Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Free trade or greater protectionism?

By Chris Lewis - posted Friday, 6 March 2009


Even the US, ranked first according to the World Economic Forum’s 2008-09 Global Competitiveness Report, has increasingly relied on debt (even allowing for inadequate regulation).

So if we are to accept freer trade as the best concept for promoting peace and prosperity, we will have to be honest about policy limitations. Thus, we may have to accept tougher times ahead given that it was the developed nations, aided initially by high levels of industry protection or other measures, that have continued to benefit most from much higher levels of per capita wealth, an important advantage in any world committed to common institutions. We cannot expect to promote democracy in developing nations by just hoping that they merely prop up Western societies through the purchase of bonds, as evident most in the US.

So let us look at the policy decisions needed to balance both national and international considerations without abandoning general adherence to freer trade.

Advertisement

First, unless Western nations (including Australia) are prepared to accept budget deficits for some time yet, as growth is unlikely to increase substantially in the near future, then severe cuts to government spending will be needed.

Yet, this does not mean that Australia will ever adhere to some theoretical or philosophical model. Rather, pragmatic policy making will rule the day (as it always has) regarding the promotion of freer trade. Reform will have to occur in a way acceptable to the electorate, as suggested by government intervention in the Australian economy still being 34.5 per cent of GDP in 2006 after being 37.7 per cent in 1991: a reality in line with a slight decline in the OECD average from 41.3 to 40.2 per cent (OECD.StatExtracts).

But with ongoing pressure for Australia to remain attractive to investment, further reform will be needed. In the end, Australia’s ability to meet many economic, social and environmental policy needs will be determined by its ability to promote economic activity and maintain revenue in an increasingly competitive (yet fairer) world.

Of course, this task may be complicated by the ongoing need for taxation reform to enhance investment, although Australian governments have done their best to keep taxation receipts as high as possible, despite the need to remain competitive in international terms in line with Australia’s circumstances. This is why both Labor and Coalition governments adopted appropriate reform to ensure that taxation revenue remained similar as a proportion of GDP as evident by lower income and company taxation rates being accompanied by the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, and the GST.

Sure there is a possibility that taxation rates can be lowered further by targeting tax deductions associated with company and family trusts which enables split incomes between family members, negative gearing benefits for those who purchase investment properties or shares, salary packages, putting wages in names of low-income earning spouses, or deferring tax from capital gains held longer than a year.

But any reform must not merely favour the wealthy who have benefited most from reform in recent decades. If we are to have across the board tax cuts, given the need to attract investment, reform should be offset by appropriate measures in other policy areas. For instance, while removing taxation from all superannuation payouts makes some sense to boost savings, should the rich be completely excluded from some tax given that someone with a payout of $650,000 in 2006 gained about $200 a week whereas those with an average payout (about $168,000) gained little given that the first $130,000 was already tax-free.

Advertisement

And if deficit spending is to be used to offset the decline of the private sector (as is occurring now), it must also address the productive capacity of the nation rather than merely boosting consumption with temporary handouts. The faster that significant resources are directed to important infrastructure needs, such as transport and water, the faster will be Australia’s ability to potentially benefit from a growing international economy which will long need mineral and agricultural products. Infrastructure spending may also include greater public transport spending, including a fast train between Sydney and Melbourne, which happens to be one of the busiest airline corridors in the world.

Any desire for free trade deals must also pay adequate attention to the Australian interest, as hopefully will be upheld by the Rudd Labor Government’s response to China’s current bid to own Australian mining operations. As indicated by 2005 efforts by the Howard government, there is need for measures to protect Australian firms from being obliterated by cheap Chinese imports including tough “anti-dumping” rules (Steve Lewis, The Australian, February 14, 2005), and a need for agriculture to be included in free trade deal with China (Katharine Murphy, The Australian, March 8, 2005).

And in regards to manufacturing, some assistance will always be necessary. Quite simply, Australia and other Western nations will never be able to compete in any type of manufacturing should China and India or other developing nations be given full access to Western markets. With wages always a factor, it is worth noting that the average profit margin for Chinese domestic LCD TV makers was as low as 2.3 per cent in 2007, compared with the electronic industry's overall profit of 3.5 per cent (Shanghai Daily, October 8, 2007).

Australia’s social welfare system, which increased under the Howard government from $56 billion in 1994-95 to $82 billion in 2004-05 (Steve Lewis, Herald Sun, November 14, 2008), may also need to be modified through tougher means-testing if lower budgetary revenue becomes the norm. For instance, the Medicare safety net introduced by the Howard government in 2005 clearly favoured rich areas given that such families have the resources to throw at such services: 9 of the top 10 benefiting electorates were blue-ribbon Liberal seats (Patricia Karvelas, The Australian, March 10, 2006).

In the end, the demands of the international economy will probably mean tougher times ahead, a reality that may well complicate the ability of any nation to meet all of its economic, social and environmental needs, although I hope that Western nations (including Australia) will lead the way with sophisticated policy mixes despite present economic concerns.

I have offered a perspective that is hopeful, but one which recognises that the struggle to balance compassion and competitiveness is inevitably linked to freer trade which still does offer the best potential for nations to address both national and international economic considerations, although I will never dare to suggest that such a concept is perfect. Time will tell if freer trade or greater protectionism wins the day in coming years as Western governments (including Australia) continue their struggle for a pragmatic policy mix.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Chris Lewis, who completed a First Class Honours degree and PhD (Commonwealth scholarship) at Monash University, has an interest in all economic, social and environmental issues, but believes that the struggle for the ‘right’ policy mix remains an elusive goal in such a complex and competitive world.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Chris Lewis

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy