Trade-offs and Tensions

Ideas Untrapped

In the episode, Tobi talks to Dmitry Grozoubinski about the politics and complexities of global trade, emphasizing the tension between free trade and protectionism. Dmitry explains how trade policy decisions involve difficult choices that impact both producers and consumers, using Nigeria's food inflation as an example. They explore the balance between national interests and global commitments, highlighting how protectionist policies are often rooted in political concerns rather than economic efficiency. The conversation also touches on the challenges of multilateral trade agreements like the WTO and AfCFTA.

Dmitry served as an Australian diplomat and trade negotiator at the World Trade Organisation and beyond. He has negotiated complex agreements in Geneva, at WTO and UN Ministerial Conferences in Kenya, and as part of the MH17 task force in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Before joining the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, he was a lecturer and tutor at the Monash Graduate School of Business and with the Australian trade consultancy TradeWorthy. He is the lead trainer of ExplainTrade and a Visiting Professor at the University of Strathclyde’s School of Law.

Transcript

Tobi: The complexity of trade agreements, the bargaining, the negotiation, and everything that surrounds the politics of trade generally does not get covered so much. It's always about the economics of it. And that's what I love about what you do, your project, your book, and everything. So my first question to you is that I know you wrote this basically from the perspective of global trade, and with everything that has been happening, I would say, basically, since the Trump presidency, which, like, brought trade into the headlines, particularly with the US-China “trade war”, quote unquote. And, of course, COVID is what we see with supply chains, decoupling, and so forth. But, I would also say to you that in development, the sub-field of economics that we call development, which is what we try to cover here on the show, trade is also a huge deal.

I'll give you a bit of a background. In Nigeria, currently, one of the biggest policy issues is the government trying to decide whether or not to allow the importation of food, basically rice, wheat, and all this other basic stuff. Primarily because food inflation is way above 40%. There's basically a cost of living crisis that has been going on for a few years. People are hungry, people are starving, people are angry because their incomes can no longer even feed them, you know? And so it generates this intense debate because on the other side of that, you have the producer class - the farmers and various lobby groups and political interests who say that, “oh, you really can't import, you're going to turn the country to a dumping ground, we're going to de-industrialise and so many other things.”

So one practical question I'll start with you is, if I were a politician, for example, and you know, with the title of your book, let's say that I am an honest politician. Let's assume that I'm an honest politician and I'm asking you that, Dmitry, how do I make this decision? What practical advice would you give me when considering trade policies generally? How do I make trade policy?

Dmitry:

I think that's a really good question, and I think it kind of goes to the heart of what trade policy is. Anytime you're doing trade policy, you're making choices, and they're often hard choices. You just laid it out perfectly there. You have farmers and other producers of food in Nigeria that are benefiting from very high prices. And you have consumers that are effectively suffering because a substantial part of their weekly budget is going to food, and more than was going before. You mentioned inflation at 40%. That is hugely unsustainable. So as a politician, when you are talking about the choice of bringing in more food, the first thing to do is you have to be honest. And you have to say that, yes, if you allow more food into Nigeria, you will hurt the interests of producers.

One reason I wrote the book is that politicians will often try to gloss over this and pretend it's some kind of win-win. They'll talk about competition. They'll talk about greater efficiencies. And that's all true to an extent. But in the short term, if currently you're locking out foreign rice, which is considerably cheaper than Nigerian rice, and you allow that rice in, you are going to hurt Nigerian rice producers. There's absolutely no way around it. So the first thing is to be honest about that choice you're making. The second point is to be honest about what you're trying to do versus what you're not trying to do.

So one of the ways that this particular debate often gets twisted into an uncomfortable alley is people will start talking about the notion of food security. So they'll say it's important that Nigeria be able to feed itself. And if we allow foreign food in, that will degrade our ability to be self-sufficient on food, right? To my mind, that's a way of basically misleading the public. It's very, very, very, very few countries are food secure in the sense that if trade were cut off tomorrow, they would produce enough food domestically to feed everyone in the country. Countries like the United Kingdom import something like 65% of their food. Why? Because it's far more efficient that way. And global trade supplies what people need. The amount of work it would take to convert the United Kingdom, for example, into being able to feed itself would mean you have to stop doing everything else in the country and prices would go through the roof. So it's important to be realistic about that.

