The Secret Corporate Takeover
NEW
YORK – The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate
about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade
agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements,
tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European
Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,”as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively
dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming
increasingly resistant.
YORK – The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate
about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade
agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements,
tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European
Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,”as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively
dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming
increasingly resistant.
It is not hard to see
why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and
intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to
countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.
why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and
intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to
countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.
Perhaps the most
invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns
investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against
the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is
not what these provisions are about. There have been very few
expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect
themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide
similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in
the TPP, even though many of its “partners” have property protections
and judicial systems that are as good as its own.
invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns
investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against
the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is
not what these provisions are about. There have been very few
expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect
themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee
Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide
similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in
the TPP, even though many of its “partners” have property protections
and judicial systems that are as good as its own.
Joseph E. Stiglitz
Follow @JosephEStiglitz
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in
economics and University Professor at Columbia University, was Chairman
of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and served as
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. His most
recent book, co-authored with Bruce Greenwald, is&nbs… read more
economics and University Professor at Columbia University, was Chairman
of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and served as
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. His most
recent book, co-authored with Bruce Greenwald, is&nbs… read more
