Home

Featured Articles

Apr 03, 2025
Dr Ryan Baidya

Globalisation's Dirty Secret: Goods Move Freely, but Labour Remains Trapped

Shortly after taking office on January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued numerous Executive Orders (EOs) and introduced policy changes related to international trade and tariffs. Among these, tariffs had the most far-reaching ripple effects both domestically and globally. Since then, the term tariff has become a household word, as unpredictable price increases on everyday goods have been linked to shifts in tariff policy. Tariffs alone might not have had such a dramatic impact on international trade and consumer prices, had they not become entangled in the broader framework of globalisation. Together, tariffs and globalisation are central themes in international economics and global trade policy, with countless articles, books and commentaries written on the subject. However, the primary objective of this article is to draw attention to a lesser-known, rarely discussed dimension of both: the "dirty secret" behind globalisation. First, let us briefly review the two concepts—tariff and globalisation—and explore how they interact. What is a Tariff? A tariff is a tax imposed by a government on goods and services imported from other countries. The main goals of tariffs are: Protecting domestic industries by making imported goods more expensive. Generating government revenue. Retaliation or trade leverage in international disputes. Types of tariffs include: Ad valorem (based on value, e.g., 10% of item cost) Specific (fixed fee per unit, e.g., $100 per ton) Compound (a mix of both) What is Globalisation? Globalisation refers to the process of increasing interconnectedness and interdependence among countries through: Trade Investment Technology Cultural exchange Labour and capital mobility It often results in: Expansion of multinational corporations Integrated supply chains Faster communication and innovation diffusion Relationship Between Tariffs and Globalisation Tariffs and globalisation often pull in opposite directions Aspect Tariff Globalisation Intent Restrictive Integrative Trade Flow Limits imports Expands trade Economic Impact Protects local jobs, raises prices Increases consumer choice, lowers costs Policy Trend Protectionism Free trade Tensions Between the Two Globalisation favors lower tariffs to promote free trade under agreements like the WTO, NAFTA, or RCEP. Tariffs hinder globalisation by increasing costs, disrupting supply chains, and triggering trade wars (e.g., the US-China trade war). In recent years, populist movements and national security concerns have led to a resurgence of tariffs, challenging globalisation. Examples US-China Trade War: The U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, prompting retaliatory tariffs. This disrupted global markets and restructured supply chains. Brexit: The UK left the EU single market, potentially reintroducing tariffs and trade barriers. India’s "Make in India" policy: Promotes domestic production by raising import duties on certain products. US "Make America Wealthy Again" policy: Intent to promote domestic jobs and manufacturing by enacting tariffs across the board on imported products. Pros & Cons Tariffs Globalisation ✅ Protects local jobs and industries ✅ Can improve trade balances ❌ Raises consumer prices ❌ Provokes retaliation and inefficiencies ✅ Promotes economic growth, efficiency, and innovation ✅ Access to cheaper goods ❌ May lead to job losses in some sectors ❌ Can widen income inequalities Structural Injustice In the grand narrative of globalisation, we are told the world has become more connected, efficient, and prosperous. Goods now glide across borders at lightning speed. Capital flows effortlessly from Wall Street to Shanghai. Outsourcing, e-commerce, and international supply chains have turned the planet into a single, integrated marketplace. But beneath this glittering surface lies a structural injustice: while products and profits move freely, people—especially labourers—remain bound by geography, citizenship, and restrictive immigration policies. Freedom for Goods, Chains for Workers Consider this: a T-shirt stitched in a factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh, can be shipped and sold in Berlin within days, tariff-free under many trade agreements. Yet the very worker who produced it cannot legally move to Germany to earn higher wages for the same labour. This is not an oversight; it is a systemic design. Capital and goods have been globalised, but labour has not. Most globalisation-era trade agreements—such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the European Union Single Market, or even the World Trade Organisation’s free trade rules—explicitly favour the movement of goods and capital, while excluding or severely restricting the movement of people. In doing so, globalisation has produced a system that devalues human labour and reinforces inequality. The Wage Gap That Never Closes The economic divide between nations makes this injustice even starker. A garment worker in Bangladesh earns, on average, $120 per month, while her counterpart in Italy might earn $2,000 or more for a similar job, often producing or finishing the same global fashion brands. But she cannot follow her labour to where it is valued more. She is geographically and legally trapped, and that entrapment keeps global wages unequal. Multinational corporations exploit this divide. They shift production to low-wage countries, reduce labour costs, and maximise profits. Labourers, on the other hand, have no such flexibility. Unlike factories, they cannot be “relocated” to better conditions. This inequality is baked into global trade systems. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has repeatedly warned that globalisation has “not created decent jobs at the pace and scale required”, especially in the Global South. The Case of the U.S.–Mexico Border Take NAFTA, which liberalised trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. While it allowed companies to move goods and investments across the border freely, it did not grant the same rights to workers. U.S. corporations could build factories in Mexico to benefit from lower wages, but Mexican workers were not allowed to migrate freely to the U.S. to benefit from higher wages. This created what many scholars describe as a "one-way globalisation" that benefits capital owners while exploiting the working class on both sides. Even today, while Avocados from Mexico can cross the U.S. border daily, the Mexican labourer picking them is often criminalised if he tries to cross that same border to earn a living wage. Enter Tariffs: A Double-Edged Sword for Labour In light of these realities, some countries have turned to tariffs as a tool to protect domestic labour from global wage competition. But do tariffs truly favour labour? The answer is complex. When Tariffs Protect Tariffs—taxes on imported goods—can shield domestic industries from cheaper foreign competition. In doing so, they may preserve local jobs and stabilise wages, particularly in manufacturing sectors that have been hollowed out by globalisation. Example: U.S. tariffs on imported steel may allow American steelworkers to retain their jobs, as imported steel becomes less competitive. In the short term, this benefits labourers in wealthier nations, particularly in traditional blue-collar industries. When Tariffs Harm But tariffs are a blunt tool. They raise prices for consumers and businesses, can trigger retaliation from trading partners, and often hurt workers in developing countries by reducing demand for their exports. A Bangladeshi garment worker whose products are suddenly hit with Western tariffs may lose her job entirely, with no option to migrate to higher-wage markets. In addition, tariffs do not address the root injustice of labour immobility. They may temporarily protect jobs in one country, but do not offer global wage equity or mobility to the labourer trapped in the Global South. Solutions: Reimagining Globalisation Through Logic, Ethics and Equity To build a just and sustainable global economy, we must go beyond tariffs and free trade deals. We must question the foundations of globalisation itself and propose bold, ethical, and practical reforms: Expand Labour Mobility If goods and capital can move freely, why not labour? Ethical globalisation must include pathways for labour migration, allowing workers to follow opportunities and close wage gaps over time. This requires rethinking immigration policy, particularly in high-income countries. Tie Trade Agreements to Labor Standards Trade agreements must include enforceable labour rights and wage standards. Countries and corporations that exploit cheap labour without ensuring dignity, safety, and fair pay should not enjoy the full benefits of trade access. Invest in Local Value Creation Globalisation must not mean perpetual dependence on low-wage labour. Wealthy nations and corporations should invest in skills, infrastructure, and innovation in the countries they profit from—so labourers in the Global South can move up the value chain, not remain at the bottom of it. Tax Global Profits to Fund Global Justice Multinational companies benefit from global inequality. A global minimum corporate tax or an equity contribution could be used to fund job training, education, and migration infrastructure for labourers in underprivileged nations. A Borderless Economy Needs Borderless Justice If globalisation is to be more than a mechanism for profit extraction, it must be grounded in human dignity. Goods cannot continue to travel freely while people are treated as disposable, immobile cogs in the machine. Either the world must allow labour to move as freely as, capital and goods—or we must restrain the latter until equity is possible for all. Until then, globalisation remains a rigged game: efficient on paper, exploitative in practice. References International Labour Organization. World Employment and Social Outlook – Trends 2023. Geneva: ILO, 2023. https://www.ilo.org. Gereffi, Gary, and Frederick Mayer. "Globalization and the Demand for Governance." In The New Offshoring of Jobs and Global Development, edited by Gary Gereffi. Geneva: International Labour Office, 2006. Rivoli, Pietra. The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005. Bhagwati, Jagdish. In Defense of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Bacon, David. Illegal People: How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants. Boston: Beacon Press, 2008. UNCTAD. World Investment Report 2023. New York: United Nations, 2023. Harrison, Ann, and Jason Scorse. “Multinationals and Anti-Sweatshop Activism.” American Economic Review 96, no. 1 (2006): 364–69.