It's also, I think, really important to say we live in an era of climate change. And one of the real problems we are going to face moving forward is that extreme weather events are going to become more common. So you are going to have parts of let's focus just on Africa, you are going to have in coming years parts of Africa that are in drought or flood, while parts of Africa are having a phenomenal crop. And those parts will shift around over and over. Our ability to feed people consistently moving forward is going to rely on us being able to move food from the places that are having a really good year to places that are having a really bad year. And I think any politician who is trying to say that if we just keep the walls around like the tariff walls, the barriers to importing food high enough, Nigeria will be able to feed itself forever every year without sky-high inflation, I think maybe is skipping over just the reality of where we live.

Tobi:

So, as you know, in places like Washington and the like, which gives advice to poorer countries on how to make policy and what will make them rich, you know that for about three decades, the orthodoxy has more or less been free trade. You know, you need to be more open. You need to allow more trade. You need to allow more goods into your country. Protectionism doesn't work. Which economically seems to be true, but right now, you have some of the richest countries in the world who have been advocates of open trade regimes, actually more or less going back to the mercantilist protectionist policies of the past. Which I think you sort of touched upon, especially the history of this in the second chapter of your book. So can you just give me a brief rundown on some of the shifts that we've gone through historically? And, like, what moves the needle on the dominant thoughts on trade policy?

Dmitry:

Sure. So when economists talk about free trade being the optimal path forward, what they're actually saying is, if you don't have tariffs, if you don't have trade barriers, we can maximise the efficient use of resources. So the free market will sort of allow and everyone will produce things in the most efficient way. And so overall, as a planet, we will be maximising our labor and our resources. And that's the benefit of that. They also suggest that having competition in your market pushes your own producers to work harder and having free trade can attract more capital. So inflows of capital from abroad that can make investments in your country. With the confidence that if they build a factory in Nigeria, if you've got free trade, if you've locked that in with treaties, they know that that factory will always be able to get the inputs it needs from abroad and always be able to sell whatever it produces to buyers outside of Nigeria. So that makes Nigeria a more attractive investment destination, for example.

So that's kind of the logic for a long time. And you mentioned Washington, Brussels, you know, the big economies generally tended to push that line and tended to believe it. Now, I would say straight away, it's important to note that they didn't universally believe it. So, for example, Europe is like, yeah, free trade's great unless you want to sell us certain agricultural commodities. So if you want to sell beef to Europe, suddenly free trade is not so great. And they protect their beef farmers or their lamb farmers or even their wheat and sugar producers. Ditto, America loves free trade when it comes to certain things. But if you try to sell America a light truck, you're paying a 25% tariff at the border. It's virtually impossible to sell certain kinds of services into the U.S. If you want to get a visa into the U.S., you sometimes have to do a job, you sometimes have to wait two years for an interview at a U.S. embassy. So even the rich countries that were preaching free trade were preaching free trade asterisk.

So what they were basically saying is, we believe that this is the optimal way to arrange the global economy, except on the things that we care about, the things that we're really sensitive on, where we think what's important isn't efficiency, but keeping the French farmer employed or protecting the US insurance market. What we're seeing now is that that asterisk is growing. So the US, Europe, China, all of these major players are increasingly saying free trade is great unless we have a national security concern. Free trade is great except when we want to rebuild the factories in the US Rust Belt. Free trade is great unless we want to create an instrument where you can't bully us with trade, so we're going to set up the EU anti-coercion instrument. So all of these kind of asterisks are being piled on top of what they used to be before.

Tobi:

One thing that often challenges observers, and I would imagine policymakers and politicians included, is the balance between, say, national interest, which again is becoming more prominent when it comes to trade policies, and global commitments, especially membership of world trade organisations, bilateral trade agreements, and other forms of multilateral agreements. And I want to get, especially from your experience advising and consulting on trade, what are the challenges or the headaches, the difficulties that leaders often encounter trying to balance between national interests, like, oh, we want to protect certain companies who are national champions, we want to protect certain key industries, and being signatories to a much wider multilateral, even bilateral agreements? How do you balance such contradictions sometimes?

