Costly Protectionism

Trade has never been just about economics and finances. It has also been deeply inter-linked to political economy and geopolitics. During the European colonial period between the 16th century and mid-20th century, regional powers such as the Great Britain, the Netherlands and France set up colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas, and followed a form of economic nationalism called Mercantilism purely aimed at boosting the home economy. However, as part of the post -Second World War developments, which included the dominant British Empire giving up its theory of Mercantilism and the US becoming more internationalist, the focal point of trade became not solely aimed at increasing prosperity, but also at improving relations and bind countries together in order to engage in fair commercial competition and avoid any future wars.

Globalisation and the extension of trade over the next few decades after Second World War brought incredible benefits to the global economy, particular to the US where income per capita nearly doubled during the period and the country further established itself as the world’s wealthiest and the most powerful nation. However, recent years have experienced a pushback and strong political activism against globalisation. Critics advocate that the significance of globalisation is waning, as trade is not the solution for developing sustainable socio-economic growth that it once was. Industrial robots engaged in manufacturing are not an employment boon either, they allege.   

French far-right leader Marine La Pen hailed 'Brexit' as a 'dazzling lesson in democracy'

With countries seeking to fortify their sovereign identities, the rapid rise of populism has recently surprised the political establishment in several countries across the globe. This anti-globalisation – a so-called ‘politics of rage’ – largely contributed to Britain’s rejection of the EU in 2016 and the victory of Donald Trump as the US president later that year, as well as the rise of nationalist political parties in parts of Europe and Asia. While governments, socio-economic experts and intellectuals have termed the populism as irrational, they also have failed to acknowledge that a substantial number of the population shares an opinion that the current political and economic system does not have much to offer.     

Those favouring populism are people who think that the globalisation has profited only a small and privileged elite, but not them. Seeing through their vantage point, it appears rational for the bottom majority of the population to ask why they get only a few percent of income gains. A recent report by a leading British think tank, Resolution Foundation, suggests that workers in the UK are set for the worst pay growth decade since the Napoleonic wars. There is a need to concede that the current wave of populism is a repercussion of global economic failure, and protectionism is not a cure for this.

The vulnerability of protectionism or any other form of economic nationalism is that it misleads us into believing that our problems are born abroad and can be quick-fixed by stringent policies. Factually, a large number of major economic setbacks in the modern economic history of the world have been domestic in origin. Globalisation is under threat, and the need for governments, policy makers and civil society groups is to properly articulate the benefits of globalisation to the public. The threats of adopting a protectionist approach should be better conveyed to locals, and communities adversely affected by open markets and free trade policies be better compensated for their losses.

Britain’s headache: Remain or Leave

Following London’s mayoral elections held in early May, the centre of political debates in the UK has shifted to 23 June EU referendum, which will bring a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for majority of the population barring those from non-UK EU states. The referendum will decide whether the UK
would stay in or leave the European Union. The core debate centres around “would Brexit – a shorthand way of mentioning the Britain leaving the EU – make the UK "great" again or risk the kingdom’s global power standing?”  

The stakes are high for the UK, as well as globally, particularly for member states of the EU. For EU, which is often blamed by critics for its undemocratic style of functioning, it is immensely important to have UK in the bloc, especially since the union is rapidly losing its influence given the persisting economic downturn of the region and overwhelming migrant crisis. An EU without UK Will leave the group further crumble – economically and strategically too.  

The ‘Remain’ camp supported by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as several world leaders, including US President Barrack Obama, claim that the UK is stronger inside the EU, and leaving the union will have devastating impact on the country’s economy. ‘Leave’ campaigners argue that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote for freedom and restoration of democracy, as it would allow UK to control unregulated mass migration of unskilled workers from European countries and take back control of various trade policies and laws imposed on the country by the EU.

A Brexit cartoon

The pervasive Euroscepticism in Britain has some historical contexts attached to it. A significant number of British people do not see themselves as European. A survey by European Commission in 2015 indicated that around 55% of UK nationals saw themselves as EU citizens, compared to a 67% average in rest of the union. In addition, Britain does not share any land borders with Europe and is detached from mainland continent by several miles of sea. Centuries of tussle with France, Germany and Romans further draws a thick line between British and European identities.     

British public appears to be evenly split on the 23 June referendum. Various surveys indicate that ‘Vote Leave’ has around 45% of the vote share, with ‘Vote Remain’ on marginally more than 50%. Going by the opinion polls, which have persistently shown ‘Remain’ camp leading the vote share for over the past several months, the possibility of Brexit looks weak despite the public concern over immigration and border control have recently delivered a boost to the ‘Leave’ campaign.  

Regardless of whether the UK stays in or leaves, the referendum poses several harsh questions for the EU to answer and challenges to meet if it does not want to lose its significance in the coming years. Opinions vastly differ as to whether the EU faces a democratic deficit and its style of governance lacks democratic legitimacy. While several EU leaders and supporters are calling for a reformation of the bloc, the union’s critics suggest that it should condense its power or should just disintegrate.                        

Politicising education: a policy curse

A friend of mine sent me a short video documentary last week that somehow startled me, propelling to research about the issue discussed in the film. The video -- recorded by a local Hindi news channel in the northern part of Bihar, one of the most backward regions of India -- shows a teacher at a primary school teaching children. The lady teacher is giving English lesson to children about the names of the days of the week. She scribbles on the blackboard, spelling Sunday as 'Sande' and Monday as 'Mande.' Appalled at what the filmmaker sees, he asks the teacher whether she really knows the right spelling of these words. She fails to answer, fidgeting that she can't recall the right spelling. 

The sad fact is, it is the same plight thousands of other state-run schools not just in Bihar, but all other states in India, suffer from. The faulty selection process of inefficient teachers -- mainly because of various populist policies of the government -- adversely impacts the quality of education. The Government of India's National Policy on Education, which promotes education in the country and covers elementary education to colleges in both urban and rural parts of the country, emphasises on a substantial improvement in the quality of education. More than 45 years have passed since the policy was first implemented in 1968, isn't it worth asking whether India has achieved the desired improvement, as well as dissemination of quality education among its citizens? 

It is not about teachers and the defective process adopted by the government in teachers' selection based on the caste, religion and gender the applicants belong to, it is about the value that a country puts in education. And we seem to be boldly and deliberately ignoring the value for decades. From elementary to college level, every aspect of education provided by the state continues to be marred by politics and excessive bureaucracy resulting in severe policy paralysis that affect students the most. 

Although education sector in India is rapidly being privatised, with patents unwilling to send their children to state-run schools because of reasons I mentioned earlier, there are millions of parents who can not afford exorbitant fee charged by private schools and are compelled to enroll their kids in state-run schools that allow free education to all. While there is little hope situation will improve anytime soon, intelligentsia of the society should seriously ponder and discuss about the worsening education system in the country, especially about the poor standard of teaching. 

Urgently in need is to get rid of reluctance of taking steps to raise teaching profession to an important level, which can provide quality education to children studying in state-run schools. Only by making it selective and rigorous, we can rebuild the trust that we can repose in teaching as one of the most intellectually demanding and emotionally challenging profession in today's world. Also, a government must understand that populist policies are fine tactics for winning elections, but applying those in the field of education will prove counterproductive in terms of overall development of the sector.