What's new

Vietnam Economy Forum

thank you for telling me something I didn’t know amigo but it seem that your slave mentality did not understand the post is about your Viets inability to compete in unprotected trade regimes not some nonsense about car ownership :no:

as I said, we will see how is your country in 20yrs when you are nothing but the loser host country for foreign corporate to suck your people dry, we have already seen this before when the selfish Viet sold their own country to the Frenchy so this is nothing new, I am thinking if Mr HCM is still alive most of your Viets would be given death penalty already for betrayer of Viet Nam, what a sick mentality :butcher:
bla bla bla...you are talking about things that could happen in 20 years? What is your point? you fcuking stupid troller!
 
Online Gaming
Vietnam: a nation of online gamers dominated by Chinese and Korean games

DW.de
Date 22.10.2013

Vietnam is the biggest online games market in Southeast Asia. But local developers are struggling. There's little government support and state media calls the trend a "social evil."


0,,17167266_303,00.jpg


Down a narrow lane in central Hanoi just after dark, rows of teenagers sit in a shop staring at screens. One of them, high school student Trung, who doesn't want to give his family name, says he comes to the Internet cafe most evenings to play online games.

"I spend about four hours a day playing online games," says Trung. "I play mostly games from China, but I like League of Legends."

Vietnam has more than 13 million video game players and the industry is growing rapidly.

It is also the largest online games market by value in Southeast Asia, with sales of around $200 million in 2012, up from $150 million in 2011 and $120 million in 2009, according to one industry insider who didn't want to be named.

But while the publishers are raking in the cash, developing games in Vietnam is difficult.

Little home-grown

"Gamers play many games but they don't play Vietnamese games," says 35-year-old Nguyen Tuan Huy, founder of one of the country's independent games developers, Emobi.

Huy says most people play massively multiplayer online (MMO) and player kill (PK) games from China. Chinese Kung Fu style games are particularly popular with Vietnamese gamers, who prefer them to sci-fi themes. But he says the country lacks government support for domestic developers to compete.

And current legislation doesn't help.

0,,17167267_401,00.jpg

Games maker Huy battles the constraints of Vietnam's games industry and the country's restrictive laws.


In September, Vietnam passed Decree 72 on the "Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online."

Under the new rules, developers and publishers of games have to apply for a license for online games. And not everything is allowed. Banned content includes nudity and extreme violence, and first-person shooting games.

Huy says the uncertainty caused by the new license regime will discourage investment.

"The procedures make investment in game production too risky because even after spending a year of time and money, developers don't know whether their game will get a license or not," he says.

"Social evil"

Online games are often described as a "social evil" by Vietnam's state media, which link them to violent crimes. The reputation - whether true or not - has made the industry an unpopular one with politicians.

"The biggest problem at the moment is that the government doesn't see games as something good and which it needs to develop."

Some of this could be fixed with better education. But game design is not a top priority for universities and it's leaving Vietnam behind other countries.

Another industry insider based in the country, who preferred not to give his name, says the new regulations will not help. He says that after the old regulations on the management of online games expired, nothing happened for three years.

"For three years no game could get license approval," says the insider. "All the companies had to survive by publishing without a permit and they faced the threat of the government closing them down at any time. But how else can you survive for three years?"

It's possible, says the insider, companies will continue to operate without licenses. Applying for a license is a slow process.

There are 76 game publishing houses in Vietnam, with a potential capacity of 200 new games a year.

0,,17145370_401,00.jpg

The games we play: Vietnam's market is dominated by the games Chinese fans have made popular


"Each week, the committee analyses the content of one game. One week, one game. That's the maximum. So the most they can have [in a year] is 50 games. Out of 200 games only a quarter has a chance of being approved."

As a result, Chinese games have saturated the market - even though Vietnamese gamers like locally-developed games.

"[Vietnamese gamers] can't wait one or two years for a new one. In one year, they might play 20 or 30 Chinese games to satisfy their needs," says the insider.

Getting the game right

Last year, Huy's company Emobi released its first MMO game called "2112" - a reference to its release date.

The strategic game tells the story of an intergalactic war between humans and two alien races and is played in real time. But the game has failed Emobi's expectations.