Dmitry:

So the whole multilateral trading system, the WTO, all of it is built on the exact tension that you're talking about. You mentioned sort of balancing the national interest versus being part of the WTO. The WTO fundamentally only works as long as all of its members broadly believe that those two are the same thing—that ultimately what you're doing when you join any kind of trade agreement or really any kind of international agreement is what you're really saying is, "I am going to sign away my ability to do certain things." So I'm going to say I will swear off doing certain kinds of policies in exchange for you doing the same. And that's not because you never want to do those policies. You know you might want to do them in the future. But overall, you think the benefit of being in a world where no one's using those policies outweighs the short-term benefits of using those policies.

I compare it to like an arms ban treaty that bans chemical weapons on the battlefield. Chemical weapons are tempting to use on the battlefield because they can help you achieve a certain objective that might be really effective at what they do. They're horrific. But countries have come together and decided that the benefits of no one using chemical weapons and our battlefields not being full of chemical weapon residue outweighs any of the tactical advantages we might get ourselves from using chemical weapons. We prefer the confidence of a chemical weapon-free world to the benefits of having chemical weapons.

Trade agreements work the same way. You're always signing away the ability to use some policies you find tempting in exchange for that kind of global stability. So the tension tends to come because we are encouraged to be very short-term in our politics. And the benefits tend to be pretty narrowly focused and acute. So a specific industry is saying, "You have to protect me against foreign rice farmers." And that's something you can do today. The benefits of the global trading system and that kind of predictability are much, much broader, but much more diffuse. Everyone benefits from predictability. You get more investment. You get more trade flows. Prices overall are lower. That's all very good. But it doesn't have that acute politics of a particular industry that wants protection and will throw you a party if you give it to them.

So what political leaders are constantly fighting is the temptation to do something in the short term that weakens the system in the aggregate. And one of the few balances we have against that is the sense that if you do something like that, you're going to get retaliated against and other countries will hit you back.

Tobi:

I think one of the reasons why your book is well-timed is that it comes at a time when we are fundamentally learning that trade policy is inherently political, right? So a way to, like, further extend the last question for me is… sometimes I find it surprising that a lot of trade policies or trade agreements or even I would say maybe intellectual consensuses that have formed over time around a particular subject have political, intensely political origins and not economic or positive-sum motivations. So maybe you can provide me with a few examples from history of how politics have come to shape the conversation. An example I have in mind is recently the Biden tariff on electric vehicles from China. Most of the people, smart people, I should say, who have defended that policy would always say something along the lines of national security. America really needs to reindustrialise its core, you know, this and that. Because it's so obvious when you point out that if you want to transition to cleaner energies, if you really want to fight global warming, then slamming tariffs on electric vehicles makes absolutely no sense. But at the end of the day, people easily just recede to political arguments that would hardly pass water a couple of years ago. So I find that just contradictory, confusing. Help me out. I'm drowning here.

Dmitry:

I wish I could. I wish I could make it all make sense. The only thing I could do is first say—and this is a point that I hammer in the book over and over to the point where I'm worried I'm boring people—is that the big issues in trade have always been politics first, second, third, and then economics somewhere around, like, 26th. If you look at any major trade issue, it almost always comes down to, like, highly politicised questions. And there are really lots of examples on this.

So, for example, Japan, which generally has a reasonably liberalised open trade regime, has insanely high tariffs on rice, like hundreds of percent. And there is absolutely no economic reason for that. Rice farming is a tiny, tiny percentage of the Japanese economy. You know, Japan would be fine as a country without rice. But the traditional way of growing rice in Japan is very politically iconic. It's significant. They have a strong lobby. And so Japan, even while sort of preaching free trade, makes it incredibly difficult to sell rice to Japan in order to protect these small group of farmers.

