Aff – Neoliberalism

Alt Answers

InevitableGlobalization is inevitable and entrenched worldwide Sacchetti 13 (Clara Sacchetti, “Introduction: The Economy as Cultural System: Theory, Capitalism, Crisis” Bloomsbury Academic, 2013, Google Books) MRDespite these recent public discussions, capitalism remains a marginal, somewhat subversive, term in the humdrum discourses about the economy. In one way, this is not too surprising given that its almost 300-year existence constitutes a very small part of a 200,000-year human history (Stanford 2008, 33). In another way, however, it is surprising given that capitalism has taken hold in so many parts of the world. Most people live in, or are influenced by, a capitalistic way of making a living, one characterized by the production of stuff for the express purpose of making profit; where input resources, the production process, and its attendant output are not collectively owned or shared but “belong” to particular entities who hold the status of legal “personhood”; where work is mostly defined by groups of people who do not own the means of production and thus have to “rent” out their physical and/or intellectual labors to those who do; and, perhaps most importantly, where the drive for profit overshadows any real consideration for human wellbeing and the environment. In the post-2008 era, citizens in the global North may be marginally more conscious of the negative consequences occasioned by the competitive drive for revenues, growth, and expansion (i.e. the profit motive), but very little seems to have changed. The (capitalistic) economy is regularly discussed and conceived of as natural , given , and unchangeable , underpinned by a pervasive belief in the effectiveness and efficiency of the profit motive.3 This is the case at a global level were input resources are extracted in one locale, shipped to multiple locales for partial processing, shipped again to another locale for assembly, and then shipped to consumers everywhere to capture ever more profit. Globalization is presumed to be the extension of the old logic, only grander, and therefore not something altogether new and transformative. Meanwhile, national, regional, and local concerns are eclipsed by an economy run by the dictates of an “invisible hand.” And just as the global transfer of commodities is rendered commonplace, goods once strictly regulated by import tariffs, quota restrictions, environmental laws, and safety regulations cross and re-cross nation-states under the sway of our collective commonsense. In short, the minimal friction that encumbers the astonishing processes of the global economy is matched by everyday thinking that is similarly free of friction: well oiled and uncomplicated.

Neoliberalism is pervasive worldwide Sacchetti 13 (Clara Sacchetti, “Introduction: The Economy as Cultural System: Theory, Capitalism, Crisis” Bloomsbury Academic, 2013, Google Books) MRSherry Ortner (2011) claims that neoliberalism emerged from the vilification of Keynesian economic ideas and the decline of Fordist production, both of which represented social contracts that protected capitalism from its own excesses. But the term neoliberalism carries a darker undertone to it than late capitalism or consumer capitalism (see Pendakis, chapter 10). The term underscores how nation-states, public institutions (even universities), and social service agencies have all begun to act like global corporations who invest in speculative investment instruments and take advantage of the loosening of laws, rules, and regulations without due regard to the destruction that ensues. Ortner, following David Harvey’s (2007) lead, focuses on neoliberalism’s accumulation by dispossession whereby the privatization of once public goods and services is widespread and the transformation of just about anything into a financial instrument for the express purpose of making a profit via speculation—a kind of casino capitalism— reigns (see Strange 1997; see Kaposy, chapter 5). The term emphasizes how the state knowingly gives more wealth to the wealthy via tax breaks and loopholes, massively de-regulates rules surrounding working conditions (and hence the troubling discourses about labor union ‘concessions’ and ‘austerity measures’ in the global North), encourages an international traffic in assets, liabilities, and financial instruments, and downgrades environmental protection—what capitalists often refer to as “bureaucratic red tape.” It would be convenient here to blame capitalists for such an admittedly awful situation. This does little to explain why neoliberal capitalism is so broadly accepted. What, then, underlines the insidious rise of neoliberalism, especially among those it hurts the most? David Harvey (2007) provides a potential answer: Neoliberalism has become vital in shaping how people act and

think in the world. It pervades the media, boardroom, government, World Band, IMF, even university where academics are increasingly called upon to apply their intellectual labors in the service of think tanks for sustainable development, to unleash their creative energies in the development of the next innovative product, service, or idea, and to direct their research and research questions toward policy reports and the like. Neoliberalism is founded on the view that human wellbeing is best achieved by promoting individual freedom and entrepreneurial activity unfettered by any barriers to entry, government involvement, or supposedly “draconian laws.” This is the result of an unquestioned trust in the ability of markets to optimize supply and demand, liberated from state power, control, and authority. Putting this logic into practice has led to “business friendly” measures that valorize private property, free markets, free trade, predictable inflation rates for predictable borrowing costs, and investments in military, police, and legal apparatuses for the express purpose of protecting such measures.

Globalization is entrenched and accelerating in Latin America Hogenboom and Jilberto 12 – associate professor of Political Science at the Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation in Amsterdam, and senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam (Barbara Hogenboom Alex E. Fernández Jilberto, “Neo-liberalism, big business and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America” Journal of Public Affairs, May 21 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR Consequently, neo-liberal policies put an end—at least for a long while—to the concept that the state had to take a leading role in the economy to achieve industrialization. Privatizations of public enterprises together with policies of economic liberalization and deregulation had two major effects on big business in Latin America: an expansion of large companies across the region, plus financial and industrial corporate groups increasingly globalized their operations and investments. With conglomerates and economic groups going through such rapid growth and change, Latin America witnessed a process of economic concentration and transnationalization in the private sector (Fernández Jilberto and Hogenboom, 2004). Next to transnational companies (TNCs—sometimes referred to as multinational corporations—MNCs) from industrialized countries, Latin American conglomerates have profited substantially from neo-liberal policies. Most of these ‘multilatinas’ are nowadays MNCs producing or selling or both in several countries. However, there are only a few regional giants, such as the Mexican cement company Cemex with substantive activities outside of Latin America. Nevertheless, through exports, financial markets, mergers and joint ventures, Latin America's large companies have become increasingly linked to global capital and the global economy at large. These developments in the structure and operations of large economic enterprises, both its regionalization and internationalization, set in motion an evolution—some would argue a transformation—of the political power of big business and its role in Latin America's interest group systems. Ironically, big business was able to enhance its political influence in the face of developments that might otherwise appear to undermine its power. One major development that would logically appear to have undermined the influence of business in the 1980s and 1990s was the move in the region to democracy. In the space of under 15   years, 1976–1990, Latin America moved from having only three of its 20 countries as liberal democracies to Cuba being the only exception. It might be assumed that with this increased pluralization of politics and presumably interest group activity, the special status of big business as an influential interest would be undermined. A second factor that might be seen as reducing its political influence is that neo-liberal SAPs would undermine the insider status of business with government in terms of protection from foreign competition, guaranteed contracts and other privileges, that in many cases, led to some businesses controlling (capturing in interest group terminology) government agencies and segments of public policy. Third, although multilatinas and

TNCs expanded, economic growth and development remained weak, several crises hit the region and increasing social and political resistance gave way to a strong anti-neo-liberal current and during the last 10 years, to electoral victories of the left. Given these three and other factors, how can we explain the increased prominence of big business in politics and in many ways, its enhanced influence as a political interest? Reviewing the confluence of economic restructuring with economic crises , the process of business consolidation and the nature of public sector support in these fluid and challenging times provide several insights. NEO-LIBERAL RESTRUCTURING AND PRIVATIZING IN AN ERA OF FINANCIAL CRISES At least in the early years of economic restructuring in Latin America, democratization was not a major challenge to the neo-liberal agenda. The various economic crises of the 1980s and 1990s were used by proponents of economic reforms to argue in favour of new policies, but their negative effects also presented a challenge to the implementing of neo-liberal policies. Big business, however, was able to turn these crises and new policies to its advantage.

Crisis only spurs exponential growth of corporations Hogenboom and Jilberto 12 – associate professor of Political Science at the Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation in Amsterdam, and senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam (Barbara Hogenboom Alex E. Fernández Jilberto, “Neo-liberalism, big business and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America” Journal of Public Affairs, May 21 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR These financial crises showed that neo-liberal policies made Latin America more vulnerable to negative external forces than before and particularly threatened the region's macro-economic stability. Yet, this series of crises was not necessarily negative for large companies. A crisis shakes things up and may form an excellent opportunity for innovation and expansion. Moreover, apart from the evident pro-business bias of neo-liberal policies, as we will see later, crises were followed by government efforts to rescue companies and speed up policies of economic restructuring, which were all very beneficial to major (national and transnational) private investors. Moreover, financial and economic crises and post-crisis government support were important elements for the rise of large companies in Latin America.

Liberalization in Latin America is inevitable – Mexico proves Hogenboom and Jilberto 12 – associate professor of Political Science at the Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation in Amsterdam, and senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam (Barbara Hogenboom Alex E. Fernández Jilberto, “Neo-liberalism, big business and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America” Journal of Public Affairs, May 21 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR Three major consequences of neo-liberal policies and the move to privatization for big business in Latin America were the development of economic conglomerates, transnationalization and the rise of multilatinas. In some countries, these processes started under military regimes that associated populism and ISI with the communist peril. This was the case in Chile during the second phase of privatization. In other countries, these processes began under authoritarian regimes pursing economic modernization, such as in Mexico. Latin America's political environment gradually changed in the 1980s, however, when regimes across the region started to democratize. Interestingly, the new political economy realities of democratization and of regionalization of the Latin American economy made economic concentration increasingly legitimate politically. The debates on development with equity (CEPAL, 1990) and open regionalism (CEPAL, 1994) referred to the need for reconciliation between a concentration of economic power and the emerging democratic political regimes. The debates provided a domestic theoretical justification to the inevitable

liberalization of Latin American markets. In addition, these debates referred to the need to form Latin American economic blocks that would not inhibit economic association of countries with other regional blocks, combining various types of economic integration, such as agreements for sub-regional integration (e.g. the South American common market known as Mercosur) and bilateral accords for trade liberalization between Latin American countries. This form of regional integration became the new strategy for economic growth and the region's integration into the process of economic globalization (Fernández Jilberto and Hogenboom, 1997). The Mexican path to economic concentration As a result of Mexico's privatization movement of the early 1990s, ‘conglomerization’ advanced rapidly, and its economic groups are now among the most powerful in Latin America. There are several Mexican companies on the list of the top 50 TNCs from developing countries. Mexico's cement giant Cemex is one of the largest.

Trade liberalization in Mexico is expanding Hogenboom and Jilberto 12 – associate professor of Political Science at the Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation in Amsterdam, and senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam (Barbara Hogenboom Alex E. Fernández Jilberto, “Neo-liberalism, big business and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America” Journal of Public Affairs, May 21 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR The nationalization of Mexico's banking sector in 1982 resulted in former bankers creating new financial groups that invested in non-bank activities, including stock markets and insurance companies. The stock markets turned into a parallel banking system, and a new group of giant firms emerged : ‘los bolsistas’ (from ‘bolsa’: stock market), including those of Carlos Slim. Adjustments in their strategy of accumulation gave economic groups a more financial character. The centralization and ‘financialization’ of these groups were supported by the creation, in 1983, of a special government commission (Ficorca) to rescue large private enterprises from the effects of the debt crisis. The commission transferred $11.6b of public funds to private companies. These beneficiaries not only survived but also became strategic forces in the many mergers and acquisitions of industrial companies that occurred during the financial and economic crisis. Within 5   years, these large companies had paid off their debts and were financially ready for more ‘conglomerization’ and opening markets. However, these expansion and financial accumulation strategies came at the cost of productive investments, which decreased from 50% in 1982 to 8% in 1987 (Basave Kunhardt, 2001: pp. 75–81), so whereas for most Mexicans and much of the economy, the 1980s were a lost decade, for Mexican economic groups, it was the time of a miraculous growth. A similar process of public sector support of large private companies followed by transnationalization occurred with Mexico's financial sector after the peso crisis of 1994–1995. The arrangements to save Mexican banks from defaulting were made by the banking commission FOBAPROA, which bought the massive unpaid loans of banks while signing agreements stating that banks would be receiving guarantee payments from 2005 onwards. Mexico's public sector thus provided unprecedented support to private banks in the form of complex structures of bonds (promissory notes, or IOUs, known in Mexico as ‘pagarés FOBAPROA’). This costly bank rescue illustrates the way Mexico's technocratic elite approached the new relationship between the state and large companies that they envisioned as motors of neo-liberal growth. Between 1995 and 1998, the public resources spent on funding arrangements amounted to approximately $60b, which is five times the amount the government had previously earned by the privatization of these banks (Székely, 1999: p. 14). The World Bank (2000: p. 59) calculated that the annual fiscal cost of the banking crisis was the equivalent of 19.3% of Mexico's gross domestic product. This public money was also used to bailout investors who had been aware of the weak supervision of the privatized financial sector and who had willingly taken great financial risks. Moreover, there were major irregularities involved in the process, and both

FOBAPROA and Mexico's Institute of Protection of Bank Savings have been accused of insufficient transparency, especially in the loans to the major banks. Even according to Héctor Rangel Domene, the president of the Mexican Association of Banks, there definitively were frauds (Expansión, 2001). In addition, the bonds were emitted without authorization of the Mexican Congress. Earlier, we identified three circumstances in the post-authoritarian period that would appear to undermine the place and influence of big business as a power group and an interest group in the region. These were the following: the move to democracy, neo-liberal economic policies and SAPs and the economic crises of the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, as we have seen, these three factors did not have a negative effect on the role and influence of business in their respective national political systems. In fact, quite the reverse, business has enhanced its role and influence over the past 30   years. Why is this? We offer a two-part explanation. The first is regarding the role of business in political systems in general; the second, although not unique to the region, has particular Latin American aspects to it.

Big business is inevitable – ties to government will keep it alive Hogenboom and Jilberto 12 – associate professor of Political Science at the Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation in Amsterdam, and senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Amsterdam (Barbara Hogenboom Alex E. Fernández Jilberto, “Neo-liberalism, big business and the evolution of interest group activity in Latin America” Journal of Public Affairs, May 21 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR First, as in virtually all political systems, big business will no doubt continue its political prominence and influence on the basis of its necessity to government and its possession of major economic resources that can be turned into political assets to push its cause. This prominence will be based, in part, on the close personal elite ties of the big business–public policy maker connection that may never disappear in the region , as evidenced in the importance of personal contacts in advanced liberal democracies, although in a lesser form.

Capitalism is resilient – past crises Petit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MRA major issue in the analysis of the present development of our economies is to explain how the rise of the power of finance in the last two decades can be compatible with democracy. What was a rising concern at the turn of the 21st century has become a puzzling issue after the 2008 global financial crisis, when the extravagances of the financial sector that were clearly the origin of the crisis did not lead to strict policy measures to take the financial sector back to the good old 'boring finance' of the 'golden years of capitalism'-the three decades following the Second World War. Despite the fact that governments had to bail out some major financial institutions, the financial sector recovered its power within months. Projects to reform the finance sector are still on the agenda, but are clearly far from bringing finance back to its past, domesticated state. The

causes for such resilience may be many. Above all, the extent of the internationalisation of economies in today's world needs to be taken into account, together with the mobility of capital allowed by the diffusion of information and communication technologies and the development of professional networks. Never has 'finance bashing' been so widespread: from left to right, from ordinary people to professionals and politicians, most blame the greedy and risky behaviour of finance as causes of the global financial crisis and the ensuing economic recession.

It’s become entrenchedPetit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MR

What are the political ties that allow finance-led capitalism to remain? To understand why no drastic action was taken by governments and regulators, either to tame the financial sector or to limit the systemic risks its practices brought, one must account for the domination of the financial sector over other businesses . The managers of listed companies of all trades had to bow to financial markets to protect and promote the shareholder value of their firms, but they also had to secure access to funds to stay alive in the big game of mergers and acquisitions that

developed in this period. But this was not the only reason they supported modern finance. The rise in CEOs' pay that accompanied the rise of this financialisation was also an important contributing factor. This rise started in the early 1980s with the liberalisation of the financial sector. At first it caused some concern in the financial world, as CEOs and traders competed with unprecedented rises that combined bonuses and wages. CEOs in other sectors just followed the trend, allowing business and financial services to set the norms. They spread the word that CEOs in good companies were well paid-and reciprocally that high levels of pay were a clear sign of a good company. Shareholders were convinced that such high payments of CEOs would be in their interests, and there was little dissent from this widespread view around the business world. The sums at stake were so enormous that they transformed the old managers of the good 'industrial state' a la Galbraith (1967) into the prime beneficiaries of a new period of primitive accumulation. This move helped to constitute a sizeable international elite of very rich people, new and old, strongly attached to the mobility of capital and to tax evasion. This elite constituted as important a political pillar of finance-led capitalism as the one we saw emerging at a global level in the past decade. This elite progressively diffused a new vision of 'modern capitalism' in which the financial sector appeared as the main centre of power . Indicative of the appeal of the sector were high levels of interest from students

from the best universities, who planned to enter the financial world (see Colander 2010). This elite took powerful advantage of the inherent fiscal competition that accompanied the opening of the so-called 'emerging economies' to press for tax reduction. The neoliberal agenda in many ways supported their stance, and their freedoms and rights to accumulate new wealth that were realised through reduced taxes.

No alternatives – or government will increase authoritarianism Petit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MRThe need to finance the transition to more environmentally sustainable paths is

bound to be seen by large majorities of citizens as a necessity in the decade to come. Only public international agencies can make significant contributions to addressing such a global issue. (4) But the route out of the vagaries of finance-led capitalism is not straightforward, and many events can change the international situation. The

development of a more multipolar world of finance is one of them. The risks of an unprecedented authoritarian turn in Western democracies to reduce the contestation of modern finance remains a possibility. But the conscious need to face environmental challenges may turn into a political opportunity to take control of finance, and give it a useful role once more.

Neoliberalism key to personal freedoms – flexibility means that it will sustain itself Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School

until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRFirst, neoliberalism has provided certain escapes from government domination and has extended choice to ordinary people who had been accustomed to taking what they were given. This has been particularly important, as we are living in a period when party and parliamentary politics in general have come to be seen negatively, as a game among seekers after political office rather than as a forum for representing popular concerns. Second, neoliberal approaches have tackled the problems of centralism and remoteness that are endemic in much government action in large, complex societies. Against this it needs to be recognized that neoliberalism has not always associated itself with local sensitivities. It does so in terms of local government in the USA, Where history and stereotypes pit a left-leaning central state against rightist local politicians. But in that country it has also been associated with the triumph of big business against smaller firms. In contrast, in the UK the authors of neoliberal policies, governments of all parties since 1979, have seen local government and other local forces as sources of non—market interference in their own marketization project. Neoliberals here have been centralizers. In this, they have been on strong if paradoxical historical ground. The original rise of the capitalist economy in Europe ran alongside the concentration of formerly feudal powers in the hands of centralizing monarchs. If polity and economy were to be separated - a primary rule of liberal and neoliberal ideologies alike - then political power had first to be collected together from where it was spread all over society and concentrated in one place, where, if the monarchy so desired, it could be used in a friendly way. The issue of central versus local cannot therefore be automatically read as the same as state versus market. Finally, we must return to the flexibility of the neoliberal paradigm . Particularly in the Nordic countries, but to some extent

also in the UK and generally in EU policy, it has shown a capacity to combine with other ideologies and political approaches. It is important that ruling ideas show a capacity to do this, not just because it is a better guarantee that the diversity of interests represented in plural societies achieves some recognition, but also because of the abiding uncertainty of all human projects. We never know that one particular set of ideas contains all the right answers; even if it does today, it might not be equipped to face unexpected challenges tomorrow. Monolithic doctrines that are certain that they have a monopoly of wisdom and which crush all opposition usually end by being confronted by challenges to which they have no responses in their repertoire. This was the case with Soviet communism. Neoliberal ideologues certainly show strong tendencies in that direction, but the practical realities of life in democracies force them to compromise. The links remaining between neoliberalism and the broader historical liberal tradition mean that it can respond to that challenge. This will be an important issue in its future likely transfigurations. To take the argument further we need to explore some basic ideas about the nature of markets and their limitations. This means moving to a more abstract level of analysis and coming to grips with some terms with which many readers may be unfamiliar, but which are important to a full understanding of the issues at stake. This is the task of the following Chapter.

The alternative fails without engaging the political sphere Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRThis is both had and good news. It is bad, because it amounts to pitting against the might of both corporate and government institutions the ‘power of the powerless’. Also, in the end

much civil action has to find a response at the level of government if it is to get anywhere . This is the sobering message of a book by Debra Spini (2006) on post— national civil society

(La societd postnazzonale). Having opened up to us an exciting vista of citizens’ actions extending across national boundaries, she reminds us of the continued presence of the indispensable gatekeeper, the solidly national democratic state. And the political party,

manipulated though that institution has become, remains a major gatekeeper en route to that primary gatekeeper.

Globalization is entrenched – elites will cling to power Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRHow will the enormous moral hazard established by governments’ recognition of financial irresponsibility as a collective good now be managed? In addressing this question, it is necessary to start from acceptance that political and economic elites will do everything that they can to maintain neoliberalism in general and the finance-driven form of it in particular. They have benefited so much from the inequalities of Wealth and power that the system has produced, compared with the experience of strongly redistributive taxation, strong trade unions and government regulation that constituted the so-called social democratic period. Those features had been tolerated because they seemed to be necessary to sustain mass consumption and to prevent industrial workers from becoming communists. Communism has now, fortunately, gone forever, while the possibility of basing mass consumption on a system of massive private debt through the financial markets also

happened to make some people very rich indeed. They will cling to this model tenaciously .

Neoliberalism is entrenched – crises will blow over – collapse of 08 proves Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRThe initial response of governments to the financial crisis has been a return to regulation and even temporary bank nationalization. However, this will not last . We can anticipate what will happen if we look back to what was, in retrospect, the first sign that the financial markets were not as effective at automatic self-regulation as had been claimed on their behalf: the Enron, WorldCom and other scandals discussed briefly in the previous chapter. In its response to these cases, the US Congress imposed tight regulations on company auditing in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. This was passed by large majorities and even supported by President Bush, who had rapidly distanced himself from Enron, his erstwhile campaign donor. However, as soon as memories of the enormity of the crimes had started to fade, lobbyists for the finance industry began to complain that enterprise was being stifled, and to threaten that finance houses would leave New York for the more permissive regimes in London and elsewhere. The same process is already beginning again before the bout of regulatory measures visited on the financial sector as part of the deal with governments to save it has even been completed. How can the derivatives markets get to work in supporting high levels of borrowing if they are to be subject to rules that make much of that borrowing more difficult? How can traders fulfil their necessary task of recouping banks’ losses unless they have incentives in the form of large bonuses? By 2010 nearly all the old practices in the secondary markets had re-established themselves. The corporate lobbyists set to work in the US Senate, heavily weakening President Obama’s bill to tighten regulation on the sector.

Neoliberalism is entrenched – civil protests groups are doomed to failureCrouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MR

If, as we have seen above, firms are active and powerful in shaping the rules of the market and the general political framework within which they operate, this party politicization becomes totally inadequate. Civil society campaigning groups do not have the same incentive as parties to turn all criticism towards government alone, and in this way too are in a better position than political parties to shape debate appropriate to our times. Of course, cause movements can themselves be corrupted. On the one hand, they are tempted to exaggerate their case to attract publicity. On the other, in desperate need for resources as they always are, they are easily compromised by political or corporate blandishments, whether for the sake of their organizational funds or the individual careers of their leaders. Fighting for causes is tough, unremitting work. It goes on unceasing, with permanent watchfulness, never able to say: ‘We have achieved our goals; we can rest now.’ So, what is left of what is right? In the first sense of this sentence, what remains of neoliberalism after the financial crisis, the answer must be ‘ virtually everything ’. The combination of economic and political forces behind this agenda is too powerful for it to be fundamentally dislodged from its predominance. Already

we have seen how a crisis caused by appalling behaviour among banks has been redefined as a crisis of public spending. Bankers’ bonuses are returning to their pre-crisis level, while thousands of public employees are losing their jobs.

Sustainable

Only the spread of the free market can sustain the pace of innovation needed to adapt.Barker, 2k – electrical engineer, and manager of corporate communications for the Electric Power Research Institute and former industrial economist and staff author at SRI International and as a commercial research analyst at USX Corporation (Brent, “Technology and the Quest for Sustainability.” EPRI Journal, Summer, infotrac)//ModermattThe rate of innovation is especially critical to sustainability. The roadmap participants have concluded that a "2% solution" is needed to support a sustainable future. By this, they mean that productivity improvements in a range of areas--including global industrial processes, energy intensity, resource utilization, agricultural yield, emissions reduction, and water consumption--have to occur at a pace of 2% or more per year over the next century. If the advances are distributed on a global basis, this pace should be sufficient to keep the world ahead of growing social and environmental threats. It will also generate the global wealth necessary to progressively eliminate the root cause of these threats and will provide the means to cope with the inevitable surprises that will arise. For example, a 2% annual increase in global electricity supply, if made broadly available in developing countries, would meet the goal of providing 1000 kWh per year to every person in the world in 2050. This means extending the benefits of electricity to 100 million new users every year. Maintaining a 2% pace in productivity improvements for a century will be formidable. It is in line with the cumulative advancement in the United States during the twentieth century, but at least twice the world average over that period. The disparity has been particularly great in the past 25 years, as population growth has outstripped economic development in many parts of the world. The result has been massive borrowing to maintain or enhance short-term standards of living. Staying ahead of population-related challenges is now in the enlightened self-interest of all the world's peoples, and the 2% solution offers a benchmark for success. Sustaining efficiency gains of 2% per year throughout the twenty-first century would allow essential global economic development to continue while sparing the planet. This pace, for example, should help stabilize world population (to the extent that wealth is a primary determinant of population growth), limit atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases to below agreed-upon strat egic limits, provide sufficient food for the bulk of the world's people (as well as the wherewithal to buy it), and return significant amounts of land and water to their natural states. Roadmap participants envision technology and the spread of liberal capitalism as powerful agents for the 2% solution in that they can stimulate global development and foster worldwide participation in market economies. However, the participants have also expressed some concern and caution about unbridled globalization overrunning local cultures and societies and creating instability, unrest, and conflict. At its worst, globalization could lock weaker nations into commodity-production dependencies, leading to a survival-of-the-fittest global economy in which the rich get richer and most of the poor stay poor. Establishing greater dialogue and cooperation among developed and developing nations is therefore considered critical to ensuring that globalization delivers on its promise to be a vehicle of worldwide progress that honors the diversity of nations and peoples.Targets of sustainability There is no single measure of sustainability; rather, it will require continued progress in a wide variety of areas that reflect the growing efficiency of resource utilization, broad improvements in the quality of life for today's impoverished people, and acceleration of the historical shift away from resource-intensive economic activity. The roadmap's sustainability R&D targets provide a first-order approximation of what will be required. In many cases, the targets represent a significant stretch beyond today's levels, but they are all technologically achievable. The roadmap sets an optimistic course, certain that with accelerated R&D and a much stronger technological foundation in hand by 2025, the world could be well on a path to economic and environmental sustainability by midcentury. The goals for sustainability are simply too far-reaching to be achieved solely through governmental directives or policy. Rather, they will be reached most readily via a healthy, robust global economy in which accelerated te chnological innovation in the private sector is strongly encouraged and supported by public policy.The challenges of bringing the world to a state of economic and environmental sustainability in the coming century are immense but not insurmountable. Technology is on the threshold of profound change, quite likely to be broader, faster, and more dramatic in its impact than that which we experienced in the twentieth century. Fortunately, the impact appears to be heading in the right direction. Much of the leading-edge technology is environmentally friendly and, from today's vantage point, is likely to lead to a global economy that is cleaner, leaner, lighter, and drier; many times more efficient, productive, and abundant; and altogether less invasive and less destructive of the natural world. History teaches us that technology

can be a liberating force for humanity, allowing us to break through our own self-made limits as well as those posed by the natural world. The next steps will be to extend the benefits of innovation to the billions of people without access and, in the words of Jesse Ausubel, to begin "liberating the environment itself." This entails meeting our needs with far fewer resources by developing a "hydrogen economy, landless agriculture, and industrial ecosystems in which waste virtually disappears....and by broadening our notions of democracy, as well as our view of the ethical standing of trees, owls, and mountains." In many ways, the material abundance and extended human capabilities generated through hundreds of years of technology development have led us to a new understanding and heightened respect for the underlying "technologies of life." Offering four billion years of experience, nature will become one of our best teachers in the new century; we are likely to see new technology progressively taking on the character and attributes of living systems. Technology may even begin to disappear into the landscape as microminiaturization and biological design ensue.Still, though technology is heading in the right direction, what remains principally in question is whether the pace of innovation is adequate to stay ahead of the curve of global problems and whether new advances in technology can be quickly brought down in cost and readily distributed throughout the world. Can we achieve the 2% solution of progressive improvement in economic productivity, land and water use, recycling, emissions reduction, and agricultural yield, year after year, decade after decade, in nation after nation? It's a formidable challenge, but with better tools we just might be able to pull it off, If so, the key to success will not be found in one small corner of the world. The challenge will be met by making the basic building blocks of innovation--education, R&D, infrastructure, and law--available in full measure to future generations everywhere in the world. That future begins now.

This solves their finite resources warrant. Geddes 4 – Writer and Libertarian Analyst (Marc, “The monster non-socialist FAQ”, 2/12, http://rebirthofreason.com/War/MonsterFAQ.shtml)//ModermattA significant disruption to supplies of critical resources can cause temporary problems, but in a free market, if resources start to become scarce, prices rise, leading to a search of substitutes and improved conservation efforts. The pool of resources is not fixed, because human ingenuity can find substitutes or new sources of resources. Supplies of most raw materials have been increasing throughout the 20th century, and the cost has been falling (See the entry on Natural resources). For instance, between 1950 and 1970, bauxite (aluminium source) reserves increased by 279 per cent, copper by 179 per cent, chromite (chromium source) by 675 per cent, and tin reserves by 10 per cent. In 1973 experts predicted oil reserves stood at around 700 billion barrels, yet by 1988 total oil reserves had actually increased to 900 billion barrels. Production of certain kinds of resources such as fossil fuels may finally be beginning to peak but there are renewable energy sources in development which can serve as substitutes. Simplistic thermodynamic analysis of energy production is misleading, because it's not the quantities of energy used or produced that determine economic value, but the utility, or usefulness if that energy to humans. If energy is being used more efficiently you don't need as much of it, and some forms of energy are more valuable than others- for instance kinetic energy in the form of wind power is less valuable than the same quantity of latent energy in the form of oil. Solar power is a virtually inexhaustible supply of new energy for stationary sources and the hydrogen fuel cell can serve for transportation in place of fossil fuels. Developing these technologies costs money, so to avoid resource shortages a good economy is essential. Libertarian capitalism is the system which generates wealth the fastest.

Swelling government control allows for environmental degradation -- market forces create more sustainable practices. Berlau et al 10 - Senior Fellow at the Center for economic freedom (John, "Liberate to Stimulate." Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2010. cei.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20-%20Liberate%20to%20Stimulate.pdf)Private stewardship and markets play a critical role in land and natural resource conservation. Much of America’s land and other natural resources have suffered because government ownership encourages mismanagement and overuse, because

no individual has a long-term stake in protecting resources owned in common. In addition, public lands are managed based on political priorities that often produce misguided political management decisions. Examples include the devastation caused by uncontrolled forest fires, overgrazing, and destruction of species and habitat. • Lawmakers should consider marketplace incentives and private property-based approaches to encourage land and natural resource conservation. • Existing laws impede private conservation by making property owners lose use of their land. These laws should be reformed. These include measures in the Endangered Species Act, wetlands regulations, and potential invasive species laws. • Lawmakers should look for ways to privatize resources owned in common to allow private conservation. Areas in which this has been done successfully but could be expanded include the establishment of fishing rights, privatization of coral reefs, and privatization of species and their habitats in private wildlife refuges.