"We didn't get that right," says Huy. "At the moment young people prefer Kung Fu style."

Developing a game in Vietnam can be risky, but Huy hopes the industry will grow with or without government help.

"If the government helps, the time will be shorter. If they don't help it will take longer."

In the meantime, high school gamer Trung says he's not fussy about the origin of the games he plays.

"To be honest, I don't really care where a game is made - if I like it, I play it."

DW.DE
http://www.dw.de/vietnam-a-nation-of-online-gamers-dominated-by-chinese-and-korean-games/a-17175035
 
bla bla bla...you are talking about things that could happen in 20 years? What is your point? you fcuking stupid troller!
my friend, you are a vicious person lashing out at the innocent people such as myself, it is proof of the true nature of your Viets race to show such violent intent, be careful or maybe one day you will killing someone :no:
anyways the point is that colonisation changed it's name and now wants everyone to call it globalisation instead but still you could not understand, it is a shame



In November 1999, during the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle, I watched from my hotel room as thousands demonstrated against the evils of globalisation.
Anarchists clad in black marched alongside grandmothers dressed as turtles and steelworkers from Philadelphia. They saw international trade as a threat - to their jobs, the environment or simply as part of a capitalist conspiracy.
As leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom, I was convinced that the expansion of world trade had the potential to bring major benefits to developing countries and would be one of the key means by which world poverty would be tackled.
In order to achieve this, I believed that developing countries would need to embrace trade liberalisation. This would mean opening up their own domestic markets to international competition. The thinking behind this approach being that the discipline of the market would resolve problems of underperformance, a strong economy would emerge and that, as a result, the poor would benefit. This still remains the position of major international bodies like the IMF and World Bank and is reflected in the system of incentives and penalties which they incorporate in their loan agreements with developing countries. But my mind has changed.
I now believe that this approach is wrong and misguided. Since leaving the cabinet a year ago, I've had the opportunity to see at first hand the consequences of trade policy. No longer sitting in the air-conditioned offices of fellow government ministers I have, instead, been meeting farmers and communities at the sharp end.
It is this experience that has led me to the conclusion that full trade liberalisation is not the way forward. A different approach is needed: one which recognises the importance of managing trade with the objective of achieving development goals.
No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1% could generate around £43bn - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.
This has led President Museveni of Uganda to say: "Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far. We are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in western markets. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty."
The World Bank estimates that reform of the international trade rules could take 300 million people out of poverty. Reform is essential because, to put it bluntly, the rules of international trade are rigged against the poorest countries.
Rich nations may be pre pared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.
The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.
This is not intervention for the sake of it or to prop up failing enterprises, but part of a transitional phase to create strong businesses that can compete on equal terms in the global marketplace without the need for continued protection.
Just look at some examples. Taiwan and South Korea are often held out as being good illustrations of the benefits of trade liberalisation. In fact, they built their international trading strength on the foundations of government subsidies and heavy investment in infrastructure and skills development while being protected from competition by overseas firms.
In more recent years, those countries which have been able to reduce levels of poverty by increasing economic growth - like China, Vietnam, India and Mozambique - have all had high levels of intervention as part of an overall policy of strengthening domestic sectors.
On the other hand, there are an increasing number of countries in which full-scale trade liberalisation has been applied and then failed to deliver economic growth while allowing domestic markets to be dominated by imports. This often has devastating effects.
Zambia and Ghana are both examples of countries in which the opening up of markets has led to sudden falls in rates of growth with sectors being unable to compete with foreign goods. Even in those countries that have experienced overall economic growth as a result of trade liberalisation, poverty has not necessarily been reduced.
In Mexico during the first half of the 1990s there was economic growth, yet the number of people living below the poverty line increased by 14 million in the 10 years from the mid-1980s. This was due to the fact that the benefits of a more open market all went to the large commercial operators, with the small concerns being squeezed out.
The evidence shows that the benefits that would flow from increased international trade will not materialise if markets are simply left alone. When this happens, liberalisation is used by the rich and powerful international players to make quick gains from short-term investments.
The role of the IMF and World Bank is also of concern. The conditions placed on their loans often force countries into rapid liberalisation, with scant regard to the impact on the poor.
The way forward is through a regime of managed trade in which markets are slowly opened up and trade policy levers like subsidies and tariffs are used to help achieve development goals.
The IMF and World Bank should recognise that questions of trade liberalisation are the responsibility of the WTO where they can be considered in the overall context of achieving poverty reduction and that it is therefore inappropriate to include trade liberalisation as part of a loan agreement.
This represents a departure from the current orthodoxy. It will be opposed by multinational companies who see rich and easy pickings in the markets of the developing world. But such a change would benefit the world's poorest people and that's why it should happen.
 