Another story I like to tell is that when Australia did its free trade agreement with China, China is by far Australia's largest trading partner, hugely, hugely significant. And we finished the free trade agreement. It takes many years to finally get done. We sort of announce it to the public. We take it to parliament and everybody, the media, the opposition party, the entire national conversation becomes about this one tiny provision buried somewhere deep in the services chapter that creates a tiny visa subclass for like 100 Chinese workers a year to come work on gas projects in the middle of Australia. 100 people. 100 visas. But that sort of captures the national imagination. It becomes politicis ed. It becomes symbolic. And that's like the only thing we talked about for weeks on this trade agreement.

So we laser-focused on this issue that was hugely politically significant. But in economic terms, it was so small that it wouldn't have registered on any statistics. Like legitimately, if you looked at Australian nationwide statistics, a 100 workers working on a gas project somewhere outside Alice Springs is not going to even turn up on statistics. So this has always been the case. It is everywhere. And so I think what we're seeing now is just a continuation of that.

One thing I think we are seeing more and more of is politicians trying to distort the choices that they're making. You brought up electric vehicles. I think electric vehicles are one example. Solar panels are the example that absolutely gets me. Because there is no way we do anything about climate change without a transition to much cleaner energy. And right now, China is overwhelmingly the largest producer of solar panels. They are doing that through subsidies, and they are dumping these solar panels on the world market. We need to have an honest conversation about the trade-offs involved in taking those solar panels. Are we comfortable with allowing Chinese government money to create this giant industry, to create this dominant position in world markets if it means we get lots and lots of cheap solar panels? It's a hard choice to make, but it's a real choice, and we need to be honest about it.

So to kind of not answer your question properly because I can't think of any way to make you feel better about all this, it's that in some ways, what we had before—so I'm talking about before Trump 15 years ago—the trade conversations were mostly happening below the radar. There was mostly a consensus in the West about how trade policy should work. Trade very rarely made the news. You know, maybe with a big trade agreement, like the one when the US and EU tried to do, maybe around the Seattle round of the WTO, but mostly it was sort of hidden away in a corner and there was no public discussion about it. And now at the very least, it's in the headlines, and we're having conversations about it. And that is an improvement, even if some of those conversations aren't necessarily helpful.

Tobi:

My two-part follow-up question to that would be that regardless of one's disagreement or misgivings, the consensus around how these conversations are happening and how they influence policy changes seems like it's here to stay. I mean, like we talked about before we started recording, Trump might be winning another election and it's going to be another rollercoaster ride. So, I mean, in a common-sense kind of way, hoping that that prevails in actual policymaking, how would you suggest that countries balance the trade-off that may or may not exist between their economic interests and strategic imperatives like national security, trying to build up your defence base or be industrialised, and so many others that are intensely political and won't go away? How do you suggest the politicians or the advisors find a balance? Relatedly, especially in poorer countries, how do they find this balance without resorting to the kind of hurtful protectionism that we've seen with some countries over the years? So those are my questions.

Dmitry:

I think the only way forward is to be really specific and concrete about what you are trying to achieve. Because I think the danger that we're seeing now is that you have politicians identify a very high-level and nebulous objective. So you say like national security or to, you know, defend ourselves against China at some point in the future. And then they create that very, very high-level objective. They don't define what exactly they're picturing in their heads, like what they want the country to be able to do in that regard. And then that opens the door to justifying just about anything they want to do in any area.

So if I say, well, hypothetically, I am worried about the rise of China and I'm worried about having to fight a war with China and my industrial production in that event. Because, like, oh, what if we need to suddenly make a lot of tanks and bullets? If you've kind of set your objective that nebulously, then any time any factory owner comes to you and says, I want you to intervene in the market to help me, you can retroactively justify that. Because you can go, well, this factory is in trouble. If we go to war with China, we're going to need factories. It's important that we save this factory. And so you've kind of opened the door to politicians doing what is easy or tempting or popular on any given moment by not concretely defining your objective.