Apr 02, 2025
YagnaSri

One Nation One Election Might be Electorally Counterproductive for BJP

This is in continuation of my initial article on the Sri Ramnath Kovid committee recommendations (https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/seminal-recommendations-of-ramnath-kovind-led-committee-on-one-nation-one-poll) Since the last Lok Sabha elections, which yielded unexpected results, the main opposition party, the Indian National Congress, has revealed itself to be a deeply divisive political force, alarmingly pro-Jihadi, and openly antagonistic towards Sanatana Dharma. Since that time, it has become strikingly evident that the nation's principal opposition party, together with its numerous regional affiliates, is demonstrably intent on undermining the nation's stability through the advocacy of radical leftist economic doctrines, such as wealth redistribution and the promotion of policies openly antagonistic toward the Hindu population. Rahul Gandhi's endorsement of caste divisiveness is patently illegal and unconstitutional. A closer examination of the fundamental concept underlying the "One Nation One Election" initiative is necessary to properly analyse the complex interplay of political and national security concerns stemming from recent events. We will likely encounter many unforeseen challenges and difficulties that we must address in the coming days. As Bharat's economic strength expands with its technological and military capabilities, the determination of external forces to sabotage Bharat's progress and maintain their global dominance will only increase. In terms of purchasing power parity, by 2022, our economy had already reached approximately 40% of the size of the United States economy. It also boasted the highest growth rate among all major global economies. It is inconceivable that the pressures of international forces will permit the continuation of this situation. Given Bharat's robust nuclear capabilities, encompassing a robust nuclear trident, any direct kinetic military action is strategically unfeasible and too dangerous to undertake. But they can destabilise Bharat from within with their paid brown sahibs. Similar events have unfolded, and a much larger-scale manifestation is projected to follow. In a clear display of allegiance, Rahul Gandhi and his allies have publicly sided with these global interests. There is also a significant weakness in the political presence of the BJP. The BJP's current political dominance is confined mainly to India's vast western, central, and northern Gangetic plains. In the Eastern states, barring recently won Odisha, and in the South, they are significantly weaker. Even in the areas where the party is quite strong, there is a significant Muslim population in many seats. There are also serious and long-entrenched caste divisions, making it hard for the BJP to create a united Hindu vote bank a challenging task. Due to these, the BJP needs to have a strike rate of 90% in the seats, which it can practically win to attain a majority of its own. That is what it essentially did in 2014 and 2019. In 2024, it failed mainly in UP and Maharashtra very severely. It could not get a 90% strike rate in other small states like Haryana. As already stated, the meticulously crafted strategy employed by internal and external adversaries of Bharat in the 2024 elections has, to a considerable degree, successfully dismantled the BJP, particularly within the pivotal states of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, achieving a key objective. Consequently, the BJP saw increased support in various states, including Telangana and Odisha, but fell short of anticipated success in key states such as Maharashtra and UP. The party could not secure a majority in the Lok Sabha. With almost all opposition parties bent on destroying Bharat joined forces, any loss of power at the national level is no longer an option and will result in significant and irreversible damage to the Bharatiya civilisation itself. One can argue that the proposed increase in seats after the census and delimitation may increase the seats in many areas where the BJP is presently strong. While it may be true, as already discussed, there is also a significant Muslim population and caste divisions in the same areas. So, unless proper gerrymandering is done in these areas, the BJP's current weaknesses will persist. It is impossible to do so, as the delimitation work will be carried out by a commission headed by a Judge. In light of the above, if ONOE is implemented without any thought to ensure the BJP continues to be in power, it may lead to significant problems for the BJP. ONOE, with Assembly and Parliament elections held simultaneously, will present a massive and single target to the Breaking India forces. The experience of 2024 has shown how they managed to narrowly stop the BJP's return to power. Secondly, it was repeatedly observed that the BJP will get its best results when the elections are held based on national-level issues and at the national level. If the fight is divided state-wise, the INC and the various regional parties allied with it will significantly threaten the BJP's efforts to win the majority in the Lok Sabha. The results of 2004, wherein the BJP lost most surprisingly, are a prominent example of this. In ONOE, it will be harder for voters now to distinguish between national elections and state-level issues. The chances of elections being fought on state-level problems are higher. As a national party, the BJP and its workers naturally highlight national matters more. As State elections indicate, voters looking for solutions to state-level issues most of the time are not in favour of voting for the BJP. A tight fight will present a significant disadvantage to the BJP. Thirdly, Articles 355 and 356 are critical to ensure national security and law and order. What will be the fate of these two articles if ONOE is implemented? While the BJP does not favour using these articles, they are very much constitutional and even the Supreme Court, in Bommai's judgment, did not hold them unconstitutional. So, a detailed discussion on this issue is necessary if ONOE is to be implemented. Fourthly, the present anti-defection law today may also present a significant issue after ONOE. As suggested, a mandatory constructive no-confidence motion will ensure that there is no need to dissolve the house to seek fresh elections for the remaining period. However, the provisions of the anti-defection law create disqualifications for legislators, fresh polls, etc. It will also result in litigations, etc, and profound political uncertainty. The anti-defection law has already become facetious, with speakers acting in a blatant partisan manner. As such, in an ONOE situation with a mandatory constructive no-confidence motion, removing the entire corpus of anti-defection laws would be better. Legislators should be free to elect their leaders in the House without outside party bosses threatening them with disqualification. Fifthly, any defeat in an ONOE may be catastrophic, as the chances of the BJP losing both in the states and the Lok Sabha simultaneously are much higher. The system will present the BJP with a defence in depth, and it can learn and adapt and win state assembly and Lok Sabha seats. The most recent examples are the results of the recent Haryana, Maharashtra, and Telangana elections for the assemblies and the Lok Sabha. In any case, the main issue initiated by a proposal for ONOE is the problems of state assembly elections that are going on at different intervals. The proposed solution is to bring all the State assembly elections at once and conduct the Lok Sabha elections simultaneously. It is logical to combine both on the same day, except to reduce the costs, and it would also be administratively easier. However, clubbing of all the assembly and Lok Sabha elections will result in various issues, as mentioned above. One possible solution is to conduct all assembly elections at once and conduct Lok Sabha elections after some time, say, six months or a year. While this will result in additional costs requiring more administrative work, it will result in more clarity in election campaigns and enable people to examine and vote on the issue more informedly. It will also help the BJP to get a majority in the Lok Sabha more easily. Recent Telangana elections show how people will vote in state and national elections, and the BJP benefited greatly. One of the significant problems in passing any ONOE constitutional amendments is the serious opposition from regional parties, which do not have both the assembly and parliament elections simultaneously. However, they may not oppose it much if there is a gap of six months or a year between the two. They may even help pass the constitutional amendments, which require a two-thirds majority.