Why the Critic Is (a bit) Wrong [May 15]*

I found the latest chapter of Wolf’s Why Globalization Works to be pretty interesting reading. I’ve read two of Naomi Klein’s books, including No Logo, and been curious about what critics say. Now I know, at least, what Wolf thinks.

I agree that much of the “common knowledge” research reported on MNCs is pretty bogus, including the top 100 economies business. On the other hand, I think Wolf plays a little game with the rhetorical trap of reductionist argumentation as he goes into the second part of his argument, analyzing claims of brand tyrrany.

Yes, we all have a choice. That’s the fun part about shopping for clothes. But think of it this way: as a child, you have a choice between the in-group and the out-group. More than likely, especially in grade school, you badly want into the former, and would very much like to avoid the latter. The way into the first? Dress right. By “dress right,” it’s meant that your style match the in-group’s. What are they wearing? Well, at least for a while, it was Hilfigger or whatever derivative mess. So, you can choose. In-group, or something else – different brand, no brand, whatever. Yes, there is a choice. On the other hand, the brand name choice doesn’t always boil down to what product you’re buying, but the lifestyle you want to present yourself as having, and the social options that opens (or closes) to you.

That doesn’t mean you’re buying things you actually loathe and somehow you’ve blinded yourself to that—though I have met people who buy these brand names for the above reasons but privately confess to not really giving two cents either way. There is to a small extent some mutual coercion going on, or companies wouldn’t hire individuals to trawl forums and post up supportive messages, nor would they hire advertisement agencies who use “viral marketing techniques” to disseminate favorable information on products along formerly trusted person to person channels. That doesn’t mean people still don’t have the power of choice, but one should be honest about the real choices being made. Brands don’t give companies control over consumers; companies could only wish for such influence. Brands do, however, exert a powerful image, for the better or worse when it comes to the company’s bottom line.

As an aside, I’d be curious to read what Wolf keeps sourcing when he talks about the Brent Spar platform. I’d like to know if it really would have been safer over all to let the whole thing molder away in the ocean.

Wolf’s talk on FDIs “exploiting” small governments makes me think of what I mentioned in class last Thursdays. No matter what Wolf says about the power countries have versus the power companies have, it’s indisputable that companies do have a lot of political power. Otherwise the pharma lobby and the agricultural lobby in the US wouldn’t have such sway, and it would be highly unlikely that a policy like TRIPS would be holding less developed countries back from making much-needed medicines (plus, generic brands here would pop up much sooner, too, for those among us suffering the high cost of living while sick). Yes, many of these negative outcomes, including narrow EPZs, are the acts of government, but they’re the acts of government responding to what seems to attract companies to plop down much-needed factories. Are these governments necessarily the most stable in the world? No. But nor are they always the most egregiously unstable. Many of the complaints critics make might be better aimed at the governments making the poor choices contributing to some of the conditions they rail against; I think it’s those conditions, which Wolf admits, that really need to be considered—but the fact that much of the issues stem from (I hesitate to write it, but…) poor government decision making rather than direct corporate action doesn’t mean critics’ claims are as simple to dismiss as Wolf keeps making them out to be. The aim is crooked, but the thoughts aren’t all totally bent.

Usually I agree with the idea behind “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.” However, I’m not at all convinced by Wolf’s argument about working conditions. Okay, so these foreign investors treat their workers slightly better than domestic companies. That’s nice. That’s not good enough. I won’t trifle with the wage argument; I don’t really have a quarrel with what people are being paid. What ethical treatment concerning workers consists of doesn’t change from country to country based on working conditions. That’s a relativist argument where there should be none. In Country A, you work your 12 hours a day in a factory, have lunch in the middle, get a pat on the back and a check at the end. In Country B, you work your 8 hours a day in a factory, maybe allowed to bring food in with you to eat as you work at midday, are forced to work overtime for pay or not, get a punch in the stomach and a check at the end. In Country C, you work your 12 hours a day in a factory, may or may not get a lunch break in the middle, and get a slap in the face and a check at the end. (If you can’t tell, these are totally fabricated examples.) Most people would seriously consider A the best of all worlds here, but if you had the choice between B and C, you’d definitely work C and call that the better job. No one would disagree, really. That doesn’t change the fact that the slap is wrong. Foreign direct investor companies should be held to the same labor treatment practices everywhere (and I’m still not talking about wages, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish).

And that’s all I have to say about that tonight.