But I think there's a lot you can constructively do, even in ways that are sort of protectionist, that's fine, if you've narrowly defined your objective. So if you say, I would like to further strengthen Nigeria's IT sector, right? Like that's what you've defined as your objective. You can look at the barriers, the difficulties that the Nigerian IT sector is experiencing, and work out if there are places where a government intervention, including a protectionist one, might really help. And you've got like, I want to boost the Nigerian IT sector. My goal is to create 50,000 new IT jobs within the next three years. And I want us to have a really good ecosystem for entrepreneurial Nigerians who want to build apps. What would that take? What do I need to do? You've defined your objective. You've defined what victory looks like. And then if you say, OK, one of the things I really need to do to make that happen is to make it harder for Nigerians to use apps hosted in other places so that they're more inclined to use Nigerian apps. You can do that. And then two years later, you can see if it worked. We can judge the policy based on like, we wanted to create 50,000 jobs. We want to create lots of new apps. We took this step. It cost us something. It made life more annoying for Nigerians who wanted to use, like, Canva. But do we now have a Nigerian Canva alternative that's good, that people like, that's selling to the world?

So if you concretely define the objectives, are able to identify how what you're doing will deliver those objectives, and then finally have a way of testing afterwards if it worked, you can have a really mature conversation with the public about this is what we want to do. This is how we want to use the levers of government where trade policy is concerned to make your lives better in these ways. And then the public can sort of decide if the trade-offs are worth it. That's what has to be the mature policy discussion that needs to be taking place between the public and leaders, because otherwise you can just kind of justify anything if you say, well, I'm just doing this to create, you know, for prosperity or whatever.

Tobi:

I want to circle back to something you mentioned at the start, which is about winners and losers with regards to trade policies. Of course, there are always losers. I'll first seek a philosophical commitment from you, which is that on what side of the divide do you fall when it comes to wins and losses from trade policies?

Dmitry:

So where I tend to come from is that the kind of winners and losers framework can be really heartless in the sense that if I'm walking down the street and I decide I want to go for a coffee and I go into one coffee shop instead of the other, that is like a winner and a loser. Someone is going to earn my four dollars for my flat white and someone isn't. But that other company is going to be fine. So there's a winner and losers in that scenario, but it's not a big deal. Whereas, let's say you have a small town in Nigeria that's basically grown up around a factory. Let's say that factory makes shoes. And because of international competition, that shoe factory closes.

From an economic standpoint, like pure economic theory, you're like, well, kind of, OK, that's good because now Nigerians on the whole will get slightly cheaper or more better value shoes from abroad. And these guys can be freed up to do something else more efficient. But that's not how anything works, right? A linchpin factory closes in a town. You've got huge rates of unemployment. All of the businesses that feed into that factory are now in trouble. The doctor who treats the workers, they can no longer afford to pay her. So she moves to the city and now the town doesn't have as many doctors. So there's like a cascading effect. And a 53-year-old factory worker who makes shoes probably isn't going to immediately pivot to making TikTok videos for money. You know, they're not going to become a web developer overnight. So we need to be aware of just how bad it can be when trade creates losers. That doesn't mean you have to try to prevent it ever having any losers. But I think we have to be really, really sensitive to what happens when we create losers. And we need to have a plan for how we are going to help those that, frankly, capitalism rolls over.

Tobi:

I think you sort of answered my pushback because what I was going to say was that sometimes in reality, it can be difficult to tell a priori who the losers are going to be. I might be the trade minister, you know, staying in my fancy office in the capital and not aware that this little town somewhere in central Nigeria depends so much on the shoe factory until after we are seeing the effects. Maybe I get to hear it in the news or something. My question then would be that what are the right sensibilities that policymakers need to have as a general rule when dealing with wins and losses from trade policies?

Dmitry:

One of the things that trade ministries really struggle with is exactly what you're describing, which is in order to understand what the consequences of a trade policy decision are going to be, you really kind of need firm-level and local data. If you're just looking at national statistics, you get a very, very stratospheric picture. So one really common example is that the entire UK fishing industry, so absolutely everyone involved in fishing in the UK, contributes less to UK GDP than the company Games Workshop that makes Warhammer figurines. So if you're looking at national-level statistics, you're like, well, one of those is more significant than the other. But if UK fishing were to disappear overnight, that would be tens of thousands of jobs, dozens of coastal communities that would be devastated. And so if all you're doing is sitting in a capital looking at those high-level statistics, you're going to miss these acute pain points.

