Content uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz on Aug 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?.
Abstract and Figures
Abstract
It has always been assumed that we live in a world of perfect markets, where supply and demand interactions work magically in the absence of market distortions or externalities. Today we know we live in a world ruled by overproduction and overconsumption, which promote ongoing wasteful, polluting and degrading social and environmental processes. Is it possible that the traditional perfect market’s assumptions can be responsible for these negative outcomes through the creation of supply and demand scenarios that only meet at the lower pure economy price; and therefore lead to economic market flooding and waste? If yes, that means that we have been living in distorted markets all this time, market that do not reflect the right price; and these distortions need to be corrected now to ensure that the traditional perfect market reflects sustainability rules. The general goals of this paper are: a) To introduce the notion of the right market price, the traditional market price, and the corrected market price and to show how they can be related to ensure traditional market sustainability; b)To extend this notion to the right agricultural market price, to the traditional agricultural market price, and the corrected agricultural market price and to point out how they can be linked to ensure that agricultural markets are consistent with sustainability rules; and c) To list some relevant specific and general conclusions.
Figures - uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Lucio Muñoz
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Environmentally distorted market pricing was the problem the Rio +20 Conference(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) was trying to fix using green market, green growth and green economy thinking. A world under distorted market prices (Muñoz 2010) has made us go backwards in terms of economic thinking (Muñoz 2012) as the world has been since 1987 trying to fix the social and environmental distortions embedded in the traditional market pricing mechanism of Adam Smith. On the other hand, it can be said that red Marxism is the model that externalizes the economic and environmental costs linked to social market activity as it is a society only model since red socialism a la Karl Marx(Marx and Engels 1848) assumes externality neutrality assumptions too when functioning, and it uses the social cost externality problem embedded in the capitalism model as the point of entry to flip the capitalism market price to the red Marxism market price. ...
It can be said that liberal capitalism is the model that externalizes the social and environmental costs associated with economic market activity as it is an economy only model since traditional market thinking a la Adam Smith assumes externality neutrality assumptions when at work. It can be said that red Marxism is the model that externalizes the economic and environmental costs linked to social market activity as it is a socially only model since red socialism a la Karl Marx assumes too externality neutrality assumptions when functioning. The same way we can envision the cost externalization structures of green Marxism and of yellow Marxism as one model is the environment only model and the other model is the society and environment only model. Hence, the different Marxism threats to liberal capitalism are linked to specific cost externalization structures, which when effective they become the point of entry that lead to a flip from liberal market pricing structures to specific Marxism market pricing structures as this goes one to one with the flip in paradigm structures from liberal capitalism to different forms of Marxism. And this raises the question: How to link cost externalization theory with Marxism threat theory to point out all possible types of Marxism threats to pure capitalism? What are the implications of this? The goal of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
... If we take the long term view that the most distorted market structure possible will lead to the most distorted population dynamics possible in the form of over population dynamics; and that the most distorted system stability possible pushed by extreme overshooting behavior is the environmental problem, then the ecological overshoot idea mentioned above becomes part of the most distorted market possible idea, which affects both policy and system stability thinking. Markets may have been distorted since Adam Smith's days (Muñoz 2010) when he shared with us the theory of the perfect market(Smith 1776), a distortion the academic community is trying now to correct (Muñoz 2012). Hence, the discussion above raises relevant questions like how can we show that the overpopulation framework a la ecological overshoot is a subset of the most distorted market price possible framework? ...
Under the most distorted market price possible way of thinking you can link the most distorted impacts on system stability to most distorted populations dynamics possible and their extreme overshooting behavior. Hence here the root cause of the most distorted system stability problems is the most distorted market price. Overpopulation dynamics-environmental problems frameworks like the ecological overshoot idea work only under market structure neutrality assumptions as without them they are part of the most distorted price possible framework. Under market structure independence, the root cause of environmental problems is over population dynamics driving the ecological overshoot. And this raises relevant questions like how can we show that the overpopulation framework a la ecological overshoot is a subset of the most distorted market price possible framework? What are the main implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above.