Growth is inherently sustainable – capitalism provides an incentive to preserve resources – eventual high prices will curb consumptionCudd, 11 (Ann E., Professor of Philosophy, Associate Dean for Humanities, University of Kansas, “Capitalism, For and Against - A Feminist Debate,” Cambridge University Press, Section 3)I agree with Professor Holmstrom that we should be very concerned with pollution, and particularly with climate change, but in my view, this points us toward private ownership of property and not collective ownership of scarce resources . As has been proven repeatedly by experience, and as is clear from theory as well. When goods are collectively owned they are subject to the problem known as the "tragedy of the commons.” The tragedy of the commons is the overuse of a scarce resource that happens because no one has the incentive to preserve and protect the resource for the long term . Common ownership sets up a race to use the resource before it is used up by someone else, or exhausted. Even with the best of intentions on one’s own part, if one cannot be sure that others will preserve and protect the resource, then it is only rational to make full use of it while it lasts. In game theoretic terms it is like a "prisoner's dilemma" in which there is no equilibrium strategy that would counsel preservation of the resource; anyone who refrains from using the resource in order to preserve it for later generations would be played for a sucker. Real world examples abound of the tragedy of the commons: the depletion of the world's ocean fisheries ; overpollution of the atmosphere ; overgrazing of common pasturelands; over-gathering of firewood. This last is a particular tragedy in many places in Africa today for women, where they must search farther and farther from home to find enough fuel. Private ownership of property provides owners with an incentive to preserve their property for the long term, It is precisely the ability to exclude others from using it that allows one the security to be able to invest in it , by improving the pasture, protecting the trees, refraining from fishing at times, or taking only the mature animals. No one worries that cattle, which are owned privately and therefore cultivated, will disappear after all. But we are very worried about the disappearance of cod in the North Atlantic. Private ownership allows one to sell the good in the market, if and only if, those who would consume the good are willing to pay the price that reflects the relative scarcity of the good and the expense of preserving it . The ability to own a competing resource privately and sell it means that alternatives can be cultivated as well, which removes some of the pressure from the more scarce , and therefore more expensive, privately owned good.

Extinction O/WA risk of extinction is justified to protect future generationsShue 89 – Professor of Ethics and Public Life at Princeton University (Henry, Nuclear Deterrence and Moral Restraint, p. 64-5)The issue raises interesting problems about obligations among generations. What obligations do we owe to future generations whose very existence will be affected by our risks? A crude utilitarian calculation would suggest that since the pleasures of future generations may last infinitely (or until the sun burns out), no risk that we take to assure certain values for our generation can compare with almost infinite value in the future . Thus we have no right to take such risks. In effect, such an approach would establish a dictatorship of future generations over the present one. The only permissible role for our generation would be biological procreation. If we care about other values in addition to survival, this crude utilitarian approach produces intolerable consequences for the current generation . Moreover, utility is too crude a concept to support such a calculation. We have little idea of what utility will mean to generations very distant from ours. We think we know something about our children, and perhaps our grandchildren, but what will people value 8,000 years from now? If we do not know, then there is the ironic prospect that something we deny ourselves now for the sake of a future generation may be of little value to them. A more defensible approach to the issue of justice among generations is the principle of equal access. Each generation should have roughly equal access to important values. We must admit that we shall not be certain of the detailed prefer ences of increasingly distant generations, but we can assume that they will wish equal chances of survival. On the other hand, there is no reason to assume that they would want survival as a sole value any more than the current generation does. On the contrary, if they would wish equal access to other values that give meaning to life, we could infer that they might wish us to take some risks of species extinction in order to provide them equal access to those values. If we have benefited from "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," why should we as sume that the next generation would want only life?

AT Socialism

Socialism will failRockwell, 08 – Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (“Everything You Love You Owe to Capitalism” Talk delivered at the Mises Circle in Seattle on May 17, 2008. http://mises.org/story/2982)Whatever the specifics of the case in question, socialism always means overriding the free decisions of individuals and replacing that capacity for decision making with an overarching plan by the state. Taken far enough, this mode of thoughtwon't just spell an end to opulent lunches. It will mean the end of what we all know as civilization itself. It would plunge us back to a primitive state of existence, living off hunting and gatheringin a world with little art, music, leisure, or charity. Nor is any form of socialism capable of providing for the needs of the world's six billion people, so the population would shrink dramatically and quickly and in a manner that would make every human horror ever known seem mild by comparison. Nor is it possible to divorce socialism from totalitarianism, because if you are serious about ending private ownership of the means of production, you have to be serious about ending freedom and creativity too. You will have to make the whole of society, or what is left of it, into a prison. In short, the wish for socialism is a wish for unparalleled human evil. If we really understood this, no one would express casual support for it in polite company. It would be like saying, you know, there is really something to be said for malaria and typhoid and dropping atom bombs on millions of innocents.

Big Business

2AC Big BusinessNeoliberal reforms breaks down big businesses – Mexico Coffee Institute provesSnyder, 99 Professor of Political Science at Brown University (Richard Snyder, January 1999, "After Neoliberalism: The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico", World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Jan, 1999) pp. 163-204) //NGIn 1989 the Mexican government launched a massive deregulation of agriculture. For the mostly foreign-trained technocrats who designed these neoliberal economic reforms, the coffee industry posed perhaps the easiest target for deregulation. Although an entrenched state-owned enterprise-the Mexican Coffee Institute (INMECAFE) -dominated the industry a powerful grassroots movement of small coffee producers had already mobilized against it? Thus, neoliberal reformers had strong societal allies, making government retrenchment in the coffee sector an easy task. Yet this easy retrenchment had surprising consequences. Rather than leading to unregulated markets, as the neoliberal reformers had anticipated, the dismantling of INMECAFE resulted in the formation of new institutions for market governance. Actors who had not previously intervened in coffee sought to control policy areas vacated by the old state-owned enterprise. Most notably, the governments of Mexico's coffee-producing states established new regulatory frameworks and essentially “reregulated' what federal law had deregulated. As a result, by 1994 Mexico's coffee producers found themselves confronting a new and complex regulatory environment and not the free markets that had been anticipated. The case of Mexico's coffee sector challenges expectations rooted in neoliberal economic theory. Instead of paving the way for triumph by free-market forces, neoliberal policies triggered the construction of new institutions for market governance. This surprising outcome exposes an important limitation of existing work in the political economy of development. Although many scholars have explored why countries choose neoliberal policies or how they implement them, few have addressed post implementation issues concerning the effects of these policies - leaving us, consequently without a framework for explaining the reconstruction of institutions for market governance after neoliberal reforms. This article provides such a framework. It argues that by vacating institutionalized policy domains, neoliberal policy shocks in fact give political incumbents opportunities to expand their authority and their support bases by reregulating sectors of the economy. Organized societal groups have a stake in how sectors are reregulated and can mobilize to support or challenge politicians' reregulation projects. Hence, rather than unleashing free-market forces, neoliberal reforms may trigger two-step reregulation processes: first, political entrepreneurs launch projects to build support coalitions by reregulating markets; second, societal actors respond to these projects by mobilizing to influence the terms of reregulation. The varying strengths and strategies of politicians and societal groups, in turn, determine the various types of new institutions for market governance that will result from these reregulation processes. Recognizing that neoliberal reforms create opportunities and incentives for institution building raises a further issue: what kinds of new institutions replace those destroyed or displaced by neoliberal policies? The case of Mexico offers an excellent opportunity to address this question. Despite striking historical, cultural, and socioeconomic similarities among Mexico's coffee-producing states, neoliberal policies resulted in a diverse array of institutional amalgams at the subnational level. In some states the new institutions reproduced long-standing pattern of top-down, exclusionary policy-making, an outcome that protected the interests of rural oligarchs. In other states, by contrast, the institutions that replaced INMECAFE opened new channels for small farmers to participate in the policy process. These participatory institutions fostered developmental partnerships between government agencies and grassroots producer organizations that helped small farmers compete in the international marketplace. The framework developed here for analyzing the politics of reregulation helps explain these divergent institutional outcomes.

Democracy

2AC Democracy – LA Globalization spurred democracy in Latin America Haslam 12 – School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa (Paul Alexander Haslam, “Globalization in Latin America and Its Critics” International Studies Association, Volume 14, Issue 2, June 19 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR Another important question is what effect globalization has had on the practice of democracy in Latin America? The editors of Capital, Power, and Inequality decry “bourgeois” democracy as an electoral ruse. Robles (2008:246), in his chapter on liberation theology, argues that democratic transitions “often exchanged dictatorship for meaningless electoral democracy.”Harris and Nef (2008b:8, 18) also assert that the region’s democracies exhibit continuity with the bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes of the past: “The popular majority continues to be, for all intents and purposes, disenfranchised throughout the Americas since popular interests are not effectively represented in or by the state.” These assertions could have been viewed as credible in the early to mid-1990s, when democratic transitions were fragile and authors across the ideological spectrum recognized that the return to free elections and the rule of law had come at the cost of limiting the deeply contentious politics that had predated the dictatorships (Remmer 1992; Roberts 1998). The factors that drove this “shallowness” continue to exist—such as the competitive pressure of trade liberalization, the weakness of organized labor, and the strength of vested elite economic interests (Weyland 2004; Montero 2005). But this transition was not an endpoint in the institutional evolution of these regimes. With time, military legacies were reformed, human rights violations were prosecuted, and both moderate and populist lefts returned to contest and win elections, unmolested by the United States. The story of the 2000s, as suggested by the poverty and inequality trends discussed above, has shown that domestic politics can be done differently. Indeed, it seems that the poor are less “captive” to traditional clientelistic politicians and their votes available to political entrepreneurs who deliver social programs to the bottom quintiles (see Birdsall, Lustig, and McLeod 2011:21). Conditional cash transfer programs (CCTs) have raised tens of millions out of extreme poverty and represent increased governmental responsiveness to poor voters while leaving middle-class entitlements largely untouched (Lloyd-Sherlock 2000; Rawlings 2005). CCT programs are an example of highly successful and innovative policy options possible within the structural constraints of unequal but evolving societies. Sarah Brooks (2009:148) challenges the “conventional story” about globalization pushing market reform on unwilling politicians. Globalization and its pressures and incentives frame issues. But, in her study, the democratic political game is ultimately where these decisions are made—and it is an arena in which the ability to sway public opinion is fundamental to success. Public imaginaries regarding the rights of citizenship must be engaged in order to reform pension systems. Furthermore, leftist parties can more convincingly present themselves to a skeptical public as stewards of social policy reform. Brooks shows us that the democratic and partisan political game is essential to the ability to reform, and that globalization does not strip governments of all policy autonomy, nor does it inevitably push governments in a pro-market direction . Even when assessing the role of the World Bank, Brooks (2009:152–188) concludes that it did not significantly influence the decision to privatize by any of the governments in her case studies. Indeed, Brooks’ analysis really emphasizes the contingencies of domestic politics that shape the ability to reform pension schemes and welfare states more generally.

2AC Democracy – General Trade liberalization is key to democracy and human rights normsFlaten* and de Soysa** 12 – *Higher Executive Officer at Ministry of Finance and **Professor, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Ranveig Drolsum Flaten and Indra de Soysa, “Globalization and Political Violence, 1970–2008” International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations, Volume 38, Issue 5, 2012, Taylor and Francis) MRGlobalization also binds people at the international level through its political and social aspects. The global spread of human rights norms and their subsequent impact on the ground is well documented (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). The spread of ideas and connectedness through people-to-people contact because of social media allows faster, more transparent forms of

international public action, where the international community has been forced to act to prevent crimes against humanity , such as in the former Yugoslavia, and recently in Libya.

Greater people-to-people contacts through tourism and immigration, as well as the flow of information, exchange of ideas, and dissemination of technologies through the medium of telephones, newspapers, radios, cable TV channels, and internet, along with cultural diversity through international cultural exchanges also play a greater role in influencing social harmony through understanding and solidarity. The most important channel through which social integration may affect social harmony is ‘public awareness’ and the spread of norms and ideals across space, most often seen in the ways in which NGOs and international institutions, such as the United Nations, engage in conflict prevention (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998; Slaughter 2004). New ideas disseminate from rich places to poor, where attitudes toward human rights of minorities, gender rights, and other values might change (Bhagwati 2004). Such value changes apparently

lead to cosmopolitan democracy where human rights and individual liberty have gained a central place (Held 1995). Market economies are also contract-rich, which leads people to respect the rights of other individuals, no matter their cast, creed, class, etc. (Mousseau and Mousseau 2008). Others have argued that closed economies may lead to the buildup of ‘rebellion specific capital’ in terms of organizations that form in the shadows for capturing rents from lucrative shadow markets, where relationships remain particularistic but also organized for violence (de Soysa and Fjelde 2010). Yet again, some have argued that being tied to the global markets raises the premium on peace because of the high audience costs from political instability, where global markets can punish unstable political environments, forming strong incentives for the powerful to cauterize costly conflict within states (Blanton and Apodaca 2007). Political integration is another dimension of the globalization process. Closer political ties between governments across the globe bilaterally and in multilateral institutions lead to cooperation around solving collective dilemmas and adopting strategies for preventing adverse outcomes, such as human rights violations and civil war. The commonly heard phrase “pariah state” is the conscious ostracism of some states by others due to their bad human rights practices. Notice that there are even high costs for powerful states that violate these norms, such as China. Thus, a state more bound to other states will feel ostracism more deeply than would a less-dependent state. Political integration of another sort, like the European Union (EU), which insists on better human rights before joining, is a positive example of tighter global and regional integration. Political integration processes may also have many indirect effects on human rights. First, the extent of closer ties between many states can promote better economic opportunities for its citizens through trade and investments. Some find that political globalization associates with economic globalization (de Haan, Lundstrom, and Strum 2006). Second, good political relations between nation-states can also translate into shared

preferences for social harmony, particularly since the costs of conflict are likely to be shared by all (Russett and Oneal 2001). As the discussion above suggests amply, globalization can produce peace through economic, political, and cultural channels. The same might be said for more pessimistic views about the exposure to globalization and political violence.

ExtinctionDiamond 95 Larry, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htmOTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic

insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build w eapons of m ass d estruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

1AR Democracy – General Globalization is key to democracy Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MRMoreover, social globalization has clear beneficial consequences. First, social globalization increases awareness about welfare conditions in other states. Huntington (1993) notes that a powerful force for democratization in the 20th century was a ‘ demonstration effect ,’ in which societies saw democratic freedoms in other countries and began to demand them locally. In much the same fashion, improvements in public health, when internationally publicized, let local citizens know that a better world is possible, particularly if they advocate for better government policy responses to poverty.

Neoliberalism key to democracy – laundry listBriggs et al, 8 Cate Biggs has a B.A. from Yale and a Masters in Social Welfare Management and Planning from Berkeley. ¶ Erin Goodling has a BA in Spanish from University of Portland; a Masters in Teaching from Lewis & Clark College, and credentials in teaching middle/high school English and English Language Learners. ¶ Kelly Korenak graduated from Columbia University with a MSW in International Social Work¶ Victoria Restler began a doctoral program in Urban Education at the CUNY Graduate Center.¶ Jennifer Schwartz has a BA in Anthropology from Tufts University and a MFA in Arts Management from the Yale School of Drama and is a candidate for a Certificate in Wealth Management at UC Berkeley Extension and has recently passed her series 65 investment advisor’s license exam. ¶ Tom Shaw teaches global studies at Sonoma State University and a Teacher at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, he taught courses in research methods, adolescent identity and youth culture. ¶ James Zacchini holds a Bachelor of Arts in History and American Studies from Providence College and a Masters in History and American Foreign Policy in Asia from Marquette University, and is currently working on an Ed.D. in Organizational Development and Leadership at the University of St. Thomas. "Democracy Around the World in 2008" August 2008 http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=181&Itemid=366) //NGThe father of what has become known as the “modernization theory” of democratization is Seymour Martin Lipset. One is hard pressed to find an analysis of democracy that does not refer to his important work in the 1950s, which established a connection between capitalistic prosperity and democratic governance. In his view, economic success brought on by a transition to industrial, free market capitalism goes on to breed democracy. It not only breeds democratic governance, but appears critical in sustaining and consolidating democracy as well. Subsequent research conducted by Adam Przeworski and Fernando Lemongi supports this theory. Reviewing history, Przeworski and Lemongi constructed a scale thought to predict the life expectancy of a democratic government based on per capita GDP (measured in 1985 US dollars). In their analysis, the democracies of countries with $1500 per capita GDP will last 8 years. Those with a per capita GDP of $1500 to $3000 can expect their democracies to last 18 years. Once countries get to a $6000 per capita level, there is a good chance of regime permanence. ¶ Fareed Zakaria has supported this correlation with newer research, citing that of the 32 democratic regimes with a per capita GDP of $9000 or above (measured in 2000 purchasing power levels), not one has failed. In fact, they have existed for a combined 736 years. By contrast, of the 69 poorer democracies, 39 have failed (a failure rate of over 50%). Moreover, it is often noted that of the 25 countries with high Human Development Index (HDI) scores, only one is not a democracy – Singapore. Singapore is also the only non-oil exporting country that is not a democracy among nations with the highest GDPs in the world. (As is discussed later, oil-export wealth presents a different paradigm with respect to markets and democracy; countries that depend on oil exports do not necessarily conform to traditional econometric models.)¶ What explains this correlation between economic growth and democracy? Many experts have expounded on Lipset’s theory, and from their work we can construct a narrative. When countries transition from feudal or state-controlled economies, wealth is generated in the hands of individuals in the private sector,

broadly outside the control of the state. This includes all different kinds of wealth and not only land ownership as in pre-modern times. As the democratization of wealth leads to pressures for democratization of governance, the expanded distribution of wealth acts as what Lipset calls “a powerful solvent of authoritarian regimes.” Economist Philip Levy has summarized this dynamic in terms of the “dual use” function served by capitalistic values and processes.¶ As private property comes to exist in many different forms and diverse global markets develop, a vibrant middle class is created with access to education and exposure to a world of ideas gained through global trade and travel. Ownership of private property and engagement in the marketplace creates a skill set similar to the one required for participation in democratic government. This skill set includes the ability to bargain and compromise, and leads to the development of what many have called “trust networks.” Without these, economic transactions between overseas participants stretching over long periods of time could not exist. To understand this, consider what goes into an economic transaction in a free market. Buyer and seller are motivated by different interests and must compromise on setting a price. Once agreements are made, mechanisms must be created to ensure the viability of contracts; each party must have reason to believe that payments will be made and orders delivered as agreed. Accountability, trust, and transparency become valuable commodities in and of themselves. A premium is placed on innovation, responsiveness, efficiency, and communication. In Lipset’s view, the marketplace teaches individuals to embrace “longer time perspectives” and “more complex and gradualist views of politics,” the same values that underpin democratic governance. For this reason, Michael Mandelbaum has aptly called capitalism “freedom school,” where individuals learn the habits, develop the values and skills, and build the institutions that promote democracy. ¶ Beyond values, habits, and skills, many of the tools used to produce economic growth based on free markets and open trade are the same tools used by democratic reformers. Bruno Bueno de Mesquita has described the importance of “coordination goods” in democratization efforts. These are tools that facilitate the development of political rights (freedom of speech, organization, and association) as well as human rights. These tools allow like-minded reformers to communicate with each other and with the outside world, to publicize government abuses and excesses, and to build critical mass for protest movements. Everything from cell phones, e-mail, and websites make this more possible; these tools were originally developed to conduct business transactions. As societies become more open commercially, it is consequently more difficult for oppressive regimes to ration these “coordination goods” that often come to serve a powerful dual purpose.¶ Beyond the capacity-building function of the market, there is an important motivation factor behind the capitalism-democracy link. As economic growth occurs and prosperity spreads, more individuals come to have a stake in the system that governs them. This increased stake leads individuals to value the rule of law, and incentivizes them to participate in government. At the same time, their wealth creates the leisure time necessary for them to do so. Several experts have made parallels here to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs framework related to human emotional development. In his classic psychosocial model, individuals can only move onto pursuing more complex relationship needs after they have satisfied their basic survival needs for food, shelter, and safety. Similarly, once communities achieve a measure of economic prosperity that provides for their basic human survival needs, they are both able and motivated to move on to more complex concerns such as the pursuit of political and civil liberties and the building of institutions that promote these.¶ Optimism is also a fundamental component of free market capitalism because the system theoretically makes it possible for you to "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" rather than have your fate determined at birth. Optimism also serves as an important antidote to political cynicism, and affects people’s

motivation to participate in government as well as markets. It implies a faith in process and progress that is essential to democracy.¶ Furthermore, in the view of some, free market capitalism ultimately makes the authoritarian or totalitarian state obsolete. If the “invisible hand” of the market controls supply and demand and, by extension, all economic (and many social and political) interactions between individuals, the state loses some of its legitimacy. As efficiency becomes valued in a market economy, bloated government-driven industries often cannot compete (bloated because autocratic governments often depend on patronage for their legitimacy, and government jobs are a supreme spoil of patronage). As government-driven industries suffer in the leveled playing field, there are fewer resources available to support patronage. The autocratic government’s legitimacy is diminished, while citizens simultaneously become motivated and capable of self-governance. Overall, this theory can be summed up in the following way: momentum generated by the expansion of economic rights extends to a demand for political and civil rights. Capitalism produces prosperity, capitalism comes to be associated with democracy, and democracy comes to be associated with prosperity; the cycle becomes self-perpetuating, and democratically governed countries come to serve as powerful models for other countries seeking economic growth.

Neoliberalism is key to spread of democracyFlaten* and de Soysa** 12 – *Higher Executive Officer at Ministry of Finance and **Professor, Department of Sociology and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Ranveig Drolsum Flaten and Indra de Soysa, “Globalization and Political Violence, 1970–2008” International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations, Volume 38, Issue 5, 2012, Taylor and Francis) MRMany see the end of autarchic, nationalist economic policies, the growing connectedness of people and states around liberal norms and ideals, the galvanization of a global civil society, and an activist international system as new hope for peace and prosperity and law-based governance of world affairs (Slaughter 2004). Liberals argue that globalization will bring economic, social, and political modernization to poor countries, which are the most at risk of political violence, generating the conditions that foster peace and prosperity (Bhagwati 2004; Friedman 1999; Fukuyama 1991; Mandelbaum 2002). The arguments about globalization are based at the country and community level as well as the systemic level. The forces that are driving globalization apparently bind people in tighter webs of interdependence that allows liberal ideas and values to spread and global public action that prevents harmful outcomes such as violence and political repression. At a highly stylized level, Hecksher-Ohlin, Ricardo-Wiener-Samuelson theories of trade suggest that globalization helps poor countries because labor, the abundant factor, benefits while capital, the scarce factor, may lose from greater openness to global markets. These theories also tell us that in poor countries outward-oriented industry benefits while inward-oriented industry may lose due to openness to imports. While these stylized theories are useful, predicting whether rich capitalists and poor inward-oriented labor actually foment conflict is hard to systematize. Indeed, the most recent theorizing about conflict suggests that broad-based grievances alone do not lead to armed violence; rather, the factors that make violence feasible are most important. Winners and losers from economic openness, at least according to the stylized theories, should all have high opportunity costs for fomenting rebellion, particularly since economic prospects for all should be improving with greater market access for poor countries. Though there are many studies showing a positive relationship between globalization and economic growth, whether or not it translates into more social peace is disputed (Devetak and Hughes 2008; Schneider, Barbieri, and Gleditsch 2003). We first discuss the liberal perspective that is generally more optimistic about globalization largely because it views globalization as growing market integration, which allows cooperative relations within and between societies. Going back to Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, liberals see people who are free from economic regulations and restraints as

spontaneously acting for the common good by solving collective dilemmas like peace and security as if by a “hidden hand” (Stilwell 2006). Social conflict and violence are seen to be largely the result of state abuse of political power and social distortions attributable to politically determined privileges for favored groups rather than to the operation of free markets. Free markets, which are characterized by voluntary exchange and the efficient allocation of goods and services, rather than by rent-seeking and favoritisms, are seen as healthy for the generation of social capital because people and communities get bound up in meaningful collaborative enterprise (de Tocqueville 1956). These processes obtain social harmony because the power to determine social outcomes rests largely with individuals and communities rather than those with political power. States will be constrained because civil society is empowered due to the fact that markets generate alternative nodes of economic power (Stilwell 2006). Thus, the general liberal view can be divided into two pathways by which good social outcomes are affected—more open markets, through which globalization might influence individual countries, directly influence more humane governance by minimizing capricious rule, and globalization indirectly influences peace by increasing social capital and wealth.

1AR Democracy – Impact Authoritarians are the world’s worst human rights violators – democracy is key to ensuring basic freedomsLowenkron, 07 (Barry F. Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Keynote speech to the National Committee on American Foreign Policy. 2-13-07. “Realsm: Why Democracy Promotion Matters” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2007/80636.htm)It is fair to say that the issue of democracy promotion has become a central issue in the international system. Indeed, all around the world, people are pressing for their rights to be respected and their governments to be responsive, for their voices to be heard and their votes to count, for just laws and justice for all. Recognition Talso is growing that democracy is the form of government that can best meet the demands of citizens for dignity, liberty, and equality. But it is also fair to say that for each effort by governments, organizations, and individuals to advance human rights and democracy, there has been push-back. Hans Morgenthau once described power as expanding until checked by countervailing power. This point has been echoed by Secretary Rice, who has observed that if you are surprised by push-back, you don't know history. The power of freedom is coming under assault by those who do not want to be accountable to their people and who do not want to accept limits on their power. Countries in which power is concentrated in the hands of unaccountable rulers tend to be the world's most systematic human rights violators. These states range from closed, totalitarian systems like North Korea, or brutal military regimes like Burma, that subject their citizens to a wholesale deprivation of their basic rights, to authoritarian systems like Belarus and Zimbabwe in which the exercise of basic rights is severely restricted. The Iranian government continues to deprive its citizens of their basic rights and ignore their desire for responsible, accountable government. Elections in Iran may seem free, but they are not fair--not when women, and for that matter the majority of all candidates, are barred from running for office, media is shut down or manipulated, and debate is stifled. China has freedoms today unimaginable three decades ago. But Chinese citizens still are denied internationally recognized freedoms of expression, religion and assembly and a meaningful say in how they are governed. Even as the Chinese leadership strives to give its citizens the tools to compete economically, it stifles them politically.

Democracy prevents genocide and famine – more stable than any other form of governmentFukuyama and McFaul, 07 (Francis Fukuyama, Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the School of AdvancedInternational Studies of Johns Hopkins University and director of SAIS’ International Development program. Michael McFaul, Peter and Helen Bing Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. “Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?” June 2007. http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/other/FukuyMcFaul07.pdf)Second, democracies provide more, and more stable, welfare for their people than do autocracies. Democracies avoid the worst threats to personal well-being, such as genocide and famine. Over the last several decades, democracies around the world have not produced higher economic growth rates than autocracies: “the net effect of more political freedom on growth is theoretically ambiguous.” 4 Instead, compared to democracies, autocracies produce both much higher and much lower rates of growth. For every China there is an Angola. Democracies tend to produce slower rates of growth than the best autocratic

performers, but also steadier rates of economic development. The old conventional wisdom that dictators are better at economic modernization than the democratic counterparts is not supported by data.

Disease

2AC Disease

Neoliberalism key to widespread and effective disease treatment – regulations inhibit companiesRalston, 3 executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine (Richard E. Ralston “Free Markets: The Key to New Drugs at a Reasonable Price” 2003 http://www.freedomfromfda.org/freemarketskey.html) //NG¶ Government control of prescriptions drugs and their prices would blow up the pipeline of the new medications that have significantly improved the lives of millions of Americans. ¶ ¶ The U.S. pharmaceutical industry spends $22 billion a year on research and development of new drugs. Unlike government-funded research—which can be spent to develop drugs that no one needs or that duplicate existing drugs—pharmaceutical companies must get results. In order to recover their investment, their new drugs actually have to work. The continuing flow of new drugs that these firms produce is the best hope we have to treat and cure our ailments.¶ ¶ Senator Edward Kennedy is a longtime advocate of government-run health care and he has serious long-term plans for government intervention in the medical profession. Kennedy, who co-sponsored the HMO Act of 1973, which instituted subsidies for HMOs, is the person most responsible for the Senate’s Medicare prescription drug plan and he has made it clear that drug subsidies for seniors are the first step toward government control of medicine. Kennedy’s stated priority for the next step in this process is government control of prescription drug prices.¶ ¶ In addition to discovering and testing drugs, pharmaceutical companies also face enormous administrative costs to obtain FDA approval to put drugs on the market. Hospitals and physicians who dispense drugs also absorb the high cost of complying with a dizzying array of government regulations. If drug firms know that a drug’s price is established by the state—not by patients—there is no interest in discovering, testing and creating new drugs.¶ ¶ Drug prices have gone up because demand for better drugs has gone up. Drugs that provide astonishing new relief or a cure are priced high enough to recover development costs and provide capital for more effective research.¶ ¶ Yes, scientists working hard to develop new drugs make a lot of money—and they should. They deserve it. A free market in pharmaceuticals is the only way to insure the flow of new, breakthrough drugs and competitive pricing. ¶ ¶ An authentically free market means other companies—anywhere in the world—are free to develop drugs that are equally or more effective, or competitors who produce similar drugs that are almost as effective at a lower price. ¶ ¶ Controls on drugs, doctors, and prices will distort the drug market from the science stage to the pricing stage. Congress must face the fact that its laws cannot create a single new drug and that government force will only restrict and inhibit the scientist seeking new medicines. ¶ ¶ Advocates of government-controlled medicine, such as Senator Kennedy, assume that any new drug brought to market—at whatever cost—must be provided by those who produce it to anyone who wants it at a price determined by government decree. According to this view, the government, and only the government, should supply each of our most basic needs.¶ ¶ The result will be a nation of people dependent on government handouts for all essential requirements of life—hardly the republic of free, prosperous individuals the Founding Fathers envisioned. But even the pathetic prospect of the American people lining up for government drugs will not reverse the laws of cause and effect: great minds—including those working in science, medicine and pharmaceutical research—will not work under coercion and neither President Bush nor Senator Kennedy nor their state-sponsored prescription drug coverage will insure a continuing development of effective new medication.¶ ¶ Americans who cherish their freedom, particularly seniors who treasure their independence, must reply to the threat of government prescription drugs with the only appropriate response: Leave my drugs—which means those who produce them—alone!

