Search Result(s)

Politics of scale and strategic selectivity in the liberalisation of public services – the role of trade in services

By Werner Raza. One of the most contentious issues of the neoliberal agenda has been the privatisation of public services. The WTO GATS negotiations over the liberalisation of trade in services, which commenced in the year 2000, led to a strongly contested debate over whether the international level would provide an additional channel for the privatisation of public services. In particular, the position of the European Union was criticised for promoting this agenda. More recently, this question has regained its significance with the start of negotiations for the Trade in Services Agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Thus, this article seeks to analyse the politics of scale in the field of trade in services and its specific impact upon the liberalisation of public services. By applying a Neo-Poulantzian IPE approach, we propose a typology of (i) scalar forms in trade policy and (ii) of particular liberalisation strategies. Our results suggest that the multilateral level is but one element in a strategic politics of scale, with the former primarily fulfilling the role of locking-in liberalisation gains achieved at other levels, while other scalar forms, in particular bi- and plurilateralism, are primarily used to progressively advance the liberalisation agenda. KEYWORDS: Public services, liberalisation, trade in services, politics of scale, Poulantzas

Temporary Movement of Labor Fuels GATS Debate (Migration Policy Institute)

(I disagree with many of the assumptions made by this article and similar articles. In particular, I see the so called "efficiency gains" advocates claim from deals like GATS, TISA, NAFTA, and similar as losses. Unambiguously.) On the other hand, I feel traditional immigration is a gain, the kind of immigration where people move permanently with their families, that isnt used as a substitute for educating and taking care of the needs of our own workforce. In other words, its seen by myself and many others as a means of reducing the wages of workers more than anything else. Part of a war on the continued existence of a middle class.

Trade Creep: The Implication of GATS for Higher Education Policy

by Jane Knight. The General Agreement on Trades in Service (GATS) plus other regional trade agreements are testimony to the increased emphasis on trade and the market economy in this era of globalization. GATS is the first legal trade agreement that focuses exclusively on trade in services—as opposed to products. It is administered by the World Trade Organization, a powerful organization with 144 member countries. Education is one of the 12 service sectors covered by GATS. The purpose of GATS is progressively and systematically to promote freer trade in services by removing many of the existing barriers. What does this mean for higher education? The current debate on the impact of GATS on higher education is divided, if not polarized. Critics focus on the threat to the role of government, the “public good,”and the quality of education. Supporters highlight the benefits that more trade can bring in terms of innovations through new providers and delivery modes, greater student access, and increased economic gain. The purpose of this article is to discuss both the risks and

progressive liberalization

the entire text of GATS' 'progressive liberalization' (Part IV) Progressive liberalization (along with similar concepts like standstill/rollback, the ratchet effect, or "trade creep") Lock in all deregulation, preventing re-regulation, nomatter what people vote for in afflicted countries. Once a service has been privatized, countries get a situation that they cannot afford to reverse. This traps them in a race to the bottom whose only endgame is a complete capture of government where government is replaced by corporate rule, because re-regulation of corporations is prohibited by trade treaties. Inhabitants have to move to other countries that have not adopted the particular bad policies yet. But not under Mode 4, because Mode 4 disenfranchises and disempowers workers. There really is no acceptable option.