.html Viewed October 24, 2006 Friedman, Thomas. The World is Flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 2005 Mandelbaum, Michael. (2005) The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the Twenty-first Century. Public Affairs. Meernik, James. (1996) United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research 33 (4): 391-402. p. 391 Pferrerman, Guy. (April, 19th 2002) The Eight Losers of Globalization. http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2429 Viewed October 25, 2006 Porter, Keith. Americanization vs. Globalization. http://globalization.about.com/od/greatarticles/a/amzgz.htm Viewed October 25, 2006 Raynor, William. (2005) Globalization and Outsourcing in a Flat, but Unbalanced World. http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Raynor/Unbalanced.html Viewed October 26, 2006 Rowbotham, Michael. (2001) Goodbye America: Globalization, Debt and The Dollar Empire. Jon Carpenter Sachs, Jeffrey. (2005) The End of Poverty. Economic Possibilities for our Time. The Penguin Press. States Prepare for the Global Age. (2005) http://www.internationaled.org/statespreparefortheglobalage.htm Viewed October, 25th 2006 States Respond to Challenges of a ‘Flat World’. (December 6th. 2005) http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/news.html?d=90793 Viewed October 26, 2006 The World Bank Group. (2004). http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/jsp/index.jsp Viewed October 25, 2006. Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. http://www.taacenters.org/ Viewed October 26, 2006 Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/2002act_index.cfm Viewed October 26, 2006 US Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa/Mission.cfm Viewed October 26, 2006 Read More