my friend, you are a vicious person lashing out at the innocent people such as myself, it is proof of the true nature of your Viets race to show such violent intent, be careful or maybe one day you will killing someone :no:
...
The role of the IMF and World Bank is also of concern. The conditions placed on their loans often force countries into rapid liberalisation, with scant regard to the impact on the poor.
The way forward is through a regime of managed trade in which markets are slowly opened up and trade policy levers like subsidies and tariffs are used to help achieve development goals.
The IMF and World Bank should recognise that questions of trade liberalisation are the responsibility of the WTO where they can be considered in the overall context of achieving poverty reduction and that it is therefore inappropriate to include trade liberalisation as part of a loan agreement.
This represents a departure from the current orthodoxy. It will be opposed by multinational companies who see rich and easy pickings in the markets of the developing world. But such a change would benefit the world's poorest people and that's why it should happen.
Sure, there are risks and rewards if we open the market further to the world economy. Closing the doors is not an option. You should not forget, before economics reform in the 1980s, Vietnam was one of the poorest countries in the world. Vietnam was isolated. Since then, we have risen from a very poor to a midle income nation. Vietnam just copies the success of other nations, such as Singapore, Taiwan or China. What´s wrong in doing so?

The Worldbank for its part has provided loans and continues to do so. Without its supports (money and human expertise), we were not where we are today. If VN stands still, the risk of falling behind is greater than we embrace the open market.
 
I think having foreign companies in Vietnam is beneficial as of now. Sure the profits go back to the foreign countries but their business ethnics and practices is a good way to teach Vietnamese proper business skills. I see so many Vietnamese still stuck in the old, traditional business style of ripping people off for short term profit rather than proper customer support to encourage returning customers. Vietnamese business are also uncreative; they don't innovate but rather, they copy what their competitions do and hope they can get in on the profit. At least seeing all the different types of business will encourage them to take some risks and be more creative. Once Vietnam has a better grasp on business practices, they will surely outpace the foreign companies and have many reputable companies of their own.
 
Vietnam’s Nuclear Energy Plan Likely Part of Russia Talks
Southeast Asia
The Wallstreet Journal
  • November 6, 2013, 7:05 AM

By Nguyen Pham Muoi and Vu Trong Khanh

BN-AG314_VNnucl_G_20131104053738.jpg

The site of the future Ninh Thuan 1 plant, one of 13 nuclear reactors Vietnam hopes to build in an effort to meet the country’s growing energy needs.


HANOI – Russian President Vladimir Putin begins an energy-heavy visit to Vietnam next week, putting into the spotlight the energy plans of the Southeast Asia country – including its ambitious goal of building 13 nuclear reactors.

Several energy deals will likely be signed during Mr. Putin’s visit, in which he will meet with Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang and other officials.

These deals would include those between Petrovietnam and Rosneft to jointly explore offshore oil in Russia and Vietnam, and a memorandum of understanding under which Rosneft would provide crude oil to Petrovietnam over the next three years.

But Vietnam is also working with Russian utility and energy company Rosatom to help it build its first nuclear power plant, the Ninh Thuan 1, as it charts a future in which nuclear will provide 6.6% of the country’s energy needs by 2030. Vietnam needs expertise, not only to build but to run what Vietnam hopes will eventually be eight nuclear plants.

Russia has a lead in staking claim to what may become one of the world’s largest new nuclear markets, having already agreed to extend an $8 billion loan to Vietnam. Japan and South Korea have also signaled interest, as has the United States.