So one of the biggest challenges is how do you create a consultation system where the ministry and capital is talking to local authorities, talking to kind of mayors, talking to business associations that are spread all across the country and going, what would happen if we did this? Sort of what would be the consequences? Who would the winners and losers be in your local area? And what do we need to think about? What do we need to keep in mind? That's really, really important. I kind of go back to the example used right at the very start about the current debate that Nigeria is going through on importing food or not in the face of food inflation. And I think that's a really good winners and losers story, because whatever choice you make, you can sort of think through who the winners and losers are going to be.

So if you decide to open up your markets, the world price of rice and grain is published. You can have a look. You can examine how much of a hit that's going to be to farmers' incomes. There's no unknowns in that equation. So we can probably figure that out. Then you can decide, OK, if we let in more food, who are the farmers that are likely to be put out of business or significantly hurt, and what can we do to help them? Well, then on the flip side, if you decide not to let that food in, again, you've got statistics on how much does the average Nigerian spend on food? What is the current rate of inflation? Who in our society, if we keep these barriers up, is going to need help making ends meet and being able to afford to feed their family if we keep food prices where they are and we don't let food in? And how do we deploy the resources of the government to help them?

Tobi:

One of the things that I'm most fascinated about is countries that were previously poor a few decades ago, who are today global giant exporters of certain technologies or goods or commodities. So how would you advise a country that is trying to develop a globally competitive export sector in general? Because the consensus in development economics is that exports help your economy, exports help you grow, create jobs, your industries are upgraded, you're able to import technology and upgrade via all that. So how would you advise countries? What policies would you advise countries to focus on that are trying to build from scratch a globally competitive export sector, especially at the firm level? Because we tend to focus on countries, but it's actual firms that are making these goods and exporting these services, you know, and there are international regulations and standards to comply with. So how would you advise countries to do that?

Dmitry:

Really big question. And obviously every country has its own local challenges. But let me try to give you like a big-picture answer. And I respect your audience to know that I'm painting with a really broad brush. So the fundamental issue is you want to build a competitive export sector. Almost certainly that requires investment because unless you are—maybe if you're like growing saffron, you don't need that much investment. But almost anything else you're going to make, you're going to grow, you're going to export, requires capital and investment in order to do.

Capital looks at opportunities, but they're also really sensitive to risk. So, the question then becomes for governments, how do you send a de-risking signal to a potential investor? An investor is looking at your country, thinking about building a factory there. What are the risks that they're thinking about? Increasingly, factories are modular and can go pretty much anywhere. It's not like it used to be where you have to build them only in certain places. Theoretically, a factory can go almost anywhere. Then the question for that investor becomes, firstly, will that factory be able to consistently get what it needs to operate?

What do factories typically need? Well, you need workers who are capable of working at a modern factory. So that means your education system has to be producing good, talented workers. Second, it needs power. So the power grid needs to be reliable. Third, it needs predictability of your trading regime. So it needs to know that that factory will be able to import the parts and the components it needs from abroad reliably and be able to export reliably. Fourth, it needs to know that the infrastructure is there for it to be able to get its stuff in and out of the country. Fifth, it needs to know that your legal and regulatory regime is robust and predictable and that they won't run into legal challenges.

Now, that's really big picture. There are ways that individual governments have been phenomenally successful at ticking all of those boxes in microcosm ways. One concept that's really taking off all over the world is creating special economic zones. So you designate a part of your country, literally like a couple of square kilometres, and you say, this is going to be the special economic zone, and I'm going to focus on attracting investment and production here. And then inside that zone, you create better regulatory conditions. You create better tax conditions. You then deliberately build infrastructure to that zone because you know that's where the factories are going to be. So you can save on rather than trying to sort of do stuff everywhere, you just build like a really good railroad just to that zone.

