'Social Correctness' Is the New Protectionism
"Worker rights" is the guise under which protectionism is rising in Europe. The EC denies liberalized trade to low-wage countries able to out-compete Western Europe's benefit-laden workers.
Benn Steil is Senior Research Fellow in the International Economics Program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London.
While American social trends generally wend their way across the Atlantic, the infamous doctrine of "political correctness" failed miserably in penetrating European common sense barriers. Europeans, however, appear to have found a small but promising market in Washington for a heartier, common sense–resistant Brussels variant: "social correctness."
European politicians and Brussels bureaucrats form the core of an increasingly vocal vanguard of the socially correct. Their principal tenet is that it is no longer acceptable to carry on liberal trade relations with any country failing to provide its workers with "adequate social protection." Such countries are said to be engaged in the practice of "social dumping," as their lower labor costs enable them to undercut countries in economic competition that do provide proper social protection.
While stated as a matter of high principle, this doctrine actually represents little more than an attempt to justify protectionism under the guise of concern for worker rights. Social dumping exists in the eye of the higher–cost beholder: the charge is leveled exclusively at countries that succeed in attracting jobs and investment on the basis of having an advantage in unit labor costs. In order to raise their competitors’ production costs, the socially correct seek to impose their system of labor relations, workplace regulations, employment and remuneration laws, and social security provisions, all the while maintaining that they do so in the interest of universal workers’ rights.
BEGGAR THY COMPETITOR
The attempt to export social policy to neutralize a competitor advantage is not new. In 1890 Kaiser Wilhelm II, intent on maintaining Germany’s competitive position while addressing domestic demands for working–time restrictions, proposed an international agreement on a maximum eight–hour workday. While Britain had at that time rejected the idea of putting its industrial laws "at the discretion of a foreign power," one hundred years later, its industrial sovereignty sufficiently eroded, it is forced to abide by working–time directives from Brussels.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The disappearance of work and widespread dislocation in Europe and the United States pose once again the nineteenth-century "Social Question": how to secure economic progress in light of the political and moral threat posed by the condition of the working class? The solution then was state action, which, contrary to today's neoliberal orthodoxy, fostered economic growth. The state cannot be abandoned now; Europeans won't go for it. It is the only protection from global market forces and the only forum for politics. But the left must stop protecting the status quo and give up unaffordable policies if it is to bring in the excluded and avert extremism.
Events in Poland since August 1980, the struggle of Polish workers for their rights, constitute a critical turning point in the history of the Soviet imperium. The situation, still completely unpredictable at the onset of the new year, holds much more importance for the future of the world communist movement, the Soviet empire, and the Soviet Union itself than the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Polish revolt of the same year, the Czechoslovak reforms of 1968, and even the Stalin-Tito rupture of 1947-48. Its international implications are no less grave. Poland is the key country in the Soviet bloc in terms of strategic location, military and economic potential, and size of population. A major lasting change there could transform, if not destroy, the Soviet Union's East European empire.
America now faces the prospect of economic conflicts with both Europe and East Asia. The United States and the European Union have already fired the first shots of retaliatory sanctions over their ever-growing trade disputes. On the other side of the world, meanwhile, Asian countries are creating a bloc of their own that could include preferential trade arrangements and an Asian Monetary Fund. These developments could produce a tripolar world and hamper global economic integration. To avert this outcome, the United States must quell its domestic backlash against globalization and reassert its economic leadership in the world. The new Bush administration should make multilateral trade liberalization a top priority -- or it will face unpleasant economic and political consequences as the U.S. and foreign economies slow.