Disease causes nuclear war and terrorism – causes extinctionEvans 10 (Jane Evans Department of Military Strategic Studies, writing for global security studies “Pandemics and National Security” http://globalsecuritystudies.com/Evans%20PANDEMICS.pdf) Recent developments in medicine, hygiene, and public health have virtually eliminated widespread disease from industrialized countries like the U.S., making pandemics of new or emerging diseases the salient national security issue. A pandemic is an epidemic spread over a wide geographical area and affecting many people, and while a pandemic does not threaten the survival of humanity, it challenges the prosperity and stability of political institutions and human society. Andrew Price-Smith argues that “rapid worldwide changes may accelerate the diffusion, the lethality, and the resistance of the plethora of species within the microbial world” (5). For instance, changes in agricultural practices have created new ecological niches for disease – vast bovine, avian, and swine farms, in huge numbers and often in close proximity that can facilitate cross-species infection. Transportation of persons, animals, and food products around the world also presents a serious problem. New pathogens are emerging at an increasingly accelerated rate; “Alteration in the processing of cattle feed in the U.K. resulted in extended host range and emergence of [mad cow disease]… New opportunities can be created by climatic changes such as global warming and ecologic alterations facilitated through changed land use and movements of infected hosts, susceptible animals, or disease vectors” (Cutler 2). A disease can change in several important ways: it can jump to a new species (swine to human), change transmission method (blood-borne to aerosol dispersion), become more lethal, or become drug-resistant (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus – MRSA). Emerging diseases or those thought to be wiped out are becoming more of an issue with globalization and changing societal practices. There are many ways diseases can threaten national security. First, they cause increased rates of morbidity and mortality – people sicken and die, putting huge strains on public health and the nation’s workforce, leading to political instability, class strife, and economic volatility. For example, AIDS has led to numerous problems in many African countries. When marginalized or poor people cannot afford treatment and the government cannot or will not provide it, faith in the political system crumbles; class and ethnic conflict emerges and without a sufficient working class, GDP decreases and each problem begets more problems. Second, in the article “Epidemic Disease and National Security,” author Susan Peterson argues that the most direct threat posed by a disease to the United States arises from its vulnerability to biological weapons attack (45). It is important to note that the result of a naturally spreading disease and something like bioterrorism is one and the same. Failure to prevent a biological weapons attack results in the same outcome – infection of the population – and requires the same solution. Preparation for widespread disease should therefore be a key focus of national security. More indirect threats to national security include “the health of the armed forces and, most significantly, to the social, economic, and political stability of certain key regions – especially Russia – that also challenge American security” (Peterson 46). In this sense, diseases lower the ability of the State Department or the Department of Defense to adequately provide international security to the United States. Both internal and external national security is threatened by the spread of disease. In October 2009, the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC organized a conference that addressed many of the issues pertaining to the threat of biological weapons attacks. The Director of the Center referenced a recent National Intelligence Estimate that identified bioterrorism as the intelligence community’s most important WMD concern, because “the knowledge, equipment, and pathogens required to construct a biological weapon are now globally dispersed, and there is no single technological methodology chokepoint or process that can be regulated to prevent the development of biological weapons” (Gronvall 433). For many of the reasons listed so far in this paper, the outcome of a biological attack is particularly worrisome, necessitating a closer examination of malicious bio-threats. Unlike nuclear technologies, biological materials and information are easy to obtain, and the nature of biosciences is such that equipment, expertise, and infrastructure in the field supports an important function to society and cannot, nor should it, be limited. Any attempt to prevent the development of biological weapons would also limit much needed medical advancements. The CDC defines a bioterrorism attack as “the deliberate release of viruses, bacteria, or other germs (agents) used to cause illness or death in people, animals, or plants” (CDC/Bioterrorism). These agents have a high potential for abuse by terrorist groups for several reasons. First, a disease can be difficult to detect due to the incubation period between when an individual is infected and when symptoms begin to show. Second, the dispersion capability of some diseases allows a wider range of influence than an explosive device. Third, one bioweapon can have a multiplicative effect – although only 100 people are initially infected, with a disease like smallpox, each person can then infect multiple other people, who in turn pass it on to even more. Outside the anthrax attacks of 2001, the U.S. has yet to experience a serious confirmed bioterrorist attack. However, this does not mean the threat should be minimized until an incident such as 9/11 acts as the catalyst; biological weapons are a direct threat to national security. Of the more indirect threats to U.S. national security, there are three mechanisms through which infectious diseases cause instability within a foreign nation of the outbreak of military conflict. Peterson describes these as the balance of power among adversaries, health and human rights policy conflicts, and domestic instability (55). The first and most obvious mechanism involves one side of a dispute or conflict

disproportionately suffering from a disease, leading to an imbalance of power and a possible preemptive attack. If a nation’s military capabilities are strongly affected by AIDS, this can present a vulnerable weakness. However, as with all three causal mechanisms, this type of situation will generally only occur when a pandemic is particularly severe or when the involved nations are unstable to begin with; this can be seen in warring African states with high HIV/AIDS incidence rates. The second mechanism concerns policies in response to an outbreak. For example, a nation may restrict freedom of movement and goods, or impose involuntary quarantine of infected individuals. While these policies likely will not cause conflict, they can lead to social and economic volatility if the practices persist. The third and most important mechanism is domestic instability. Consider AIDS, which largely affects people in their most economically productive years, and leads to the destruction of a country’s workforce, diminished productivity, and a dwindling professional and middle class (Peterson 59). Furthermore, the AIDS crisis is leaving behind a generation of orphans which the CIA says are “unable to cope and vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization,” as seen by the violence of alienated youths in Zimbabwe (Peterson 61). All of the examples above are representative of a critical pattern; as Price-Smith writes, “infectious disease may in fact contribute to societal destabilization and to chronic low-intensity intrastate violence, and in extreme cases it may accelerate the processes that lead to state failure” (121). The U.S. should be concerned on the level of national security, because it has been demonstrated repeatedly that failed states foster terrorism, regional instability, and often necessitate foreign aid and humanitarian assistance.

1AR Disease – Impact Even a mild pandemic collapses the global economy and kills millionsOsterholm 2005 - Director of the center for infectious Disease Research and Policy (Michael, Preparing for the next Pandemic, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, Iss. 4, July/August)Summary: If an influenza pandemic struck today, borders would close, the global economy would shut down, international vaccine supplies and health-care systems would be overwhelmed, and panic would reign. To limit the fallout, the industrialized world must create a detailed response strategy involving the public and private sectors. FEAR ITSELF Dating back to antiquity, influenza pandemics have posed the greatest threat of a worldwide calamity caused by infectious disease. Over the past 300 years, ten influenza pandemics have occurred among humans. The most recent came in 1957-58 and 1968-69, and although several tens of thousands of Americans died in each one, these were considered mild compared to others. The 1918-19 pandemic was not. According to recent analysis, it killed 50 to 100 million people globally. Today, with a population of 6.5 billion, more than three times that of 1918, even a "mild" pandemic could kill many millions of people. A number of recent events and factors have significantly heightened concern that a specific near-term pandemic may be imminent. It could be caused by H5N1, the avian influenza strain currently circulating in Asia. At this juncture scientists cannot be certain. Nor can they know exactly when a pandemic will hit, or whether it will rival the experience of 1918-19 or be more muted like 1957-58 and 1968-69. The reality of a coming pandemic, however, cannot be avoided. Only its impact can be lessened. Some important preparatory efforts are under way, but much more needs to be done by institutions at many levels of society.

Extinction Discover 2000 (“Twenty Ways the World Could End” by Corey Powell in Discover Magazine, October 2000, http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld)If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black Plague killed one European in four during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992, reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the United States rose 58 percent. Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means diseases can spread faster than ever. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the Minnesota Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim against the current of a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control, perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot. About 12,000 years ago, a sudden wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which humans helped transport as they migrated into the New World.

Economy

2AC Economy – LA Trade liberalization is key to Latin American growth and stability Gwartney* and Vasquez** 1 – *co-author of Economic Freedom of the World, **director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty (James D. Gwartney and Ian Vásquez, “Why Latin America Needs a Free-Trade Zone” National Post, April 18 2001, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-latin-america-needs-freetrade-zone?print) MR At the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the Hemisphere’s leaders may at last give serious consideration to the establishment of free trade from Argentina to Alaska. But the meeting will also give critics an opportunity to cite economic uncertainty and political instability in much of Latin America as a reason to oppose the trade initiative. With the Andean region from Venezuela to Bolivia in varying degrees of turmoil, and with Argentina on the brink of possible default, trade liberalization is under attack . Yet, more than ever before, sustained economic progress depends upon sound policies and institutions. For the last five years, we have annually constructed an economic freedom index, which rates countries’ policies against free-market principles (for example, small government, low taxes, sound money, secure property rights and free trade). Our Economic Freedom of the World: 2001 Annual Report ranks more than 120 countries. The report confirms Adam Smith’s insight that trading partners in rich and poor countries alike can achieve higher income levels through gains from specialization and large-scale production. Free economies have indeed grown more rapidly and achieved higher income levels than less free economies. This year’s report also includes a more comprehensive index for a smaller set of 58 nations for which we could obtain more detailed data. As in the past, Hong Kong was rated the most economically free jurisdiction in the world, followed by Singapore, United States, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. Chile (tied for 16th with Germany) was the highest ranked Latin American country. Argentina ranked 30th, Mexico 42nd, and Brazil 55th. The economies of Venezuela, Ukraine, and Russia were the least free among the 58. Our index helps explain some of Latin America’s maladies. For example, a legal system capable of protecting property rights and enforcing contracts in an even-handed manner is central to both economic freedom and progress. Indeed, the sustainability of economic reforms rests largely on the application of the rule of law. The freedom to compete in business is also central to economic progress. Yet Latin American countries rank extremely low in both areas. Seven of the 10 lowest rated countries in the legal area — El Salvador, Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru — were Latin American. The situation was much the same in business regulation, where six Latin American countries — Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico and Venezuela — ranked in the bottom 10. Among the 58 countries in our comprehensive index, Chile was the only Latin American nation in the upper half in either of these two areas. Given the Andean countries’ prominence on the lower end of these rankings, the region’s current instability is more understandable. For example, Peru moved swiftly toward the free market in the early 1990s, as did several Latin American countries that privatized enterprises, lowered trade barriers and removed investment restrictions. But Peru’s judicial system and the rule of law remained weak during Alberto Fujimori’s personalist, 10-year rule. The present rise of populist, left-wing candidates as leading contenders for the presidency should not surprise us, then. When Mr. Fujimori fled Peru in the wake of corruption scandals, he left behind a citizenry that mistakenly attributes lackluster economic performance to market reforms. That development is particularly unfortunate in a country with no institutional structure to sustain the reforms that were implemented. Likewise, Argentina has only gone partially down the path of economic freedom, despite having introduced dramatic reforms a decade ago. As in Peru, Argentina’s political system lost interest in liberalization by the mid- 1990s. Its regulatory environment continues to discourage economic growth and job creation. For instance, the country’s Mussolini-inspired labour regulations are completely out of step with a modern economy, raise the cost of hiring workers, and are directly responsible for Argentina’s chronically high unemployment rate of 14%. Here, too, lack of reform has produced diminishing returns and pushed the country toward crisis. Still, the region is far better off now than during the inward-looking policies of the lost decade of the 1980s. Latin America’s gains in

economic freedom have increased growth and lowered poverty levels. From 1987 to 1998, for example, 7% growth has allowed Chile to reduce its poverty rate from 45% to 22%. A hemispheric free trade zone would provide indirect benefits that go beyond immediate increases in growth and prosperity because trade openness makes the pursuit of unsound policies costly. When economies are open, both entrepreneurship and investment capital will flee countries that insist on imposing high taxes, restrictive regulations and inflationary monetary policy. This potential exodus constrains the actions of political leaders. It imposes what Thomas Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, refers to as a ‘golden straitjacket.’ A Free Trade Area of the Americas will thus discourage bad policies in a region where growth continues to be stifled by a legal and regulatory environment that is prone to play favourites, protect existing firms, and impose a heavy regulatory burden. Hong Kong and Singapore show that openness and economic freedom are complementary. Indeed, the two jurisdictions are the most open and most free economies in the world. The relationship between openness and sound policies is no coincidence . When both trade and capital are free to come and go, political leaders have a strong incentive to follow sensible policies. It is time to give political leaders a strong incentive to adopt policies that are more consistent with price stability, rule of law, and other dimensions of economic freedom. A Free Trade Area of the Americas will not only increase the competitiveness of markets, it will also increase competitiveness among political jurisdictions. Given the critical need for meaningful reform in Latin America, this might well be the primary benefit derived from free trade in the Americas.

Environment

2AC EnvironmentEconomic freedom is a prerequisite to environmental protection, endorsing the market allows profit motive to drive environmentally sound choicesAnderson 2008 - Professor emeritus of economics, Montana State University. Executive Director, Property and Environment Research Center. He is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct professor at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University, the University of Basel, and Cornell University Law School. PhD in economics, U Washington (Terry, “Plucking a few facts out of the bin of recycled slogans,” 15 October 2008, http://www.perc.org/articles/article1118.php)//ModermattThe main reason for the change is simple: once people have more food, better shelter, improved health care, and other life enhancements, they can afford a higher level of environmental quality. The “environmental Kuznets Curve,” named for the late Harvard economist and Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets, demonstrates this, showing that environmental quality may fall while incomes are rising from very low levels but that it eventually begins to improve (typically at approximately $5,000 per capita for most measures of environmental quality such as clean air and water) as individuals get richer. Once people have more food, better shelter, improved health care, and other life enhancements, they can afford a higher level of environmental quality. U.S. per capita incomes have more than doubled since the first Earth Day. Earning $18,000 per capita four decades ago, Americans could barely afford to clean up burning rivers; today, at $38,000 per capita, we spend billions of dollars to remove minuscule amounts of pollutants, such as arsenic, though they present no real threat to humans or wildlife. Once people have more food, better shelter, improved health care, and other life enhancements, they can afford a higher level of environmental quality. As we have gotten richer, we also seem to have shifted from addressing current environmental problems toward preventing hypothetical ones. On the endangered species front, today’s green focus derives not from observations of actual threatened animals or plants but from theoretical extinctions predicted from biodiversity models. And for the mother of all environmental issues—global warming—we are willing to spend trillions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions despite sound reasons to doubt both the extent to which warming is human-caused and the potential impact of our actions on temperatures in the next century. As environmental questions get more complex, how do we know if we really are green? Consider the electric car with the sign on its side reading “zero pollution.” True, the electric car has no tailpipe, but what about the coal-fired generating plant that produced the electricity to charge the car’s battery? Does recycling paper really save trees when the pulp for new paper comes mostly from trees that were planted to meet the pulp demand and will not be planted if that demand falls? As Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, points out (using ample data), many environmental fears are unfounded and therefore consume our time and energy without much more than feel-good returns. More recently, in his book Cool It, Lomborg admonishes us to consider what we could accomplish for humanity if we diverted resources being used to combat global warming toward fighting malnutrition, malaria, or AIDS. TOWARD MORE-INFORMED CHOICES The first step to acquiring a true shade of green is to sift the green-seeming claims carefully. Consider the push to “eat local.” The next time you are inclined to buy place-based food, ask yourself which products are truly best for the environment. The means of transportation is one of the variables that should go into calculating the carbon cost of your plate. Richard Pirog of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University points out that sea-freight emissions are less than half those associated with airplanes; trains are cleaner than trucks; and big rigs are cleaner than pickups. Potatoes shipped by rail from Idaho to New York, for example, might be less polluting than Maine potatoes delivered to New York via tractor-trailer. How food is grown and harvested is also critical. Author and eat-local advocate James McWilliams touts a study showing that lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped by boat to Britain produces approximately 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton, whereas British lamb produces 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton. New Zealand lamb requires less energy to produce because of the country’s balmy climate and extensive pastures. It thus appears more energy efficient for Londoners to buy lamb from the other side of the world than to buy it from their own backyard. Similar findings apply to dairy products and fruit. Moreover, as McWilliams points out, it is impossible for most of the world to feed itself a healthy diet exclusively through local food production. True, the electric car has no tailpipe, but what about the coal-fired generating plant that produced the electricity to charge the car’s battery? “While there will always be good reasons to encourage the growth of sustainable local food systems,” McWilliams wrote in the New York Times, “we must also allow them to develop in tandem with what could be their equally sustainable global counterparts.” True, the electric car has no tailpipe, but what about the coal-fired generating plant that produced the electricity to charge the car’s battery? Consumers should also pay attention to claims about recycling: before you drop another bottle in a blue bin, ask yourself whether recycling truly saves resources. Research shows that curbside recycling requires a larger fleet of trucks to pick up the same amount of waste, meaning more iron ore and coal mining, more steel and rubber manufacturing, more petroleum for fuel, and more air pollution. Such facts complicate the equation. We also need to consider how products are recycled. Recycling is a manufacturing process and therefore has an environmental impact. Daniel Benjamin, author of The Eight Great Myths of

Recycling, points out that it is often unclear whether secondary manufacturing (such as recycling) produces any less pollution than the primary manufacturing process. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, examined both virgin-paper and recycled-paper processing for toxic substances, finding twelve. Of those twelve, all but one were present in higher levels in the recycling process. Informed voluntary recycling efforts can indeed conserve resources, but misinformation about the costs and benefits of recycling can induce people to engage in wasteful activities. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS PAY OFF One way consumers can be sure they are green is by investing in the environment as an asset. Nonprofit groups, using private resources to conserve land and water directly, produce open space and wildlife habitat. A proliferation of private land trusts is now protecting land by negotiating with landowners for conservation easements through donations or outright purchases. The 2005 National Land Trust Census Report showed total acreage conserved by local, state, and national trusts doubling from 2000 to 2005 to reach 37 million acres. Regarding for-profit firms, there is much talk about businesses having double bottom lines—that is, they want to both earn profits and improve environment quality. Only by focusing on the first is there any chance of sustaining the second. T. J. Rodgers, CEO of SunPower, which manufactures solar-power systems, puts it well: “I want solar if it makes money and I don’t want solar if it doesn’t make money.” By focusing on profits, businesses can be the perfect engine for environmental sustainability. A proliferation of private land trusts protects land by negotiating with landowners for conservation easements through donations or outright purchases. Whether saving energy, conserving soils, replanting trees, or husbanding nonrenewable energy sources, the private sector has a far better track record than government when it comes to economic and environmental efficiency. Conservation Forestry, for example, works to acquire and manage large forests by combining money from investors and conservationists. Such partnerships preserve jobs, habitat, and recreation alike. The investment fund makes money for its investors and leverages the resources of its conservation partners. A proliferation of private land trusts protects land by negotiating with landowners for conservation easements through donations or outright purchases. Because we live in a rich country, we can all afford to be environmentalists. But the green crusade, like all crusades, oversimplifies the issues. Green thoughts do not necessarily lead to improvements in environmental quality. Instead, conservationists and environmentalists of all political stripes need to look for practical actions anchored in substance, not form. And they must find ways to take the private incentives that power America’s economy and harness them to the environmental bandwagon.

ExtinctionDernbach 98, Associate Professor of Law at Widener University, ’98 (John, Fall, “Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance” Case Western University Law Review, Vol 49 p 16, lexis)The global scale and severity of environmental degradation and poverty are unprecedented in human history. Major adverse consequences are not inevitable, but they are likely if these problems are not addressed. Many civilizations collapsed or were severely weakened because they exhausted or degraded the natural resource base on which they depended. n76 In addition, substantial economic and social inequalities have caused or contributed to many wars and revolutions. n77 These problems are intensified by the speed at which they have occurred and are worsening, making it difficult for natural systems to adapt. The complexity of natural and human systems also means that the effects of these problems are difficult to anticipate. The potential impact of global warming on the transmission of tropical diseases in a time of substantial international travel and commerce is but one example.

1AR EnvironmentNeoliberalism best for the environment – empirics prove the alternative to free-market environmentalism is worseStroup, 8 economics professor at Montana State University and senior associate at the Political Economy Research Center, both in Bozeman, Montana. From 1982 to 1984, he was director of the Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department of the Interior (Richard Stroup “Free Market Environmentalism” 2008 http://www.nesgeorgia.org/files/free_market_environmentalism.pdf) //NGThis new interest in free-market environmentalism is somewhat ironic because environmental problems have often been seen as a form of market failure (see Public Goods and Externalities). In the traditional view many environmental problems are caused by decision makers who reduce their costs by polluting those who are downwind or downstream; other environmental problems are caused by private decision makers' inability to produce "public goods" (such as preservation of wild species) since no one has to pay to get the benefits of this preservation. While these problems can be quite real, growing evidence indicates that governments often fail to control pollution or to provide public goods at reasonable cost. Furthermore, the private sector is often more responsive than government to environmental needs. This evidence, which is supported by much economic theory, has led to a reconsideration of the traditional view. ¶ Further interest in free-market environmentalism has been awakened, in part, by the failures of centralized government control in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. As glasnost lifted the veil of secrecy, press reports identified large areas where brown haze hung in the air, where people's eyes routinely burned from chemical fumes and where drivers had to use headlights in the middle of the day. In 1990 The Wall Street Journal quoted a claim by Hungarian doctors that 10 percent of the deaths in Hungary may be directly related to pollution. The New York Times reported that parts of the town of Merseburg, East Germany, were "permanently covered by a white chemical dust, and a sour smell fills people's nostrils."¶ For markets to work in the environmental field, as in any other, rights to each important resource must be clearly defined, easily defended against invasion, and divestible (transferable) by owners on terms agreeable to buyer and seller. Well-functioning markets, in short, require "3-D" property rights. When the first two are present—clear definition and easy defense of one's rights—no one is forced to accept pollution beyond the standard acceptable to the community. Each individual has a right against invasion of himself and his property, and the courts will defend that right. And when the third characteristic—divestibility—is present, each owner has an incentive to be a good steward: preservation of the owner's wealth (the value of his or her property) depends on good stewardship. ¶ ¶ Environmental problems stem from the absence or incompleteness of these characteristics of property rights. When rights to resources are defined and easily defended against invasion, all individuals or corporations, whether potential polluters or potential victims, have an incentive to avoid pollution problems. When air or water pollution damages a privately owned asset, the owner whose wealth is threatened will gain by seeing that the threat is abated, in court if necessary. In England and Scotland, for example, unlike in the United States, the right to fish for sport and commerce is a privately owned, transferable right. This means that owners of fishing rights can obtain damages and injunctions against polluters of streams. Owners of these rights vigorously defend them, even though the owners are often small anglers' clubs whose members have modest means. They have formed an association that is ready to go to court when their fishing rights are violated by polluters. Such suits were successful well before Earth Day and before pollution control became part of public policy. Once rights against pollution are established by precedent, as these were many years ago, going to court is seldom necessary.¶ Thus, liability for pollution is a powerful motivator when a factory or other potentially polluting asset is privately owned. The case of the notorious waste dump, Love Canal, illustrates this point. As long as Hooker Chemical Company owned the Love Canal waste site, it was designed, maintained, and operated (in the late forties and fifties) in a way that met even the Environmental Protection Agency standards of 1980. The corporation wanted to avoid any damaging leaks, for which it would have to pay.¶

Only when the waste site was taken over by local government—under threat of eminent domain, for the cost of one dollar, and in spite of warnings by Hooker about the chemicals—was the site mistreated in ways that led to chemical leakage. The government decision makers lacked personal or corporate liability for their decisions. They built a school on part of the site, removed part of the protective clay cap to use as fill dirt for another school site, and sold off the remaining part of the Love Canal site to a developer, without warning him of the dangers as Hooker had warned them. The local government also punched holes in the impermeable clay walls to build water lines and a highway. This allowed the toxic wastes to escape when rainwater, no longer kept out by the partially removed clay cap, washed them through the gaps created in the walls.¶ The school district owning the land had a laudable but narrow goal: it wanted to provide education cheaply for district children. Government decision makers are seldom held accountable for broader social goals in the way that private owners are by liability rules and potential profits. Of course, mistakes can be made by anyone, including private parties, but the decision maker whose private wealth is on the line tends to be more circumspect. The liability that holds private decision makers accountable is largely missing in the public sector.¶ Nor does the government sector have the long-range view that property rights provide, which lead to protection of resources for the future. As long as the third D, divestibility, is present, property rights provide long-term incentives for maximizing the value of property. If I mine my land and impair its future productivity or its groundwater, the reduction in the land's value reduces my current wealth. That is because land's current worth equals the present value of all future services¶ (see Present Value). Fewer services or greater costs in the future mean lower value now. In fact, on the day an appraiser or potential buyer first can see that there will be problems in the future, my wealth declines. The reverse also is true: any new way to produce more value—preserving scenic value as I log my land, for example, to attract paying recreationists—is capitalized into the asset's present value.¶ Because the owner's wealth depends on good stewardship, even a shortsighted owner has the incentive to act as if he or she cares about the future usefulness of the resource. This is true even if an asset is owned by a corporation. Corporate officers may be concerned mainly about the short term, but as financial economists such as Harvard's Michael Jensen have noted, even they have to care about the future. If current actions are known to cause future problems, or if a current investment promises future benefits, the stock price rises or falls to reflect the change. Corporate officers are informed by (and are judged by) these stock price changes.¶ This ability and incentive to engage in farsighted behavior is lacking in the political sector. Consider the example of Seattle's Ravenna Park. At the turn of the century, it was a privately owned park that contained magnificent Douglas firs. A husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Beck, had developed it into a family recreation area that brought in thousands of people a day. Concern that a future owner might not take proper care of it, however, caused the local government to "preserve" this beautiful place. The owners did not want to part with it, but following condemnation proceedings the city bought the park.¶ But since they had no personal property or income at stake, local officials allowed the park to deteriorate. In fact, the tall trees began to disappear soon after the city bought it in 1911. The theft of the trees was brought to official attention by a group of concerned citizens, but they continued to be cut. Gradually, the park became unattractive. By 1972 it was an ugly, dangerous hangout for drug users.¶ In contrast, private individuals and groups have preserved wildlife habitats and scenic lands in thousands of places in the United States. The sidebar lists more than fifty such state and local land trusts in Oregon and California alone. The 1980 National Directory of Conservation Land Trusts lists 748 local, state, and regional land trusts serving this purpose. Many other state and local groups have similar projects as a sideline, and national groups such as the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society have hundreds more. None of these is owned by the government. Using the market, such groups do not have to convince the majority that their project is desirable, nor do they have to fight the majority in choosing how to manage the site. The result, as the federal government's¶ Council on Environmental Quality has reported, is an enormous and healthy diversity of approaches. ¶ Even the lack of property rights today does not mean that a useful property rights solution is forever impossible. Property rights tend to evolve as technology, preferences, and prices provide added incentives and new technical options. Early in American history, property rights in cattle seemed impossible to establish and enforce on the Great Plains. But the growing value of such rights led to the use of mounted cowboys to protect herds and, eventually, barbed wire to fence the¶ range. As economists Terry Anderson and Peter J. Hill have shown, the plains lost their status as commons and were privatized. Advances in technology may yet allow the establishment of enforceable rights to schools of whales in the oceans, migratory birds in the air, and—who knows?—even the ozone layer. Such is the hope of free-market environmentalism.

Neoliberalism solves environmental degradationMayhugh, 97 interview with Terry Anderson, president of PERC and the John and Jean De Nault Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. (Candice Jackson Mayhugh “Terry Anderson Explains Free Market Environmentalism” 10/21/97 http://perc.org/articles/terry-anderson-explains-free-market-environmentalism#sthash.oFVkwCM0.dpuf) //NG REVIEW: According to the Hoover Institution, your appointment as senior fellow represents the first time that Hoover has directed attention to environmental issues. What do you think about this, and what are some of the projects you are planning to begin when you arrive at Hoover?ANDERSON: I think that the attention that Hoover is giving to environmental issues is related to the realization that, for many conservatives, environmentalism has always been an Achilles' heel; in other words, it is commonly believed that to be a conservative means that you must be in favor of destroying the environment to raise incomes. But what I think is that in reality, the tradition of conservationism is actually a conservative one. We need to get the incentives right, by using property rights and markets to achieve what we want. The same reforms that we have used in education and welfare reform recently can be applied to the environment, by reducing government involvement and improving incentive structures. As far as my research agenda goes, I am working on a project about water rights and water markets. I am also planning a book for the Hoover Institution on the politics of environmentalism, and the strange bedfellows it can create. For example, I discovered that the Weyerhaeuser Company [a timber company in Oregon and Washington] hired biologists to seek out spotted owl habitats on public lands, because finding spotted owls on public land would decrease logging on those lands, driving up the price of private timber. This is an example of the twisted incentive system set up by environmental legislation. My other big project is a book based on articles I've written that trace the evolution of property rights, entitled "The Not So Wild Wild West." It will look at how government got to be such a large land holder, and how things might have tuned out differently if we had let western history evolve without such extensive government influence. REVIEW: What do you mean by "free market environmentalism"? [FME from here on] ANDERSON: Most people think that "free market environmentalism" is an oxymoron - and that I'm the moron writing about it. But the first premise of FME is that "wealthier is healthier"--meaning that markets generate the wealth that gives us the wherewithal to solve environmental problems. Although many people mistakenly think that markets can only generate consumerism and other gunk, in reality it is markets that produce wealth, and thus help the environment. The second major premise of FME is that "incentives matter." Positive incentives can turn the environment from a liability to an asset for a resource owner. If we own our own water and land, we have the incentive to manage and conserve it properly. REVIEW: Explain, if you will, what the New Resource Economics paradigm is, that you began to develop and advocate to the economics profession in the early 1980s? ANDERSON: Basically, the New Resource Economics paradigm that I worked on then is just a more academic view of free market environmentalism. I incorporated three elements of mainstream economics into a more realistic way of looking at resource economics: those elements are property rights that generate proper incentives, Austrian economics that contributes the idea of entrepreneurship, and public choice economics that criticizes government solutions to market failures. The evolution from talking about New Resource Economics and Free Market Environmentalism has been to increase the subject's layman appeal. REVIEW: What are some examples of the successes of FME? How has it been accepted in the fields of economics and environmentalism? ANDERSON: Such things as user fees on public lands and water markets have demonstrated the success so far of FME. One example of how the rhetoric in resource management has shifted because of the influence of FME is that years ago I was invited to speak in front of the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior. The Commissioner of the Bureau burst out "I've enough of you kiddy-car economists telling me what to do!" He was afraid to even discuss the possibility of markets working. But recently, I was invited back to the Bureau to discuss how the Department of the Interior might actually privatize water projects, which shows how the debate has shifted in favor of market solutions. The environmental community in general has really embraced market approaches--from as far away as Africa, almost everybody is at least considering market solutions. In the economics profession, there has not been a very open reception to FME, probably because a lot of people have a stake in the old natural

resource economics paradigm. But there is a growing favorable perception. The growing warmth to FME has taken a long time because old ideas don't die easily. However, we aren't even really throwing out the old paradigm as much as we are taking the existing one and applying it in new, innovative ways. REVIEW: Free market environmentalism (FME) somewhat redefines what a market failure is, and how one should be redressed. What do you think is a fair description of an authentic "market failure"? ANDERSON: What most people mean by market failure is a case where, for one reason or another, people either aren't bearing the full costs of their actions, or aren't receiving the full benefits of them. This is the accepted definition. But the question should then be--how bad is this? Probably the most incontrovertible example of market failure is air pollution. It is hard to come up with a market solution because market solutions depend on definitions of property rights, which in regards to air pollution are tough to define. There are ways to improve, however, even in this difficult case. For example, we can at the very least decide to use tradable permits--at least this is better than the arbitrary regulation that now takes place. The other way of helping in these tough cases is to better understand how the common law might have helped solve such problems. Me suing you to collect for damages you inflict on my air space with your power plant might take care of many of the problems we have with things like air pollution without the government regulation we now have. I just finished a book called Environmental Federalism, in which I claim that in cases of real market failure, we should at least devolve responsibility for solving them to the lowest level. If it's a local or county problem, there's no reason for the state government to interfere. REVIEW: What are some of the most common arguments against FME? ANDERSON: "You don't care about equity, or about poor people and how they would lose under a market system." My answer to this is that we ought not to solve poverty with environmental policy--we ought to solve poverty with poverty policy. A market system is the most effective way to reduce poverty, because it creates wealth. The other common argument I hear is "Markets can't solve everything." Granted, but that doesn't mean we should prevent markets from solving what they can.

