Dan Drezner “argued”:http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002859.html yesterday that the weakness of the Trans Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) suggests that business doesn’t have much power to shape the political agenda.
despite the impressive membership roster, this group does not appear to accomplish all that much. On issues like data privacy or genetically modified foods, the TABD has repeatedly issued stern proclamations with no effect on the outcome. … In a letter also signed by British Airways chairman Martin Broughton on behalf of the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, the executives said it was “unacceptable” that transatlantic differences over agriculture, representing less than 3 per cent of transatlantic gross domestic product, were dictating progress on increased market access for goods and services. … After such a proclamation, any good Marxist would predict that Doha would be reborn. And, as usual, they will likely be wrong.
This is a topic that I’ve actually done research on (here’s a “piece”:http://www.henryfarrell.net/transatlantic.pdf that I wrote a couple of years ago on the relative power of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and the TABD), and I think Dan is wrong here. The main reason that the TABD isn’t very influential in the grand scheme of things is that it doesn’t need to be. Business leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have plenty of access to policy makers without any need to go through the formalities of the TABD. In contrast, consumer groups had next to no official access to the US government before the Consumer Dialogue came into existence – while they still don’t have much clout in comparative terms, they have an official place at the table, which they didn’t before.
There is still an interesting question here, which is why businesses with an interest in increased transatlantic and international trade don’t have more impact than they do. But this doesn’t say anything about the structural power of business more generally. Indeed, I suspect that you could tell a reasonably convincing Marxist or marxisant story about how this demonstrates the relative strength of agribusiness as opposed to the internationalist types who make up the membership of TABD.
{ 5 comments }
derrida derider 08.21.06 at 5:59 pm
Don’t look to the Marxists for explanations of the relative powers of different producer interests – look to their ideological enemies, the public choice theorists.
Agricultural production has concentrated benefits, free trade in agriculture has diffuse ones. There are information and lobbying costs, so concentration of costs and benefits matter.
Henry 08.21.06 at 7:12 pm
There’s actually more in common between leftists and public choice theorists than you might think. Not least, I recommend you check out some of the “no bullshit Marxists” – Erik Olin Wright, Jon Elster etc, who combine Marxist theory with rational choice analysis in their 1980s work. Not necessarily ideological enemies at all, in the sense that you mean.
C. L. Ball 08.21.06 at 9:05 pm
Henry and Dan can both be right. The TABD might not be influential even if capital is influential more generally.
But if we ask whether agribusiness or internationalized manufacturing and services firms shape government policy, I’m not sure how we sustain a Marxist argument given the economic structure of high income countries like the EU members and the US. Agriculture is a trivial percentage of value added GDP (less than 2% on average) and only around 10% of merchandise trade.
abb1 08.22.06 at 2:14 am
…suggests business doesn’t have much power to shape the political agenda…
Generally I like contrarianism, but the ‘earth is flat’ variety is not very interesting.
Nick L 08.22.06 at 10:09 am
Don’t look to the Marxists for explanations of the relative powers of different producer interests… Agricultural production has concentrated benefits, free trade in agriculture has diffuse ones. There are information and lobbying costs, so concentration of costs and benefits matter
Isn’t this precisely the argument offered by the late Susan Strange, Marxian international political economist?
Comments on this entry are closed.