Today, Reuters reported that Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, blamed the West for the world's food inflation and spot shortages. Specifically, he targeted the West's allocation of a share of its food production to biofuels as leading to food inflation/shortages. On that matter, recent data bears his position out. If he had stopped there, he would have raised a matter that deserves urgent consideration.

But, he did not. Afterward, in what can only be described as a hysterical outburst, he charged the West as being responsible for "mass starvation." Finally, long an implacable opponent of globalization, he could not resist an opportunity to take a shot at globalization, even as a number of nations have embarked on anti-globalization steps that are compounding the food inflation/shortage issue.

The following excerpts from the Reuters story provide a good sketch of Mr. Ziegler's public criticism:

Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, told Kurier am Sonntag that growth in biofuels, speculation on commodities markets and European Union export subsidies mean the West is responsible for mass starvation in poorer countries...

Ziegler blamed globalization for "monopolizing the riches of the earth" and said multinationals were responsible for a type of "structural violence"...

Mr. Ziegler's point about the role biofuel production has contributed is a fair one. After all, the World Bank found:

Concerns over oil prices, energy security and climate change have prompted governments to take a more proactive stance towards encouraging production and use of bio-fuels. This has led to increased demand for bio-fuel raw materials, such as wheat, soy, maize and palm oil, and increased competition for cropland. Almost all of the increase in global maize production from 2004 to 2007 (the period when grain prices rose sharply) went for bio-fuels production in the U.S., while existing stocks were depleted by an increase in global consumption for other uses. Other developments, such as droughts in Australia and poor crops in the E.U. and Ukraine in 2006 and 2007, were largely offset by good crops and increased exports in other countries and would not, on their own, have had a significant impact on prices.

As noted in another thread, I would like to see the U.S. eliminate its ethanol subsidies, even as such a move would probably only have a modest impact. Such a step would, however, demonstrate that the U.S. is responsive to the developing world's food needs and could make an important contribution to U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The World Bank's report also noted that higher energy and fertilizer prices have added to food prices. However, according to the World Bank's report, energy and fertilizer price trends have explained only 15% of the rise in food prices.

What the World Bank report does not note is that demand for food has been increasing in recent years on account of rising incomes. Hence, aside from slower food supply growth, demand pressures are also playing a role in tilting the overall economic landscape toward higher food prices.

In short, the biofuel vs. food production debate is an important one. Unfortunately, by turning a thoughtful discussion into a radical diatribe against the West and globalization, Mr. Ziegler squandered an opportunity to make a thoughful contribution to the issue at hand.

With the World Bank, IMF, and WTO working toward developing mechanisms to assist nations impacted by rising food prices and spot shortages, Mr. Ziegler's allegation that the West is engaging in "mass murder" has no merit. If anything, it is an attack on countries who are currently engaged in efforts to deal with food inflation/shortages and is counterproductive.

Mr. Ziegler's critique of globalization fares no better. Reserach conducted by economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati, among others, has found that globalization, on whole, has net benefits when it comes to reducing poverty, raising wages, and promoting political stability.

Trade makes it easier for nations possessing comparative advantages in food production to sell food to others who lack such advantages. Trade is mutually beneficial. Among other things, the World Bank's report notes that reductions in the Value Added Tax (VAT) and import tariffs on food imports can be helpful.

Ironically, as Mr. Ziegler rails against globalization, a number of food exporters have begun restricting exports in what the Financial Times terms a "starve-your-neighbour" approach. Export restrictions are anti-globalization measures. Globalization, specifically the trade liberalization aspect of it, would discourage such counterproductive measures.

In the end, at a time when the world's nations are looking for cool-headed and dispassionate leadership in working their way through several significant challenges, including the food inflation/spot shortage matter that might well be 2008's biggest story, Mr. Ziegler engaged in the kind of rhetoric that can only exacerbate tensions. One should have expected better from the United Nations. Yet, the kind of radicalism one witnessed in Mr. Ziegler's outburst has marred that international organization for decades across various issues, so this latest deficiency in the UN's performance is not all that surprising.

Originally Posted by donsutherland1 Mr. Ziegler's critique of globalization fares no better. Reserach conducted by economists such as Jagdish Bhagwati, among others, has found that globalization, on whole, has net benefits when it comes to reducing poverty, raising wages, and promoting political stability.

My Web Profile Page

Originally Posted by Scucca I'd suggest the literature is much more mixed. As an example of the empirical analysis consider Christian Aid (2005, The Economics of Failure: The Real Cost of Free Trade for Poor Countries): "Trade liberalization has cost Sub-Saharan Africa $272 billion over the past 20 years… Overall, local producers are selling less than they were before trade was liberalized". Trade theory will also make a distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage (with the latter referring to the importance of economies of time, i.e. learning by doing). If 'globalisation' is structured such that it maintains static comparative advantage then it restricts economic development and therefore emotive language such as 'mass murder' can be applied. Indeed, it should be applied as we try and shift away from the conservatism of the WTO and a framework structured in favour the rich North

Originally Posted by SFLRN Are we really going to spend our time blaming trade for this?

Many of these leaders have hurt their people much more than any Western subsidies could have.

Originally Posted by Scucca Nope! I'll blame those that have hindered the delivery of production according to dynamic comparative advantage, starting with the WTO. Trade is not the problem, it is artificial trade patterns enforced by neoliberalism Ideally trade would run a more "natural" course, but a body like the WTO is sometimes needed to help open up markets , even if it is done so in a slow manner. The WTO may not perfectly bring in trade, but it's better able to initiate lowering barriers to trade than just unilateral negotiations. You've also got a chicken and egg problem going here. Usual comparative advantage tales about mutually beneficial trade often cannot be applied. The World Bank has admitted that, due to the focus on primary product exports, many African countries have been made worse off by trade. We merely have to factor in variables such as resource depletion and pollution damage. That continues because of influence costs. An inefficient export structure is enabled by a national elite and external multinationals

Originally Posted by SFLRN Moreover, the pollution and resource depletion are temporary costs that can be lessened if there is sustained economic development (especially if capital controls are limited).

Food subsidies and imperfect trade agreements are mostly the fault of Western governments, but many of these poor nation's leaders are to blame for the problems confronting their constituents.

Originally Posted by Scucca But economic development is restricted by neoliberalism. We're back to the distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. The trade patterns associated with the minimisation of opportunity costs is not achieved because of a variation of first mover advantage. This enables multinationals to continue the profiteering via an exaggerated concentration of exports on the primary sector. Until we move away from neoliberalism, we have no way of measuring the exact extent of national elite error & corruption