Is this the primary force behind a change such as this?
After watching the documentary called 'Life and Debt', I found the idea of "free trade" in poorer countries to be very different than i would have first thought. It seems free trade in the case of Jamaica resulted in a large import of goods, to the point where local Jamaica could not compete with the huge multinational corps from other countries.
People tend to complain about the obvious effects of free trade (i.e., businesses folding to competition), but they overlook the less obvious, more spread out effects (i.e., people being able to afford more goods, and other businesses being able to purchase more materials and having access to larger markets).
As in the 1800s, it's a good deal for rich countries and a bad deal for developing countries since their infant industries can't compete and so never get off the ground.
China was wise not to follow this path. As was Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong.
I skimmed that article for evidence of your claim that free trade caused the Irish potato famine, but couldn't find any. It seems to discuss "[the assumption] that, had this event [the Irish Potato famine] not happened, Britain would not have repealed the Corn Laws at that time, and thus, would not have taken steps towards free trade in subsequent years" and concludes that "Britain would have moved towards Free Trade in 1846-1860 even if the Irish Potato Famine had not occurred".
It's not just beats headphones we're talking about here. When you visit a school classroom, you expect to see books, pens, paper, chairs, desks, art supplies... those are all 'goods'. Affordable access to them is a very positive thing.
that's a completely fair and valid perspective. i just want to make sure that generic "goods" aren't what we think are going to cure the ailments of those who are dealing with poverty. additionally, poverty can also be a symptom of systematic class/social warfare (though not always). in these countries that we're hoping free trade can infuse with goods, we need to make sure that we've addressed the ruling structures such that these goods are permitted for appropriate use.
It only benefits consumers if they still have jobs, and assuming the jobs still pay well enough for the cheaper goods to actually also be cheaper in relative terms.
That may be the case, and one would hope the local businesses are able to adjust or that new jobs follow. But it is certainly not automatically the case that having your local market flooded with cheaper goods is better for consumers.
Choose your favorite country that isn't Zimbabwe or North Korea, and then find a good or service that people (choose your favorite %-ile) have less of today than they did before free trade.
If you can't find such a good or service, then free trade has helped consumers.
You can only validly make that assertion if you can find somewhere where all else has held equal. Otherwise you'd be making a logical leap without accounting for a bunch of confounding factors.
I also said nothing about whether or not free trade in general is beneficial. What I addressed was the unsupported blanket assumption that free trade will automatically benefit consumers without any kind of qualifications.
As I said: It very well may do, but for that to be true in any specific case, then a number of other factors needs to line up as well.
Even if the competition beat you on everything. Freeing the economy and focusing on the product you make best, even if competition beat you on that product it is still better overall.
I don't know the answer to the convenience of free trade, but I think there is different kinds of international trade and we talk about all them as if they are the same thing.
For instance, the more successful economies Japan, Germany, China, Korea didn't follow the same model of free trade that has been "suggested" to the South American countries. In fact, in the eighties everybody complained how difficult was to access to the Japanese markets.
The other thing is that is very different free trade of commodities vs. free movement of capitals but normally it's sold like it's the same. If you are in Peru is probably a bad idea get a lease denominated in U.S. dollars, no matter how good the deal looks now.
The real question is, how did this change the overall population's well being in Jamaica? I think most of the time some suffers from the results of the free trade but much more go to a better state than before.
>Is this the primary force behind a change such as this?
I read this in many places, granted, they all may have some bias (You can make a search with "reasons declining extreme poverty"). But, I personally do believe it is the main reason.
Free trade is not the primary force. It's secondary behind more foundational liberal economic policies, those being property rights, rule of law, fair enforcement of private contracts.
Nay, a huge role. People who were far outside major economic activity can now participate in global markets, improving their ability to sell goods & services (and obtain tools & connections).
A few days ago I ordered & received a cheap scarf via mail. US$0.95 - delivered! from China! obviously whoever was involved didn't make much off the transaction, yet they WERE able to make & sell & deliver something to an idiot on the other side of the planet. Where there was no market before, Amazon & USPS & other businesses have pursued "globalization" to the point that a manufacturer & buyer a world apart could engage in profitable transactions.
The way out of poverty is capitalism, sellers & buyers making mutually profitable agreements, and globalization eliminating barriers of distance & borders.
Globalisation is absolutely vital in reducing poverty -- particularly in countries that used to be very poor because they were excluded from the world market, e.g. China and India, where a very large proportion of the world's poor used to live. Not any more.