It is one of the starkest ironies of the “fair trade” movement to acknowledge the impact of domestic subsidies on goods produced in the developed world upon exports by underdeveloped nations, yet in the same breath proceed to disparage the very means proposed to help these countries escape poverty: free and open trade. Naturally, the opposition from groups such as Oxfam and other anti-globalization groups is rooted in concern over the unfair, lopsided nature of any free trade agreement — namely, in the massive subsidies that many agrarian industries receive in rich nations, which serve to push out competition from poorer nations and create a vicious cycle by encouraging overproduction, thereby further lowering prices, undercutting the ability of poor countries to profit from exports, and further raising demand for subsidies due to poor market conditions at home.

Oxfam’s complaint itself is not absurd — issues like soaking the American taxpayer for goods such as sugar, cotton and textiles have long been a concern of genuine free-market proponents. Such subsidies rarely even go to help those they are ostensibly designed to protect: For instance, according to Oxfam, “the largest 10 percent of cotton farms received three-quarters of total payments.” This is little different than the general trend for agriculture subsidies, where according to the Department of Agriculture, 48 percent of total agriculture subsidies go to operations with a net income of greater than $135,000 annually — less than 8 percent of farms in America. It is also a well-known fact that the United States pays over four times the world price for sugar, the main reason sweet products such as candies and colas are often sweetened by corn syrup instead of sugar. Even clothing isn’t exempt: William Cline of the Institute for International Economics estimates that clothing tariffs alone amount to a “hidden tax” of $400 per year on each American family.

Yet the conclusion Oxfam and others draw from this data is equally erroneous. Instead of joining ranks with the champions of free trade and open, unsubsidized markets, the anti-globalization crowd draws the opposite conclusion, instead rallying to halt the liberalization of trade, despite the disastrous effects this poses for individuals in both the developed and underdeveloped world. Indeed, it is an outrageous notion to deny individuals the right to seek out products at the lowest price possible, and even more preposterous to wrest this basic freedom from those who need it most — the world’s poor. Yet this is exactly what Oxfam and company propose to do by opposing measures such as the proposed free Trade Area of the Americas agreement. In a Nov. 1 press release, Oxfam expressed solidarity with local movements opposing the measure, despite the fact that it would mean an influx of cheaper goods for all parties involved on the grounds that it would represent a policy of “strengthening the role of transnational corporations on national policies,” “deepen the enormous asymmetries that exist among the countries on the continent” and even “threaten the livelihoods of millions of people who live in poverty.”

Yet the proposed remedy — giving the ax to trade liberalization — at best amounts to simply doing nothing to help those mired in poverty, and at worst represents an outright assault on the poor by tacitly denying them access to new markets and in turn, cheaper products.

Rather, if Oxfam truly wishes to have an impact upon global poverty, they would be well-served to consider focusing their energies upon more. Scrapping the bloated and unnecessary agriculture subsidy policies of both the United States and the corresponding Common Agriculture Policy of the EU would be a tremendous start to helping both producers at home and abroad by cutting incentives of overproduction and thus stabilizing prices. Another way to help would be to campaign for the end to tariffs that only benefit a select few — from steel tariffs which come with a net annual cost of $439,485 for each job saved (according to economists Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman for the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition) to textile tariffs which serve as an under-the-radar tax upon poor and middle-class families while shutting Third-World producers out of the market. Not only would these free-market measures serve to help the American consumer by providing cheaper goods, they would also serve to expand trade opportunities for exporters in the developing world, creating a means to escape poverty. The converse effect is true as well — by lowering barriers to First-World goods, individuals in disadvantaged countries can see their own spending power rise and prices fall. Yet perversely enough, these are the very things the anti-globalization lobby stands in the way of by opposing free trade.

Concern for the world’s poorest members is a laudable goal, yet those who express such concerns would be wise to consider the impact of their own proposed solutions. The last thing individuals trapped in poverty need is simply more of the status quo.

Steve Skutnik

is a graduate student in nuclear physics from Ames.