Neoliberalism is good for the environmentUbben 1994 – John R., researcher at the University of Northern Iowa- (“Trade Liberalization and Environmental Quality: Opposing Viewpoints, Additional Issues, and Necessity of Intervention”, 1995, http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/ubben.pdf)//ModermattHow might trade liberalization help the environment? Trade liberalization can benefit the environment in a number of ways. Free trade can promote the transfer of genetic material and technology that can improve agricultural development and environmental protection in the form of a reduction in chemical use. Trade liberalization can also help improve the efficiency of resource allocation by removing inefficient prices and subsidies. Trade also encourages environmentally sustainable use. Finally, trade can be argued to be a key factor in the increase in environmental standards and increase the speed with which developing countries reach the environmental stage because it serves to increase income [Brack, 1998, 1, 14]. In the area of biotechnology, the transfer of biological pest controls, such as predator organisms and genetically developed crops resistant to disease and insects, can reduce the dependence on chemicals. In agriculture, the transfer of farming practices such as crop rotation and low till or no till farming, can be instrumental in developing sustainable agriculture practices and reducing soil erosion in lesser-developed countries [Zilberman, 1992, 1145]. Trade liberalization may also serve to break down exchange rate policies that subsidize the importation of chemicals. Hence, free trade could reduce chemical usage and lead to environmental improvement [Antel, 1993, 784]. Trade liberalization can help improve resource allocation by removing inefficient prices. Trade liberalization can improve resource allocation by allowing countries to specialize in the production of goods and services in which they are most efficient. Efficiency allows a country to maximize its output for a given level of resources. It can be argued that the efficient allocation of resources is a step toward environmentally sustainable development [Brack, 1998, 1]. If an allocation is Pareto optimal, than there are no other allocation of resources that could make one group better off without hurting any other group. As long as environmental quality is taken into consideration when resources are allocated, then, in theory, trade that promotes efficiency will benefit the environment. Trade can also serve to increase environmental standards in the manufacturing sector. Companies who produce goods for export face a

number of different standards, some higher than others. It is simply easier and more cost effective to produce products to meet the highest standards, so when the company looks to expand into new markets it will have the advantage of already complying with standards regarding the environment, labeling, safety, and many other factors [Brack, 1998, 14]. An increased rate of growth of income caused by trade can help promote environmental quality. Increased income creates potential for investment in environmental protection and may also speed up the transition from purely economic concerns to a balance of environmental and economic growth for developing countries [Antel, 1993, 787]. However, this link is not automatic and policies will need to be implemented to ensure environmental concerns are pursued simultaneously. “Poverty per se is a form of environmental degradation and thus economic well-being is an environmental plus, regardless of its effect on pollution control or environmental protection efforts” [GATT Secretariat, Esty, 1994, 64]. The study performed by Perroni and Wigle (1994) is most often cited for the lack of impact trade restrictions, and therefore trade, have on the environment and the type of intervention most successful in promoting environmental protection. The authors attempted to assess international trade’s relationship to environmental degradation by examining the effects on environmental quality and welfare of the following environmental policies: 1) Business as usual (current environmental protection levels). 2) A move to full global internalization meaning, that the internalization rate for the domestic and international components of environmental externalities is 1 or 100%. 3) Unilateral domestic environmental action by North America, meaning that the internalization rate for the domestic component of environmental externalities was 1 or 100% in North America. The authors also examined three trade-policy scenarios: 1) benchmark trade barriers; 2) a removal of all trade barriers (free trade); 3) a three-fold increase in trade barriers (trade wars). Environmental damage was measured locally in terms of emissions summed for all sectors in a region, and globally by summing all sectors in all regions. “The relationship between emissions experienced and environmental damage is modeled by means of convex, constant elasticity damage function: D L (EL ) = kL (EL ) pl Where D = environmental damage D G (EG ) = kG (EG ) pg E L & EG are the sum of net local and global emissions k L & kG are constants pl & pg represent elasticities of damage with respect to emissions (assumed to be greater than 1)” [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 552-558]. Environmental quality was then modeled on the consumption side of the economy as the difference between endowments of environmental quality and damage. A utility function described by consumption goods and environmental quality was used to measure individual valuations of environmental quality. Environmental policies were described in the model using emission fees that internalized some or all of the external costs associated with emissions. The revenue from these taxes went to the residents of the country where the emissions took place [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 552-558]. The primary factors of production and trade were labor and capital, which were modeled as domestically mobile but internationally immobile. In the model, this prevented dirty industries from moving to regions with lower emission taxes. Finally, six goods were chosen, representing both industries having high emission levels and those with low levels, as well as high technology and low technology industries. These goods were also identified by their intensities related to labor, skills, capital, and environmental inputs. Countries were then grouped together by their per capita income level and their environmental quality relative to one another [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 552-558]. By examining trade in these products, environmental damage caused by their production, and environmental policies crossed against each trade-policy scenario, the researchers drew important conclusions on the relationship between trade and the environment. At the benchmark level of the tradepolicy scenario, international trade had a small adverse affect on environmental quality. The removal of all trade barriers resulted in a slight worsening of environmental quality, while a three-fold increase in trade barriers had only a small positive impact on the environment [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 561-562]. The welfare effect on different regions tells a much different story. Trade liberalization had the greatest benefit for the U.S., Canada, and other developed countries, while the remaining regions saw small or no gains. However, trade regulations/barriers had a substantial negative effect on welfare for all regions. Other results showed that all regions had more than a 39% improvement in environmental quality when externalities were fully internalized regardless of the trade-policy scenario. On the other hand, environmental quality improvements were never more than 2% when trade barriers were used to address environmental issues. The conclusion is that the trade policies of different regions in the study (benchmark, free trade, trade wars) had very little impact on environmental quality compared to the effects of environmental policies (business as usual, global internalization, unilateral NA action) [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 563]. This suggests that international trade’s impact on environmental quality is modest at best. Other conclusions can be drawn from this study. When developed regions practiced domestic internalization, improvements in environmental quality resulted for all regions. However, the addition of trade restrictions based on environmental concerns had no added effect on environmental quality. This supports the fact that environmental policies need not be accompanied by trade barriers [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 563]. This model has a few limitations. There is a limited knowledge on how emissions affect the environment, and the model does not take into consideration the damaged caused by the consumption of goods. The fact that perfect competition was used and capital mobility was limited adversely affected the impact of both trade and environmental regulations. The authors suggest that environmental achievements made via trade barriers are likely to be smaller than the amount predicted because world production has a small trade component. Trade in environmentally safe goods is already prevalent, and even for some pollution intensive goods the cost of abatement is sometimes included in total costs [Perroni & Wigle, 1994, 566].

Studies are on our side, free trade is good for the environment Antweiler et al 98- Werner, National Bureau of Economic Research, Brian R. Copeland, M. Scott Tayler (“Is Free Trade Good For The Environment”, August 1998, http://www.nber.org/papers/w6707.pdf?new_window=1)//ModermattThis paper sets out a theory of how openness to trading opportunities affects pollution concentrations. We started with a theoretical specification that gave pride of place to scale, technique and composition effects and then showed how this theoretical decomposition is useful in thinking about the relationship between openness to international markets and the environment. In our empirical section we adopted a specification directly linked to our earlier theory. We then estimated this specification paying special attention to the potentially confounding influences introduced by the panel structure of our data set. Our results consistently indicate that scale, technique and composition effects are not just theoretical constructs with no empirical counterparts. Rather these theoretical constructs can be identified and their magnitude measured. Moreover, once measured they can play a useful role in determining the likely environmental consequences of technological progress, capital accumulation or increased trade. These estimates may also be useful in aggregate CGE modeling of the effects of various free trade agreements and other trade reforms [see for example, Ferrantino et al.,1996]. Overall the results indicate that increases in a country’s exposure to international markets creates small but measurable changes in pollution concentrations by altering the pollution intensity of national output. While our estimates indicate that greater trade intensity creates only relatively small changes in pollution via the composition effect, economic theory and numerous empirical studies demonstrate that trade also raises the value of national output and income. These associated increases in output and incomes will then impact on pollution concentrations via our estimated scale and technique effects. Our estimates of the scale and technique elasticities indicate that if openness to international markets raises both output and income by 1%, pollution concentrations fall by approximately 1%. Putting this calculation together with our earlier evidence on composition effects yields a somewhat surprising conclusion: freer trade is good for the environment.

Ethnic Conflict

2AC Ethnic ConflictNot the root cause of ethnic conflicts or intolerance Prasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR The question alluded to, but not answered, in the previous paragraph is paramount. Is there a link between these two prominent phenomena, the adoption – or, as is so often the case, imposition – of neoliberal economic policies, and the rise of mass movements based upon ideologies of religious fundamentalism or ethno-nationalism? Alternatively, are these phenomena simply disparate and unrelated? If the latter is true, should religious fundamentalisms or ethnonationalisms simply be classified as idiosyncratic atavisms? As such, are they to be solely the subject of psychological analyses? Answers to such questions fall into several broad lines. A. There is no relation The first answer is that there either is no relation, or any that may be discerned is too tenuous or contingent to merit our attention. Rather the problem, and it is acknowledged to be substantial, is related to the rise and spread of intolerant and fundamentalist ideologies. A prominent proponent of this perspective is the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who wrote a series of essays and a book about the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujarat (Nussbaum 2007).1 Nussbaum believes that the ultimate cause of these massacres had nothing to do with an inevitable “Clash of Civilizations” derived from long-standing communal or cultural antagonisms. Rather, in her view, an important aspect of the problem is a “Clash Within” the minds of many Indian citizens of Hindu faith as to the meaning of being an Indian and specifically what it means to be an Indian man. She traces this tension to a perverse, albeit long-standing and carefully orchestrated, propaganda campaign that emerged during the Indian effort to achieve independence. Sadly, its message undermined an otherwise tolerant culture and peaceful political tradition. Unfortunately, these ideas failed to be checked in part because the educational system of post-independence India was and remains deficient. Specifically, its greatest drawback is a pedagogical emphasis upon “rote learning.” To Nussbaum, this mode of instruction is mentally and morally stultifying (a point upon which most of us are likely to agree). While such methods may enlarge the student’s knowledge of facts and figures, it inhibits the development of a broader, nuanced, and thereby humanistic perspective. She argues that, by contrast, the humanities and more deliberative modes of instruction enable people to step out of the moment, grasp the larger context, perceive its ambiguities, and appreciate its ethical dimensions. People educated in the latter manner, she believes, will be more inclined to act in ways that check destructive ideologies and perverse political movements before they become social pathologies. The lesson we are to draw is that if a larger portion of the Indian population were educated along humanistic lines, communal antagonisms, riots, and massacres would be less prevalent. By implication, the rise of fundamentalist and ethno-nationalist perspectives are not grounded in the profound economic changes that India has been experiencing, including those that have so greatly transformed Gujarat (Nussbaum 2007).

Failed States

2AC Failed StatesGlobalization and open trade solve failed statesGurr 2k – Professor of Government and Polics, Ted Robert Gurr et al, Director, Minorities at Risk Project; Distinguished University Professor, Department of Government & Politics at the University of Maryland, 9-30-2000, (State Failure Task Force Report: Phase III Findings, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/stfail/SFTF%20Phase%20III%20Report%20Final.pdf)Assessing the Impact of Trade Openness The Task Force has examined a wide range of economic variables and their association with state failure including: inflation rates; total and per capita investment; levels of government taxation, debt, and spending; flows of foreign aid and rates of GDP growth. None of these, however, has proven to be significantly associated with state failure in models that also include indicators of a country’s quality of life (as measured by infant mortality or GDP per capita relative to world medians) and regime type. The one persistent exception, for a wide variety of global, regional, and failure-type analyses, is a country’s openness to international trade, measured as the value of a country’s imports plus exports as a percentage of GDP. Higher trade openness is strongly associated with a significantly lower risk of state failure. Depending on the region or type of failure, countries with levels of trade openness below the global median were two to two-and-one-half times as likely to experience state failure as countries with above-median levels of trade openness. Why should low trade openness go hand in hand with a higher risk of state failure? Several economists pointed out to the Task Force that trade openness is generally related to population; countries with larger populations generally supply more of their own needs, and their imports and exports therefore tend to be smaller relative to their domestic economy. Economists also maintain that countries at higher levels of development benefit more from trade and thus are likely to have higher levels of trade. However, we found that even when controlling for both population size and population density, and for levels of development, the effect of trade openness on state failure was still significant. The impact of trade openness worked the same way whether looking at the entire world or only at a sample of countries generally less disposed to trade, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa. We found that trade openness was generally unrelated to other economic and trade variables, such as the concentration of a country’s exports, or of its trading partners, or its GDP per capita. A growing body of social-science research links trade openness to a host of other virtues, including faster economic growth, strengthened democracy, and improved environmental performance. These virtues, in turn, are widely thought to be associated with political stability. In this story, trade openness helps to produce political and economic outcomes that reduce the risk of state failure. Trade leads to faster growth and more democracy, both of which encourage political stability.

Failed states comparatively outweigh great power war—cause international instability, terrorism, trafficking, prolif, and interventionist wars.Yoo 2005 – professor of law at UC Berkeley School of Law, visiting scholar at AEI (John, Northwestern University International Colloquium, “Failed states”, http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/international/Yoo.pdf, WEA)Failed states pose perhaps the most dangerous threat to both American national security and international peace and stability. Failed states have served as the incubator of international terrorist groups, such as the al Qaeda organization that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, or as trans-shipments points for illicit drugs, human trafficking, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technologies. In Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, failed states have produced the catastrophic human rights disasters. Since the end of World War II, far more lives have been lost due to internal wars than international armed conflicts, and many of the former have occurred in failed states. Military intervention in response, often led by the United States and its allies, incurs high costs in terms of money, material, and lives. Finding a comprehensive and effective solution to these challenges of terrorism, human rights violations, or poverty and lack of economic development requires some answers to the problem of failed states.

1AR Failed States – Impact State failure leads to massive destabilizing migrations, contagious disease spread and proliferation to terrorists and rogue nations culminating in nuclear warAfrican Studies Centre et al 2003 (The Transnational Institute, The Center of Social Studies, Coimbra University, and The Peace Research Center – CIP-FUHEM, “Failed and Collapsed States in the International System,” December, found at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/failed/2003/12failedcollapsedstates.pdf)In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several more countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in various fields, be it commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the national territory for criminal or terrorist activities. The increase in failed states would immediately lead to an increase in international migration, which could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring countries which, having similar politico-economic structures, could suffer increased destabilization and collapse as well . Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example. Increased international migration would, secondly, have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe it would put social relations between the population and immigrant communities under further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the security of Western states and societies. Health conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like Ebola or Sars would spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass destruction could come into the hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups, political factions in control of part of a collapsed state or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not only North Korea springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in (North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control of such weapons would have ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through unilateral action - a system that would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one could be faced with an arms race that would sooner or later result in the actual use of these weapons. In the malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and international migration . Disagreement is already rife on a host of issues in these fields. At worst, even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European states - could be faced with direct attacks on their national security .

Food Security

2AC Food SecurityTrade liberalization key to food security Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MREconomic globalization also entails greater trade in agricultural flows , with greater availability of corn hybrids and rice seeds, low cost nitrogen fertilizer, and better productive techniques to the developing countries. Countries in Latin America and Asia, for instance, have more than doubled their yields of staple crops since the 1950s (World Bank, 1998), while breakthroughs in agricultural technology ended famine in South Asia while reducing undernutrition from 40% in the 1970s to 23% in 1997 (UNDP, 2001). Of course, here too globalization has double-edged effects. Greater agricultural trade led to monopolistic control of trade by countries in the West (Shiva, 2000), monocultures of highyielding varieties of crops that adversely affect the environment (Aggarwal, 2006), and greater sensitivity to variations in agricultural prices (Dorward et al., 2002). Yet despite these problems, it is hard to gainsay that improvements in agricultural technology have had a large positive effect on food production and food supply in most developing countries.

1AR Food SecurityNeoliberalism combats hunger – North Korea proves alternatives failHarlan, 10 writes for The Sydney Morning Herald, provides news from around the world (Chico Harlan, “North Korea turns to free market to save its people from starvation” 6/21/10 http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korea-turns-to-free-market-to-save-its-people-from-starvation-20100620-yp8i.html#ixzz2YlrcAnrg) NGBowing to reality, the North Korean government has lifted all restrictions on private markets - a last-resort option for a regime desperate to prevent its people from starving. In recent weeks, according to North Korea observers and defector groups with sources in the country, Kim Jong-il's government admitted its inability to solve the food shortage and encouraged its people to rely on private markets to buy goods. Though the policy reversal will not alter daily life - North Koreans have depended on such markets for more than 15 years - the latest order abandons all pretence of a central, planned economy. When Mr Kim revalued the currency in November, he wiped out his citizens' personal savings and struck a blow against the food distribution system sustaining his country. North Korea's latest policy reversal stands as an admission that the currency change was a failure and only capitalist-style trading can prevent famine. ''The North Korean government has tried all possible ways [for a planned economy] and failed, and it now has to resort to the last option,'' said Koh Yu-hwan, a professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University in Seoul.¶ ''There's been lots of back and forth in what the government has been willing to tolerate, and I cannot rule out the possibility of them trying to bring back restrictions on the markets. But it is hard for the government to reverse it now.''¶ Because North Korea operates in secrecy, outside observers rely on informants and accounts from defectors. In this case, experts agree the food shortage is dire. Several analysts who travel to North Korea agree that in recent weeks Pyongyang has abandoned almost all rules about who can spend money and when. That would seem to indicate that Mr Kim - who once equated free-market trading with ''egotism'' and a collapse of social order - now wants to rehabilitate markets that were damaged months earlier. ¶ Since May 26, the government no longer forces markets to close at 6pm or 7 pm, has dropped the rule restricting customers to women older than 40, and has lifted a ban on certain goods being sold.¶ An official in Pyungsung told the Good Friends humanitarian group that living standards had ''drastically decreased since the currency exchange, and the government cannot provide distribution so they have to bring the market back up''.¶ The Good Friends newsletter quoted the official in the city as saying: ''There are increasing deaths from starvation so opening [the] market is a reasonable resolution. Death due to starvation has gone out of control.''¶ In the mid-1990s, amid a total collapse of the central planned economy, about 1 million people died of starvation. Meanwhile, North Koreans turned to small markets for trading and buying supplies.¶ North Korea is now best described as a dictatorship with a de facto market economy, and because of that, the nation maintains a stronger line of defence against starvation - one that did not exist during the famine.¶ According to analysts, Pyongyang's latest reaction suggests it is struggling to secure the necessary aid from China.

Gender Equality

2AC Gender EqualityNeoliberalism solves gender equalityPeralo, 12 finance specialist, entrepreneur and liberty activist from Manhattan NY. This is after years of high school spent studying economics, working on businesses and apps, working for orgs and writing. Now graduating high school he decided to pursue not going to college in order to work and develop a core curriculum of study based on actually solving problems through doing deals, writing, working for non-profits and building real businesses. (“Free Markets Create Rights For Women” 8/4/12 http://www.turningpointusa.net/free-markets-create-rights-women/) //NG A trending topic is the wage gap argument and governments role in preventing sexism. Enough so that the vice president would say his wife and also the president’s wife would not have had the ability to become successful without the government. Examining history and current economic realities, one could say that sexism has indeed existed for thousands of years. Yet with a more rationalist approach and examination of market perspective evidence can suggest sexism never existed in a time where the world had free markets. This evidence presents a case that the methods being used today could be flawed and it’s simply breeding a group of people opposed to free markets and seek government to answer problems. The case for saying that markets can produce sexism for women would be shown in the past and partially the present. In the voting bloc, women make up the majority of all voters surpassing men. So it’s often times a common political tool for politicians favoring more controlled markets to say that they will help women. Enough so that politicians will make specialized ads geared for women voters. Yet what tends to happen is a series of women who are less conservative and more on the controlled market ends. Examining this, history tends to lead on the side in many people’s eyes for markets producing sexism. Also in less developed nations, women tend to have fewer rights. Yet the first thing to look at would be what rights have women historically been denied. The most common things they are denied are the rights to divorce, rights to vote and rights to own property. All of those things are very immoral and are opposed by nearly every member of society in developed countries. Yet what do laws saying women cannot own property, divorce or vote have anything to do with free markets? If anything, historical evidence is presented that government in these cases cause problems for women. So while more progressive politicians tend to say their free market opponents will bring women’s rights backwards, virtually none of their opponents in at least the last 100 years have been in favor of bringing back those oppressive laws. ¶ Taking a look at history, the other thing to wonder would be why “sexism” even started. Examining this key thing falls into examining demands for labor. Before the 20th century, labor was dominantly blue collar jobs. Than jobs that were white collar, such as, medicine and law each required years of training. So for women, they could not perform as well in blue collar fields that required harder labor as well as men. Also for white collar jobs women were not equipped the same way as men due to pregnancy. Women for thousands of years on average would have kids in their teens or early 20’s mainly for health purposes¶ and what was seen as women being needed in the home. So it would never really be a wise investment for women to get an education based on that.¶ So what leads the rise to women’s rights in the workplace was a demand for low skilled white collar careers. With the 1920’s labor there was a rise in accountants, lawyers and other careers in the office. For this secretaries were used and many young women would hold those jobs. Than with WW2, the demand would grow, for 13% of Americans would take some military service. Therefore, women would work even more. So women gained entrance into the workplace out of demand. They started with white collar careers that weren’t very time intensive. Then moving to a much larger percentage when more men went to serve in war. This presents the case that women were not discriminated on historically. It shows that women were unable to work originally due to most jobs being more physically intensive and white collar careers being seen as a bad investment due to the increased training needed being interrupted by pregnancy and parenthood. Today, labor is seen as something everyone engages. The days of women staying at the farm waiting for a husband have long ended. This can be seen in many ways a thanks to capitalism and innovation. For these new technologies created it makes it much easier for women to have children in their 30′s, 40′s and even 50′s without losing the child or

themselves. This has lead to half of women in the US having children at age 30 or over. This has lead to an age where more women go to college directly out of high school than men in the United States. With this and more managed schedules there has been a rise in female entrepreneurs such as Meg Whitman, a surge in female politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and other notable figures in today’s world. Examining market trends it seems like there is today only one notable thing to suggest gender discrimination exists in today’s market place. Many progressive politicians have called for equal pay laws to end discrimination in more recent times and are used as a tool in elections for them to get the majority of female vote’s election after election. The most common is stating that women make only 75% of what men do in the US. Yet many economists, such as known Austrian economics professor Steve Horwitz have said women don’t make less than men. This being due to women with the same education, career and work experience making 98% of what men do. The 75% statistic takes both men and women regardless of career or choice to have children or not. So women are known to get majors and go into fields that have less market value where men work in fields such as engineering which normally make more. Then things such as having children could make a very long career gap for women that could last as long as a decade or more. So it’s smarter for women to pick careers such as teaching where it’s easier to make a return. These show there are some market strengths in women choosing lower income fields due to them being somewhat easier to return to those fields. Taking a look at the Horwitz statistics it presents evidence there is no discrimination, but simply choices made for various reasons that lead to women earning less. With all considered looking at the last hundred years many contribute the rise of women in the workplace as a result of government involvement and regulation. Yet examining many things carefully it seems that the “discrimination” can be identified as natural behavior away from the market. Yet still the bigger thing to note would be sexism in the home, where men don’t have an equal amount of parental responsibilities as women and women trade careers for kids in this process. So perhaps the market shouldn’t be the thing to examine, but the home itself. Figuring this out it presents a case that women shouldn’t vote against capitalism, but should vote with it.

Patriarchy causes extinctionWarren & Cady 94 [Professors of Philosophy at Macalester College & Hamline University Karen and Duane, “Hypatia”, Spring, 1994. Proquest]The notion of patriarchy as a socially dysfunctional system enables feminist philosophers to show why conceptual connections are so important and how conceptual connections are linked to the variety of other sorts of woman-nature-peace connections. In addition, the claim that patriarchy is a dysfunctional social system locates what ecofeminists see as various "dysfunctionalities" of patriarchy-the empirical invisibility of what women do, sexist-warist-naturist language, violence toward women, other cultures, and nature-in a historical, socioeconomic, cultural, and political context.(10) To say that patriarchy is a dysfunctional system is to say that the fundamental beliefs, values, attitudes and assumptions (conceptual framework) of patriarchy give rise to impaired thinking, behaviors, and institutions which are unhealthy for humans, especially women, and the planet. The following diagram represents the features of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system: Patriarchy, as an Up-Down system of power-over relationships of domination of women by men, is conceptually grounded in a faulty patriarchal belief and value system, (a), according to which (some) men are rational and women are not rational, or at least not rational in the more highly valued way (some) men are rational; reason and mind are more important than emotion and body; that humans are justified in using female nature simply to satisfy human consumptive needs. The discussion above of patriarchal conceptual frameworks describes the characteristics of this faulty belief system. Patriarchal conceptual frameworks sanction, maintain, and perpetuate impaired thinking, (b): For example, that men can control women's inner lives, that it is men's role to determine women's choices, that human superiority over nature justifies human exploitation of nature, that women are closer to nature than men because they are less rational, more emotional, and respond in more instinctual ways than (dominant) men. The discussions above at (4) and (5), are examples of the linguistic and psychological forms such impaired thinking can take.  Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the unmanageability, (d), which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual

harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-masochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to "rape the earth," that it is "man's God-given right" to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for "progress." And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current "unmanageability" of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental destruction, and violence toward women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors--the symptoms of dysfunctionality--that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this "unmanageability" can be seen for what it is--as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.(11) The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature (see Russell 1989, 2). Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that "a militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54). Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.

Overpopulation

2AC OverpopulationNo impact to overpopulation – neoliberalism checksOsterfield, 93 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph’s College in Rensselaer, Indiana (David Osterfield “Overpopulation: The Perennial Myth - The prospect of the Malthusian nightmare is growing steadily more remote.” 9/1/93 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/overpopulation-the-perennial-myth#axzz2YazONZHk) //NG“What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint) is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us . . . . In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”¶ This was not written by professional doomsayer Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968). It is not found in the catastrophist works of Donella and Dennis Meadows (The Limits to Growth, 1972; Beyond the Limits, 1992). Nor did it come from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State’s pessimistic assessment of the world situation, The Global 2000 Report to the President (1980).¶ It did not even come from Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on Population (1798) in the late eighteenth century is the seminal work to which much of the modern concern about overpopulation can be traced. And it did not come from Botero, a sixteenth-century Italian whose work anticipated many of the arguments advanced by Malthus two centuries later.¶ The opening quotation was penned by Tertullian, a resident of the city of Carthage in the second century, when the population of the world was about 190 million, or only three to four percent of what it is today. And the fear of overpopulation did not begin with Tertullian. One finds similar concerns expressed in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in the fourth century B.C., as well as in the teachings of Confucius as early as the sixth century B.C.¶ From the period before Christ, men have been worried about overpopulation. Those concerns have become ever more frenzied. On an almost daily basis we are fed a barrage of stories in the newspapers and on television—complete with such appropriately lurid headlines as “Earth Near the Breaking Point” and “Population Explosion Continues Unabated”—predicting the imminent starvation of millions because population is outstripping the food supply. We regularly hear that because of population growth we are rapidly depleting our resource base with catastrophic consequences looming in our immediate future. We are constantly told that we are running out of living space and that unless something is done, and done immediately, to curb population growth, the world will be covered by a mass of humanity, with people jammed elbow to elbow and condemned to fight for each inch of space.¶ The catastrophists have been predicting doom and gloom for centuries. Perhaps the single most amazing thing about this perennial exercise is that the catastrophists seem never to have stopped quite long enough to notice that their predictions have never materialized. This probably says more about the catastrophists themselves than anything else. Catastrophism is characterized by intellectual arrogance. It’s been said of Thomas Malthus, for example, that he underestimated everyone’s intelligence but his own. Whenever catastrophists confront a problem for which they cannot imagine a solution, the catastrophists conclude that no one else in the world will be able to think of one either. For example, in Beyond the Limits, the Meadows tell us that crop yields, at least in the Western world, have reached their peak. Since the history of agriculture is largely a history of increasing yields per acre, one would be interested in knowing how they arrived at such a significant and counter-historical conclusion. Unfortunately, such information is not forthcoming.¶ Overpopulation¶ But isn’t the world overpopulated? Aren’t we headed toward catastrophe? Don’t more people mean less food, fewer resources, a lower standard of living, and less living space for everyone? Let’s look at the data.¶ As any population graph clearly shows, the world has and is experiencing a population explosion that began in the eighteenth century. Population rose sixfold in the next 200 years. But this explosion was accompanied, and in large part made possible, by a productivity explosion, a resource explosion, a food explosion, an information explosion, a communications explosion, a science explosion, and a medical explosion. ¶ The result was that the sixfold increase in world population was dwarfed by the eighty-fold increase in world output. As real incomes rose, people were able to live healthier lives. Infant mortality rates plummeted and life expectancies soared. According to anthropologists, average life expectancy could never have been less than 20 years or the human race would not have survived. In 1900 the average world life expectancy was about 30 years. In 1993 it is just over 65 years. Nearly 80 percent of the increase in world life expectancy has taken place in just the last 90 years! That is arguably one of the single most astonishing accomplishments in the history of humanity. It is also one of the least noted.¶ But doesn’t this amazing accomplishment create precisely the overpopulation problem about which the catastrophists have been warning us? The data clearly

show that this is not the case. “Overpopulation” cannot stand on its own. It is a relative term. Overpopulation must be overpopulation relative to something, usually food, resources, and living space. The data show that all three variables are, and have been, increasing more rapidly than population.¶ Food. Food production has outpaced population growth by, on average, one percent per year ever since global food data began being collected in the late 1940s. There is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world. And there is a consensus among experts that global food production could be increased dramatically if needed. The major problem for the developed countries of the world is food surpluses. In the United States, for example, millions of acres of good cropland lie unused each year. Many experts believe that even with no advances in science or technology, we currently have the capacity to feed adequately, on a sustainable basis, 40 to 50 billion people, or about eight to ten times the current world population. And we are currently at the dawn of a new agricultural revolution, biotechnology, which has the potential to increase agricultural productivity dramatically.¶ Where people are hungry, it is because of war (Somalia, Ethiopia) or government policies that, in the name of modernization and industrialization, penalize farmers by taxing them at prohibitive rates (e.g., Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya), not because population is exceeding the natural limits of what the world can support.¶ Significantly, during the decade of the 1980s, agricultural prices in the United States, in real terms, declined by 38 percent. World prices followed similar trends and today a larger proportion of the world’s people are better fed than at any time in recorded history. In short, food is becoming more abundant.¶ Resources. Like food, resources have become more abundant over time. Practically all resources, including energy, are cheaper now than ever before. Relative to wages, natural resource prices in the United States in 1990 were only one-half what they were in 1950, and just one-fifth their price in 1900. Prices outside the United States show similar trends.¶ But how can resources be getting more abundant? Resources are not things that we find in nature. It is ideas that make things resources. If we don’t know how to use something, it is not a resource. Oil is a perfect example. Prior to the 1840s oil was a liability rather than a resource. There was little use for it and it would often seep to the surface and get into the water supply. It was only with the dawn of the machine age that a use was discovered for this “slimy ooze.”¶ Our knowledge is even more important than the physical substance itself, and this has significant ramifications: More people mean more ideas. There is no reason, therefore, that a growing population must mean declining resource availability. Historically, the opposite has been true. Rapidly growing populations have been accompanied by rapidly declining resource prices as people have discovered new ways to use existing resources as well as uses for previously unused materials.¶ But an important caveat must be introduced here. For the foregoing to occur, the political and economic institutions must be right. A shortage of a good or service, including a resource, will encourage a search both for additional supplies and for substitutes. But this is so only if those who are successful are able to profit from their effort. This is precisely what classical liberalism, with its emphasis on private property and the free market, accomplishes. A shortage of a particular resource will cause its price to rise, and the lure of profit will attract entrepreneurs anxious to capitalize on the shortage by finding solutions, either additional supplies of the existing material or the development of an entirely new method of supplying the service. Communicating through the use of fiber optics rather than copper cable is a case in point.¶ Entrepreneurs typically have drawn scientists and others with relevant expertise into the field by paying them to work on the problem. Thus, the market automatically ensures that those most likely to find solutions to a particular problem, such as a shortage of an important resource, are drawn into positions where they can concentrate their efforts on finding solutions to the problem. To cite just a single example, a shortage of ivory for billiard balls in nineteenth-century England led to the invention of celluloid, followed by the entire panoply of plastics.¶ In the absence of an efficient and reliable way to match up expertise with need, our efforts are random. And in the absence of suitable rewards for satisfying the needs of society, little effort will be forthcoming. It was certainly no accident that the takeoff, both in population growth and economic growth, dates from the decline of mercantilism and extensive government economic regulations in the eighteenth century, and the emergence in the Western world of a relatively free market, characterized by private property, low taxes, and little government interference.¶ In

every category—per capita income, life expectancy, infant mortality, cars, telephones, televisions, radios per person—the performance of the more free market countries far surpasses the more interventionist countries. The differences are far too large as well as systematic to be attributed to mere chance.¶ Living Space. But even if food and resources are becoming more abundant, certainly this can’t be true for living space. After all, the world is a finite place and the more people in it, the less space there is for everyone. In a statistical sense this is true, of course. But it is also irrelevant. For example, if the entire population of the world were placed in the state of Alaska, every individual would receive nearly 3,500 square feet of space, or about one-half the size of the average American family homestead with front and back yards. Alaska is a big state, but it is a mere one percent of the earth’s land mass. Less than one-half of one percent of the world’s ice-free land area is used for human settlements.¶ But perhaps “living space” can be measured more meaningfully by looking at such things as the number of houses, the amount of floor space, or the number of rooms per person. There are more houses, more floor space, and more rooms per person than ever before. In short, like both food and resources, living space is, by any meaningful measure, becoming more abundant.¶ Finally, it should be noted that the population explosion has begun to fizzle. Population growth peaked at 2.1 percent per year in the late 1960s and has declined to its present rate of 1.7 percent. There is no doubt that this trend will continue since, according to the latest information supplied by the World Health Organization, total fertility rates (the number of births per woman) have declined from 4.5 in 1970 to just 3.3 in 1990. That is exactly fifty percent of the way toward a fertility rate of 2.1, which would eventually bring population growth to a halt.¶ Everything is not fine. There are many problems in the world. Children are malnourished. But the point that cannot be ignored is that all of the major economic trends are in the right direction. Things are getting better.¶ Contrary to the constant barrage of doomsday newspaper and television stories, the data clearly show that the prospect of the Malthusian nightmare is growing steadily more remote. The natural limits of what the earth can support are steadily receding, not advancing. Population growth is slowing while the supplies of food, resources, and even living space are increasing. Moreover, World Bank data show that real wages are increasing, which means that people are actually becoming more scarce.¶ In short, although there are now more people in the world than ever before, by any meaningful measure the world is actually becoming relatively less populated.