When you think about the regulatory compliance challenges that a lot of businesses, especially in the developing world, are worried about, what they're actually worried about is the countries we want to sell to are going to increasingly create new regulations on how green stuff has to be, how carbon neutral stuff has to be, how slave labor-free it has to be, all of these kind of new standards and rules. The challenge for most developing countries isn't in meeting those regulations. It's in proving that you've met them because it's not enough to be carbon neutral. The customs official at the port of Rotterdam has to accept that you're carbon neutral.

And one thing that special economic zones allow you to do is that you then set up the trust to say a laboratory that tests your meat products for all of the things that your buyers are worried about, you set it up in one place. And because it's servicing the entire special economic zone with lots of businesses inside it, that makes commercial sense rather than trying to build one all around the country. So one way that you can think about this is by saying, OK, it's going to take too long to raise the entire country up to the level where it ticks all six of those boxes for potential investors. But we can start building individual areas that tick all of those boxes and use those to lift the rest of the country up.

Tobi:

I love the answer so much, especially the latter part. And speaking on regulatory standards and the like, a couple of years ago, and this was after years of debate, African countries finally signed up to what they call the Africa Free Continental Trade Agreement. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. So it has faced difficulties. So I would say it hasn't lived up to its promise. And part of the challenge is that it has been really difficult to scale up or harmonise the regulatory and the standardisation, that is, both legal and logistical and all the other things has been really, really challenging to replicate that across all the signatory countries.

But as we saw with Europe, that in itself can then become a challenge, you know, because you can have farmers in England angry that Brussels is making the rules, or people in France complaining that German goods are unfairly competitive because Germany suppresses industrial wages, or you have Greeks complaining that their tourism sectors cannot compete with Turkey because the euro is overvalued. So my point is, what are the benefits and risks of single market type of trade agreements, and how can you make best use of them, and how can you like, you know, slam on the brakes so that it doesn't break stuff domestically?

Dmitry:

So the dream of the AfCFTA is pooling all of the unique strengths of different African countries together to make a much more competitive whole. If you think about the strength of the US economy, one of the things that makes the US so economically powerful is that you can combine and build something across five different US states. And then you get lower wages because you're manufacturing it outside of Detroit, but you get to bring in capital from New York. You get to bring in design from California. You get to bring in raw materials from the Midwest. And you can do all of that because there are no internal borders to cross within the US. You just load up your trucks with the materials and you drive them across and it's all seamless. And then it goes to a port and leaves, right?

That's kind of the advantage. And that makes the US a lot more economically powerful than the 50 individual states would be on their own. And that's kind of the dream of the AFCFTA too, right? This idea that you'll be able to combine stuff that was made in Nairobi and then sent to Nigeria for further processing and then maybe shipped out of the infrastructure in the ports in South Africa, right? And at the moment, that is a huge, huge bureaucratic challenge. The WTO once screened a documentary where a television crew basically followed a truck driver driving a shipment of flowers from Central Africa-West and eventually to Europe and just photographed all of the paperwork that driver needed to cross each of the individual internal African borders. And it ended up almost being a second truck worth of paper because every single border required a different version of the form that he needed to carry. Because every country had its own export and import declaration, and every country had its own plant health declaration.

All of that makes it much, much harder to manufacture Africa-wide and build a competitive product. That's the advantage. Obviously, there's some benefits to local consumers as well, bringing down prices. The disadvantage is the inability to kind of compete with other African countries on your regulatory regime. Everything becomes a lot slower and more rigid because if you have to design a new regulation, but in order for it to come up, be real, you have to agree it with every other African country in the context of the AfCFTA, you can't be agile and dynamic anymore. Nigeria can't go, I am going to attract more investment than Uganda by having a looser regulatory regime around something. So you lose that ability to compete internally, which can be good and bad.

And as you say, it does tend to generate its own political antagonism, because what you were describing in what all politicians in Europe talk about is the fact that anything bad that happens is the fault of Brussels. Anything good that happens is them. So the system like that builds up its own opposition because it creates the incentive to blame all of the problems on the AfCFTA while claiming all of the good things that happen for yourself. And over time, that builds up resentment and political opposition to the project.

