“Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the less developed countries? I can think of three reasons:
1. The measurement of the costs of health-impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2. The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost ... Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world-welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3. The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity ... Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in least developed countries (intrinsic rights to certain goods, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.”
(quoted from "Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy" by Daniel Hausman and Michael McPherson).
The memo was intended for internal World Bank use only. It caused a public commotion when The Economist leaked it to the public. And, BTW, no professional economists has seriously questioned the "impeccable" economic logic of this argument. When asked about the memo, Summers responded to the reporter: "I think the best that can be said is to quote La Guardia and say, "When I make a mistake, it’s a whopper.’" Yes. Believe or not, that is what he said.
I will not use adjectives to describe Larry Summers (I may succumb to FAE). I will simply ask you to remember what we learned about the stages of the decision-making process. Remember the first step: moral awareness.
I believe Larry Summers is partially correct because the distribution of pollution through the means of transportation and electrical generation to less developed countries can help those countries develop at a faster rate by cutting down the time to produce goods and services and therefore making more goods and services. In addition, most countries that are less developed are relatively smaller than those that are at a more higher development status therefore there is less population in those areas and less amount of people will be affected by pollution then those people in a country at a higher development. Additionally, pollution won't stay clotted in one area which makes it easier for N.C.A.R. to research the paths of pollutants. This can help scientist how to help the atmosphere to release and cleanse its pollution. Therefore, the migration of only an adequate number of dirty industries to less developed countries is a win win for scientist and economist and the population around the world.
ReplyDeleteSummers' memo is often used to illustrate the limitations of market mechanisms, the need for ethics in markets, and the problems of utilitarianism that are discussed at length in our textbook (see the case study "Exporting Pollution" on page 66).
DeleteAmong the many who have argued against Summers's claim is Stanford University Professor Debra Satz, who argues that there are (at the very least) three ethical objections to the memo:
1. there is unequal vulnerability of the parties involved in the bargain, in the sense that poor countries are in a position of marked disadvantage and so are easy for the rich ones to exploit.
2. the less developed countries suffer from "weak agency", since they are governed by corrupt governments whose actions are not in the interest of the population at large.
3. the bargain is likely to result in an unacceptable degree of harm to a number of individuals, those living in the poor countries, who are not going to simultaneously enjoy any of the profits generated from this “exchange.”
I believe that the beliefs of Mr. Summers in this article embodies a lot of what is wrong with American corporations and the executives that lead these companies. I believe in capitalism and the ability to freely make business decisions without too much government intervention. However, at the same time I do not believe that government is needed to show that this is morally wrong and a poor business decision. Mr. Summers clearly embodies a teleological belief that the end result is all that matters, which makes it hard for us to give him a compelling argument as to why this is a poor decision.
ReplyDeleteBut if we look at the four stages of decision making, we see very little moral awareness in his decision. His moral judgement is clouded by his greed for money, and his motivation is not for the betterment of everyone, but to increase his wealth. These three steps are so skewed from what they should be that his poor moral behavior is easily explained.
I also believe that Summers completely overlooks the inalienable rights that are given to humans. Without those inalienable rights, Mr. Summers may not be in such a position of power. America became a leader in the free world by providing it's people with those inalienable rights, and capitalism. Now he is attempting to take away these same rights away from the people of the third world countries he mentions in his article. The humans that live in these countries already face many barriers to success in their lives. We should be doing more to help them achieve the same success as Summers has had, not creating another barrier to entry by stepping on their inalienable rights.
The encouragement of the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries is a topic that is frequently debated by many individuals. In this article, Larry Summers states three reasons as to why it might be beneficial to encourage this migration. While these reasons may be valid to an extent, it is worth to note that Summers views the migration as an economical benefit and in doing so, he chooses to ignore the moral implications.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in a previous comment, Summers does not make a good moral decision based on the four stages of decision making. In addition, it may be worth to point out that in terms of teleology and Kantian ethics, Summers does not make a good moral decision as well. Teleologically, Summers is primarily concerned with the financial ends of the economy and firms within the "dirty" industries. However, he does not concern himself with choosing the action with the greatest pleasure over pain for everybody such as those who live and could be harmed in these less developed countries. Alternatively, in terms of Kantian ethics, Summers violates a categorical imperative in respect for persons. By choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries, Summers violates the respect for those who live in less developed countries by encouraging an action that will endanger the environment of less developed countries - thereby potentially endangering the health of those that live there.
In conclusion, I do not think that Summers is right in choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries since his decision is morally flawed. However, it is worth to stress that Summers is an economist and as a result, may only view decisions in terms of economical benefits. Nonetheless, this article also shows why individuals must consider the moral implications of decisions, whether it is an economical decision, or that of another field.
The encouragement of the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries is a topic that is frequently debated by many individuals. In this article, Larry Summers states three reasons as to why it might be beneficial to encourage this migration. While these reasons may be valid to an extent, it is worth to note that Summers views the migration as an economical benefit and in doing so, he chooses to ignore the moral implications.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in a previous comment, Summers does not make a good moral decision based on the four stages of decision making. In addition, it may be worth to point out that in terms of teleology and Kantian ethics, Summers does not make a good moral decision as well. Teleologically, Summers is primarily concerned with the financial ends of the economy and firms within the "dirty" industries. However, he does not concern himself with choosing the action with the greatest pleasure over pain for everybody such as those who live and could be harmed in these less developed countries. Alternatively, in terms of Kantian ethics, Summers violates a categorical imperative in respect for persons. By choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries, Summers violates the respect for those who live in less developed countries by encouraging an action that will endanger the environment of less developed countries - thereby potentially endangering the health of those that live there.
In conclusion, I do not think that Summers is right in choosing to encourage the migration of "dirty" industries in less developed countries since his decision is morally flawed. However, it is worth to stress that Summers is an economist and as a result, may only view decisions in terms of economical benefits. Nonetheless, this article also shows why individuals must consider the moral implications of decisions, whether it is an economical decision, or that of another field.
Reading this opinion that Summers has about pollution and toxins is appalling. His thoughts about moving our pollution to less fortunate countries shows the entitlement some people feel because we live in the United States. What people from the US don’t realize is that we use the majority of the world’s resources, and produce a large amount of toxins yearly. Currently, the United States uses 30% of the world’s resources, and produces 4 billion pounds of chemical toxins a year. These numbers are noticeably high, and it would be very unfair to take our mess and move it to the “lowest wage” country. This action would not only hurt these less fortunate countries and people, but it also might cause Americans to feel their lifestyle choices are good. This would cause the production of more toxins and the usage of more resources, which is something that is unnecessary.
ReplyDelete