ExtinctionKolankiewicz 10 [Leon, environmental scientist and national natural resources planner, masters in environmental planning from U of British Columbia, worked with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation, U Wash, U New Mexico; Policy Brief #10-1, "From Big to Bigger How Mass Immigration and Population Growth Have Exacerbated America's Ecological Footprint." Progressives for Immigration Reform, http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/2010/03/05/from-big-to-bigger-how-mass-immigration-and-population-growth-have-exacerbated-americas-ecological-footprint/]In essence, if we American “Bigfeet” do not opt for a different demographic path than the one we are treading now, Ecological Footprint analysis indicates unequivocally that we will continue plodding ever deeper into the forbidden zone of Ecological Overshoot, trampling our prospects for a sustainable future. Incidentally, we would also be trampling the survival prospects for many hundreds of endangered species with which we share our country. These birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, butterflies, mussels, and other taxa are menaced with extinction by our aggressive exploitation of nearly every ecological niche, nook, and cranny. In nature, no organism in overshoot remains there for long. Sooner or later, ecosystem and/or population collapse ensues. Are we humans, because of our unique scientific acumen, immune from the laws of nature that dictate the implacable terms of existence to all other species on the planet? Our political, economic, and cultural elites seem to think so, and en masse, we certainly act so. Yet ironically, many scientists themselves believe otherwise: that all-too-human hubris, unless checked by collective wisdom and self-restraint, will prove to be our undoing, and that civilization as we know it may unravel.44

Pharmaceuticals

2AC PharmaceuticalsGlobalization is key to the pharmaceutical industry Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MRTrade also entails trade in essential drugs, which tend to be in short supply and overly expensive, due to faulty domestic distribution and procurement strategies (Foster, 1991) as well as major pharmaceutical firms’ resistance to producing generic drugs (Shadlen, 2007; Turshen, 2001). Given these high prices, greater incorporation into the international economic system is an important means of obtaining the scarce foreign exchange needed to buy essential drugs. More generally, breakthroughs in medical technology have led to the development of vaccines and essential medicines, which enhanced welfare outcomes, leading to declining mortality rates in Asia, Africa, and Latin America (UNDP, 2001).

Solves bioterrorThompson 2   Secretary of Health and Human Services (Tommy G., "CDC, Pharmaceutical Companies Counter Bioterror Threat," 4/11 http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-se1295.html)The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers are joining forces to better educate health care providers about how to recognize and respond to a bioterror attack. In an April 11 news conference in Washington, representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson explained that as many as 80,000 drug company representatives across the country could become involved in the distribution of CDC information about bioterrorism. "When pharmaceutical firms distribute CDC material to health care providers and when America's leading pharmaceutical firms go to work preparing for infectious disease outbreaks with new vaccines and drugs, we're seeing the kind of public-private partnership the American people need now more than ever," said Thompson at the press conference. "It's a smart partnership, one that will provide another outlet for doctors to learn all they can about public health issues." The first guide to be distributed describes the symptoms and treatment for anthrax. Spores of this sometimes-fatal disease were sent through the U.S. mails in a bioterror attack late last year which was primarily centered in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Florida. Five people died, and hundreds who were potentially exposed to the disease took antibiotics as a precautionary measure. As director of the D.C. Department of Health, Dr. Ivan Walks was on the front lines of that episode. At the April 11 press conference he emphasized the value of the new CDC-PhRMA effort. "These informational guides provided by America's pharmaceutical companies will serve as a powerful reference tool and will help us to address our patients' fears in a timely manner," he said. Good morning, and thank you so very much, everyone, for coming. We have an exciting announcement to make today, and I appreciate all of you being here. Right after the attacks of September 11th, PhRMA leaders came to my office to volunteer whatever drugs, researchers and physicians they could to help us address the public health needs we were facing. This was an extraordinary gesture, and I will never forget it. And then I spoke to PhRMA leaders about what we were doing to prepare. We have made great strides in preparing America for any future bioterror event as we have partnered together. Our relationship is a wonderful example of the kind of public-private partnership that is so important to the health and well-being of every American. For example, the CDC - Publishes breaking reports on bioterror and public health-related news in its "Morbidity Mortality Weekly Reports;" --Produces fact sheets, guidelines, news briefs and announcements on its Web site, which has received more than six million visits and 14 million requests for information since September 11th; --And video and satellite broadcasts

about bioterrorism are available on-line via the CDC Web site. In addition, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an agency within H-H-S, initiated a new Web site to teach hospital-based physicians and nurses how to diagnose and treat rare infections and exposures to bioterrorist agents such as anthrax and smallpox. . . . The site offers online courses emergency department clinicians, including physicians, nurses, radiologists, pathologists and infection control practitioners. You can check it out at www.bioterrorism.uab.edu. I should also note that PhRMA announced just a few days ago that more than 100 firms are at work developing 256 medicines and vaccines for infectious diseases. Some of these firms are working with the Department of Defense as they consider what kinds of bio-agents our troops might confront abroad. The new program, which begins today as a pilot project in 13 cities, brings together the most authoritative health information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the distribution resources of pharmaceutical companies. Company sales representatives, who routinely visit health care providers, will deliver the new education guides -- the first on the topic of anthrax diagnosis and treatment -- to doctors' offices, hospitals, health care clinics and pharmacies. "With more than 80,000 sales representatives across the country, the pharmaceutical industry has the ability to share important health information with doctors and other health care providers in all 50 states very quickly," said Alan F. Holmer, President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA The education guides being produced by PhRMA in conjunction with the CDC are designed to help health care providers answer questions posed by their patients and by others in the health care field. The guides are not intended to replace other forms of diagnosis or treatment but rather to provide health care providers with a baseline of clear, concise information that can assist them in their jobs. "In order to fight bioterrorism, health care providers must be armed with the most accurate and current information available," said Dr. Michael Friedman, PhRMA's Chief Medical Officer for Biomedical Preparedness and a Senior Vice President at Pharmacia Corporation. "Knowledge is our best weapon against this invisible enemy."

Nuclear World War III and extinctionAlexander 7 (Timothy, Former Scottish Editor of Burke’s Peerage, B.Sc. in Pol. Sc. & History; M.A. in European Studies, October 22nd, “War On Iran = You Die from Biowar”, Op Ed News, http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_lord_sti_071020_war_on_iran__3d_you_di.htm, REQ)We have been conditioned, by seeing films of mushroom clouds and images of nuclear destruction in Japan at the end of WWII, to have some understanding of the horrific effects of a nuclear war. We have NOT been conditioned to understand the effects of Twenty-first Century advanced biological war. The kill numbers are very similar, just with biowar you don't get the "big bangs", the mushroom clouds, the nuclear bombers, the ICBMs, etc. Just sub-microscopic genetically engineered super killer viruses that we have absolutely no defense against, delivered in secret, with a slow horrifying unstoppable migration through the global human population. All the fear of a naturally mutated form of "bird flu" that might kill tens of millions is simply "child's play" compared to multiple designer military viruses that are built to kill in the many hundreds of millions to billions of people globally. It costs approximately US$1 million to kill one person with nuclear weapons-of-mass destruction but only approximately US$1 to kill one person with biological weapons-of-mass destruction. Bioweapons are truly the "poor man's nukes". The Iranians are known to have a biological weapons program and they, and their allies, certainly have the means to deliver biowar agents into the Israeli and European and North American homelands. Bioweapons do not have to be dispersed via missiles or bombs, they are perfect for non-traditional normally non-military delivery systems. Being very small (there are, for example, typically approximately 40 million bacterial cells in every gram of soil and massively more viruses in the same gram), they lend themselves to an enormous variety of non-detectable methodologies for delivery and use in war, both regionally and globally. What is being missed here, with all the talk of Iran developing nuclear weapons or not (depending on one's viewpoint), is that Iran is already a state that possesses WMD. HELLO, ANY WAR WITH IRAN IS HIGHLY APT TO INVOLVE LARGE SCALE DEATHS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE IRANIAN WMD THREAT. Hello again, this means that YOU...the person

reading this...is apt to die from biowar in event of a war with Iran! We are in a MAD....mutually assured destruction....pre-war state with Iran, just as we are with Russia and and to a lessor extent with China when it comes to nuclear weapons. A famous line from the movie "Wargames" (referring to engaging in nuclear war and the odds of "winning" such a war) is "the only winning move is not to play". Sad to say, this does not seem to have any bearing on the apocalyptic strategy of the neocon push for war with Iran. The nature of biowar is that it is a "gift that keeps on giving". Once released, advanced recombination DNA based viral bioweapons will continue to spread and kill and kill ....regardless if Iran (and its ally Syria) are but a sea of green radioactive glass devoid of all life. With advanced biowar agents, it is not the quantity that counts but the quality; humans themselves become the vectors and delivery systems of the bioweapons. It does not require large amounts of weapons running into the millions or billions of tons of high explosives; nor does it require ICBMs and cruise missiles and $100 million dollar warplanes to deliver the bioweapons. A very small group of human assets, prepositioned with small amounts of easily hidden biowar weapons (submicroscopic viruses), in the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and America can begin the process that will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions or even billions of human beings. When you get right down to it, does it matter if you die from some exotic bioengineered hemorrhagic fever or from radiation poisoning/nuclear blast .......dead is still dead. To begin to understand the truly horrific nature of the biowar threat, one only has to look to history for some "mild" examples. The Black Death bubonic pandemic, believed caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, is estimated to have killed between a third and two-thirds of Europe's population after it spread to Europe in 1347 from South-western/Central Asia. Yersinia pestis, being a bacteria is massive when compared to a virus, and is easily treated with modern antibiotics. However, the Soviet Union's Biopreparat organization turned Black Death from a medieval plague into a 20th Century bioweapon. The Yersinia pestis bacteria was exposed to every then-known antibiotic, in a process that any advanced high school or early undergraduate college level biology class student could undertake, and the resulting antibiotic resistant Y. pestis was bred and loaded into a small number of Soviet ICBMs aimed at America. The resistant Y. pestis had also been exposed to various levels of radiation to "radiation harden" the bacteria. The intent was to hit American survivors of a nuclear war with a new and untreatable form of Black Death that itself could survive the effects of nuclear fallout. As frighting as a totally antibiotic resistant Yersinia pestis bacteria is, it remains "child's play" compared to the more advanced recombination DNA technology used in most biowar programs. This typically involves the recombining of viral DNA into new virus, "designer virus". The Soviets, years ago, engineered a new virus that combined elements of Smallpox and Ebola. With the genetic engineering of viruses those doing the "designing" can engineer into the virus a wide number of different characteristics. For instance, an advanced hemorrhagic fever can be designed to be: airborne (capable of being transmitted via sneezing), with a very small amount of viral material required to infect a human host, with a incubation period of 14 days or longer, with most of the incubation period that is both highly contagious and at best looks like a mild version of the common cold, with the resulting hemorrhagic fever having a mortality of 90% or more. The same technology can be used to create a large number of different viruses which can all be released on a target population at the same time, vastly complicating detection and containment and treatment programs. In fact the normal research and development process used in genetic engineering results in a large number of different new viruses. Those nations not directly involved in a strike upon Iran, that is most of the rest of the world, will nevertheless face massive deaths within their nations...they will lose more of their citizens to the war, that we are about to unleash, than they lost in World War II and ALL THE OTHER WARS IN HISTORY COMBINED. Needless to say, this will have a profound effect on their actions towards those nations who have started the mess in the first place. The global military, political, economic, and medical chaos resulting from global biowar will make the use of nuclear weapons a likely outcome as America, the U nited K ingdom, France and other nations starting the war will be seen as out-of-control "mad dogs" who have unleashed World War III. The Book of Revelations speaks of one-third of the world dying, in the Final Battle, from plague ....biowar; and another one-third of the world dying from "wormwood"....which we now know to be nuclear war effects ...Chernobyl, which comes from the Ukrainian word "chornobyl", translates into wormwood (or its close relative mugwort). (Chernobyl is the site of a massive uncontrolled nuclear meltdown disaster in the Ukraine on the 26th of April 1986). We are in a period of extreme danger to us all. Even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 60s. Yet far too many people are so uneducated as to the real dangers from advanced Twenty-first Century biowar that they are totally blind to the profound risk to their own lives.

Poverty

2AC Poverty – Mexico Inequality in Mexico is plummeting – increased trade integration Lustig et al 11 – *Department of Economics Tulane University, **Analyst, RBLAC-UNDP, ***Consultant, World Bank (Nora Lustig*, Luis F. Lopez-Calva**, and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez*** “The Decline in Inequality in Latin America: How Much, Since When and Why” Tulane Economics Working Paper Series, April 2011, http://proyectograduacion.org/biblioteca/admin/upload/archivos/online/Tulane_Decline_Inequality_Latin_America_2011.pdf) MRAfter a period of rising inequality in the 1980s and first half of the 1990s, Mexico’s income inequality has declined (Figure 5). Between 1996 and 2008, Mexico’s Gini coefficient fell from 0.5472 to 0.5052 or by 4.2 percentage points.33 The income of the bottom 20 percent grew more than twice as fast as the income of the top ten percent. Contrary to expectations, the faster growth of incomes at the bottom of the distribution happened during a period of lackluster aggregate economic growth. After the 1995 peso crisis, when GDP contracted by around 8 percent, the economy quickly recovered. Between 1996 and 2000 Mexico’s per capita GDP grew at a rate of 4 percent per year. However, between 2000 and 2008, per capita GDP grew at around 1 percent per year. Mexico –like Brazil- experienced a period of slow, and perhaps paradoxically, pro-poor growth. The decline in inequality coincided with the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement

( NAFTA ) in 1994. It also coincided with a shift in government spending patterns. Since the early 1990s, public spending on education, health and nutrition has become more progressive. In 1997 the Mexican government launched the conditional cash transfer program Progresa (later called Oportunidades), a large-scale anti-poverty program which reached around five million poor households – around 14.8% of households in 2006. Decomposition analysis suggests that the reduction in the inequality of labor income per working adult (labor earnings per worker from wages and from self-emplo.yment) was the most important contributor to the reduction in inequality.34 In the 2000s, it accounted for 65.5 percent of the decline in household per capita income inequality. What caused the distribution of labor income per working adult to change from being an unequalizing factor in the early 1990s to an equalizing one thereafter? Hours worked changed very little. In fact, they fell slightly for the bottom quintiles, an inequality-increasing change. It is the changes in the relative hourly wages what caused the switch. Starting in the mid-1990s, the premium to skills --measured by the gap between the wages of more educated workers and workers with little or no education-- fell systematically. Changes in the returns to education accounted for a significant share of the rise in household per capita income inequality between 1984 and 1994.35 During the period of declining inequality (mid 1990s to 2006) the opposite occurred; returns to education became an equalizing factor. The distribution of the stock of education in the labor force became more equal too. The combined effect of a fall in the returns to education and the decline in inequality in educational attainment was a reduction in labor income (per worker) inequality. Both the price and quantity effects were equalizing. During this period, the reduction in wage inequality happened because workers with lower levels of education and/or fewer years of experience had the largest increases in their average wages. Both demand- and supply-side factors must have contributed to the reduction in the premium to skills. The demand-side factors have been associated with the greater integration of production with the U nited

States following NAFTA. An examination of the changes in the composition of the labor force by education and experience and the corresponding relative wages suggests that the wage increases for low-skilled workers seem to be also correlated with a shift in the composition of labor supply by education and experience (Figure 6). The share of workers with less than lower secondary education (and more than 20 years of experience) declined from almost 55 percent of the workforce in 1989 to about one third by 2006. The reduction in the relative supply of workers with low levels of skills (measured by school attainment) might be associated with the increase in average years of schooling for the bottom two quintiles, which reduced schooling inequality considerably between 1994 and 2006 (Figure 7). In turn, the latter may be due to changes in public spending on education in the 1990s which expanded basic education considerably.

Neoliberalism reduces systemic impacts of natural disasters – Mexico provesIBD, 12 national newspaper in the United States, published Monday through Friday, that covers international business, finance, and the global economy.

(Investor’s Business Daily “Free Markets Shield Mexico From Earthquake Disaster” 3/22/13 http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032212-605315-mexico-embraces-free-markets-and-beats-earthquakes.htm#ixzz2Z8wN4200) //NGFree Markets: Huge 7.4 quake. Third World country. And incredibly, nobody dies. While that makes it "not news" to the TV cameras, in reality, it is news — a very big story about what embracing markets does for places like Mexico.¶ The major earthquake that rocked southern Mexico Tuesday, including the capital of Mexico City, caused houses to "bounce like trampolines," according to Reuters. But 24 hours into the news cycle, it looks to be little more than a one-day story.¶ As it's said in the news business, if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead.¶ Too bad, because what happened in Mexico Tuesday is in fact a remarkable testimony to the power of free markets to create wealth, foster institutions, and yes, save lives in earthquakes. It deserves a closer look.¶ In 1985, Mexico City lost at least 10,000 people in an 8.0 earthquake that leveled the city. High-rises pancaked and whole sections of the capital were utterly destroyed, all due to nature's awesome destructive power. ¶ Twenty-seven years later, Mexico suffered a comparable quake and didn't lose anyone. Only a few hundred buildings in a city of 10 million were damaged. ¶ Experts will say that the imposition of "Mexico City" building standards to strengthen buildings there is responsible for the radically different outcome.¶ But we'd argue the critical factor isn't the standards — which even Haiti had when it was hit by a quake in 2010 — but that they had the ability to put them in place.¶ Mexico is now a country where free trade, fiscal discipline, private pensions, a friendliness to foreign investment and a slowly emerging liberalization and rule of law have left the majority of the population now squarely in the middle class. It is no longer poor. ¶ Although Mexico is mainly reported in the news as a land of drug lords and illegal aliens, the market reforms it's been slowly enacting have made it the 13th-largest economy in the world. ¶ Its per-capita income is now $16,000, a huge rise since 1994, when NAFTA went into effect. Fiscal discipline has given it an investment-grade credit rating from Standard & Poor's. Its stock market has risen 600% in 18 years — not bad.¶ These numbers aren't mere abstractions. They mean that Mexico has enough wealth to comply with the global standards and enough acceptance of the rule of law to ensure enforcement of the standards is widespread.¶ Could the lack of damage have been a fluke? Well, Mexicali had nearly the same result when it was hit by a 7.2 quake on Easter Sunday in 2010.¶ The fact is, rich countries and states can withstand big quakes, as Mexico, Chile and even California show.¶ Yes, Mexico's political system continues to need deep reforms to be worthy of its free-market economy.¶ Even so, there's no doubt that it was capitalism, free markets and the economic muscle they created that saved lives when Mother Nature struck.

2AC Poverty – LA Neoliberalism solves inequality and poverty in Latin America Haslam 12 – School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa (Paul Alexander Haslam, “Globalization in Latin America and Its Critics” International Studies Association, Volume 14, Issue 2, June 19 2012, Wiley Online Library) MR After 30 years of liberal economic reforms and deeper integration into the world economy, is Latin America better-off? Many observers point to the poverty, exclusion, inequality, and disempowerment that continue to characterize the region. But the most recent figures suggest that the last decade has seen significant improvements in both poverty and inequality. In 1990 , the percentage of

indigent and non-indigent poor in Latin America stood at 48.3% of the population—some 200 million people. Twelve years later in 2002, the poor had declined to 44%, but due to population growth, the number of poor had increased to 221 million people. By 2009, the last year for which figures are available, the indigent and non-indigent poor had declined to 32.1% of the population, or 183 million people. These recent numbers are significantly lower, in percentage terms, than pre-crisis Latin America, circa 1980. Even the global financial crisis of 2008 only added 3 million more people to the ranks of the poor (Economic Commission for Latin America, the Caribbean (ECLAC) 2010:11). Inequality has also declined over the 2002–2009 period, with the Gini coefficient falling slightly and the income gap narrowing in the vast majority of countries (ibid.:15). The story of the last decade, therefore, has been relatively effective poverty and inequality reduction in Latin America—at the same time that the region has deepened its integration with the world economy . The reasons for this turnaround, and the sustainability of the changes, are important subjects of debate. Something has changed in the region. Some cite the rise of the new left, macro-economic stability, and the commodity boom that has swelled government coffers. Others claim that politics has also become more authentically representative, social programs are being better targeted on the poor, and the education gap has diminished.

2AC Poverty – LA – Uniqueness Inequality in Latin America has fallen across the board – Gini coefficient proves Lustig et al 11 – *Department of Economics Tulane University, **Analyst, RBLAC-UNDP, ***Consultant, World Bank (Nora Lustig*, Luis F. Lopez-Calva**, and Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez*** “The Decline in Inequality in Latin America: How Much, Since When and Why” Tulane Economics Working Paper Series, April 2011, http://proyectograduacion.org/biblioteca/admin/upload/archivos/online/Tulane_Decline_Inequality_Latin_America_2011.pdf) MRInequality is a distinctive feature of Latin America due to its high level and persistence (Figure 1).3 However, after rising in the 1990s, income inequality in the region has declined while it has increased in other parts of the world (Figure 2).4 For the region as a whole, the Gini coefficient declined from an average of 0.529 in 2000 to 50.9 in 2009. Of the 17 countries for which comparable data exist, 13 experienced a decline in their Gini coefficient during this period. (Figure 3) This widespread decline in inequality is remarkable . Inequality in Latin America is the result of state-capture on the part of predatory elites, capital market imperfections, inequality of opportunities (in particular, in terms of access to good quality education), labor market segmentation, and discrimination against women and non-whites.5 Hence, the observed fall in inequality is good news both in terms of fairness and efficiency. Is the decline in inequality significant? Is it robust? Are there common factors that explain it? What was the role played by labor markets and social expenditures? After analyzing the evolution of inequality in Latin America, this paper summarizes the findings of the UNDPsponsored project “Markets, the State and the Dynamics of Inequality in Latin America.” for Argentina (urban),6 Brazil, Mexico, and Peru, a representative sample of Latin America’s diversity in terms of initial inequality and economic growth.7 The analysis suggests that the decline in inequality is robust to the selection of the time interval, inequality measure and data source. It also suggests that there are two phenomena underlying this new trend that are present in the four countries: (i) a fall in the premium to skilled labor and (ii) higher and more progressive government transfers. Latin America was already a region of sharp income inequality before the debt crisis and structural reforms of the 1980s and 1990s when inequality rose in most countries. Around 2000, the rising trend in inequality came to a halt (Figure 2). Since then, and based on the SEDLAC’s data,8 the Gini coefficient has declined in 13 out of 17 countries for which comparable data are available (Figure 3). The decline in inequality has been widespread. Inequality has fallen in high inequality Brazil and low (by Latin American standards) inequality Argentina and Venezuela; countries with a large share of indigenous population (Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) and countries with a low share (Argentina); countries governed by the left (Brazil and Chile) and countries governed by non-leftist regimes (Mexico and Peru); countries with a universalistic social policy (Argentina and Chile) and countries with a traditionally exclusionary state (Bolivia and El Salvador). It has declined in countries recovering from crises in the early 2000s (Argentina and Venezuela) and, during the global recession in 2009, inequality continued on its downward trend in eight of the countries for which data exist (and it rose in three). Notably, inequality has declined both in fast growing countries (Chile and Peru) and slow growing ones (Brazil and Mexico). In fact, the longest periods for which the decline could be documented correspond to Brazil and Mexico, two countries whose growth rates were rather slow in comparison.9 (Figure 4) The order of magnitude of the decline is non-trivial and, in the majority of cases, it is statistically significant. In country after country, the decline was at least equal to or higher than the increase in inequality in the preceding period (Figure 5). Of the 13 countries, the decline was not statistically significant in only two: Bolivia and Honduras (Figure 3).10 Furthermore, the results are robust to the selection of the time period,11 inequality measure (Gini, Theil and 90/10 ratio, for example) and data source (SEDLAC or UNECLAC).12 Changing the end years, using a different inequality measure, or UNECLAC as a source changes the ranking of countries and the total number that experienced a decline may be 12 instead of 13. However, the main conclusion remains intact: the decline in inequality has been widespread and, in most cases, non-trivial and statistically significant.13

1AR Poverty – LA Specifically in Latin America Neolib good-solves wealth disparities by spurring investmentFrancis et al. 2002- Bill Francis- Dr. paper for USF USF, Iftekhar Hasan – federal reserve bank scholar, Delroy Hunter- Dr. paper for USF (“Emerging Market Liberalization and the Impact on Uncovered Interest Rate Parity”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, August 2002, http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/wp0216.pdf)//ModermattIn this paper we use monthly data to establish that emerging markets typically experience significant deviations from UIRP. We then examine whether these deviations are characterized by time-varying risk premiums and the extent to which this component of excess returns is affected by the liberalization of the country’s capital market. We hypothesize that if the emerging market became integrated following capital market liberalization, then U.S. investors will not require a positive and significant risk premium for exposure to risks from investing in these countries’ currencies. Estimation results indicate that deviations from UIRP are indeed characterized by a timevarying component that is compensation for non-diversifiable risks. The results also show that the deviations from UIRP are significantly affected by the liberalization of capital markets. Interestingly, we find that the impact is regional in nature. Specifically, we find that following liberalization of the capital markets of the Latin American countries analyzed, the systematic component of deviations from UIRP increased. On the other hand, for the Asian countries examined and Turkey, apart from the financial crisis that occurred in 1997, there is a general decline in excess currency returns and the component that is compensation for non-diversifiable risk. Further, we also show that the impact of liberalization on the systematic component of currency excess returns is also significant even if we exclude the currency crisis. However, it is clear that currency crises increase emerging market segmentation. Future studies should examine the underlying forces that resulted in the contrasting effects of liberalization on UIRP across Latin American and Asian countries

Neoliberalism in Latin America solves poverty slowly but plan is key IADB 10- Inter-American Development Bank (“Trade liberalization contributed to reduce poverty in Latin America, IDB book saysBook analyzes the impact of greater globalization and trade openness on poverty and income distribution”, 4/27/10, http://www.iadb.org/en/news/news-releases/2010-04-27/poverty-and-trade-idb,7055.html)//ModermattOver the past two decades, global integration strategies for Latin America and the Caribbean have been at the center of an impassionate debate: critics of globalization often blame economic integration as the root of all development problems, while excessive enthusiasm for the benefits of trade liberalization generated unwarranted expectations. The book Trade and Poverty in Latin America, recently published by the Inter-American Bank (IDB), is the first comprehensive review of the empirical evidence for the region on this widely debated topic. The book analyses the impact of trade liberalization on income distribution and poverty in the region. It also identifies measures that ensure that trade works for development and poverty reduction. The study finds that the effects of trade liberalization on poverty reduction have been positive, even if quite small. It refutes arguments that trade integration is harmful to the poor, as well as the contrary notion that trade is a panacea for development. The book recommends that policymakers focus on using trade for development and poverty reduction. For

example, many jobs created by trade liberalization may require skilled labor, making it necessary to provide better education and technical training to ensure low-income people can access new employment opportunities.

Neoliberalism best for poverty – Chile provesBrazilian Bubble, 12 provides the business and investment community with an unbiased perspective on Brazil and other Emerging Markets. (“Here is why Chile is the best run economy in Latin America (hint: it’s all about free markets!)” 9/6/12 http://brazilianbubble.com/here-is-why-chile-is-the-best-run-economy-in-latin-america-hint-its-all-about-free-markets/) //NGChile is widely regarded as having the best-run economy in the whole Latin America. For three decades, it has been the fastest-growing economy in the region. Poverty has fallen dramatically, and living standards have soared. ¶ Since the country returned to democracy in 1990, successive left-leaning governments have combined a free-market economy with prudent government spending. Instead of wildly spending the country’s vast copper reserves – it has one-third of the world’s supplies – governments have saved a lot of these funds. As a result, Chile has one of the lowest government debt to economic output ratios in Latin America. At the same time, its inflation and interest rates are very low. Needless to say that Chile has a strong credit rating, which makes it relatively easy and cheap for it to borrow any funds it needs on the international markets.¶ But where exactly this economic prudence has come from and how it became a “Latin Tiger”? Answer: their modern thinking (“free market”) economists, mostly educated at the University of Chicago under Nobel Prize economics professor Milton Friedman.¶ “Pinochet had no clue about economics,” one of the “Chicago Boys” recalls, “and our country was in a desperate situation.” But when Pinochet asked Friedman, who had helped mold Chicago’s economics department, to provide solutions for hyperinflation, the great economist proposed just the right cure: monetary control.¶ “The economic solutions we provided for Chile had nothing extraordinary about them,” Chicago Boy Lüders said about the Miracle of Chile. “We privatized the companies, which had been nationalized by the Socialist Allende regime. We stabilized the currency. We opened the borders to trade. The strong Chilean tradition of entrepreneurship took over from there.” Pension Reform Pension reform is the best-known economic reform in Chile. Ever since the early 1980s, workers have been allowed to put 10 percent of their income into a personal retirement account. This system, implemented by José Piñera, has been remarkably successful, reducing the burden of taxes and spending and increasing saving and investment, while also producing a 50-100 percent increase in retirement benefits. Chile is now a nation of capitalists. Small Government Regarding business taxation, retained profits used to be taxed at almost 50 percent, but the tax rate was dropped to 10 percent in 1984, which eliminated a big barrier to production and freed businesses to invest more. Chile’s score for size of government shows significant improvement since 1975. The pension reform presumably helped, as did reforms that lowered the top income tax rate by almost half. Less Taxes Not surprisingly, lower tax rates generated many benefits. Chile cut out many of the loopholes that favored certain interest groups and encouraged inefficient economic choices. Tax evasion dropped significantly because businesses didn’t have to pay as much and their taxes became less complicated. Indeed, the government collected more total revenue because of the lower tax evasion. Privatizations Its massive privatization plan generated substantial benefits. Some of the major sales included the fuel distributor Copec, the main electric company Endesa, telephone and steel companies, and some of the banks, which took on private investors. The newly privatized companies had much more opportunity for development and expansion, exports increased, and new enterprises began to grow. A free market economy The regulatory burden also was decreased. The World Bank reports that it used to take up to 27 days to begin a new business in Chile; it now takes seven. Investment rose significantly, as the domestic savings did. As businesses experienced greater freedom to expand and develop, Chile saw more innovation with higher profits and savings. In other words, the “Milton Friedmanesque” reforms helped create South America’s most prosperous nation. The lesson from Chile is that free markets and small government are a recipe for prosperity.

2AC Poverty – General Trade liberalization key to poverty reduction Trabelsi* and Liouane** 13 – *High Business School of Tunis, University of Manouba, Tunisia, **High Institute of Finance and Taxation, University of Sousse, Tunisia (Mohamed Ali Trabelsi and Naoufel Liouane, “Trade Liberalization and Fight Against Poverty” International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013, ProQuest) MRTrade liberalization may have a significant impact as it would open markets for producers in developing countries (Stiglitz and Charlton, 2005) not because they can only sell their products at higher prices but also buy the most modern production equipments and increase their productivity and income. To this end, developing countries, like

developed ones, should accelerate the pace of trade negotiations in favour of a broad liberalization .

The success of these negotiations could significantly benefit the developing world and help millions of people out of poverty (World Bank, 2003). Trade development and liberalization may contribute to development and growth and lead to poverty reduction (Winters et al., 2004). Studies by the World Bank show that weak growth rates are reasons for increasing poverty. However, the works of Datt and Ravallion (1992), Ravallion and Chen (2003) and Dollar and Kraay

(2011) indicate that trade is good for growth, necessary , yet not sufficient, for poverty reduction . For them, if trade liberalization leads to faster growth, it implies in no way improvement in conditions of the poor. Indeed, UNCTAD (2004) shows that trade did not contribute to poverty reduction. Finally, Dollar and Kraay (2004) highlighted also the importance of customs duties and openness rates (exports + imports / GDP) to growth. Examining a sample of developing countries, they pointed out to a rapid growth of openness rates and significant liberalization which doubled over the period 1985-2002.

Poverty kills millions.Gilligan 2000 (James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School, VIOLENCE: REFLECTIONS ON OUR DEADLIEST EPIDEMIC, 2000, p 195-196.)The 14 t o 18 m illion deaths a y ear cause by structural violence compare with about 100,000 d e aths per y ear from armed conflict . Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a h y po t hetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S . R (232 m illion), it was clear that even war cannot begin to co m p are with structural vio l ence, which continues year after year. In other word, every f ifteen y ears, on the average, as many people die because of relative pover t y as would be ki ll ed i n a nuclear war that caused 232 m illion deaths; and every single y ear, two to three t i m es as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by t he Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

1AR Poverty – General Economic growth can replace inequities in societal thoughtPrasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR Another prominent and long-standing explanation for religious atavism and ethno-nationalism is to classify them as vestiges of earlier, feudal, or pre-modern social structures rebelling against the imperatives of a globalizing economy. The notion is that these dated attitudes and mindsets are threatened by the rise of modern transnational economic formations and for that reason are inclined to resist (Barber 1992). Conflict, then, is “The West” and “Modernism” versus “Tradition” and “Religion.” Applied to nations with an Islamic heritage, this conflict takes a specific form: “The war against modernity is for the most part neither conscious nor explicit, and is directed against the whole process of change that has taken place in the Islamic world in the past century or more and has transformed the political, economic, social, and

even cultural structures of Muslim countries” (Lewis 1992). It follows that a consequence of the rise of a global free market economy is a “Clash of Civilizations” (Huntington 1993).

