Taking Trade to the Streets: The Lost History of Public Efforts to Shape Globalization.

Susan Ariel Aaronson, Taking Trade to the Streets: The Lost History of Public Efforts to Shape Globalization, University of Michigan Press, 2001.

A Little Honest Trade Talk, Please?

A week before the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, I began reading Susan Aaronson's Taking Trade to the Streets. I finished the book in my hotel on the eve of the summit. It was then that I began wishing I'd brought along 10,034 extra copies--thirty-four for President Bush and the other leaders, ten thousand for the activists outside the security fences.

Not because it's a stylishly written or can't-put-it-down read. Aaronson's style is simple and clear, but she eschews the use of clever anecdotes or metaphors to pull readers along for the ride. An economic and trade historian, she makes her points with facts.

It's unlikely anyone who isn't already interested in trade and globalization would make it very far into her book. Taking Trade to the Streets isn't another Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman's bestseller that grabbed readers attention by taking them to street corners and back alleys around the world for compelling tales of globalization's effects on real people.

But what Aaronson has done, and why the book should be read by those who are arguing over the pluses and minuses of free trade and globalization, is show how all sides have distorted the trade debate. And she has convincingly shown that despite what many casual observers might think, the debate isn't a new one. As she points out, a trade dispute was at the heart of the matter when patriots dumped tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.

For the critics of trade agreements, who often argue that such treaties ignore the negative effects of globalization on the environment and workers, Aaronson has words that praise and criticize at the same time. How can they still say leaders ignore their concerns, Aaronson writes, when "they have changed the content and structure of trade agreements? As a result of their protests, NAFTA has side agreements relating to the environment and labor standards. The WTO ... is (even) more explicit about the nexus of trade and environmental issues."

For the champions of trade agreements, she also has words that skewer. During the debate leading up to NAFTA, she writes, the Clinton administration "and its business allies made bold promises of widespread economic growth and many new jobs as a result of NAFTA." While the U.S. economy enjoyed strong job growth in the 1990's, few economists or labor experts point to NAFTA as a key driving force. True, Mexico has grown tremendously in importance as a U.S. trading partner. But its economy is still far too small to be a major factor in the U.S. employment picture.

But the real strength of Aaronson's work probably isn't her critique of the trade combatants. It is the history telling. How useful might it be, for instance, for those who take to the streets to learn that there's,been an enormous change since 1934, when the United States' Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act became the first such agreement to link trade to job creation? Now it's accepted that trade negotiators will make jobs a key focus of their talks. And what if they thought about the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment, Aaronson argues, which was the first U.S. law to introduce the idea that trade could be used to press other nations on human rights? That too, she writes, is evidence that change is occurring.

Just as trade's champions need to be more honest about the claims they make for its benefits, says Aaronson, the critics also need to examine their positions. "Global economic interdependence is here to stay," she writes. "Those who want to make the world a better place have a choice ... They can throw bricks at the WTO, NAFTA, and other trade agreements, or they can use these bricks to remodel and rebuild trade agreements."

Question is, will those who take to the streets and those who negotiate behind fences take the time to learn from Aaronson's work?

Mark Memmott covers globalization issues for USA Today.