... pollution, environmental degradation), facts that led the Brundtland commission in 1987 (WCED 1987) to conclude that the traditional business as usual model was not working and we needed to go beyond it, unleashing a wide range of sustainable development models from 1987 to 2012, until agreement was reached at the RIO +20 Conference(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) that the way to go was green, in terms of markets, growth and economy so as to be able to fix the environmental externality problem associated with the traditional economic model pointed out by the Brundtland Commission in 1987. In other words, from 1776 to now the traditional market price has been a distorted market price (Muñoz 2010) as it has only accounted for the economic costs of production under externality neutrality assumptions. ...
Abstract
The general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework tells us that the nature of the market price determines the nature of the impact on system stability that consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics can have, via no overshoot or via overshoot. As the nature of the market price can be positive or negative in terms of system stability impacts depending on whether or not all cost associated with the business activity are reflected in the pricing mechanism, then positive impacts can be associated with full optimal market pricing where all cost associated with economic activity are accounted for, and negative impacts can be linked to distorted market pricing as not all cost associated with business activity are accounted for as some costs are assumed away or are assumed irrelevant. And hence, the most distorted market price possible would lead to the most distorted consumption, production, and population dynamics affecting system stability negatively at the extreme. In other words, optimal market pricing leads to positive system stability impacts dynamics in terms of consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics while distorted market pricing encourage negative system stability impacts in terms of production and consumption dynamics and population dynamics. It is well-known that the traditional market under externality neutrality assumptions operates under optimal market pricing as social and environmental cost associated to production are left out the pricing mechanism of the market leading to optimal market structure dynamics and optimal system stability impacts; and that under no externality assumptions they operate under distorted market pricing promoting distorted market structure dynamics and system stability impacts. In other words, the traditional market thinking is optimal by assumption, but it is distorted in practice; and hence the traditional market by assumption leads to optimal system stability impacts, but in practice it take us toward distorted system stability impacts. And this raises relevant questions like How to link market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework theory to traditional market thinking under externality neutrality assumptions and under no externality neutrality assumptions? What are the main implications of doing this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above.
Key words
Market structure, market price, production, consumption, population dynamics, overshoot, no overshoot, system stability, climate change, responsible behavior, irresponsible behavior, optimal market price, distorted market price, optimal consumption, distorted consumption, optimal production, distorted production, optimal population, distorted population, optimal system stability impact, distorted system stability impact
Resúmen
El marco general de la estructura del mercado-dinámica de la población-estabilidad del sistema nos dice que la naturaleza del precio de mercado determina la naturaleza del impacto en la estabilidad del sistema que pueden tener las dinámicas de consumo y producción y la dinámica de la población, ya sea por no exceso o por exceso. Dado que la naturaleza del precio de mercado puede ser positiva o negativa en términos de impactos en la estabilidad del sistema dependiendo de si todos los costos asociados con la actividad comercial se reflejan o no en el mecanismo de fijación de precios, entonces los impactos positivos pueden estar asociados con una fijación de precios de mercado óptima total donde todos los costos asociados con la actividad económica se contabilizan, y los impactos negativos pueden vincularse a precios de mercado distorsionados, ya que no se contabilizan todos los costos asociados con la actividad comercial, ya que algunos costos se asumen como no existentes o se asumen como irrelevantes. Y, por lo tanto, el precio de mercado más distorsionado posible conduciría a la dinámica de consumo, producción y población más distorsionada que afectaría negativamente la estabilidad del sistema en el extremo. En otras palabras, la fijación de precios de mercado óptima conduce a dinámicas de impactos de estabilidad del sistema positivos en términos de dinámica de consumo y producción y dinámica de población, mientras que los precios de mercado distorsionados fomentan impactos negativos de estabilidad del sistema en términos de dinámica de producción y consumo y dinámica de población. Es bien sabido que el mercado tradicional bajo supuestos de neutralidad de externalidades opera bajo un precio de mercado óptimo, ya que los costos sociales y ambientales asociados a la producción quedan fuera del mecanismo de fijación de precios del mercado que conduce a una dinámica de estructura de mercado óptima y a impactos óptimos en la estabilidad del sistema; y que bajo supuestos de no neutralidad de externalidad operan bajo precios de mercado distorsionados que promueven dinámicas de estructura de mercado distorsionadas e impactos en la estabilidad del sistema distorsionados. En otras palabras, el pensamiento de mercado tradicional es óptimo por suposición, pero está distorsionado en la práctica; y por lo tanto, el mercado tradicional por suposición conduce a impactos óptimos en la estabilidad del sistema, pero en la práctica nos lleva a impactos distorsionados en la estabilidad del sistema. Y esto plantea preguntas relevantes como ¿Cómo vincular la teoría del marco de estructura de mercado-dinámica de población-estabilidad del sistema con el pensamiento de mercado tradicional bajo supuestos de neutralidad de externalidad y bajo supuestos de neutralidad de no externalidad? ¿Cuáles son las principales implicaciones de hacer esto? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a las preguntas enumeradas anteriormente.
... The idea to move towards more socially and environmentally friendly markets stressed by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (WCED 1987) and the idea of focusing only on environmentally friendly markets implemented by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 2012 Rio +20(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) are consistent with the idea of the need of market prices of positive nature like the optimal market pricing. It has been indicated that accounting for all costs associated to economic activity leads to responsible market activity as there is no cost externalization (Muñoz 2020) and that not accounting for some costs by assuming them away through externality cost neutrality assumptions like Adam Smith's traditional market did/does (Smith 1776) leads to distorted market prices (Muñoz 2010) and backward economic thinking (Muñoz 2012). ...
The general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework tells us that the nature of the market price determines the nature of the impact on system stability that consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics can have, via no overshoot or via overshoot. As the nature of the market price can be positive or negative in terms of system stability impacts depending on whether or not all cost associated with the business activity are reflected in the pricing mechanism, then positive impacts can be associated with full optimal market pricing where all cost associated with economic activity are accounted for, and negative impacts can be linked to distorted market pricing as not all cost associated with business activity are accounted for as some costs are assumed away or are assumed irrelevant. And hence, the most distorted market price possible would lead to the most distorted consumption, production, and population dynamics affecting system stability negatively at the extreme. In other words, optimal market pricing leads to positive system stability impacts dynamics in terms of consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics while distorted market pricing encourage negative system stability impacts in terms of production and consumption dynamics and population dynamics. And this raises relevant questions like How to link the general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework to the concepts of optimal pricing, of distorted market pricing and of the most distorted market price? What are the main implications of doing this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above.
Key words
Market structure, market price, production, consumption, population dynamics, overshoot, no overshoot, system stability, climate change, responsible behavior, irresponsible behavior, optimal market price, distorted market price, optimal consumption, distorted consumption, optimal production, distorted production, optimal population, distorted population, optimal system stability impact, distorted system stability impact
... The idea of need for more socially and environmentally friendly markets championed by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (WCED 1987) and the idea of only environmentally friendly markets promoted by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 2012 Rio +20(UNCSD 2012a; UNCSD 2012b) are consistent with the idea of the need of market prices of positive nature like the right market pricing. It has been highlighted that full accounting of costs leads to responsible market activity as there is no cost externalization (Muñoz 2020) and that not accounting for some costs by assuming them away through externality cost neutrality assumptions like Adam Smith's traditional market did/does (Smith 1776) leads to distorted market prices (Muñoz 2010) and backward economic thinking (Muñoz 2012). ...
Abstract
The general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework tells us that the nature of the market price determines the nature of the impact on system stability that consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics can have, via no overshoot or via overshoot. As the nature of the market price can be positive or negative in terms of system stability impacts depending on whether or not all cost associated with the business activity are reflected in the pricing mechanism, then positive impacts can be associated with right market pricing where all cost associated with economic activity are accounted for, and negative impacts can be linked to wrong market pricing as not all cost associated with business activity are accounted for as some costs are assumed away or assumed irrelevant. In other words, right market pricing leads to positive system stability impacts dynamics in terms of consumption and production dynamics and population dynamics while wrong market pricing encourage negative system stability impacts in terms of production and consumption dynamics and population dynamics. And this raises relevant questions like How to link the general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework to the concepts of right market pricing and wrong market pricing? What are the main implications of doing this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to the questions listed above.