Japan is in talks with Vietnam about funding the construction of the second nuclear power plant, the Ninh Thuan 2. Vietnam signed a contract in 2011 with Japan Atomic Power for a feasibility study. Construction of the plant, expected to use Japanese technology, is expected to begin in 2015, with the first light bulbs showing the results in 2021.

Meanwhile, South Korea may develop what would be the third plant. South Korean President Park Geun-hye, during her visit to Vietnam in September, said South Korea is interested in introducing its nuclear power technology here, adding that a joint study on a project to build a nuclear power plant in Vietnam has been launched.

In taking the nuclear step, Vietnam is walking a different path than other Southeast Asia countries, which haven’t wanted to confront such challenges as huge price tags or public alarm in the shadow cast by the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

The Philippines decided to shutter its only nuclear plant — the completed but never used $2.3 billion, 620-megawatt Bataan Nuclear Power Plant – out of safety concerns. Indonesian politicians have talked about adding nuclear to the mix, but no path has been set. Meanwhile, Malaysia recently gave a signal that the government will shelve plans for nuclear energy.

“Vietnam needs to build a nuclear power program to have sufficient electricity for the country, and this process will also help boost the development of human resources in other sciences which eventually support the economic development,” said Mr. Tran Chi Thanh, head of the Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute under the Ministry of Science and Technology.

The first plant will be built in the central province of Ninh Thuan, located about seven hours north of Ho Chi Minh City. The plan is for the plant’s first reactor to begin operating in 2020 and the second in 2021.

Vietnamese officials point to growing energy demand for backing nuclear power.


VIETNAM.jpg



While Vietnam’s energy needs for its rapidly growing economy and citizens are growing at more than 10% annually, it has stretched its other energy sources.

Oil and gas reserves deliver 31% of energy, but crude oil output has peaked. Vietnam already gets 40% of its energy from its hydropower plants, and plans to rapidly increase the number from 260 today, with a combined capacity of 13,694 megawatts. Vietnam wants to add another 211 plants that would add another total capacity of 6,713 megawatts. Coal powers another 20% of needs. But the country’s coal sources — based in the northern region — are limited, and coal imports are expected to begin in 2015.

Vietnam’s total electricity output is expected to reach 130 billion kilowatt hours this year. By 2030, when all of the 13 reactors are hoped to be in operation, that output would be six times more, at 834 billion kilowatt hours.

The government hasn’t estimated the price tag.

But Vuong Huu Tan, former head of the Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute, said last year the cost for building a 2,000-megawatt plant, with two reactors like the first that Vietnam wants to build, would be at least $8 billion, equivalent to nearly 6% of Vietnam’s GDP in 2012. That’s in a country where the average person earns $4.30 a day.

“It’s too high for a poor Vietnam to embrace the nuclear plants,” said Professor Pham Duy Hien, former director of the Da Lat Nuclear Institute and former deputy director of Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute.

Mr. Tran Chi Thanh, from the Ministry of Science and Technology, said Vietnam also will be hard-pressed to develop a pool of people qualified to run the plants safely.

“Human resource training for the nuclear power development plan has been carried out slowly,” Mr. Thanh said, adding that Vietnam is currently short of trained officials who can understand nuclear power technologies and work with foreign partners.

Nguyen Quang A, a founder of Hanoi-based Institute of Development Research, agreed.

“The recent accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan has shown that no technology is safe, and as many accidents were caused by human errors,” Mr. Quang A said.

Nguyen Trung, a former advisor to former prime minister Phan Van Khai, thinks the government should exhaust other renewable resources — such as wind, solar and biofuels — and improve energy efficiency. Wind, solar and biofuels are yet to develop in Vietnam. So far, only two wind power plants have become operational in the country, with combined capacity of 46 megawatts.

But Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai defends adding nuclear, saying it is an important part of Vietnam’s energy strategy to ensure the country’s fast and sustainable economic development.

“Vietnam needs a diversified structure of energy sources, and nuclear power is the most reasonable solution,” Mr. Hai said.

Vietnam to Highlight Nuclear Energy Plans as Part of Talks with Russia's Putin - Southeast Asia Real Time - WSJ



 
Motorbike Makers in Vietnam Rethink Sales Strategies


November 7, 2013, 7:00 AM By Vu Trong Khanh
The Wallstreet Journal

HANOI–Vietnam’s motorbike market, the fourth-largest in the world, has shown signs of saturation, with annual output having exceeded demand, prompting producers in the Southeast Asian country to speed up their exports to other markets.


Associated Press: Motorcyclists drove in rush hour on La Thanh street in Hanoi, Vietnam, on Oct. 27, 2012. The country is the world’s fourth-largest motorbike market, but recently sales have slumped.

Motorbikes are the most popular means of transportation in Vietnam, which has a population of 90 million people and 37 million registered motorbikes, according to the Ministry of Transport. (The number of cars is around 2 million.)

With motorbike sales totaling 3.1 million units last year, Vietnam is the fourth largest motorbike market by sales, after China, India and Indonesia.

In recent years the country has also emerged as a key manufacturing base for such major motorbike manufacturers as Honda, Yamaha7272.TO +3.20%, Suzuki and Piaggio.

But motorbike sales in Vietnam have started to decline largely due to a slowdown in the country’s economic growth. Last year growth was up by 5.03% over 2011, the slowest pace in 13 years.

Meanwhile, last year’s motorbike sales, while strong, were down 6.6% from a year earlier, marking the first decline since 2000, according to the Vietnam Auto, Motorcycle and Bicycle Association.

Domestic motorbike sales for 2013 are expected to fall further, with full year sales expected to total around 2.5 million units due to slow economic growth and weak demand, according to Pham Cuong, chairman of the Vietnam Auto Motorcycle and Bicycle Association.

At the same time, several motorbike manufacturers are expanding production. The five largest motorbike makers in the country – Honda Vietnam, Yamaha, SYM, Suzuki and Piaggio – are expected to raise their annual capacity to a total of 5.5 million units by the end of this year, up from the 4 million units currently.

And that means they’ll have to put more focus on the international market, said Mr. Cuong. “If the motorbike makers want to survive, they must seek to boost their exports.”

Vietnam’s motorbike exports have grown between 10% and 20% annually in recent years, he said, but declined to give specific export figures.

Many producers have already started exporting their products, mostly to other Asian markets and buyers in Africa. Data from the Vietnam General Department of Customs showed that the export value of transport vehicles, mostly motorbikes, produced in Vietnam rose 32.2% last year to $4.6 billion, accounting for 4% of Vietnam’s total export revenue.

Honda Vietnam Co., Ltd., the largest motorbike maker in the country by output, said earlier this year that its third factory in Vietnam is scheduled to start production by the end of December. As part of its production strategy, it said it is seeking to boost exports to markets in Europe or Asia – the company already exports its products to Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Cambodia, the Philippines, Pakistan and Italy.


Reuters: A man rode a motorbike in Hanoi on Oct. 5. Motorbikes are the most popular form of transportation in the country.

“Exporting is good not only for Honda, but also for Vietnam… and we will focus on the production of our best-selling models in Vietnam for export, including our SH and LEAD models,” said Masayuki Igarahi, director general at Honda Vietnam.

Although the company introduced several new models and launched new sales promotion campaigns, Honda said its sales in Vietnam fell by 4% last year to 1.97 million units.

The company declined to provide its export target for this year, as well as exports figures for previous years. But Mr. Igarahi said Honda Vietnam aims to export around 12,000 125-cc LEAD motorbikes a year to Japan.

Italian scooter producer Piaggio Vietnam Co. was targeting other Asia-Pacific markets for sales from the moment it entered Vietnam in 2009 with a production base in the northern province of Vinh Phuc.

“We have already exported scooters from Vietnam since our start-up in the country,” said Costantino Sambuy, chief executive of Piaggio Vietnam Co., Ltd. “This has always been our strategy, with Vietnam as the regional hub, which hosts the only factory in the whole [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] region, to which we export products.”

To keep doing so Piagio said it is expanding its investment to boost its production capacity.

“The current expansion we are focusing on now is the ‘vertical expansion’, meaning that we look to increase the technological capacity in the areas of research and development and engine production,” Mr. Costantino said.

