With the globalization of the world, communication among countries becomes more and more frequent. The impact of global trade on the countries’ development is as well astonishing. In the article “Social Justice and Global Trade” (2006), published in Far Eastern Economic Review, Joseph Stiglitz argues that under the condition of liberalization, poor countries are suffering from being disadvantaged in global trading. And because of that, he proposes to reform the current trading system in order to enhance the benefits of everyone. Although the author has raised an important issue and gives practical suggestions, he fails in generalization and self-contradiction. Subjectivity and a lack of clarity weaken his article. (你意思说反了吧，fails in指的是他没有做到，而你想说的是他过于偏激，最后这句话你这个总结要好好想，是你第1段的核心)。
The author begins by stating the fact that developing countries are facing a worse situation in the global trade because of the theories of liberalization. Then, he points out that fully liberalization without protection has negatively impacted on the economy in developing countries. The article continues and criticizes trade negotiators focusing on special interests such as agricultural subsidy and intellectual property even if they have gained the interests through enormous damage from developing countries. The writer concludes by several suggestions to reform the structure of trade talks, which will lead to a more fair and justice global trade and promote the welfare of the people. However, he emphasizes that the changes of attitude are more important that the changes in the structure. People should strive for a fair and efficient global trading system, which promotes development.
One of the strengths of this article is the importance of subject matter. Fairness in global trade has great significance for the development all over the world. Stiglitz indicates that trading injustice causes several problems such as millions of farmers suffering from poverty in developing countries due to excessive agriculture protection in the developed countries, and thousands of unnecessary death caused by developed countries focusing on the intellectual property, especially in drugs. (P 20) His appeal to reform a fair and efficient global trading system in order to promote world development is timely and relevant to the benefits of a large number of people instead of a few citizens in the developed counties. Hopefully this article will be concerned by the governments and raised the awareness of social justice of the public to criticize the unbalanced global trade.
In addition, the author provides some practical recommendations to reform the structure of trade talks such as increasing transparency in negotiations. He points out that transparency is “essential” to avoid “abuses special interests” through “open debate”. (P 22) It is also suggested that “ issues like intellectual property” should never be negotiated because it only reflects the interest of industries and monopolists not the “producers of knowledge” and “users”. (P 21) the author also mentions that the changes will not ensure getting a “fair and efficient global trade regime”, but it will truly increase the opportunity to “enhance the welfare of everyone” that makes his suggestions more objective and credible. Although it can be argued that to adopt these suggestions may encounter several problems because it damages interest of many developed countries, it is exactly what should be done to enhance equity to each country and improve the global trading system.
However, this article contains a number of generalizations and contradictions. The author claims “political leaders champion liberalization.” (P 18) But in fact, there are hundreds of political leaders in different countries in the world. Some of them do not support liberalization absolutely and set trade barriers in their countries such as the countries of East Asia, which he later described as “actively intervening in markets”. (P19) Further more, he indicates that “good risk market”, “full employment” and “mature economy” are key conditions to liberalize and “none of these conditions are satisfied in the developing countries”. (P 19) This assertion is also guilty of generalization and then he also claims the countries of East Asia “maintain their economies at close to full employment”. (P 19) it is clear that most of the countries in East Asia are developing countries and it means some developing countries actually satisfied with one key condition. Thus his self-contradiction and generalizations causes serious confusion to the readers.
Another weakness is the lack of clarity. In the statement “As tariffs have degraded, America has increasingly resorted to the use of non-tariff barriers as the new forms of protectionism”, (P 18) what is the meaning of non-tariff barriers and how America is going to use it as protection are never interpreted. It is necessary for common readers to get insight how these non-tariff barriers and protection negatively affected the poor countries. The other vagueness is while the author mentions that trade negotiations seek for their special interests and “pay little attention to principles”, (P 20) there is not any explanation about the principles. As a reader may wonder what the principle is in global trade negotiations and whether the principle is contributing to whole world’s development opposing to gain special interest?
Subjectivity is a negative aspect as well. The author gives an example that 25,000 American cotton farmers receive $3-$4billion of subsidy a year. Thus their high production reduces the price in global markets that causes “some 10 million cotton farmers eking out a subsistence”. (P 20) Nevertheless, no reference is mentioned to these figures. It is doubtful whether these statistics come from personal observation and hypothesis. Even if the numbers are based on a professional research, it is also questionable whether this research is out of date. Additionally, he points out that most of the studies reveal liberalization do not lead to faster growth. (P 19) But he fails to offer any examples and evidences to confirm most of the studies result. Therefore, it leads to a meaningless and unconvincing statement.
In conclusion, the author deals with an important subject matter and gives effective recommendations to reform a balanced trade system. Generalizations, contradiction, lack of clarity and subjective are some serious errors, which the author should have been more considerable. It is recommended to note that the source of data or example and express more explicitly.
Reference
Joseph, Stiglitz (2006) “Social Justice and Global Trade” Far Eastern Economic Review; March 2006(还有edition,page,revision..)
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考