But, not all the news is bad. The “modernist” argument was (and is) that the prospect of personal enrichment would, in the end, promote a modified outlook, deportment, and set of interpersonal commitments that collectively devalue and eventually eclipse older relationships and beliefs, rendering them less prevalent. To draw upon Albert Hirschman’s famous characterization, the “interests” would come to dominate the “passions,” thereby channeling individual attention toward self-enrichment (Hirschman 1977).

Trade liberalization solves povertyTrabelsi* and Liouane** 13 – *High Business School of Tunis, University of Manouba, Tunisia, **High Institute of Finance and Taxation, University of Sousse, Tunisia (Mohamed Ali Trabelsi and Naoufel Liouane, “Trade Liberalization and Fight Against Poverty” International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013, ProQuest) MRThe struggle against poverty and social inequality is one of the biggest challenges for developing countries. These countries should adapt themselves to a new economic world order characterized by trade liberalization and based on a desire to make globalization work for poorer people. Most empirical studies on the relationship between trade, inequality and poverty assume that trade contributes to increasing wage inequality in developing countries. In this paper, we studied the impact of trade liberalization on poverty on a sample of 106 developing countries during the period 1980-2010. The results indicate that trade is not the main factor affecting inequality and poverty persistence.

Globalization solves poverty – economic growth and food supplies Trabelsi* and Liouane** 13 – *High Business School of Tunis, University of Manouba, Tunisia, **High Institute of Finance and Taxation, University of Sousse, Tunisia (Mohamed Ali Trabelsi and Naoufel Liouane, “Trade Liberalization and Fight Against Poverty” International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013, ProQuest) MRAt first glance, trade policy does not seem to be the ideal weapon against poverty. The fight against poverty through trade depends on poor countries’ ability to reach wealthy countries’ markets. Unfortunately, northern countries leverage the most prohibitive trade barriers against the world’s poorest countries. According to Bairoch (1999), during the nineteenth century protectionism has been an engine of growth

in Europe and America. According to Pedregal (2007) study, these barriers cost twice the aid received by developing countries. But the elimination of costly protectionist barriers may be one of the best ways to meet the food needs of poor countries. The world produces more than enough food to feed everyone. Paradoxically, there is almost one sixth of the world’s population who suffer from malnutrition (World summit on food safety, Rome: November 16th-18th, 2009). Liberalization of world trade is only one weapon in store against poverty. As it reduces the cost of food in protectionist countries and stimulates global economy , it helps thus millions of people out of poverty (Nash and Mitchell, 2005; Trabelsi, 2011).

Trade solves poverty – statistical models prove Trabelsi* and Liouane** 13 – *High Business School of Tunis, University of Manouba, Tunisia, **High Institute of Finance and Taxation, University of Sousse, Tunisia (Mohamed Ali Trabelsi and Naoufel Liouane, “Trade Liberalization and Fight Against Poverty” International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2013, ProQuest) MRThe regression analysis revealed the following results. There is a negative and statistically significant relationship between trade liberalization and poverty . This indicates that

trade liberalization may reduce extreme poverty (a poverty headcount ratio of 1.25 U.S Dollars) in developing countries. However, it should be noted that in the case of a poverty headcount ratio of $ 2, the variable representing trade openness is not significant. Similarly, increase in GDP leads to poverty reduction. On the other hand, there is an increase in inequality which results in an increase in poverty. This is consistent with several empirical studies (Cling, 2006) that highlight the fact that trade tends to raise income inequality. This can be explained by the fact that it is the rich who benefit more than the poor from GDP growth and that this may further raise inequalities and ultimately poverty. These results led us to further deepen our analysis on the effect of liberalization on poverty and inequality. To this end, we relied on the results of Table 3 which gives an average Gini index of 43%. We formed two groups of countries. The first consists of countries with an index below 43% and represents the least unequal. The second group consists of countries where inequalities are remarkable with a Gini index greater than 43%. The results obtained by estimating the two models (with a poverty headcount ratio of $ 1.25 and a poverty headcount ratio of $ 2) are consistent with those of sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4. In other words, whatever degree of inequality, we can not ignore the beneficial effect of trade liberalization on poverty. However, the risk of increased inequality due to growth can be mitigated by the intervention of the state to preserve a minimum of social equality between rich and poor.

Neoliberalism reduces poverty and solves genocide – Rwanda provesFEE, 12, FEE is one of the oldest free-market organizations in the United States – (The Foundation for Economic Education, “Rwanda's Economic Success: How Free Markets Are Good for Poor Africans” 6/27/12 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rwandas-economic-success-how-free-markets-are-good-for-poor-africans#ixzz2YZYM47dI) //NGSocieties have turned around and succeeded after passing through a period of vicious conflict and ruthless violence. Rwanda is an example. Since the brutal genocide of 1994, when about 20 percent of the population was killed, the political and social situation has stabilized, making possible, together with free-market reforms, a sustained economic expansion in a relatively peaceful environment.¶ Rwanda is a small landlocked country located in east-central Africa with a population of about 11 million inhabitants. Its two major ethnic groups—the minority Tutsi and the majority Hutu—had been clashing with each other since before the Belgians took control of the country after World War I. (The country became independent from Belgium in 1962.) The constant social and ethnic tensions ended in a genocide that took the lives of some 800,000 people—mainly Tutsi.¶ In consequence, the economy sharply contracted—by about 50 percent—that year, but the recovery was quite

fast and solid, with GDP growing at 35 percent in 1995. It has managed to sustain high growth rates ever since, not even losing steam in the last decade. The economy grew an average 6.6 percent per year from 1994 to 2010, substantially higher than the sub-Saharan African average. In 2001 Rwandan inhabitants lived on an average of 50 cents a day; today this figure has risen to $1.50 a day. Recent poverty and welfare indicators—taken from the Third Household Living Conditions Survey—are also encouraging. For the last five years poverty has been drastically reduced, from almost 57 percent to 45 percent of the population. In contrast the drop was only 2 percentage points in the previous five years. What’s more, extreme poverty has registered an unprecedented fall, from 37 percent to 24 percent. Improvements have also taken place beyond the poverty figures, including maternal and infant mortality.¶ According to British development economist Paul Collier, the results of the survey were “deeply impressive.” Collier also acknowledged that Rwanda had been able to achieve three key goals: rapid growth, sharp poverty reduction, and reduced inequality.¶ Fortunately, Rwanda is not an exception in Africa. The International Monetary Fund estimates that sub-Saharan African GDP will expand by 5.4 percent and 5.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, respectively. In contrast, advanced economies are unlikely to grow at rates higher than 2 percent in the next couple of years.¶ Furthermore, poverty on the continent as a whole is diminishing more quickly than is commonly believed, as economists Maxim Pinkovskiy and Xavier Sala i Martín concluded in a 2010 paper, “African Poverty Is Falling . . . Much Faster than You Think.” The last update of the World Bank’s poverty estimations indicated that between 2005 and 2008 the absolute number of poor sub-Saharan African people had fallen for the first time in recent history, despite the region’s remarkably high population growth.¶ The economic growth in Rwanda has been primarily driven by liberalization in the agricultural sector—mainly coffee and tea, the country’s main exports. These reforms allowed producers to greatly benefit from an export boom, increasing incomes and boosting productivity through capital investments. Dynamic tourism and industrial sectors—mining and construction—have also contributed to the recent economic success.¶ However, the country’s economy is still vulnerable and unstable. To progress faster Rwanda would need to move toward production of high-value added products, since the potential increases in productivity and exports in the traditional sectors are limited.¶ Entrepreneurship, usually the main driver of economic growth, and innovation should lead this transition. In the Rwandan case there has been noteworthy dynamism in household enterprises, which are dedicated to nonagricultural activities and usually located in rural areas. Even though they only employ 10 percent of the labor force, more than 30 percent of families relied on these enterprises for income in 2006.¶ Despite being low-productivity activities (such as styling hair or manufacturing simple products), these enterprises play an important social role given the country’s high levels of illiteracy and poverty. Moreover, wages in these household enterprises are higher than those offered in agriculture, which explains why they are attracting workers out of the primary sector. In this regard, the development of the financial market and banking system is important since these initiatives need access to loans.¶ On the other hand, regional trade integration has facilitated a shift in imports from Europe to neighboring countries, which benefit from lower prices and increased exports. Yet landlocked Rwanda’s poor roads and nonexistent railway system mean transport costs are too high. This is improving: While in 2006, 11 percent of the roads were considered to be in good condition, this figure rose to 52 percent in 2009.¶ The country’s relative business dynamism would not have been possible without an improvement in the regulatory and institutional framework. In the latest Doing Business report (2012), Rwanda ranked 45th in business regulation; only four years ago it was 148th. The country also ranks third among African nations in the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom. While its overall score was less than 40 in 1997, this year it is 64.9, with notable improvements in business and trade freedom. (The closer to 100, the more economic freedom.) No wonder Rwanda is considered the country with the most-improved economic environment. The reason is widespread liberalization, with the most significant areas of change being the registry of property, protection of investors, trade openness among African countries, and access to credit.Coffee Sector: Free Markets Are Good for the PoorThe benefit of economic liberalization is best illustrated by Rwanda’s coffee sector, on which more than half a million families depend. (We draw on Karol Boudreaux’s Mercatus Center paper “State Power, Entrepreneurship, and Coffee: The Rwandan Experience.”)¶ Only two decades ago this sector was tightly regulated and controlled by the government; it was the key source of revenue. Farmers were forced to devote at least a quarter of their land to growing coffee, which a

government agency bought at a below-market price. The government then sold the coffee on the markets at the higher price and kept the difference. On top of this implicit tax, farmers had to pay an export tax.¶ This unjust interventionist scheme supported the corrupt government and enriched its cronies. The farmers were legally plundered. However, because of its inherent unsustainability and the destructive effects of the genocide, the scheme finally broke down.¶ It was not until the late 1990s that Paul Kagame’s government liberated the coffee sector. The reform removed legal requirements and made it possible for farmers to freely trade with buyers from any part of the world. That of course increased incentives to invest and innovate. The Rwandan people—partly helped by the West—focused on increasing quality rather than quantity, raising efficiency and productivity. This fostered farmers’ and entrepreneurs’ business relationships and opportunities to trade, encouraging them to acquire better skills.¶ Thanks to these improvements, prices soared. Consequently, about 50,000 households saw their incomes from coffee production double. For the first time, families could afford to pay school fees for their children, pay medical bills, buy clothing, fix their homes, or invest in their small businesses.¶ As Karol Boudreaux highlights, liberalization not only improved the economic opportunities and potential of the people, it also enhanced social cooperation and cohesion among Tutsi and Hutu, which was desperately needed after the genocide.

1AR Poverty – Impact This structural violence outweighs nuclear war and genocide—only our impact evidence is comparative Spina 2000 (Stephanie Urso, Ph.D. candidate in social/personality psychology at the Graduate School of the City University of New York, Smoke and Mirrors: The Hidden Context of Violence in Schools and Society, p. 201)This sad fact is not limited to the United States. Globally, 18 million deaths a year are caused by structural violence, compared to 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. That is, approximately every five years, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths, and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war or genocide, perpetuated on the weak and the poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. (See James Gilligan, Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, New York: Vintage Books, 1997, 196).

Self-Correcting

2AC Self-CorrectingCapitalism is the most sustainable system because it’s self-correctingNYT 2002 (Kurt Eichenwald, "The Nation: Clay Feet; Could Capitalists Actually Bring Down Capitalism?" 6-30-2002, Lexis-Nexis Universe)//ModermattOVER the last few centuries, capitalism has been the heartiest contender in the global bout for economic supremacy. It emerged from its decades-long death match with communism as the unquestioned victor. Its dust-up with socialism barely lasted a few rounds. It flourished in wartime, and survived wrongheaded assaults from embargoes and tariffs. Even terrorism aimed at capitalism's heart failed to deliver a knock-out punch. But now, a staggering rush of corporate debacles is raising a disturbing question: can capitalism survive the capitalists themselves? The scandals that have oozed out of corporate America with alarming regularity in recent months have repeatedly featured executives betraying the marketplace for their own short-term self-interest. From Enron to Global Crossing, Adelphia to WorldCom, the details differ but the stories boil down to the same theme: the companies lied about their performance, and investors paid the price. To those inured to corporate wrongdoing -- perhaps by the insider trading scandals or the savings and loan debacle of recent decades -- the latest scourge of white-collar malfeasance might seem like more of the same, with greedy executives cutting corners to make a profit. But in truth, the corporate calamities of the new millennium are of a different ilk, one that challenges the credibility of the financial reporting system, and in turn the faith of investors in the capital markets -- the very engine that has driven capitalism to its success. It wasn't supposed to be like this. In the wake of the stock market crash in 1929 and the ensuing revelation of the scams and rigged dealings that had helped inflate the market, America faced what appeared to be capitalism's chief vulnerability. Through Senate hearings in the early 1930's with the special counsel Ferdinand Pecora, investors learned about stock price manipulation, insider trading and profiteering through so-called investment trusts, all of which had made fortunes for the capitalists, while costing investors their savings. How did it happen? Capitalism, at its most basic, dictates that the company producing the best product at the lowest price wins. For capitalists, victory is measured solely in profits. Left to their own devices, it was clear, some capitalists would aggressively pursue profits even if it meant cheating the investors who provided all the capital. So, the game stayed the same, but the government put in referees. Congress passed the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and 1934, and created a new federal agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, to enforce those laws. Disclosure became the centerpiece of the system. Companies could pretty much make whatever business decision they wanted, so long as the material information was revealed to investors in periodic filings with the S.E.C. The result was an entire bulwark of protections: the board of directors entrusted with overseeing corporate managements, the independent accounting firms relied upon to insure the numbers were accurate, the government regulators in place to supervise the rules. Despite all the apparent bricks and mortar of these protections, they turned out to be as permanent and impenetrable as smoke. At bottom, the system still relied on faith -- just in someone besides the top executives or company owners. The trust was given to the competence of the directors, the integrity of the accountants and the abilities of regulators. That was evident back in 1933, when a member of Congress asked Col. A. H. Carter, senior partner of Deloitte Haskins & Sells: if accountants would be auditing the companies, who would be auditing the accountants? The reply was noble -- and proved to be hollow. "Our conscience," Colonel Carter said. By the late 90's, as is now becoming clear, that foundation of personal integrity had been eroded by easy profits. Eventually, driven by shareholder expectations and their own stock-option packages, some executives began hiding losses incurred in the faltering economy, manipulating the numbers they reported to investors. The fact that their companies are, in all probability, bad apples among many, many honest corporations makes little difference. By being deceptive on their disclosures for short-term gain, these capitalists have led investors to question the reliability of all the reported data -- and the reliability of the checks and balances instituted to keep the data valid. Not only has the accounting branch of the market been tarred by Arthur Anderson's enabling of Enron's schemes, but, from company to company, insular boards of directors, incompetent internal auditors and underfunded regulatory oversight have allowed the perception of stringent standards and protections to wither. IT is not as if corporate cheating comes out of nowhere. History holds many tales of businessmen who begin breaking the rules in boom times, when rising stock prices literally give them a sense of invincibility. Then, as the markets turn -- and they always turn -- these men try to preserve their power and wealth with more wrongdoing. They keep believing that stock prices will rise and cover their misdeeds. They really seem to think they won't get caught. This time, the crisis in investor confidence is becoming a primary policy issue for the leaders of the industrialized world -- a world largely formed on the American model, and that the United States has insisted virtually everyone else follow, too. "It's a preoccupation of all the leaders that this is creating at this time a lack of confidence in the markets, and people are not sure about the way that information is transmitted to the public," Jean Chretien, the prime minister of Canada, said on the first day of a summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations. Workers are going to take it on the chin. WorldCom started laying off 17,000 people on Friday. Many more people, at many other companies, are worried. And investors -- shaken by the past and uncertain where the next disaster might emerge -- are moving their money about, dumping many stocks and moving cash into safer havens, like Treasury bonds. Could the short-term, self-rewarding mentality of a handful of

capitalists truly destroy capitalism? Bring on hundreds of bankruptcies, force banks under, end the giving of loans? Destroy America as we know it? Not very likely. The system has a built-in corrective factor, which kicks in when abuses go too far. Harm to investor confidence harms the market, which harms the ability of corporations to raise the capital they need to grow and be profitable. Eventually, the capitalists' desire get investor confidence back wins the day. Already, after years of sniffing at naysayers who wagged fingers about fundamentals, investors seem to be discovering a new affection for stodgy old stock analysis. "Nobody was paying attention to seemingly boring topics like accounting and corporate governance," said Troy Paredes, an associate professor at Washington University School of Law. "People are realizing that those are the things that matter." At the same time, a range of proposals has emerged from Wall Street and Washington to overhaul corporate America. The S.E.C. is making moves to get tough on accounting standards. But still, there are some capitalists who are keeping their eyes on their short-term prize, betting that, despite all the evidence of corporate lies, investors need no substantial changes to justify keeping their confidence in the market. Many Wall Street firms are lobbying to cut back the power and authority of state securities regulators, the very individuals who historically have been particularly hard-nosed in their dedication to proper disclosure and investor protection. Meanwhile, accounting firms are doing their all to beat back efforts to strengthen their regulation. On Capitol Hill, there were rumors that tough accounting legislation was dead -- until WorldCom exploded. ULTIMATELY, capitalism will almost certainly survive this onslaught from the capitalists -- if only because survival is the most profitable outcome for all involved. Investors may well emerge wiser, less willing to jump into the latest fad and more concerned about the fundamentals. In the end, though, the experts say, that will only last as long as the memory of this period, which will wash away the next time unbridled exuberance creates a booming market. "People eventually will emerge from this more discriminating about how they invest," said David Hawkins, a professor at Harvard Business School and Merrill Lynch's accounting consultant. "But this isn't the last time we'll go through this. People will forget, and it will all happen again."

Small Farms

2AC Small Farmers – Mexico Neoliberal policies empower labor groups and small farmers – Mexico provesSnyder, 99 Professor of Political Science at Brown University (Richard Snyder, January 1999, "After Neoliberalism: The Politics of Reregulation in Mexico", World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Jan, 1999) pp. 163-204) //NGScholars have correctly emphasized the disorganizing effects of neoliberal policies and economic crisis on societal groups, organized labor. "Coupled with the powerful incentives neoliberal reforms give incumbents to deploy regulatory policy as a political weapon, these effects provide a strong basis for inferring that reregulation projects are launched by politicians, not by interest groups." While a focus on politicians should thus offer the best vantage point for explaining reregulation initiatives, it is nonetheless necessary to bring societal groups into the analysis to account for the new institutions that result from these initiatives. Although societal groups may not make the first move in reregulation processes, they can have a decisive impact on the institutional outcomes of such processes. Societal groups have stakes in how markets are reregulated, and politicians' reregulation projects can supply incentives and focal points that help them surmount barriers to collective action and mobilize to defend their interests. Hence, depending on the strengths and strategies of societal groups, the new institutions for market governance that result from politicians' reregulation strategies can deviate significantly from what these politicians had intended. As we shall see, reregulation projects in Mexico often had the unintended consequence of galvanizing societal opposition that forced politicians to modify their projects. ¶ To explain the institutional outcomes of reregulation, we should analyze strategic interactions between societal groups and political incumbents as they negotiate the terms of reregulation. This interactive perspective connects reregulation projects launched from above by incumbents to responses to these projects from below by societal groups. Making this connection is a crucial step toward explaining the institutions for market governance that replace those destroyed by neoliberal reforms.Societal groups may choose any of several strategies in responding to politicians' reregulatory initiatives. They can support these initiatives. Alternatively, they can oppose and seek to defeat them, perhaps by launching a counter project. Or they can engage and try to modify incumbents' initiatives so that the resulting regulatory scheme corresponds more closely to their own interests. And finally; they can ignore reregulation initiatives. Politicians' reregulation strategies should have a strong influence on how societal groups choose among these options. The relative power of societal groups should also be an important factor in how they respond to reregulation efforts. Applying the Framework: The Case of Mexico Neoliberal reforms in Mexico's coffee sector did not have the effects anticipated by their technocratic architects. Rather than unleashing free-market forces, the deregulation of coffee triggered reregulation projects by state-level incumbents who sought to control policy domains vacated by the federal government agency INMECAFE. Producer groups responded to these reregulation projects in different ways. Some mobilized to modify or defeat the projects, others chose to ignore them. The interactions between state governments and producer organizations resulted in a diverse array of new institutions for market governance across Mexico's coffee-producing states. In the states of Oaxaca and Chiapas the politics of reregulation led to participatory frameworks that gave organizations of small producers central roles in policy-making. In addition to meeting producer demand for a voice in the policy process, these participatory frame-works fostered partnerships between the public sector and producer organizations that helped improve welfare and market competitiveness of small coffee farmers. In the states of Guerrero and Puebla, by contrast, the politics of reregulation resulted in exclusionary policy frameworks that denied small producers access to the policy process. These exclusionary frameworks generated spoils for political and economic elites, undermining the efficiency of coffee production. Why did reregulation in Oaxaca and Chiapas result in institutions that promoted the welfare of small farmers and offered them new channels for participating in policy decisions? Why did reregulation in Guerrero and Puebla yield institutions that served elite interests and re-produced long-standing patterns of exclusionary, top-down policy-making? The following sections deploy the analytic framework developed above to explain these divergent outcomes. The analysis focuses initially on the different reregulation projects pursued by state

governments. It then shows how bargaining between politicians and producer organizations over the terms of reregulation resulted in distinct policy frameworks.

Space Colonization

2AC Space ColonizationNeoliberalism key to space colonization – commercial exchanges promote developmentShakouri, 13 has an LL.M. in international law and is based in Tehran (Babak Shakouri “Space settlements on the Moon and elsewhere will create new legal issues” 4/1/13 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2269/1) //NGOnce human settlements on nearby celestial bodies are established, their commercial exchanges with Earth will become an issue. Space migrants who choose to leave Earth and settle in an uncomfortable concrete or metal base on the Moon or Mars must have very strong incentives to step forth for such breathtaking adventure. There seems to be no greater reward than the lucrative economic opportunities found in a settlement on an alien surface full of potential resources. ¶ The positive economic exchange rate with the Earth may assure the continuation and even expansion of space settlements on celestial bodies. Otherwise, settlers either will depend on equipment and reinforcements from Earth or go bankrupt. This may shed light on the importance of adopting suitable legal regime for human space settlements that, on one hand, fuels the needed investments for establishment of space settlements and, on the other hand, helps the efforts of inhabitants those settlements flourish economically and leads ultimately to their self-sufficiency. ¶ There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the legal framework of a free market economic system incredibly suits the requirements of human settlements in space, since freedom of business and market innovation, together with recognition of private property, are the key elements in making the humans the first known spacefaring intelligent species.¶ Finally, the matter of the administrative legal regime of space settlements is another noteworthy issue to be considered. This matter, which is mainly categorized within the realm of administrative law, has attracted less attention in comparison with other legal aspects of outer space activities, but in no way should its importance and impact on future space settlement be disregarded.

Extinction – we have to go to spaceGaran, 10 – Astronaut (Ron, 3/30/10, Speech published in an article by Nancy Atkinson, “The Importance of Returning to the Moon,” http://www.universetoday.com/61256/astronaut-explains-why-we-should-return-to-the-moon/)Resources and Other Benefits: Since we live in a world of finite resources and the global population continues to grow, at some point the human race must utilize resources from space in order to survive. We are already constrained by our limited resources, and the decisions we make today will have a profound affect on the future of humanity. Using resources and energy from space will enable continued growth and the spread of prosperity to the developing world without destroying our planet. Our minimal investment in space exploration (less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget) reaps tremendous intangible benefits in almost every aspect of society, from technology development to high-tech jobs. When we reach the point of sustainable space operations we will be able to transform the world from a place where nations quarrel over scarce resources to one where the basic needs of all people are met and we unite in the common adventure of exploration. The first step is a sustainable permanent human lunar settlement.

1AR Space ColonizationTrade privatization is key to space exploration and colonizationGarmong, 05 – PhD in philosophy (Richard, Cap Mag, “Privatize Space Exploration,” http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4327)9As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government. Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America's expensive space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.

Technology

2AC TechnologyTrade liberalization drives tech diffusion – key to developing economies Hafner 11 – University of Heilbronn, Department W2 (Kurt A. Hafner, “Trade Liberalization and Technology Diffusion” Review of International Economics Volume 19, Issue 5, November 2011, Wiley Online Library) MR The paper considers the role of technology diffusion and trade integration for the catching-up of peripheral countries. I present a New Economic Geography (NEG) model with public R&D sectors based on the framework of Krugman and Venables (1995) and its adoption by Puga (1999). The model allows for firm entry and exit as a response to short run profits and considers international mobility of skilled labor employed in public R&D sectors. This raises the traditional agglomeration effects in a core-periphery setting as firms and mobile factors usually cluster within spatial agglomerations. However, with international technology diffusion, there is a counteracting effect on the traditional agglomeration effects as firms in the peripheral countries also benefit from increasing R&D expenditures in the core countries. Hence, the catching-up of economically backward countries is spurred not only by trade integration, but also by technology diffusion . So far, there are few limited theoretical works on NEG models dealing with both economic integration and technology diffusion. Martin and Ottaviano (1999), for example, added R&D sectors and spillover effects to a core–periphery model but limited technology diffusion to two polar cases of local and global spillovers. Another NEG model with technology diffusion is presented in Fujita and Thisse (2002, ch. 11), who analyzed growth effects of technological spillovers and patents but again assumed two polar cases of patent transferability and therefore technology diffusion. Usually, exogenous shocks such as diminishing trade costs result in equilibrium interference and change the status quo depending on the presence and strength of centripetal and centrifugal forces. However, if trade costs are still high enough (τ≥τ2=1, 8) and supplying markets abroad remains costly, firms do not cluster and therefore avoid higher competition on product and factor markets. As a result, the initial distribution of industry shares and therefore the symmetric equilibrium does not change.6 Moreover, numerical simulations also show that a higher degree of technology diffusion shifts τ2 to the left making a core–periphery pattern to emerge more unlikely: as technology is not restricted to the countries investing in R&D there is no additional agglomeration force.

Technological leadership prevents extinction.AAAS 94 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Science for All Americans”, p. xii-xiv)There is more at stake, however, than individual self-fulfillment and the immediate national interest of the United States. The most serious problems that humans now face are global: unchecked population growth in many parts of the world, acid rain, the shrinking of tropical rain forests and other great sources of species diversity, the pollution of the environment, disease, social strife, the extreme inequities in the distribution of the earth’s wealth, the huge investment of human intellect and scare resources in preparing for conducting war, the ominous shadow of nuclear holocaust—the list is long, and it is alarming. What the future holds in store for individual human beings, the nation, and the world largely depends on the wisdom with which humans use science and technology. And that, in turn, depends on the character, distribution, and effectiveness of the education that people receive.

1AR TechnologyTech diffusion is key to developing countries Hafner 11 – University of Heilbronn, Department W2 (Kurt A. Hafner, “Trade Liberalization and Technology Diffusion” Review of International Economics Volume 19, Issue 5, November 2011, Wiley Online Library) MR How does the degree of technology diffusion change the impact of economic integration? Considering a global technological spillover effect, for example, the impact of increased R&D expenditure within industrialized countries is almost the same for all integrating countries. Moreover, if technological knowledge from abroad is unrestrictedly available, economic development of countries might be driven mainly by foreign rather than domestic technological knowledge. As this is the case of structurally backward countries not able to invest in their own R&D activity. Hence,

the catching-up process of structurally backward countries is positively related to the degree of the technological spillover.

Terrorism

2AC TerrorismTrade liberalization solves poverty – key to prevent terrorism Bhala 11 – Associate Dean for International & Comparative Law, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas (Raj Bhala, “Poverty, Islamist Extremism, and the Debacle of Doha Round Counterterrorism: Part One of a Trilogy - Agricultural Tariffs and Subsidies” University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, 2011, http://ir.stthomas.edu/ ustlj/vol9/iss1/2) MR That is, is there a link between poverty alleviation and Islamist extremism? Surely the answer is yes . President Barack H. Obama declares: “Extremely poor societies . . . provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict.”22 His Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, therefore categorizes economic development as “an integral part of America’s national security policy.”23 The link is not adamantine. The precise causal connection is not entirely clear. But, the basic

connection is obvious enough, both self-evident and clear from observed experience: poverty, in the narrow sense of a lack of income, and a broader sense of capabilities deprivation or an even broader sense of oppression, connotes a lack of status as a stakeholder in the global trading system.24 Put succinctly, marginalization, which is a hallmark of poverty, is a contributory factor in vulnerability to violent religious fanaticism . Conversely, a world trading system in which a person finds opportunity through decently-paying jobs, and thereby hope for the socioeconomic advancement of himself and his family, is one—but by no means the only—way to offer the status of stakeholder. Concomitant with that status is the opportunity for better education and health care, both of which, along with a reduction in income poverty, give a person a rational basis for hope in the system. This affirmative answer also is based on careful academic research. Consider the analysis offered by Oxford economist Paul Collier in his acclaimed book, The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It (2007). He identifies an unmistakable link between economic underdevelopment and conflict. The gist of his argument is that the economic health of a country is a primary determinant of its susceptibility to conflict.25 The poorer a country, in economic terms, the more prone it is to be mired in civil strife—a “Conflict Trap”—whereas the better its economic performance, the more likely it will not experience, or at least not remain mired in, conflict. While not linking poverty to Islamist extremism in particular, the Collier analysis is applicable: The former is a microcosm of the latter, which is the macrocosm.

Nuclear terrorism causes extinctionMorgan 09 - Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus - South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, “World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race,” Science Direct)In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question ‘‘Is Nuclear War Inevitable??’’ [10].4 In Section 1, Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, they’ve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian ‘‘dead hand’’ system, ‘‘where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed,’’ it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States’’ [10]. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal ‘‘Samson option’’ against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even ‘‘anti-Semitic’’ European cities [10]. In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia.

China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or ‘‘lone wolf’ act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the ‘‘use them or lose them’’ strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to ‘‘win’’ the war. In other words, once Pandora’s Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, ‘‘everyone else feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites’ needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors’’ [10]. In other words, as long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.

1AR TerrorismTrade integration solves violent extremism Bhala 11 – Associate Dean for International & Comparative Law, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas (Raj Bhala, “Poverty, Islamist Extremism, and the Debacle of Doha Round Counterterrorism: Part One of a Trilogy - Agricultural Tariffs and Subsidies” University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, 2011, http://ir.stthomas.edu/ ustlj/vol9/iss1/2) MR The histories of many empires, from the Roman and Carthaginian, through the Arab-Islamic and Ottoman Turkish, to the British and American, all reveal a link between international trade and national security. This long-standing nexus among international trade law, economic development, and national security, in which Islam is engaged, is all the tighter in the post-9/11 world. Spread around the world, many Muslim communities, marginalized by poverty, have little hope for a brighter future through opportunities from multilateral trade liberalization. Extremism, even accompanied by violence, is a gravely sinful temptation to which some of the marginalized poor are vulnerable. Weapons technology aided by evil genius has multiplied the force threat posed by violent extremist organizations (VEOs) to the global capitalist order, of which the trading system is an essential part. It was this nexus, in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, which drove Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to launch the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), commonly called the Doha Round, in November 2001. It is this nexus that the Members have long since betrayed. The thesis of this article is that the Doha Round is a failed counter-insurgency operation. The Round has lost nearly all links to its original purpose. That purpose was trade liberalization to spur development in a post-9/11 context in which extremism is wrongly perceived by some disaffected, impoverished, and thus marginalized Muslims as an alternative to stake-holding in the world trading system.