Tobi:

Recently, I was reading in the news something about the Director General of the WTO warning that we must not return to the protectionist policies of the past. I mean, the whole leadership of the WTO, in my opinion, can sometimes cut a hapless figure. Because here you are, sometimes it seems like the wheels are really falling off global trade, and you have the premier institution of global trade basically toothless to do anything about it. But again, when you then talk to countries or you hear politicians from individual countries speak, you turn around and blame the WTO, the inability to enforce certain rules, which then creates this unfairly competitive environment, you know, maybe some accusations that have been levied against China, for example, the China shock.

So my question to you would be, what are your suggestions on how to fix WTO, or do we need an entirely new framework for the governance of global trade?

Dmitry:

So my best advice is to think about what the WTO is set up to do versus what it's not set up to do. I think your diagnosis is 100% right. You're seeing a shift towards other priorities away from just liberalising trade. You see major players doing things like the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, the US's IRA, their big kind of investment, sort of, green energy transition bill that has a lot of subsidies. So you have all of these really, really big things that governments are doing. And expecting the WTO to stop them is crazy. If the European Parliament has just passed the biggest climate deal it's ever going to do, it's not going to reverse it just because someone in Geneva complains about it or because someone takes a dispute with the WTO. So the wrong way to think about the WTO is in preventing all of this. The WTO has to explain what are the dangers and what are the trade-offs, and that's important. But the WTO, I think, also has a really significant role to play in shaping the implementation.

So let me give you like a really concrete example. The way that the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism is going to be implemented or is implemented is incredibly complicated and has lots of different potential kind of externalities that might be hurting, for example, African firms in a way that the EU never intended. The WTO is actually a really good place for African countries to come and say, hey, EU, the specific way you're doing the CBAM is hurting my companies in this specific way, and we have an idea for how you could fix it. Not by reversing CBAM, but by changing a little bit the way it works. It could be just something as simple as the verification requirements, the forms, the procedures.

And the WTO, because of the way it's set up, because there's procedures, there's committees, there's experts, there's a process to follow, is a fantastic place for us not to prevent deterioration of the trading order and other priorities being pursued, but to shape them in a positive way, to mitigate unintended consequences and kind of add some oil to the machinery of whatever the global trading system is turning into.

Tobi:

So my final question to you, Dmitry, is this, and again, this is a bit of a tradition on the podcast. What is the one idea, just one, that you would like to see spread everywhere, that you would like people to be excited about, that you would like to be more influential? Just one idea. It can be your idea. It can be borrowed. It can be from any source. What is that one idea?

Dmitry:

I think one of the coolest programs I have ever seen is working visas for young people. A lot of rich countries have this between themselves. And what they say is basically if you are under sometimes 35, sometimes 30, you can come over and work in our country for a year or two years. And it's not immigration. You come over, you work. And it is such an amazing way of bringing like the world together, bringing new cultures into other cultures. The people come back with incredible experiences. You know, they come back and they start businesses back home. They bring ideas. And it's so amazingly powerful for spreading ideas, spreading cultures, spreading conversations. It's like stimulating economies, but without brain draining poorer countries. One idea I would love to spread is just the idea of letting young people all over the world spend some time in a hassle-free kind of visa manner, working wherever they want to work, doing the jobs that they want to do, just so that we have a world where more people have experienced what it's really like to live in another culture, and more people have the experience of working with entrepreneurial, exciting young people from all over the world, rather than just their backyard. So that is one idea I would love to see spread, love to see take off. And I think it would genuinely make the world a more pleasant place to be alive in.

Tobi:

Yeah, yeah. And we will do our best to help you spread that idea. My guest today has been Dmitry Grozoubinski. You should check out his wonderful book, Why Politicians Lie About Trade and What to Do About It. I want to thank Dmitry for coming to the show. It's been fascinating talking to you.

Dmitry:

Thanks so much, Tobi.

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe