The end of The End of Poverty

I just finished reading The End of Poverty, by Jeffrey Sachs. He makes some important points toward the end about the anti-globalization movement.

You should know that Sachs himself is very pro-globalization. As an economist, he believes in free trade and open markets as the solutions to many problems (notably, and as the title of his book implies, to the problem of poverty). Very importantly in light of recent global economic events, though, Sachs appreciates that government has an essential role in regulating markets so that they produce the greatest amount of good for the most people.

As Sachs approaches the anti-globalization movement and begins talking about Seattle anti-WTO protesters in 1999, I’m thinking, “He’s going to start his ginormous intellectual engine and crush them.” Because Sachs is very smart. And of course, it’s his book—the protesters don’t get a rebuttal.

In fact, Sachs expresses admiration for the anti-globalizing movement. He credits anti-globalizers with putting the spotlight on issues of corporate responsibility. Corporations are forced to provide better wages and working conditions in factories abroad, to pay closer attention to the environmental impacts of their factories, and to provide drugs at reduced prices in poor countries because of the negative attention they will otherwise receive from anti-globalizers and the media. Of course, this solution is not perfect—government regulation could do a whole lot more than a bunch of rowdy twenty-somethings in hoodies and stocking caps.

So the anti-globalizers have their heart in the right place. Which is something I can appreciate, because I have at least a few times referenced the “corporations” as the root causes of various and sundry social and environmental problems.

But Sachs also criticizes the anti-globalizers for being short-sighted. Yes, Nike is paying workers too little at its scummy factory in Indonesia (or, at least was doing this before the 1999 protests). But who let Nike do this? Indonesia, for not regulating a living minimum wage. The United States, for allowing its companies to profit off of international regulatory loopholes. The “international system”. Not for allowing companies like Nike exist, but for failing to constrain these companies’ actions.

What about Honduras? I have heard that Home Depot imports a fair amount of its wood from Honduras. Some comes from tropical rainforests where endangered species live. Honduras has passed several laws protecting swathes of land from loggers. However, much logging in Honduras happens in a very informal way—a couple of campesinos know they can sell wood in San Pedro Sula for x price, so they go to where they know there is a whole lot of wood available—the national forest. A place as poor as Honduras has no money to spend protecting the integrity of its national forest, and there is no check at the point of sale on where the wood comes from. Who’s to blame? Honduras has done all it can; Home Depot can’t necessarily do more. Any ideas for a solution?