Poverty and terrorism are intrinsically tied Bhala 11 – Associate Dean for International & Comparative Law, Rice Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas (Raj Bhala, “Poverty, Islamist Extremism, and the Debacle of Doha Round Counterterrorism: Part One of a Trilogy - Agricultural Tariffs and Subsidies” University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, 2011, http://ir.stthomas.edu/ ustlj/vol9/iss1/2) MR First, that suggestion defies common sense, as well as historical and field experience. Simply put, a person who has nothing to live for has nothing to lose. Resorting to violence in the grossly distorted name of a religion is perceived to hold few offsetting disadvantages. The lack of a decent education, because of poverty, means the inability to think critically, and thereby realize that name is being perverted, is under-developed. Second, these analyses focus on terrorists who commit violent acts, making much of the fact that some terrorists (as on 9/11) are from wealthy backgrounds. The studies often measure wealth by education, and thus point out some terrorists have high school diplomas. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and other VEOs acting in the name of Islam are well aware that while they can and do obtain some recruits from

educated but disaffected youths, their large, fertile recruiting pool is stocked with the marginalized poor . Moreover, those diplomas mean little.40 Bluntly put, a diploma from a typical school in many parts of the Arab world does not measure up to one from Western Europe, Japan, or the U.S. All that can be said is that to carry out a spectacularly evil terrorist attack with sophisticated devices or weaponry, special training is required to master those instruments. 41 (Flying a plane into a building illustrates the point.) Third, many poor people are facilitators of terrorism but not picked up in the datasets of economists. For example, some Bedouins in the Sinai Peninsula and tribal peoples in Waziristan trade arms and narcotics because they have no other lucrative means of support.42 To whom do they sell arms, for example, except terrorists? For such traders, a development

friendly Doha Round, which brought them into the formal trading system, could do wonders, with the knock-on benefit of cutting off from terrorists at least some of their intermediaries for weapons. Likewise, trafficking in counterfeit goods—i.e., products that violate a lawful copyright, trademark, or patent—may be tempting to impecunious people seeking to eke out a living. Some of the proceeds of such sales may find their way into the hands of terrorists.

Neoliberalism solves terrorismLindsey, 3 served as director of regulatory studies, founder and director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, and vice president for research (Brink Lindsey "The Trade Front: Combating Terrorism with Open Markets" 8/5/03 http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tpa-024.pdf) //NGOn May 9, 2003, in a commencement address at the University of South Carolina, President Bush unveiled plans for establishing a U.S.-Middle East free-trade area within the next decade. With that announcement, he has assigned trade policy a major role in winning the peace after the military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. ¶ The new trade initiative aims to combat terrorism, and the Islamist extremism that underlies it, by promoting economic and political development in the Muslim world. “The Arab world has a great cultural tradition, but is largely missing out on the economic progress of our time,” the president declared in his May 9 speech. “Across the globe, free markets and trade helped defeat poverty, and taught men and women the habits of liberty.” The hope is that better integration of Arab countries into the global economy will initiate a virtuous circle of increased growth and broader economic reforms that, in turn, a freer and more prosperous Middle East will be less susceptible to the radical Islamist movements that support and perpetrate terrorism. ¶ The linkage of trade policy and national security has been a recurring theme with the Bush administration since September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The white paper outlining the administration’s national security strategy made headlines last fall by endorsing preventive military action against “emerging threats.” That document also envisioned many other fronts in the war on terrorism in addition to military action. In particular, it drew an explicit connection between trade expansion and threat reduction: ¶ We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world. The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks…within their borders.¶ The national security paper emphasized this connection by devoting an entire chapter to trade policy.¶ The administration’s refashioning of trade policy to respond to the terrorist threat has moved beyond rhetoric and into concrete action. On May 21 the United States and Bahrain announced plans to negotiate a bilateral free-trade agreement (FTA). Talks on an FTA with Morocco are already under way with completion scheduled for the end of this year. The initiatives with Morocco and Bahrain follow on the heels of the U.S.-Jordan FTA, initiated during the Clinton administration but signed into law by President Bush just weeks after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The current plan is for these bilateral FTAs to serve as building blocks for an eventual region-wide agreement.¶ In preparation for additional FTAs, the administration has announced that it will be stepping up efforts to negotiate bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and trade and investment framework agreements (TIFAs) in the region BITs guarantee basic rights for foreign investors, and TIFAs provide for regular bilateral consultations aimed at strengthening commercial ties. The United States has already entered into BITs with Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Jordan (now superceded by the FTA) Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey. As has happened with Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain, BITs and TIFAs can eventually lead to FTA negotiations.¶ Meanwhile, foreign policy considerations have been exerting influence on the U.S. trade agenda outside the Middle East. Signing of the FTA with Chile was delayed several weeks after Chile failed to support the U.S. position on Iraq in the United Nations Council. As the trade pact with Chile hung in limbo, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick unveiled the criteria that will guide the selection of future FTA partners. In addition to satisfying various trade and general economic requirements, countries must cooperate with the United States on foreign policy and national security matters. USTR officials have stated that the United States will not seek an FTA with New Zealand because of its refusal to allow nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed vessels in its waters. By contrast, the United States is seeking to expedite an FTA with neighboring Australia, a staunch U.S. ally in Afghanistan and Iraq.¶ Although the Bush administration’s linkage of trade issues with the war on terrorism marks a new direction for U.S. trade policy, it is only a variation on a well-played theme. During the Cold War, American trade policy pursued aims that transcended merely commercial considerations. Market-opening trade agreements were seen as a way to contain communism, not just militarily, but economically as well Strengthening commercial ties with our allies would serve to maintain, opening our markets to developing countries would help to keep them out of the Soviet orbit.¶

Now, in the midst of a struggle against terrorism that will likely continue for many years, the national security dimension of trade policy is once again plainly visible. It has become painfully clear that Americans live in a dangerous world—and that the primary danger at present emanates from the economic and political failures of the Muslim world. Those failures breed the despair on which violent Islamist extremism feeds; no comprehensive campaign against terrorism can leave them unaddressed. Promoting economic and political reform throughout the Muslim world has become an urgent priority for U.S. foreign policy—and trade liberalization, while no panacea, is an important part of the equation. ¶ The Bush administration should therefore be congratulated for opening a trade front in the war on terrorism. With the proper commitment and follow-through, a major U.S. trade initiative in the Muslim world can give real encouragement to desperately needed restructuring in that troubled region. In particular, properly structured FTAs can promote fundamental reform in participating countries. Their successes, in turn, can turn those countries into models for change throughout the region.

VTL

2AC VTLGlobalization is key to wellbeing – tech, employment, and resource availability Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MRYet while economic globalization certainly has serious negative consequences and risks, a large body of literature suggests that on balance globalization has had a positive effect on human wellbeing. Greater trade, for instance, enhances welfare outcomes through various channels (Levine and Rothman, 2006; Owen and Wu, 2007). Particularly prominent are arguments that international trade enhances economic growth both directly (Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1997; Dollar and Kraay, 2003; Frankel and Romer, 1999) and indirectly, by improving property rights and rule of law (Rodrik et al., 2004). Greater prosperity, in turn, provides the resources for better nutrition, clean water, and basic health care services. From a political science perspective, economic globalization also has another important indirect effect on human well-being. Seminal work by Katzenstein (1985) and Cameron (1978) demonstrated that rising levels of international trade lead to greater public pressure for social welfare policies to ameliorate the risks that come with free trade, and this finding has been confirmed by subsequent work (Garrett, 1998; Pierson, 1994). Capital flows also affect human well-being. Foreign direct investment (FDI), for instance,

is a primary source of technological transfer and know-how to developing countries, generates employment opportunities , facilitates access to foreign resources , and improves economic efficiency more generally through spill-over effects to local firms (Blomström et al., 2000; Dunning, 2001; Reddy, 2006).

1AR VTL Globalization is key to prosperity – high standards of living Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MROptimists, on the other hand, argue that despite its many flaws globalization nonetheless leads to long-run prosperity (Bhagwati, 2004; Collier and Dollar, 2002; Wolf, 2004) as well as a more

equitable income distribution between countries (Dollar, 2005; Dollar and Kraay, 2002).

Globalization has also led to the emergence of transnational networks, such as the Third World Network, which draw attention to the concerns of developing countries in international forums (Caouette, 2006). From an information perspective, the transmission of medical knowledge across national boundaries creates awareness about ways and means to enhance health conditions (Deaton, 2004). Finally, international organizations such as the WHO, UNDP, and UNICEF are important global actors seeking to enhance human well-being of citizens across the globe. Our own position is that while globalization has many negative effects, as discussed below, on balance the powerful positive effects predominate and that human well-being is enhanced as countries become more and more deeply incorporated into the global system. In this sense our position is closest to that of prominent skeptics such as Stiglitz, who may be extremely critical of globalization, but ultimately concludes that ‘because of globalization, many people in the world now live longer than before and their standard of living is far better’ (2002: 4).

Neoliberalism key to value to life – it’s about earning not redistributionBrooks, 13 President of the American Enterprise institute for Prager University (Arthur Brooks “The Unparalleled Moral Benefits of Free Market Capitalism” 7/7/13 Transcribed from: http://www.popmodal.com/video/16969/The-Unparalleled-Moral-Benefits-of-Free-Market-Capitalism-Prager-University) //NGWhen you hear the words “free enterprise”, “capitalism”, or “free markets”, what’s the first thought that comes into your head? For just about everyone, it would have to do with making money. But there’s another side to free enterprise that’s actually more important. Free enterprise matters not just because of its unparalleled material benefits but because of its unparalleled moral benefits. Now this might seem counter-intuitive to you, especially if you’ve spent a lot of time hanging around college professors. For decades, many of them have preached that free enterprise is mostly about selfishness and greed. But after the fall of the Soviet Union and communism was repudiated, even the left grudgingly acknowledged the utility of free enterprise, but only as a necessary evil. “Sure”, they said, “Free enterprise benefits us materially, but the cost isn’t worth it. People become too materialistic, corporations become too powerful, profits are corrupting, and there is just too much material inequality.” Is that a fair assessment? No, it isn’t, and here’s why; free enterprise is not just materially fulfilling, it’s a moral imperative. One big reason is that only free enterprise enables us to be truly happy because it enables us to earn our success. Now what do I mean by this? Earned success is the satisfaction and happiness that we derive from having dreams and working hard to achieve them, this is only possible in a system where rewards are based on earning them. Rather than having the right connections and having to please customers and not politicians; think about the things in your life that make you happy. It’s probably your personal relationships, your family, and maybe your job. In other words, the things that represent hard work and personal virtue/achievement; sure, we all want nice things, but if they’re just given to us and we don’t earn them, they don’t really make us happy. You’ve probably thought of what you’d do if you won the lottery, right? We’ve all

played that game. Maybe you say you’d buy a big house, a new wardrobe, or take a great trip around the world. Maybe you’d do it all. The truth is, according to studies from researchers at the University of Michigan, you’re actually less likely to be less happy after you win than before you bought the ticket. People who win the lottery typically buy a bunch of stuff they don’t want, get new friends, some even become alcoholics! This hardly makes for a great, parable ad campaign, but it’s the truth. Why is this? For the same reason that your parents probably always taught you that money doesn’t buy happiness. Still, critics on the left tell us that if we only had more equal incomes, we’d be a happier society. That’s just not true. Happiness is earned, not given by others. Look at entrepreneurs, people who own their own businesses rate themselves as happier than just about any other category. And why? What’s their secret? It’s not as if they’re working short hours, or making lots of money – neither of these things are the case. Entrepreneurs earn 20% less than government managers on average. Rather it’s because their businesses allow them to earn their own success. It’s the success that makes them happy, and this is really only possible through free enterprise. The government giving us stuff we didn’t earn doesn’t make us happy, and it’s really that simple. Now this insight is hardly one that I came up with, in fact, no one in my field of social science can claim credit for it. It was America’s founding fathers who first put together happiness and earned success. You probably remember that the Declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think about those words, pursuit of happiness. Our fathers didn’t say that you have the right to be happy, only that you have the right to pursue your happiness. And that’s what free enterprise does and why it matters. Only free enterprise lets us decide what makes us happy and then go do it. You can read more about this in my book, The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise. The pursuit of happiness that’s at the root of America’s moral promise can only happen if we have the opportunity to earn our success. Happiness is not about materialism or government redistribution of wealth, it’s about defining our lives and our goals and achieving happiness on our own terms – that’s the moral promise of free enterprise.

1AR VTL – Epistemology Prefer our epistemology Mukherjee and Krieckhaus 12 – Department of Political Science, University of Missouri (Nisha Mukherjee and Jonathan Krieckhaus, “Globalization and human well-being” International Political Science Review, vol. 33 no. 2, March 2012, Sage Publications) MRWhile our own reading of the literature suggests that globalization’s positive effects will predominate , there are obviously reasonable arguments to be made on both sides so we do not posit

unidirectional hypotheses but rather ‘ let the evidence speak for itself’ to resolve these controversies. To maximize the validity of our conclusions we provide an extensive set of empirical tests. First, we evaluate three different dimensions of globalization, namely economic, social, and political. Second, we examine the effect of each of these three processes on all three of the measures commonly used to measure human well-being, namely infant mortality, child mortality, and life expectancy. This yields nine different baseline analyses, providing a reasonably disaggregated analysis of both the independent variables and the dependent variables. Third, we utilize a variety of statistical techniques to assess the overall robustness of our findings.

Neg – Neoliberalism

Alt Solvency

Individual Alt SolvesIndividual movements can spill over to dismantle neoliberalism Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRBut the news is good, because it shows us that there are things that ordinary citizens can do . I said in the preface that this book is directed at those who have to cope with the world rather than those

who try radically to reshape it. But coping can include campaigning successfully for many minor victories . Governments do often intervene to protect citizens from corporate abuse, as official campaigns against smoking and unhealthy foods, which have, if anything, been strengthened in recent years, demonstrate. Such cases give us hope. These government actions can usually be traced back to small groups of poorly funded but passionately committed professionals and people of good will. Firms that boast of their green or fair trade credentials did not dream up these ideas in their marketing departments; they were responding to serious customer pressure, which was in turn responding to

campaigning by small numbers of concerned activists in ecological groups and trade unions. There is no need for defeatism . Rarely before in human history has there been so little deference shown to authority, so much demand for openness, so many cause organizations, journalists and academics devoting themselves to criticizing those who hold power and holding up their actions to scrutiny. New electronic forms of communication are enabling more and more causes to express themselves in highly public ways. Also, to examine the other side of Spini’s coin: a good deal of civil society action crosses national boundaries in a way that political parties find so difficult. Many cause groups have become truly post-national in their membership, leadership and focus. Paradoxically, TNCs themselves help construct a post-national civil society. By themselves operating across the globe, they enable campaigning groups to recognize some shared interests that they would rarely discover if they limited themselves to formal politics and its national confines. Finally, civil society action can embrace the political role of the corporation in a way that political parties, even where they have not become dependent on corporate funds, have little incentive to do. The main incentive for a political party in an electoral democracy is to turn blame on to rival parties. If firms misbehave, there are few rewards for an opposition party in criticizing them; better to blame the government for not having controlled the firms’ behaviour. Corporate perpetrators slink away out of the spotlight. A good deal of that happened during the financial crisis. There were even attempts to blame President Obama for the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, even though he had a record of being critical of off-shore oil drilling, while his opponents supported it.

Alt Solvency – General Put away your alt fails cards. Our warrants are Latin America Specific and will trump yours. Petras 1997- Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University with focus on Latin America and Middle Eastern political issues (“Alternatives to Neoliberalism in Latin America”, Latin American Perspectives, Vol. 24, No. 1, Liberalism's Revival and Latin American Studies (Jan., 1997), pp. 80-91)//ModermattFor too long the left has defined revolution in economic terms: economic crises, poverty, exploitation. The problem is that these economic conditions have been abundantly present in the 1980s and 1990s and there has been no revolutionary upsurge. At the same time the neoliberal right has devoted extensive attention to capturing the minds of the people adversely affected by its policies. In developing an alternative approach it is useful to examine the basic neoliberal arguments as a point of departure. Essentially the defense of neoliberalism revolves around four strategies: (1) globalism (the idea that "global imperatives" require neoliberal policies if the country is to compete, secure loans and investments, etc.), (2) the absence of alternatives, (3) local projects, and (4) poverty pockets. The neoliberals argue that the only alter- native (communism) has collapsed and therefore neoliberalism is the only realistic approach in a global marketplace. As part of their strategy for dismantling the welfare state and public enterprises, they advocate private local "self-help" projects that allow them to channel state resources from social expenditures to the private oligopolies. Given the highly visible increase in mass poverty, neoliberals disconnect the social problem from its systemic roots and attempt to identify poverty with individual ethics-"work" or ''entrepreneurial spirit." Each of these arguments is deeply flawed. The focus on global imperatives overlooks the crucial fact that it was national class interests and state

policies linked to multinational banks and corporations that reoriented the economy toward neoliberal policies. Participation in the world market need not be associated with the class/state configurations associated with neoliberalism. For example, even within the framework of capitalism, the Asian and Scan- dinavian versions of "protected" and "social-welfare" capitalism are based on export-oriented development. Their global integration was determined by the internal correlation of social forces rather than by external market imperatives . The argument that there are no alternatives to neoliberalism is false . Both the national-statist capitalism of Asia and the welfare capitalism of Scandi- navia are alternatives. Moreover, and more significant, the growing sociali- zation of production on a world scale (the global social division of labor) and the increasing degree of central planning by the global multinationals makes the objective basis for social ownership and planning a more reasonable and feasible "next step." The increasing dependence of capital on state intervention, subsidies, and expenditures to promote capitalist growth is the best argument against local projects by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The problems of the working class-education, employment, health-are not being dealt with by local NGO charity programs. The problems are political and require struggle to change the nature of the neoliberals' state intervention. The "statism" of neoliberalism needs to be reversed. Finally, the social problems of poverty and underemployment are long term and large scale and affect a broad array of social forces. Given their social nature, they require social rather than psycho-personal explanations. The question of changing the subjective responses of the exploited ma- jorities revolves around four foci of struggle: ideological, cultural, conscious- ness, and ethics. The ideological level requires a clear definition of the social character of work and unemployment and their contradictory relationship to private ownership. Socialism or social ownership (in its self-managed form) is necessary to bring social needs into congruence with social production and distribution. At the cultural level, we must revive the critical view of contemporary conditions, exposing the link between private discontent and social power and the infringement of the macroeconomic world on personal intimacy, com- paring the music of the street with spectacles performed by touring million- aires at the price of a Third World worker's

weekly/monthly salary, and encouraging the production of theater/films that confront the contradictions of individualism and cultural imperialism, consumerism, and poverty. Cul- tural struggle must start on the personal, everyday level of universal themes of love, death, and personal desires and move to the socially specific world in which we live. Consciousness can be learned from experience, reading, and winning . It can be transformed only in the context of sustained everyday solidarity. Con- sciousness must be transformed about the individual in community, class, family, and friendships and how these social mediations define the conditions and ethics of everyday existence. Consciousness is about choices: to move up with the bosses or to link up with the workers. It is both "voluntary" and determined. It can never be imposed or forced. It is, in the final analysis, the product of "self-understanding" and the realization that becoming class con- scious is a better way of living with oneself and with friends, lovers, family, and neighbors. Socialism is not the "unfolding of history." There are too many choices to make at every turn. These choices are based on material interests, but these material interests involve not only commodities butpersonal and social relations. How one pursues material or class interests-whether through political corruption or through social solidarity-is an ethical question The collective decisions of workers in Tierra del Fuego and Oruro, the decisions of landless rural workers in Brazil and Paraguay to occupy a factory, a municipal building, or a piece of land are not only about material necessities but also an affirmation of their self-worth, dignity, and capacity to govern themselves, to become full human beings and share friendship and intimate relationships without the constant threat of abuse, hunger, and fear. The sub- jective factor today is the great terrain of struggle: the economic and social conditions for the overthrow of neoliberalism are being created every day in every country, workplace, and neighborhood. What is necessary is the steady creation of a new social consciousness, culture, and ethics to convert those conditions into the basis for a social transformation.

AT Perm / State BadState-centric approaches to neoliberalism get coopted Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRIn previous chapters we have concentrated on the problems of a market- and corporation-led society. The normal conclusion of such arguments in left-of-centre thinking is to demonstrate the need for action by the democratic state. But what if we are uncertain as to the integrity and capacity of political institutions? There are today two broad sets of reasons why we should be uncertain. The first, associated with the political right and the Virginia school of public choice theory, concentrates on the likelihood that politicians and other public officials will pursue their own career goals rather than any social good, and on the difficulty anyway of achieving social good through the top-down processes typical of government action. This logic then arrives at the market as a superior device for tackling problems. The second set, associated with the political left, shares much of the thinking of the right concerning the fallibility of politics and politicians, but places particular emphasis on the role of entanglements between politics and business in the corruption of democracy. But, thinkers on the left maintain historic reservations concerning the capacity of markets to solve problems — unless heavily corrected by regulations which in turn becomes vulnerable again to the weakness of too much contact between business and politics. The previous chapters of this book have demonstrated that this familiar opposition of market and state is becoming threadbare, for two main reasons. First, where the neoliberal political right points to ‘markets’ it is often really indicating corporations. Second, the state, seen for so long by the left as the source of countervailing power against markets and corporations, is today likely to be the committed ally of giant corporations, whatever the ideological origins of the parties governing the state.

Using the state to check corporate power fails Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRDebates about what states should or should not do go on in a lively fashion in much political debate. I want here to turn the attention of critics of neoliberalism in a different direction. While it is necessary to rebut the wilder attacks on the need for governments to be part of the solutions we seek to many problems, it is also necessary for people on the centre-left to move away from the virtual identification of the pursuit of the collective with assertion of the power of the centralized state that has dominated their thinking since the French Revolution. There are arguments for this that are quite different from those that would be used by neoliberals, several of which have appeared at various points preceding chapters. First, since it is impossible to envisage an economy that is not dominated by giant firms and in which they are unable to translate economic power into political influence, governments cannot be trusted not to be exceptionally responsive to these firms’ interests. This means that all use of the state as a check on or regulator of corporate power will be, at best, a matter of ‘ two steps forward, one step back ’. Second, the state is not a force with necessarily clean hands, but is itself an area within which individuals seek personal advantage and aggrandisement. True, it is likely to be more free from such vices than are corporations. The actions and decision-making processes of governments are far more subject to transparency rules and open procedures than firms, which are able to use arguments about commercial confidentiality to justify high levels of secrecy in their operations. Exercises of nepotism and favouritism that attract strong criticism in the political sphere pass as normal behaviour in business. Politics at least has to pay lip service to relating to a world of values and some idea of right conduct, while firms are able to argue — though with increasing difficulty — that all they need do is make

money. In fact, as firms are not required to come to any arena of public debate, they do not need to ‘argue’ at all whereas politicians in a democracy can never escape it. However, while in general in the world of politics is under greater pressure than that of business to respect values, it remains one in which active individuals’ primary motivation will usually be their personal advancement. While this is subject to democratic check, that is a rather blunt instrument — sometimes blunter than the constraints imposed by the market on corporate behaviour.

State-centric solutions trigger nationalism and xenophobia Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRA third and rather different reason for not seeing the resurgence of the state as a simple strategy for reform is that political power remains overwhelmingly tied to the level of the nation-state. Not only does this mean that it has problems acting as a truly ‘public’ force on the global stage, but political parties and governments continue to try to define interests in national terms. In an increasingly global economy this is not only unrealistic , but it encourages an irrational nationalism .

From here it is an easy slip to the defence of the public realm becoming the defence of a particular national population against ‘foreigners’, especially immigrants and ethnic minorities. As formal competition among the main established parties in many countries becomes drained of

content — partly because all parties are essentially following a corporate agenda — xenophobic movements emerge as the only sources of real choice and novelty. And all they are doing is taking to an extreme the exaltation of competitive national identity being used by nearly all shades of political opinion.

At UtilUtil leads to war Cleveland 2 (Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Texas A & M University and began his career teaching at SUNY-Geneseo. He is the author of the book, Understanding the Modern Culture Wars: The Essentials of Western Civilization, and his articles have appeared in The Journal of Private Enterprise, The Independent Review, Idaho's Economy, Religion and Liberty, and The Freeman) 9/1/02 (Paul, “The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy, http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1602) Indeed, the widespread confusion over this point is one of the primary reasons why western market economies have continued to drift towards the ready acceptance of socialist policies. Edmund Opitz has rightly observed that utilitarianism with its “greatest happiness principle” completely neglects the spiritual dimension of human life. Rather, it simply “asserts that men are bound together in societies solely on the basis of a rational calculation of the private advantage to be gained by social cooperation under the division of labor.”[2] But, as Opitz shows, this perspective gives rise to a serious problem. Since theft is the first labor saving device, the utilitarian principle will tend to lead to the collective use of government power so as to redistribute income in order to gain the “greatest happiness” in society. Regrettably, the rent seeking behavior that is spawned as a result of this mind set will prove detrimental to the economy. Nevertheless, this kind of action will be justified as that which is most socially expedient in order to reach the assumed ethical end. “Utilitarianism, in short, has no logical stopping place short of collectivism.”[3] If morality is ultimately had by making the individual’s happiness subservient to the organic whole of society, which is what Bentham’s utilitarianism asserts, then the human rights of the individual may be violated. That means property rights may be violated if it is assumed to promote the utilitarian end. However, property rights are essential in securing a free market order. As a result, utilitarianism can then be used to justify some heinous government actions. For instance, the murder of millions of human beings can be justified in the minds of reformers if it is thought to move us closer to paradise on earth. This is precisely the view that was taken by communist revolutionaries as they implemented their grand schemes of remaking society. All of this is not to say that matters of utility are unimportant in policy decisions, but merely to assert that utilitarian ethics will have the tendency of promoting collectivist policies. This will tend to hold true in most cases except when such collectivism has so thoroughly destroyed the economic enterprise as in the case of the former Soviet Union. In those cases, the very real need of material advancement will lead to reform in the other direction. Therein lies the problem. Is the end that utilitarianism aims for truly ethical? It certainly contradicts the traditional moral philosophies. Both the older natural law philosophies as well as those founded upon religious traditions take issue with the use of force so as to gain one’s material wherewithal. If it can be shown that utilitarianism suffers logically from several fatal flaws, then the rational thing that one ought to do is to reject it as a basis for making ethical judgments in policy debates in favor of a more substantive moral philosophy of life. This is the purpose of this paper. Namely, to point out the numerous shortcomings of utilitarianism. In addition, it will be worthwhile to examine a common policy issue in order to demonstrate the difference that it makes when traditional moral philosophies are employed as the foundation upon which one either approves of or disapproves of a particular government action. In this case, an examination of the debate over the delivery of public goods will prove useful.

Utilitarianism is impossible anyway – you can’t quantify utilityCleveland 2 (Professor of Business Administration and Economics at Birmingham-Southern College. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Texas A & M University and began his career teaching at SUNY-Geneseo. He is the author of the book, Understanding the Modern Culture Wars: The Essentials of Western Civilization, and his articles have appeared in The Journal of Private Enterprise, The Independent Review, Idaho's Economy, Religion and Liberty, and The Freeman) 9/1/02 (Paul, “The Failure of Utilitarian Ethics in Political Economy, http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1602) Among the many difficulties encountered in Bentham?s approach, the first is that it is impossible to make interpersonal comparisons. It is a well-known fact that different people have different tastes. In addition, there are differences in personalities and talents that different people possess and these differences give rise to differences in their goals and ambitions. All these variations in turn give rise to a fundamental fact of human existence. Namely, that it is

impossible for us to know or measure the extent of either pleasure or pain for any specific person in any particular situation. Such measures are beyond the capacity of our ability to know. While human beings can most certainly empathize with someone who is experiencing extreme hardship or enjoying great success, such efforts are only accomplished by projecting one’s own inward feelings to someone else’s circumstance. One person simply cannot accurately know the depth of another person’s pain nor the height of his joy. While Bentham at least recognized this problem, it did not discourage him from his ultimate pursuit. Instead, he continued to promote his new ethical philosophy and argued that it was the only way that we could go. Therefore, he pressed for a way to measure happiness. While he was never able to arrive at such a measure, he remained confident that one would soon be developed and even used the term utils as the units in which it would be measured. Economists have long since given up on the search for a cardinal measure of utility. Strangely enough however, welfare economists continue to act as if we can actually accomplish the impossible task by attempting to measure deadweight losses within the context of modern price theory. It is the rise in the prominence of welfare analysis that has given utilitarianism a standing in modern policy debates. However, such efforts cannot escape the reality that such measures cannot be made. With no adequate way to measure utility in order to make the necessary interpersonal comparisons, all such policy arguments are reduced to contests where each side claims that the rewards to be received by them would greatly outweigh whatever pain might be incurred by those who are forced to bear the costs.

Neoliberalism Bad

DemocracyIn a world of neoliberalism, ruling coalitions can supplant the will of the majority Prasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR Having low expectations of the state, it comes to be bypassed, even despised, by all

and sundry. This, in turn, creates a political vacuum that may be seized by kleptocrats and political parties pursuing sectarian agendas. Unwilling or unable to provide state goods and services, yet desirous of legitimacy, opportunistic leaders – democratic and authoritarian alike – may be inclined to seek it on the basis of a shared religion or ethnic heritage. This, of course, is best accomplished by presenting one’s own group as under threat by a nefarious and hostile “other.”2 Racially or ethnically divisive politics, then, can be a substitute for responsible or citizencentered governance (Sheth 2004). Knowing this, a neoliberal “comprador” class might be inclined to ally itself with a prominent ethnic group or religious party to facilitate the advancement of a narrow or self-serving agenda. Such considerations undoubtedly contribute to the otherwise uneasy alliance between elements of the financial elite and evangelical Christians in the United States. When the state is discredited and ongoing economic stagnation is the likely prognosis, ruling coalitions must be established on alternative grounds if the needs of the majority are to be denied.

Disposable PopulationsNeoliberalism makes populations expendable and makes growth the ultimate priorityBrown 2004-Wendy, professor of political theory at Berkley (Wendy, “Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy”, Theory and Event Volume 7, Number 1, 2003, project muse)1) The political sphere, along with every other dimension of contemporary existence, is submitted to an economic rationality, or put the other way around, not only is the human being configured exhaustively as homo oeconomicus, all dimensions of human life are cast in terms of a market rationality. While this entails submitting every action and policy to considerations of profitability, equally important is the production of all human and institutional action as rational entrepreneurial action, conducted according to a calculus of utility, benefit, or satisfaction against a micro-economic grid of scarcity, supply and demand, and moral value-neutrality. Neo-liberalism does not simply assume that all aspects of social, cultural and political life can be reduced to such a calculus, rather it develops institutional practices and rewards for enacting this vision. That is, through discourse and policy promulgating its criteria, neo-liberalism produces rational actors and imposes market rationale for decision-making in all spheres. Importantly then, neo-liberalism involves a normative rather than ontological claim about the pervasiveness of economic rationality and advocates the institution building, policies, and discourse development appropriate to such a claim. Neo-liberalism is a constructivist project: it does not presume the ontological givenness of a thoroughgoing economic rationality for all domains of society but rather takes as its task the development, dissemination, and institutionalization of such a rationality. This point is further developed in (2) below. 2) In contrast with the notorious laissez faire and human propensity to "truck and barter" of classical economic liberalism, neo-liberalism does not conceive either the market itself or rational economic behavior as purely natural. Both are constructed -- organized by law and political institutions, and requiring political intervention and orchestration. Far from flourishing when left alone, the economy must be directed, buttressed, and protected by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed to facilitate competition, free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and institution of society. In Lemke's account, "In the Ordo-liberal scheme, the market does not amount to a natural economic reality, with intrinsic laws that the art of government must bear in mind and respect; instead, the market can be constituted and kept alive only by dint of political interventions . . . competition, too, is not a natural fact . . . this fundamental economic mechanism can function only if support is forthcoming to bolster a series of conditions, and adherence to the latter must consistently be guaranteed by legal measures" (193). The neo-liberal formulation of the state and especially specific legal arrangements and decisions as the pre- and ongoing condition of the market does not mean that the market is controlled by the state but precisely the opposite, that the market is the organizing and regulative principle of the state and society and this along four different lines: a)The state openly responds to needs of the market, whether through monetary and fiscal policy, immigration policy, the treatment of criminals, or the structure of public education. In so doing, the state is no longer encumbered by the danger of incurring the legitimation deficits predicted by 1970s social theorists and political economists such as Nicos Poulantzas, Jurgen Habermas, or James O'Connor.6 Rather, neo-liberal rationality extended to the state itself indexes state success according to its ability to sustain and foster the market and ties state legitimacy to such success. This is a new form of legitimation, one that "founds a state" according to Lemke, and contrasts with the Hegelian and French revolutionary notion of the constitutional state as the emergent universal representative of the people. As Lemke describes Foucault's account of Ordo-liberal thinking, "economic liberty produces the legitimacy for a form of sovereignty limited to guaranteeing economic activity . . . .a state that was no longer defined in terms of an historical mission but legitimated itself with reference to economic growth" (196). b)The state itself is enfolded and animated by market rationality, not simply profitability, but a generalized calculation of cost and benefit becomes the measure of all state practices. Political discourse on all matters is framed in entrepreneurial terms; the state must not simply concern itself with the market but think and behave like a market actor across all of its functions, including law.7 c)Putting (a) and (b) together, the health and growth of the economy is the basis of state legitimacy both because the state is forthrightly responsible for the health of the economy and because of the economic rationality to which state practices have been submitted. Thus, "It's the economy, stupid"

becomes more than a campaign principle; rather, it expresses the legitimacy principle of the state and the basis for state action -- from Constitutional adjudication and campaign finance reform to welfare policy to foreign policy, including warfare and the organization of "homeland security."

