Developing Fair Trading Practices
In his famous book, “The Jungle”, Upton Sinclair narrated the terrible consequences of the trusts and monopolies in America in the late 19th century. Known as the “Robber Barons” the owners of these large corporations had unbridled power and thus were able to gain domination over the means of production, distribution and marketing to such an extent that they controlled ordinary worker’s lives and very often impoverished their workers to serve their own greed. These actions were possible for two reasons. First, there were no real regulations other than the “market forces.” Second, the American public abhorred any kind of government intervention.
In this day and age it seems that such practices are no longer acceptable. Strict laws have been introduced by most western countries in order to prevent the market place from returning to the jungle that Sinclair wrote about in his book. Fair play is of the utmost importance and hence no large corporation can gain total control in the market. These laws have been designed as a safeguard to prevent unfair business practices such as, price fixing. Secret transactions have also been eradicated and businesses must now be open and accountable.
Thus it appears that the market place is now impartial and open-handed. Unfortunately, the theory and the reality have little in common. Logically for these rules and regulations to function as they were meant to, it is necessary for them to be applied objectively to all sectors of business – not just the least preferred businesses. And because the laws are not applied uniformly, they become a mockery. The agricultural sector is an instance of a group of powerful people (land-owners,farmer’s unions, and multinational food producers, etc.) who are allowed to flout the regulations. Any opposition, either at home or abroad, is obstructed. And even when they grow uneconomic produce, they are supported by government subsidies, and thus the government has a vested interest in persuading the public to consume these items.
These claims are exemplified by the case of sugar. Deriving sugar from cane grown in tropical climates is the most cost efficient system. But many countries that have cold climates use beets as their source of sugar, even though it is a much more expensive way of obtaining the material. And since it costs them more to acquire the finished product in this way, they need help to make sure that they can compete with the more cheaply produced sugar coming from the third world. And the help they need is given to them by the government, who tax all sugar coming into the country very highly. This means it is no longer profitable for the underdeveloped countries to sell their sugar in such a market. And so they lose the opportunity to develop their business and the consumer pays more for sugar – but those in the agricultural sector are happily getting richer albeit at someone else’s expense.
Another area where the trading practices are unfair is the fashion industry. This hugely profitable sector has government support that ensures that certain countries will be given an advantage. Certain countries in this instance happen to be first world countries. While the fair trade laws that have been set up to control the internal market do not necessarily apply to trade agreements with foreign powers, the clear discrimination against the developing world, which also provides the consumer with cheaper goods, is disturbing. How can it be justified to charge 20% import tax on every clothing item that comes from Bangladesh, 19% on those from India and 1% or even zero on those coming from developed countries such as France or England.
A frequent assertion among managers in developed countries is that “fair” trade practices make it difficult for firms from developed nations to compete with products from lower-cost developing markets. It is this claim that led to trade regulations which clearly favor the developed markets. The rationale behind these regulations is that the only way for developed markets to compete on the world stage is to significantly reduce the taxes and tariffs. From a global perspective, however, these differences should be seen as an opportunity. The system should provide incentives to firms from developed countries to manufacture, assemble, sub-assemble, distribute and store in the under-developed countries. And as long as the firms involved pay proper salaries and give the same genuine benefits a worker in the developed world would get, then, everyone would benefit. The underdeveloped countries would get the chance to develop their industries and hence their economy as a whole and the consumer would get cheaper goods. But as long as some of the larger corporations with a great deal of political clout are against such a move then unfair trade will continue and the robber barons will continue to rule, if not the poor in their own country then the poor in another part of the globe.
Copyright: Academic-Reading.com
Learn more about how to read like a proreading comprehension. Stop by academic-reading.com where you can find out all about reading strategies academic reading made easy so that you can get on in life.



July 18, 2011
|
Posted by Diane Shubinsky
Categories:
Tags: 