As Domestic Sales Slow, Motorbike Makers in Vietnam Look to Exports - Southeast Asia Real Time - WSJ
 
Last edited:
That's huge. I work in the oil and gas in Canada and I can tell you that's huge!
cool. There is another project on the pipeline: Rosneft wants to be part of $30bn refinery. another step closer to realization.


Top Russian fuel group to invest in Vietnam refinery

source: Thanh Nien News
Last updated: Monday, November 04, 2013 17:00



Sarvors.jpg

Igor Soglayev (R), CEO of Sarvors which is a member of fuel giant Rosneft, at a meeting with Binh Dinh authorities over the company's interest in the Nhon Hoi refinery

Russia’s fuel giant Rosneft has announced its intention to invest in an estimated US$30 billion refinery project in central Vietnam.

Igor Soglayev, CEO of Sarvors which is a member of the group, told Binh Dinh Province authorities over the weekend that the company had communicated with Thailand’s top energy firm Public Company Limited (PTT) about being a strategic partner in the Nhon Hoi refinery, news website VnExpress reported. He said the project was "practical".

PTT received the nod from the government to build the refinery in May, despite objections by PetroVietnam, which now owns the country’s sole refinery Dung Quat. The Thai company is calling for partners while agreeing to put in 30-40 percent of the cost itself.

Soglayev said they would request consistency in policies and complete infrastructure, which will need to serve between 20,000 and 30,000 people working at a time.

He also said work on a refinery should not last for more than five years.

Binh Dinh chairman Le Huu Loc said the area is located in deep sea water and is convenient for follow-up works like a port, and there are a more than 12,000 hectares available for potential factories.

Soglayev said Rosneft board chairman Igor Sechin will accompany President Vladimir Putin during an official visit to Vietnam next week and he will hold more specific discussions regarding the project.

Rosneft is the top petroleum corporation in Russia, profiting to the tune of around $11.1 billion in 2012. Russian government owns three quarters of the company and BP the other.
 
I think having foreign companies in Vietnam is beneficial as of now. Sure the profits go back to the foreign countries but their business ethnics and practices is a good way to teach Vietnamese proper business skills. I see so many Vietnamese still stuck in the old, traditional business style of ripping people off for short term profit rather than proper customer support to encourage returning customers. Vietnamese business are also uncreative; they don't innovate but rather, they copy what their competitions do and hope they can get in on the profit. At least seeing all the different types of business will encourage them to take some risks and be more creative. Once Vietnam has a better grasp on business practices, they will surely outpace the foreign companies and have many reputable companies of their own.
All that is only part of Vietnam problem, official pocket are endless and it going to be the death to Vietnam if the government dont stop corruption.
 
But while the publishers are raking in the cash, developing games in Vietnam is difficult.

Same situation in China. Most online games are designed to welcome only RMB(Chinese yuan) players. Some players spend more than 10 million RMB(about nearly $2 million USD)playing games, can't believe it! If you spend enough money, you can get strong even without playing it...That's definitely a unfair advantage for most other players. For the developers, they've lost the professional spirit and to develop more balanced and fair games, they are driven by profits, that's all.
 
All that is only part of Vietnam problem, official pocket are endless and it going to be the death to Vietnam if the government dont stop corruption.
the biggest problem for VN is actually the citizen with the same slave mentality worshipper of globalistion like the Viets here on defence pk
completely disgusting are your Viets did not even care for your own people but just introduce ridiculous nonsense like this
LV1.jpg
 
my friend, you are a vicious person lashing out at the innocent people such as myself, it is proof of the true nature of your Viets race to show such violent intent, be careful or maybe one day you will killing someone :no:
anyways the point is that colonisation changed it's name and now wants everyone to call it globalisation instead but still you could not understand, it is a shame