Human RightsNeoliberalism justifies fascism and the devastation of human rights Pellicani 12 – Libera University, International Social Studies, Rome (Luciano Pellicani, “Fascism, capitalism, modernity” European Journal of Political Theory, 2012, Sage Publications) MR ‘Whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism’. Horkheimer’s famous injunction – which Roger Griffin reminds us of so opportunely in his article – expressed the heuristic principle which underlies all Marxist interpretations of fascism. These confidently assert that: i) the roots of the movements created by Mussolini and Hitler lie in the developmental logic of industrial capitalism; ii) such movements were the agents used by the plutocratic bourgeoisie in order to shore up its threatened dominion over the proletariat; iii) Fascism and Nazism presented themselves as revolutionary movements, but in reality what they brought about was a preventive counter-revolution; iv) if the roots of fascism are to be extirpated then capitalism must be wiped off the face of the earth since it has been the ‘historical placenta’ of fascism. In the essay The Jews and Europe, Max Horkheimer argues that it is completely erroneous to see in the fascist dictatorship a radical break in the continuous evolution of liberal civilization. On the contrary, it had to be recognized that ‘the order that emerged from 1789 as the path to progress contained from the very beginning the tendency towards Nazism’, to the point where it was possible and necessary to state that ‘fascism is the truth of modern society which was contained in its theory from the outset’, so that ‘to combat fascism by invoking liberal principles means appealing to the very authority which has enabled fascism’s victory’.1 This is no different from the thesis developed by Herbert Marcuse in an essay published in 1934 with the title ‘The Struggle Against Liberalism in the Totalitarian View of the State’. Having demonstrated ‘how many elements of the totalitarian conception of the state are already implicit in the liberal theory of society’, and having affirmed that ‘we can take as read the economic bases of the transformation of liberal theory into totalitarian theory’, Marcuse asserts that . . . at bottom these bases follow a line of development that marks the transition from the commercial and industrial society, based on the free competition between autonomous individual entrepreneurs, to the modern monopolistic state, in which changed productive relations demand a strong state equipped with all the instruments of power. From this premise he reaches the logical conclusion that The passage from the liberal state to the totalitarian and authoritarian state is carried out on the basis of the same social orientation. Taking into account this shared economic foundation it can be stated that it is liberalism itself that generates the totalitarian and authoritarian state, which is the perfection of the liberal state in an advanced stage of its development. The totalitarian state provides the organization and the theory of society which correspond to the monopolistic stage of capitalism.2 The significance of Horkheimer’s and Marcuse’s indictment of capitalism and liberalism is abundantly clear. And it is not far removed from the Stalinist theory of fascism, an ideological weapon forged by the Communist International to fight ‘Western decadence’. But nothing – absolutely nothing – justifies the claim that the historical function of fascism was to establish ‘the political hegemony of Finance Capitalism’, as Nicos Poulantzas asserts without producing the slightest shred of evidence to support his thesis.3 On the contrary, fascism was an epochal phenomenon on a continental scale which exhibited the typical features of a ‘revolt against bourgeois society, its moral values, its power structures, its way of life’.4 It was a revolt generated by ‘disgust for a society completely permeated by the mentality and moral principles of the bourgeoisie’ and by the ‘desire to witness the collapse of a world in which everything was a sham’, so that ‘unlimited destruction, chaos and ruin assumed in themselves the dignity of supreme values’.5 Thus nihilism, understood as ‘the negation of existing civilization’,6 began to spread, especially after the catastrophic consequences of the Great War. The most significant of these was the appearance on the European scene of a new sort of revolutionary, the ‘black Jacobin’,7 who like the ‘red Jacobin’ set out to destroy ‘plutocratic society, insatiable in its love of gold’,8 creating thereby a ‘tabula rasa, and clearing the path for every revolutionary action’.9

Laundry ListNeolib is really badPrasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR As mentioned, it is now widely understood that neoliberal economic policies have wreaked enormous and needless damage upon the world economy for these past thirty

years. Slow rates of economic growth, frequent financial crises, high levels of unemployment, and related miseries have been imposed upon developed and undeveloped nations alike. Exceptions to the case, and there are several, have accrued only to those few nations with both the will and ability to resist these pernicious doctrines (Amsden 2007; Chang 2008; Wade 1990). These assertions are supported by a wealth of statistics . For example, the median incomes and life expectancy of sub-Saharan Africans have declined since the 1970s (Weisbrot, Baker, Kraev, and Chen 2001). For several decades, and accounting for all aid and lending programs, Africa has experienced tremendous capital outflows (Ndikumana and Boyce 2011). Closer to home, the inflation-adjusted median wage in the United States has declined over this same period, which has induced Americans to rely on credit to sustain their lifestyles (Brown 2008). Of course, little of this is news to those who study the economy as opposed to neoclassical economics (Economic Report of the President 2010: Tables B-47, 75, 77, Columns 5, 8). Indeed, outside of the citadels of neoclassical economic thought it has long been understood that the “Matthew Principle” holds pride of place in “free market” economies, both domestic and international (“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath).” While theories of unequal exchange or dependency theory have taken several forms, they all share the idea that those who “have” disproportionately benefit in the course of “free exchanges” with persons or nations closer to the margin of existence (Patnaik 1997; Prasch 1995, 2000). Partially by design and partially by default, liberalized international financial flows exacerbate the “fiscal crisis” of the state (Prasch 1996). This may be disappointing but not surprising. Mainstream economists and libertarians have long, if quietly, considered the ensuing reduction in state capacity to be one more benefit of a neoliberal international order. As a consequence of this chronic underfunding, developing nations lack both the means and ability to meet the needs of their citizenry. Unsurprisingly, the population ceases to look to the state for essential services or even protections. Again, these are developments that are celebrated and embraced by proponents of neoliberalism. Regrettably, what these proponents neither know nor wish to know is that the public’s need for security, shelter, food, and other subsistence goods does not dissipate simply because the state’s capacity has been diminished. Some, that is to say the wealthy and privileged, can readily and cost-effectively replace absent state services with private provisioning. In practice this means private roads, schools, water, power, and police services, along with the emergence of sundry informal means for resolving conflicts and related issues. These latter practices can elide into – or

even outright embrace – cronyism or corruption . By contrast to the wealthy, the poor must do without . With their basic needs unmet, they become a less effective workforce and citizenry (Prasch 2005). Worse, abandoned by the state as the consequence of a fiscal crisis, or the austerity imposed in its wake, and despairing for the future, the public may engage in acts of civil disruption or even rebellion . The state, ever jealous of its sovereignty, will be strongly inclined to repress such activities (Abouharb and Cingranelli 2006; Landman and Larizza 2009; Richards and Gelleny 2006).

UnsustainableNeoliberalism is teetering on the brink – unsustainable Petit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MRPoliticians were initially slightly baffled by the size of the income of this elite, but they got used to it as the costs of election campaigns rose with the importance of the media. The 2008 financial crisis, suddenly raising as it did the levels of public indebtedness, tended to strengthen this hold of finance over the political class (Figure 3). Still, the battle is not yet settled, and the political sustainability of this specific finance-led capitalism remains uncertain . In stressing that

they are the '99 per cent', social movements like Occupy Wall Street put down a marker, and in stressing the contradiction of populist movements like the USA's Tea Party supporting the top-earning 1 per cent, led to a reduction in those movements' backing of more extreme versions of the neoliberal agenda. On top of the clear political support that this new class of very rich people brought to finance-led capitalism, one should also take into account the international organisation of the finance sector, in which large cities like London and New York play central roles. The self interest of these cities maintained an international division of labour in the financial world that was beneficial to them, and helped to build up strong support for the status quo. This provided political support for finance-led capitalism. The current era of financial globalisation has been characterised by the predominance of 'Western finance', even if this may not last long. Another major factor providing comfort to finance-led capitalism could well be the role of this international elite in the coordination of the developed economies. Beyond public meetings such as the Davos Forum or the systematic open networking practices of banks like Goldman Sachs, the international networking role of this international elite appears to be a stabilising factor for citizens. The 'Group of 30' (see www.group30.org), an organisation of former and current central bankers, constitutes another example with their political and academic credentials. They are able to provide a link between the benefits of internationalisation (in terms of cheap goods and travel) and the looseness of international governance. But when financial scandals are attached to key players in this elite, the legitimacy of the sector is greatly reduced. The political sustainability of finance-led capitalism therefore remains an open issue.

Globalization is under attack Petit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MRThe legitimacy of the finance-led regime of accumulation seems to be increasingly

under attack , and from a range of directions. The first of these is the deepening of the economic recession that followed the global financial crisis. Austerity plans imposed to reduce public debts have provoked waves of unemployment, and linked this to the demands of financial markets. The need to develop international institutions to deal with the refinancing of public debts has become clearer. The differences in lending rates are provocative, and the financial system will be blamed for the miseries ahead. The mobilisation of NGOs at the international level has been rising in the field of finance, where the lobbying of banks and their associates has so far prevailed. The recent creation of Financial Watch at the European level is a sign of this evolution (see www.finance-watch.org). Opinion polls on the very rich are telling of a rising distrust and anger. The broadly held perception that the majority of the very rich openly escape taxes is adding to this resentment. Opinion polls in the USA for instance show that the very rich are widely considered as smart but dishonest. What seems to be building up is a situation in which the broad majority will come to consider that finance-led capitalism has to be scrapped. It may not be in favour of radical alternatives to capitalism, but of a strictly reformed capitalism in which finance may remain a sophisticated tool, but in the hands of public, collective authorities for its supervision. The forms it

may take could follow from the imperative to face a major challenge that has not so far been considered, such as the environmental sustainability of our modes of development.

Neoliberalism has failed – collapsing globally – prefer our epistemologyPrasch 12 – Department of Economics, Middlebury College (Robert E. Prasch, “Neoliberalism and Ethnic Conflict” Review of Radical Political Economics, 2012, Sage Publications) MR In 1989, a senior member of the Reagan administration announced that with the demise of the Soviet Union the world had arrived – in the Hegelian sense – at the “End of History.” No longer would there be conflicts over core ideas and values. Neoliberal economic policies conjoined with electoral democracy had, it was asserted, been established as the universally accepted form of economicpolitical organization (Fukuyama 1989). Judged by its heralded reception, this article succeeded in capturing a normative position held strongly by North Atlantic economic and political elites. The last dozen years have been unkind to Fukuyama’s core assertion. First, everyone not paid to believe otherwise can see that neoliberal economic policies have failed . Second, Europeans are clinging tenaciously to their welfare states despite the best efforts of the technocrats running the European Union. Third, Latin American voters are electing and re-electing leaders who call openly for ending the economic and political hegemony of the “Washington Consensus.” Fourth, and most disturbing, has been the rise of self-consciously non-Western ideologies, along with the insistence of their adherents that they be accorded sufficient autonomy within their own nations to pursue their vision of “the good life” (however unattractive that may appear to Western sensibilities). Each of the above trends can be, and has been, accompanied by social and political conflict, including inter-ethnic conflict. Unsurprisingly, several explanations have emerged to explain their origin.

Neoliberalism is on the brink of collapse Petit 13 – emeritus director of research at the CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) in Paris (Pascal Petit, “In search of politically sustainable growth regimes” Capital & Class, 37.1, February 2013, Gale Group) MRIs the logic of a finance-led accumulation so strong that it can accommodate all the possible transformations in our social relations? There is for many observers a paradox in the ability of the financial sector to capture such a large share of value added in the first decade of the 21st century, because this was an era of slow growth and rising unemployment in which finance had already earned a poor reputation. In the 1980s, when the liberalisation of finance began, economists largely thought that finance could help to steer economic growth. At the turn of the century, after the East Asian crisis of 1997 and the fall of the LCTM hedge fund in 1998, soon followed by the dot.com crisis on financial markets in 2001, opinions started to reverse (Bidhe 2009). After the global financial crisis of 2008, a sizeable share of the economics profession thought that the world had gone too far in this expansion of finance (Cecchetti and Kharoubi 2012). While by the mid 1990s, liberalisation had raised the share of gross operating surplus of the finance sector in the UK from 4 per cent to 8 per cent of total business operating surplus, the hyperactivity of the sector doubled that to 16 per cent by 2008, with a similar quadrupling in the US over the '90s and 2000s (see Haldane 2010). Indeed, this last decade has been so 'productive' for the financial sector that these results were achieved without any further growth of employment and capital in the sector (at least in the UK). No wonder that during this time public opinion developed a much stronger view of the extortionate power of finance. The middle and lower middle classes became more indebted, and speculative gains on mergers and acquisitions generated more bankruptcies and job losses in an aggressive form of Anglo-American capitalism. (3) These experiences all led to a majority of citizens feeling cheated by the financial sector. The obscene earnings of executives (as Obama qualified them) added to this, and public anger against the financial sector, largely echoed by politicians, was even acknowledged by key finance professionals. In September 2012, Ant6nio Horta-Os6rio, the CEO of Lloyds Bank, said in a speech at the annual

CBI dinner in Scotland, 'The banking industry has done itself no favours. Issue by issue and scandal by scandal, the faith and trust in our industry has been eroded.' In order to restore trust, 'the industry must change. We must recast the banking model ... retail and commercial banks should be simple and they should be boring' (Telegraph, 2012). This opinion reveals such a level of hostility to finance that one wonders how strict reforms have not been passed right away to domesticate finance. This recalls Kalecki's (1943) assessment of the possibility of capitalism to reform itself in order to ensure full employment:

Wage Inequality – GeneralNeoliberalism is a trap that secures the subordination of the poor to satisfy the rich Crouch 11 – English sociologist and political scientist, former Professor of Governance and Public Management in the University of Warwick Business School until 2011 (Colin Crouch, “The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism” Winner of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung prize, Polity Press, August 8 2011) MRNeoliberalism, compromised by the soft approach of Chicago economics towards concentrations of wealth in market—dominating corporations, and further compromised by having created, through banking deregulation, markets that thrive on inadequate information, has led us into a trap : We can secure our collective welfare only by enabling a very small number of individuals to become extremely rich and politically powerful. The essence of this trap is perfectly expressed in what is now happening to the Welfare state. Governments have to make deep cuts in social services, health and education programmes, pension entitlements and social transfers to the poor and unemployed. They have to do this to satisfy the anxieties of the financial markets over the size of public debt, the operators in these markets being the very same people who benefited from the bank rescue, and who have already begun to pay themselves high bonuses — bonuses ‘earned’ because their operations have been guaranteed against risk by the government spending that created the public debt.

Wage Inequality – Mexico Globalization in Mexico exacerbated wage inequality for women Domínguez-Villalobos* and Brown-Grossman** 10 – * professor of industrial economics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and **External Consultant: World Bank, International Labour Organization, Study Commission for Latin America (ECLA), Fundes International, Inter-American Development Bank and the Centre for International Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness (Lilia Domínguez-Villalobos and Flor Brown-Grossman, “Trade Liberalization and Gender Wage Inequality in Mexico” Feminist Economics Volume 16, Issue 4, 2010, Taylor and Francis) MRThe deepening of globalization has produced far-sweeping changes both in policy schemes and in the economic structures with an increasing share of women in employment, particularly in export industries. This has raised many questions of how international trade and concomitant changes brought about by policy reforms and technological upgrading have affected men's and women's wages and gender inequality. This article aims to contribute to the feminist economics project of engendering research on the export-led growth model. The analysis of the Mexican case provides an example of how to address this question. Since the late 1980s, the Mexican government has carried out economic reforms to integrate into the global market. In only a very short period of time, Mexico signed free trade agreements with more than twenty countries. As will be shown below, this process has delivered neither the results economic theorists and policy-makers promised nor greater welfare and gender equality. Assessments by economists have pointed to serious failures in such important aspects as employment generation and sustainable output growth (Julio López 2001, Juan Carlos Moreno-Brid, Jesús Santamaría, and Juan Carlos Rivas Valdivia 2005). There are many unresolved problems related to the insufficient competitiveness of smaller firms. Also, structural heterogeneity has been an ongoing feature of the Mexican economy, in that there is an increasing gap between exporting firms and other firms, as well as between large and small enterprises. In the end, expectations of movement toward greater wage equality through higher wages for low-wage earners were not fulfilled. Various studies have shown that the distribution of trade gains has been unequal among industries and among workers. Real wages in Mexico have declined since 1982, and although there was a minor recovery during the early 1990s, they are still below the level of that year. There is also evidence indicating greater wage disparity and inequality after trade liberalization during the 1980s and 1990s, although some slight improvement occurred between 1998 and 2003. Michael Cragg and Mario Epelbaum (1996) and Gordon Hanson (2003) have explained growing wage inequality in Mexico through a skills-biased technological change, pointing to the upward trend of white-collar worker earnings that has resulted from the redistribution of the labor force from unskilled to skilled labor between 1988 and the late 1990s. This redistribution may be explained by technological upgrading processes in export firms and also by the growing share of industries and services requiring more qualified labor, including the telecommunications and financial sectors. In other words, due to a technological, change-induced, skill-upgrading effect, the demand for labor did not follow the pattern described in the Stolper–Samuelson theory, which suggests that demand for the relatively abundant factor should increase leading to an increase in its relative price. Gender has not been a variable in this analysis of wage inequality, despite statistical evidence of women's growing share of industrial employment, which increased from an average of 26 percent between 1987 and 1993, to 37 percent in 2006. After all these years of trade reforms, substantially lower earnings for women in comparison to men persist : the gender wage ratio for the manufacturing sector was 75 percent in 2005 (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía [INEGI] 2005).1 The question arises as to how international trade and concomitant changes brought about by policy reforms and technological upgrades affect men's and women's wages and gender inequality.

Neoliberalism leads to wage inequalities for women – Mexico proves Domínguez-Villalobos* and Brown-Grossman** 10 – * professor of industrial economics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and **External Consultant: World Bank, International Labour Organization, Study Commission for Latin America (ECLA), Fundes International, Inter-American Development Bank and the Centre for International Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness (Lilia Domínguez-Villalobos and Flor Brown-Grossman, “Trade Liberalization and Gender Wage Inequality in Mexico” Feminist Economics Volume 16, Issue 4, 2010, Taylor and Francis) MRFeminist economists have argued that nonconvergence of wages between women and men is possible under trade liberalization (Caren Grown, Diane Elson, and Nilüfer Çağatay 2000). Using a heterodox approach, Nilüfer Çağatay (2005) breaks down the conditions underlying this outcome: unemployment, underemployment, and segmented markets, which are regular features of capitalist economies, and in our opinion, particularly of underdeveloped economies. Labor market institutions are not gender neutral and may not provide norms and conditions that support wage-earning women. Thus, increased international trade in developing economies may contribute to increased employment segregation; feminization of the labor force may imply informalization, de-skilling of labor, and often a lack of acceptable working conditions (Pearson 1995). In this context, reduced bargaining power for women prevents them from achieving wage gains and wage equality (Günseli Berik, Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, and Joseph E. Zveglich 2004).

Neoliberalism in Mexico aggravates wage and gender inequality Domínguez-Villalobos* and Brown-Grossman** 10 – * professor of industrial economics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and **External Consultant: World Bank, International Labour Organization, Study Commission for Latin America (ECLA), Fundes International, Inter-American Development Bank and the Centre for International Intellectual Capital and Competitiveness (Lilia Domínguez-Villalobos and Flor Brown-Grossman, “Trade Liberalization and Gender Wage Inequality in Mexico” Feminist Economics Volume 16, Issue 4, 2010, Taylor and Francis) MRAccording to our results, factors that add to the non-neoclassical feminist economics framework for explaining the impact of trade on gender inequality are: export orientation, the female share of employment, and GDP growth. Our main finding concerns the negative impact of export orientation on men's and women's wages and on the gender wage ratio. Women are penalized more than men, and therefore women lose in both absolute and relative terms. The power of this result lies in the fact that it holds after controlling for the female share of employment and for the gender skill ratio, each of which also exerts a negative impact on the gender wage ratio. Our finding on the negative effect of trade on inequality is contrary to the positions held by orthodox Mexican policy-makers. Inasmuch as an important portion of exports derive from assembly operations where women are a greater share of employees, this finding provides solid grounding for feminist arguments that export booms in developing countries do not

necessarily offer opportunities for empowerment but rather increase forms of

exploitation and subordination for women (Ruth Pearson 2004). The finding calls for modifications in Mexican labor market institutions to take into account the specificities of women's gendered position in economic transactions by policy-makers. In our opinion, a new course in the development strategy and industrial policy is needed to recover production capacities and export goods with higher value added, a path that requires higher-skilled workers and makes it possible to have better wages. Although our variables are not strictly comparable with those of studies in other countries, we can compare and contrast some results. For example, Berik's inter-industry panel model found a greater wage penalty for men than women associated with employment in more export-oriented sectors and higher female-intensive sectors in the case of Taiwan (Berik 2000). Our results point to the opposite effect of these industrial characteristics: they contributed to greater gender wage inequality. Concerning the capital–labor ratio, Berik's (2000) findings for Taiwan point in the same direction: the relationship is positive for both men's and women's wage equations, but its elasticity is greater on female regression, thus reducing inequality. Future research should take into account the limitations of

this study. First, our data did not permit us to examine the effect of imports in our model. We agree that imports may have an exacerbating effect on domestic competition, negatively affecting employment and wages. Also, more research is needed to fully understand the differential behavior of firms in relation to employment recruitment, gender mix, and layoffs by sex and skills, as well as other factors. We are aware that biases will be inevitable in some of our variables, since the subsectors we left out of the analysis were more highly export-oriented, less capital-intensive, employed low-skilled workers, and had a higher share of output produced by foreign firms. We cannot say for certain whether the effects of these variables would have changed had we included these subsectors. Future research is needed, covering a longer time period and including all subsectors as well as the maquiladora industry, in order to avoid missing information biases. For the particular segment of national manufacturing we focused on, however, our results suggest that during the 2001–5 period, the manufacturing sector responded to rising international competition by pursuing a low-road strategy. The capital intensity of production and the average skill level of both women and men workers declined as production became more export-oriented and foreign firms accounted for a larger share of production. These changes were accompanied by an increase in women's share of employment and rise in gender wage inequality. Greater reliance on low-skilled labor, and more so in the case of women workers, resulted in lower wages for both women and men, but more so for women. These outcomes do not represent a favorable record of trade liberalization and reforms in Mexico.

Trafficking

Root Cause Neoliberalism is the root cause of sex traffickingKim and Chang 7 professor of law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, teaches Torts, Immigration Law and Human Trafficking, AND Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at University of California, Santa Barbara. (Kathleen and Grace, Loyola Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-47, December 2007, "Reconceptualizing Approaches to Human Trafficking: New Directions and Perspectives from the Field(s)," http://www.sacramentosect.org/uploads/5/0/9/5/5095098/reconceptualizing_approaches_to_ht.pdf¶ )//ModermattAnti-trafficking and human rights advocates now consider it absolutely essential for antitrafficking service providers to expand their work beyond the "3 Ps" of prevention, prosecution and protection. n40 While the "3 Ps" approach assisted many potential and actual lives of victims, it does not address underlying social structures that facilitate human trafficking. These advocates recognize that governments, whose agendas conflict with the goals of advocates, support the "3 P" approach and the prevailing discourse on human trafficking. Thus, civil society must actively seek the means to lead in developing new understandings and a new discourse on human trafficking. This new discourse must be grounded in understandings of the processes of globalization, and the coercive nature of most migration within this context. The new discourse supports a framework that views trafficking as coerced migration or exploitation of migrant workers for all forms of labor, including a broad spectrum of work often performed by migrants, such as manufacturing, agriculture, construction, service work, servile marriage and sex work. This definition of trafficking rests upon an understanding that many migrant workers [*327] are coerced to migrate because of economic devastation caused by neoliberal policies in their home countries. While this displacement does not imply physical force or deception, it recognizes coercion created by the destruction of subsistence economies and social service states through neoliberal policies imposed on indebted sending countries by wealthy creditor nations. n41 The new discourse encompasses an understanding of migrant workers' experiences as inclusive of many forms of labor, either simultaneously or in sequence. In Canada, for example, women recruited and trafficked as domestic workers have often faced pressure to enter servile marriages within their employers' households and families. In the United States, it is not uncommon for workers engaged in manufacturing to hold second and third jobs in service work. Finally, people's experiences of being trafficked may span a broad spectrum from consent to coercion. While a person may initially participate with ostensible "knowledge and consent" to being transported for work, she may later wish to leave the work or particular employment site, yet be held captive by an employer. Within the new discourse, such a person would be recognized as a victim of trafficking. n42 The focus on "sex trafficking" obscures the U.S. government's responsibility for compelling people to leave their countries. For example, structural adjustment and other neoliberal policies imposed on the Philippines has forced the mass migration of women and men. International financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund impose structural adjustment policies as preconditions for indebted nations to obtain loans. n43 The ravages of these policies have destroyed subsistence economies and social services; as a result, over 3,100 people leave the Philippines each day. Government agencies in sending countries such as the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration facilitate this mass migration in such explicit, concrete ways that it is difficult to view this movement as anything short of government-sponsored human export. In turn, receiving countries such as the United States and Canada fashion immigration, labor, and welfare laws in such a way that migrant workers remain super-exploitable as temporary workers, ineligible for most rights and protections afforded to citizens

in these "host" countries. n44 Through these policies, the U.S. government and many other nations promote human trafficking and labor exploitation, while simultaneously creating the conditions of poverty through neoliberal economic policies that [*328] compel people to migrate. The selective criminalization of "sex trafficking" ensures that the root causes of all forms of human trafficking, and state responsibility for or complicity in these structural causes, remain unchallenged. n45 In sum, the underlying root causes for rendering human beings vulnerable to human trafficking are complex and regionally diverse and cannot be addressed by a "one size fits all" strategy. The development of a new discourse on trafficking, therefore, requires a critical analysis of the current U.S. policy and its consequences that integrates multiple perspectives from varied fields of human rights, women's rights, labor rights and health rights. An integrated and cross-disciplinary framework launches a reconceptualization of trafficking that considers root causes and the role of U.S. policies in hampering efforts to combat trafficking.

Discourse FirstSolving for discourse is a prerequisite to effective solvencyKim and Chang 7 professor of law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, teaches Torts, Immigration Law and Human Trafficking, AND Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at University of California, Santa Barbara. (Kathleen and Grace, Loyola Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-47, December 2007, "Reconceptualizing Approaches to Human Trafficking: New Directions and Perspectives from the Field(s)," http://www.sacramentosect.org/uploads/5/0/9/5/5095098/reconceptualizing_approaches_to_ht.pdf¶ )//ModermattVarious policy measures contribute to the conflation of trafficking and prostitution, in definition and in subsequent practice. In addition, administrative agencies substantively and procedurally utilize these policies to enforce the criminalization of prostitution, rather than to combat human trafficking. Examples include the definition of trafficking in persons pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA); the Trafficking in Persons annual report issued by the U.S. State Department; and the End Demand legislation. First, a historical tension exists with regard to the relationship of trafficking to sex work. The TVPA, the chief U.S. anti-trafficking statute, defines "human [*329] trafficking" more narrowly than the established international definition. As discussed earlier, the TVPA focuses on sex trafficking, which conflicts with the broader definition created under international agreements such as the 2000 Palermo Protocol. The Palermo Protocol defines trafficking as follows: (a) "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability n46 or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs; n47 The definition in the Palermo Protocol is perhaps the first international definition or reformulation of "trafficking in persons" since the 1949 UN Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and the Exploitation of Prostitution of Others. The 1949 Convention focused exclusively on prostitution and considered all prostitution, whether voluntary or forced, to be trafficking. The Palermo Protocol recognizes the existence and possibilities of both voluntary and forced prostitution and indeed leaves "prostitution" intentionally ambiguous to allow for different interpretations. Participants noted that the Palermo Protocol includes but does not define the phrase "exploitation of prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation" because delegates to the Palermo negotiations could not reach a consensus on the meaning of this phrase. While all delegates agreed that involuntary participation in prostitution constitutes trafficking, the majority of delegates rejected the idea that voluntary participation by adults in prostitution amounts to trafficking. Thus, the language of the Palermo Protocol emerged from a compromise reached by the delegates to ensure the greatest number of signatories. Delegates agreed to leave the phrase undefined but included the following explanation in interpretive note 64 The travaux preparatoires should indicate that the Protocol addresses the exploitation of the prostitution of others and other forms of sexual exploitation only in the context of trafficking in persons. The terms "exploitation of the prostitution of others" or "other forms of sexual exploitation" are not defined in the Protocol, which is therefore [*330] without prejudice to how States Parties address prostitution in their respective domestic laws. n48 The strength of this language and the lack of an explicit definition of the "exploitation of prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation" allows for governments to develop their own approaches and definitions with respect to prostitution and sexual exploitation. "Sexual exploitation" means the participation by a person in prostitution, sexual servitude, or the production of pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage or fraud. Even in the absence of any of these factors, where the person participating in prostitution, sexual servitude or the production of pornographic materials is under the age of 18, sexual exploitation shall be deemed to exist. n49 The language of the TVPA does not allow for such broad interpretation and autonomy of other states in defining trafficking. This raises the concern that the TVPA overrides the possibilities allowed for and intended by the delegates in creating the terms of the Palermo Protocol. Furthermore, the TVPA language supplants these more expansive definitions of trafficking through concrete means such as international

"prevention" measures mandated, monitored and enforced by the U.S. State Department's Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report. n50 The TIP report ranks countries' performance in preventing trafficking at Tier 1, 2, or 3, based on their compliance with U.S. approved anti-trafficking measures. The U.S. government sanctions countries with lower tier rankings, while higher tier countries may receive funding from the U.S. to aid their anti-trafficking efforts. The strongest determinants for rankings include a country's level of focus on prostitution, endorsement of the prostitution/trafficking conflation and emphasis on prosecution. One example of the U.S. government's bias exists in the case of Korea. Advocates reported that in legal terms, the Korean government understands human trafficking only to mean prostitution. This interpretation did not change with the introduction of the Palermo Protocol, and only grew worse after introduction of the TVPA, and Korea's initial ranking as a Tier 3 country in [*331] 2001. The Korean government responded by establishing an inter-ministry task force to combat trafficking and subsequently introduced a prostitution prevention law. Despite protests by sex worker rights groups, Korea has instituted a sweeping anti-prostitution law, the first of its kind since 1961. The reform includes prison sentences and fines for traffickers and for women in the sex industry. The Korean government, encouraged by its subsequent ranking at Tier 1, claims it will eliminate prostitution by 2007. This illustrates the large-scale negative impact of the antiprostitution and prosecution-oriented framework ofthe TVPA and other U.S. trafficking policy globally. n51

K Turns CaseSolving for Neoliberalism is a prerequisite to aff solvencyKim and Chang 7 professor of law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, teaches Torts, Immigration Law and Human Trafficking, AND Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at University of California, Santa Barbara. (Kathleen and Grace, Loyola Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-47, December 2007, "Reconceptualizing Approaches to Human Trafficking: New Directions and Perspectives from the Field(s)," http://www.sacramentosect.org/uploads/5/0/9/5/5095098/reconceptualizing_approaches_to_ht.pdf¶ )//ModermattIn order to advance the rights of trafficked persons and effectively prevent human trafficking, it is necessary to dismantle the existing and proposed immigration and labor policies that facilitate trafficking. Reconceptualizing [*339] trafficking as an issue of labor migration takes a step toward this goal by understanding trafficking as a gross violation of migrants' rights to live and work where they choose, with freedom from abusive working conditions. A migrant labor rights paradigm, recognizes that labor rights violations remain at the core of trafficking. Globalization and neoliberal polices have led to a lack of economic opportunity that allow individuals to support themselves and their families in their sending countries. A demand for cheap and expendable labor increases the vulnerability of migrant workers susceptible to trafficking. The migrant labor rights approach to trafficking encourages safe migration for workers as well as worker empowerment through organizing in order for workers to claim their own labor rights.