Resúmen
El marco general de estructura de mercado-dinámica de la población-estabilidad del sistema nos dice que la naturaleza del precio de mercado determina la naturaleza del impacto en la estabilidad del sistema que pueden tener las dinámicas de consumo y producción y la dinámica de la población, ya sea por exceso o por no exceso. Como la naturaleza del precio de mercado puede ser positiva o negativa en términos de impactos en la estabilidad del sistema dependiendo de si todos los costos asociados con la actividad comercial se reflejan o no en el mecanismo de fijación de precios, entonces los impactos positivos pueden ser asociados con la fijación correcta de precios de mercado donde todos los costos asociados con la actividad económica se contabilizan, y los impactos negativos pueden ser vinculados a precios de mercado incorrectos, ya que no se contabilizan todos los costos asociados con la actividad comercial, ya que algunos costos se asumen como no existentes o se asumen como irrelevantes. En otras palabras, la fijación correcta de precios de mercado conduce a una dinámica positiva de los impactos de estabilidad del sistema en términos de dinámica de consumo y producción y de dinámica de población, mientras que la fijación de precios de mercado incorrecta fomenta impactos negativos de estabilidad del sistema en términos de dinámica de producción y consumo y de dinámica de población. Y esto plantea preguntas relevantes como ¿Cómo vincular el marco general de estructura de mercado-dinámica de la población-estabilidad del sistema con los conceptos de precios de mercado correctos y precios de mercado incorrectos? ¿Cuáles son las principales implicaciones de hacer esto? Entre los objetivos de este trabajo está dar respuesta a las preguntas enumeradas anteriormente.
... Those social and environmental sustainability problems highlighted by the Brundtland Commission then have been accumulating since 1776 (Smith 1776) when Adam Smith gave us the theory of the perfect traditional market as economic expansion in a more at the lowest cost possible is better paradigm led through time to over production and over consumption and over population and overshoot. That means that Adam Smith's market prices have been distorted from the beginning (Muñoz 2010) forcing us now to go backwards in terms of economic thinking (Muñoz 2012) to address the fact that the assumptions of social and of environmental externality neutrality in this model were actually wrong, and perhaps this view prevented him then from stating instead the theory of the perfect sustainability market (Muñoz 2015) as had the pricing of the traditional market been truly optimal from the beginning they would have reflected all the cost associated with production, and that would have led to optimal production, optimal consumption, optimal populations and no overshoot. ...
It can be said that system stability issues like those associated with climate change are usually looked at through partial frameworks as relevant components or links are assumed to have a neutral role or are assumed not to exist in the analysis. For example, frameworks that link market structure and system stability are thought as delinked from population dynamics. On the other hand, frameworks that linked population dynamics and system stability are taken as being delinked from market structure dynamics. And therefore, the nature of the root cause; and the nature of the consequences affecting the system stability issue will depend on the specific framework being used so each partial framework has a different root cause. It can be said that system stability issues like climate change can also be looked at systematically by linking partial frameworks to generate a full general framework. For example, combining the market structure and system stability framework with the population dynamics and system stability framework we can put together a general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework to trace root cause and consequences affecting system stability, where market structure drives the population dynamics that affect system stability, positively or negatively. In this framework, there is only one root cause and the others factors are consequences affecting system stability. To my knowledge, no much is written about system stability issues from the sustainability point of view, where all components are linked, and the nature of the first component starts the chain of events that affect system stability. And this raises the question: How can the general market structure-population dynamics-system stability framework be stated? What are the main systematic implications of this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
... Since social externality costs(SM) and environmental externality costs (EM) associated to production are real, but they are not reflected in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market they become the two embedded distortions in the traditional market model, which makes social externality and environmental externality making a free cost activity. Because of these distortions we are moving 3 towards sustainability backwards in terms of economic thinking [8] as these distortions have made it possible to produce and consume at lower prices encouraging over production and over consumption; and therefore these embedded distortions make traditional markets fully distorted markets [9]. ...
When paradigm shifts they shift from free market to free market or from perfect market to perfect market to maintain or respect the theory-practice consistency principle. The necessary and sufficient condition for a perfect shift to take place is the internalization of externality costs in the pricing mechanism of the market. And when a shift takes place four things are expected to happen at the same time: A model structure shift, a price structure shift, a choice structure shift, and a knowledge structure shift creating in the process model, price, choice, and knowledge gaps. In 2012 there was a paradigm shift from perfect traditional markets to perfect green markets, which raises a very important question: If going from free markets to free markets is the science based approach: What is then the model structure, price structure, choice structure and the knowledge structure and related gaps of 2012 paradigm shift from perfect traditional market to perfect green market thinking? The main goal of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
... In other words, we produce and consume under zero social and environmental externality impact when operating under the full externality neutrality assumption. This assumption makes the traditional market(TM) a distorted market in social and environmental terms (Muñoz 2010). ...
It can be said that the traditional market is a free market that brings together traditional producers(K) and traditional consumers(L) under the assumption of full social and environmental externality neutrality. And this create a circular traditional economy illusion, the idea that production activity can take without generating production and consumption externalities. The fact that the social and environmental externalities associated with the traditional market are real leads to a disconnect between social and environmental externalities and traditional market pricing. In order to correct this disconnect, the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended the use of sustainable development thinking, which was the wrong recommendation since the externality problem affecting the traditional market was and is a sustainability issue, not a sustainable development issue. There were 3 possible corrections to this sustainability problem: i) a full social and environmental externality correction or sustainability fix; ii) a partial correction through green markets or an environmental sustainability fix; and iii) a partial correction through red markets or a social sustainability fix. The discussion above raises some interesting questions depending of the type of fix that is recommended. With respect to the first possibility, the sustainability fix recommendation; and with the second possibility, an environmental sustainability fix recommendation, the answers of how they would have looked like were recently pointed out in detail graphically and analytically(Muñoz 2020b; Muñoz 2020c). With respect to the third possibility, the question is how the shift from the traditional market model of Adam Smith towards red markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended then a social sustainability fix? The main goal of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
... In other words, we produce and consume under zero social and environmental externality impact when operating under the full externality neutrality assumption. This assumption makes the traditional market(TM) a distorted market in social and environmental terms (Muñoz 2010). ...
Abstract
It can be said that the traditional market is a free market that brings together traditional producers(K) and traditional consumers(L) under the assumption of full social and environmental externality neutrality. And this create a circular traditional economy illusion, the idea that production activity can take without generating production and consumption externalities. The fact that the social and environmental externalities associated with the traditional market are real leads to a disconnect between social and environmental externalities and traditional market pricing. In order to correct this disconnect, the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended the use of sustainable development thinking, which was the wrong recommendation since the externality problem affecting the traditional market was and is a sustainability issue, not a sustainable development issue. There were 3 possible corrections to this sustainability problem: i) a full social and environmental externality correction or sustainability fix; ii) a partial correction through green markets or an environmental sustainability fix; and iii) a partial correction through red markets or a social sustainability fix. The discussion above raises some interesting questions depending of the type of fix that is recommended. With respect to the first possibility, the sustainability fix recommendation, the answer of how it would have looked like was recently shared in detail graphically and analytically(Muñoz 2020b). With respect to the second possibility, the question is how the shift from the traditional market model of Adam Smith towards green markets would have looked like had the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommended then an environmental sustainability fix? The main goal of this paper is to provide an answer to this question.
Abstracto Se puede decir que el mercado tradicional es un mercado libre que reúne a los productores tradicionales(K) y a los consumidores tradicionales (L) bajo la suposición de una neutralidad total de la externalidad social y ambiental. Y esto crea la ilusión económica tradicional circular, la idea de que la actividad de producción puede ocurrir sin generar externalidades de producción y de consumo. El hecho de que las externalidades sociales y ambientales asociadas al mercado tradicional son reales conduce a una desconexión entre las externalidades sociales y ambientales y los precios tradicionales del mercado. Para corregir esta desconexión, la Comisión Brundtland de 1987 recomendó el uso del pensamiento de desarrollo sostenible, la cual fue y es la recomendación equivocada, ya que el problema de la externalidad que afecta al mercado tradicional fue y es una cuestión de sostenibilidad, no de desarrollo sostenible. Habían 3 correcciones posibles para solucionar este problema de sostenibilidad: i) una corrección completa de externalidad social y ambiental o una corrección de sostenibilidad; ii) una corrección parcial a través de mercados verdes o una corrección de sostenibilidad ambiental; y iii) una corrección parcial a través de mercados rojos o una corrección de sostenibilidad social. La discusión anterior plantea algunas preguntas interesantes dependiendo del tipo de solución que se recomienda. Con respecto a la primera posibilidad, la recomendación de solución de sostenibilidad, la respuesta de cómo se habría visto se compartió recientemente en detalle de manera gráfica y analítica (Muñoz 2020b). Con respecto a la segunda posibilidad, la pregunta es ¿Cómo habría sido el cambio de modelo del mercado tradicional de Adam Smith hacia los mercados verdes si la Comisión Brundtland de 1987 hubiera recomendado una corrección de sostenibilidad ambiental? El objetivo principal de este documento es proporcionar una respuesta a esta pregunta.
Abstract
Adam Smith's gave us in 1776 an optimal perfect market paradigm that was supposed to maintain optimal impacts on population dynamics and system stability, but by 1987 the world was facing an over-population problem and a pollution problem. In other words, the traditional market paradigms turned out to be a golden trojan paradigm as it allows for critical problems to develop through time while expecting optimal outcomes, and this distortion get amplified and made extreme by the market dynamics and population dynamics independency assumptions, which hold that they do not affect each other when affecting system stability. We seem to know where the pollution problem came from the point of view of the assumption of market dynamics and population dynamics independence, but not where the population problem came from. And this raises questions such as If markets were optimal in 1776, then where did the 1987 overpopulation problem come from? Can the dependency theory and the golden trojan paradigm theory explain this? Among the goals of this paper is to provide answers to those questions.
Resumen
Adam Smith nos dio en 1776 un paradigma óptimo de mercado perfecto que se suponía mantendría impactos óptimos sobre la dinámica de la población y la estabilidad del sistema, pero en 1987 el mundo enfrentaba un problema de superpoblación y un problema de contaminación. En otras palabras, los paradigmas tradicionales del mercado resultaron ser un paradigma troyano de oro, ya que permiten que problemas críticos se desarrollen a lo largo del tiempo mientras se esperan resultados óptimos, y esta distorsión se amplifica y se vuelve extrema por los supuestos de independencia de la dinámica del mercado y la dinámica de la población, que sostiene que no se afectan entre sí cuando afectan la estabilidad del sistema. Parece que sabemos de dónde vino el problema de la contaminación desde el punto de vista del supuesto de independencia de la dinámica del mercado y de la dinámica de la población, pero no de dónde vino el problema de la población. Y esto plantea preguntas como: Si los mercados eran óptimos en 1776, ¿de dónde vino entonces el problema de superpoblación de 1987? ¿Pueden la teoría de la dependencia y la teoría del paradigma troyano dorado explicar esto? Uno de los objetivos de este artículo es proporcionar respuestas a esas preguntas
Nota.-El presente artículo fue enviado por el autor expresamente para el presente número de la Revista Virtual de REDESMA. Abstract It is now widely accepted that we need to deal with global warming issues immediately by greening production activities and by shifting from production and consumption of non-renewable energy to the production and consumption of a renewable one. Currently and consistent with the above, local and international organizations are promoting the implementation of a two component global warming friendly strategy that affects agriculture: a) The shifting to more environmentally friendly methods of agricultural production; and b) The redirection of part of agricultural production to the production of bio-energy in general and biofuels in particular. The implementation of both components of this global warming strategy in a rush, and especially without regulation, should be expected to have the potential to affect negatively social sustainability as they would affect perhaps deeply land use patterns in general and the availability and accessibility of agricultural commodities with high social value to the general population in particular. However, not much emphasis is being placed by global warming advocates, economic and/or environmental, on making sure that these global warming friendly actions are implemented in ways that are as socially friendly as possible in the short and in the long-term. Ignoring, on purpose or not, the need to avoid implementing environmental solutions that have the potential to lead to deeper social unsustainability, especially in developing countries, creates a window of opportunity to increase and widespread social unrest and global unsustainability, which ultimately may backfire globally in environmental terms. The main goals of this paper are: a) to introduce a general framework that links the green agricultural development model to agriculture supported renewable energy production or bioenergy and to global warming; and use it to highlight general expected impacts and policy implications arising from both the greening of agricultural production processes and from the general social use for bioenergy swap; and b) to introduce a component specific framework that links the green agricultural development model to biofuel production supported by industrial and traditional agricultural activities and to global warming; and use it to highlight general expected impacts and policy implications arising from both the greening of industrial and traditional agricultural production processes; and from the food for biofuels swap.
Anti-dumping is at the heart of EU trade policy. Its use is justified on the grounds of eliminating injurious dumping by foreign firms and reestablishing conditions of ‘fair’ trade. Use of anti-dumping has been rising globally, generating concerns about the potential for protectionist abuse of this trade defence instrument (TDI). Most economists are of the opinion that anti-dumping has little to do with ‘unfair’ trade. In general, suspicions are high that domestic industries are turning to anti-dumping as a form of protectionism, and that the EU’s current anti-dumping laws support their efforts. This article takes an in-depth look at the past ten years of anti-dumping usage in the EU. The analysis draws on information from the 332 anti-dumping cases initiated between 1998 and 31 December 2008.
Five empirical tendencies have been identified:
(1) the main targets of investigations and measures are exporters in emerging markets, particularly in Asia – a growing source of global competition;
(2) targeted products are concentrated in sectors where European comparative advantage is declining, that is, raw materials, industrial input goods, and textiles;
(3) dumping margins reflect this pattern, being particularly high in the chemicals and steel sectors;
(4) duty levels are significantly higher than bound tariffs, particularly in the higher end technology sector;
(5) once an anti-dumping investigation has been initiated, definitive measures are the most likely outcome.
7 The removal of subsidies on agriculture, health, education, petroleum products, etc is one of the key policy prescriptions by the World Bank to developing countries. Presumably, this policy is supposed to enhance economic performance in these countries. However, the removal of subsidies can have adverse effects on the poor in these countries and lead to political agitation as evidenced in the 2005 demonstrations after the ruling NPP government in Ghana removed the subsidy on petrol. But is there a compelling economic argument or basis for the removal of subsidies? Will this policy necessarily improve economic performance? In this article, I shall provide answers to these questions. Modern neoclassical economics is based on perfectly competitive markets. More than fifty years ago, the Nobel Laureates Kenneth Arrow and the late Gerard Debreu proved the existence of competitive prices under very restrictive conditions. Under certain conditions, a competitive equilibrium not only exists but is also efficient (i.e., maximizes the size of the national pie or maximizes social welfare). In this world, there can be no role for government
Fair-Trade Coffee: Not Worth a Hill of Beans, The Christian Science Monitor
- Gene Callahan
Callahan, Gene, 2008. Fair-Trade Coffee: Not Worth a Hill of Beans, The Christian
Science Monitor, August 08, Boston, MA, USA.
The Traditional Market and the Sustainability Market: Is the Perfect Market Sustainable? The International Journal of Economic Development's Symposium on Sustainable Development: Theoretical and Pragmatic Issues
- Lucio Muñoz
Muñoz, Lucio, 2001. The Traditional Market and the Sustainability Market: Is the
Perfect Market Sustainable?, The International Journal of Economic Development's
Symposium on Sustainable Development: Theoretical and Pragmatic Issues, Gedeon
M. Madacumura and Desta Mebratu, PhD(Eds), Vol. 3, No. 4, October, Elizabethtown, PA,
USA.
Memo prepared for the conference on Europe and the Management of Globalization
- Hiscox Michael
Hiscox Michael J., 2007. Memo prepared for the conference on Europe and the
Management of Globalization, Princeton University, February 23, Princeton, NJ, USA
Fair-Trade Critiques Lack Common Sense, The Georgia Straight, News and Views
- Richard Tarnoff
Tarnoff, Richard, 2004. Fair-Trade Critiques Lack Common Sense, The Georgia Straight,
News and Views, February 19, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
---------------------------------------------Citation
The Traditional Market and the Sustainability Market: Is the Perfect Market Sustainable?
- Lucio Muñoz
Muñoz, Lucio, 2001. The Traditional Market and the Sustainability Market: Is the
Perfect Market Sustainable?, The International Journal of Economic Development's
Symposium on Sustainable Development: Theoretical and Pragmatic Issues, Gedeon
M. Madacumura and Desta Mebratu, PhD(Eds), Vol. 3, No. 4, October, Elizabethtown, PA,
USA.