In November 1999, during the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Seattle, I watched from my hotel room as thousands demonstrated against the evils of globalisation.
Anarchists clad in black marched alongside grandmothers dressed as turtles and steelworkers from Philadelphia. They saw international trade as a threat - to their jobs, the environment or simply as part of a capitalist conspiracy.
As leader of the delegation from the United Kingdom, I was convinced that the expansion of world trade had the potential to bring major benefits to developing countries and would be one of the key means by which world poverty would be tackled.
In order to achieve this, I believed that developing countries would need to embrace trade liberalisation. This would mean opening up their own domestic markets to international competition. The thinking behind this approach being that the discipline of the market would resolve problems of underperformance, a strong economy would emerge and that, as a result, the poor would benefit. This still remains the position of major international bodies like the IMF and World Bank and is reflected in the system of incentives and penalties which they incorporate in their loan agreements with developing countries. But my mind has changed.
I now believe that this approach is wrong and misguided. Since leaving the cabinet a year ago, I've had the opportunity to see at first hand the consequences of trade policy. No longer sitting in the air-conditioned offices of fellow government ministers I have, instead, been meeting farmers and communities at the sharp end.
It is this experience that has led me to the conclusion that full trade liberalisation is not the way forward. A different approach is needed: one which recognises the importance of managing trade with the objective of achieving development goals.
No one should doubt the hugely significant role that international trade could play in tackling poverty. In terms of income, trade has the potential to be far more important than aid or debt relief for developing countries. For example, an increase in Africa's share of world exports by just 1% could generate around £43bn - five times the total amount of aid received by African countries.
This has led President Museveni of Uganda to say: "Africa does need development assistance, just as it needs debt relief from its crushing international debt burden. But aid and debt relief can only go so far. We are asking for the opportunity to compete, to sell our goods in western markets. In short, we want to trade our way out of poverty."
The World Bank estimates that reform of the international trade rules could take 300 million people out of poverty. Reform is essential because, to put it bluntly, the rules of international trade are rigged against the poorest countries.
Rich nations may be pre pared to open up their own markets, but still keep in place massive subsidies. The quid pro quo for doing this is that developing countries open up their domestic markets. These are then vulnerable to heavily subsidised exports from the developed world.
The course of international trade since 1945 shows that an unfettered global market can fail the poor and that full trade liberalisation brings huge risks and rarely provides the desired outcome. It is more often the case that developing countries which have successfully expanded their economies are those that have been prepared to put in place measures to protect industries while they gain strength and give communities the time to diversify into new areas.
This is not intervention for the sake of it or to prop up failing enterprises, but part of a transitional phase to create strong businesses that can compete on equal terms in the global marketplace without the need for continued protection.
Just look at some examples. Taiwan and South Korea are often held out as being good illustrations of the benefits of trade liberalisation. In fact, they built their international trading strength on the foundations of government subsidies and heavy investment in infrastructure and skills development while being protected from competition by overseas firms.
In more recent years, those countries which have been able to reduce levels of poverty by increasing economic growth - like China, Vietnam, India and Mozambique - have all had high levels of intervention as part of an overall policy of strengthening domestic sectors.
On the other hand, there are an increasing number of countries in which full-scale trade liberalisation has been applied and then failed to deliver economic growth while allowing domestic markets to be dominated by imports. This often has devastating effects.
Zambia and Ghana are both examples of countries in which the opening up of markets has led to sudden falls in rates of growth with sectors being unable to compete with foreign goods. Even in those countries that have experienced overall economic growth as a result of trade liberalisation, poverty has not necessarily been reduced.
In Mexico during the first half of the 1990s there was economic growth, yet the number of people living below the poverty line increased by 14 million in the 10 years from the mid-1980s. This was due to the fact that the benefits of a more open market all went to the large commercial operators, with the small concerns being squeezed out.
The evidence shows that the benefits that would flow from increased international trade will not materialise if markets are simply left alone. When this happens, liberalisation is used by the rich and powerful international players to make quick gains from short-term investments.
The role of the IMF and World Bank is also of concern. The conditions placed on their loans often force countries into rapid liberalisation, with scant regard to the impact on the poor.
The way forward is through a regime of managed trade in which markets are slowly opened up and trade policy levers like subsidies and tariffs are used to help achieve development goals.
The IMF and World Bank should recognise that questions of trade liberalisation are the responsibility of the WTO where they can be considered in the overall context of achieving poverty reduction and that it is therefore inappropriate to include trade liberalisation as part of a loan agreement.
This represents a departure from the current orthodoxy. It will be opposed by multinational companies who see rich and easy pickings in the markets of the developing world. But such a change would benefit the world's poorest people and that's why it should happen.

could you provide the link, please ?
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom