Each man has a right to private property  The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own1/2.  1 Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.


economy general philosophy political philosophy house believes capitalism better

Capitalists often disregard the fact that people, although being individuals, also are formed by their social circumstances 1/2. People's class belonging, sexuality, sex, nationality, education etc. have a major impact on people's opportunities; there might be cases of individuals achieving the American dream like Barack Obama despite their social background, however this is not applicable to the majority of people. In capitalism the people with the most opportunities are usually the people who have the most capital, take the example of university students: universities in many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom charge students high tuition fees, if one is not wealthy enough to pay for these fees the likelihood to continue into further education is much lower (if a loan is provided one would have to risk to be indebted for a long period of one's life, or not have the opportunity to study at university at all)3. This can by no means be called an equal opportunity for everyone. It is not enough to provide opportunities; people must also be in a position to grab them.  1 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). Kunskapssociologi : hur individen uppfattar och formar sin sociala verklighet. (S. T. Olsson, Ed.). Falun: Wahlstr


The market should determine the price of products and services  A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated1/2. This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality (honing your basketball skills), rewards ability (having basketball skills) and risk-taking (risking that you will succeed with it).  1 Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011  2 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.


Often when consumers buy things they might ostensibly believe that they have a choice, when in reality they do not, since they are presented with several options; I could e.g. either watch this blockbuster movie or that blockbuster movie on the cinema. However, there is no option to watch anything else than a blockbuster movie and consequently there is no real choice offered. Capitalism has already decided what is going to be produced and the consumer is left with nothing else than purchasing whatever is provided. Another example could be that there might be a whole range of food options in the supermarket, but the good food is expensive and therefore the people with less income end up eating unhealthy food since they cannot afford the good food, therefore in practice there is no real choice since one of the options is not available for the people with less income because it is too expensive1. An additional counterargument might also be to question the validity that a product/service's price should be determined by the pure fancy of the market, is it really justifiable that Michael Jordan earns much more than e.g. a nurse? The nurse provides a service which saves lives while Michael Jordan only supplies entertainment, even if it is only Michael Jordan who can play a certain kind of high quality basketball and many more people are qualified nurses, it does not justify at all the wage difference between the two2.  1 Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. (2005). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Sandel, M. (2004). Justice: What is the right thing to do? Allen Lane.


According to Karl Marx work should not be regarded as just a means to achieve a reward in the form of profit, work should (i) be directed to the need of their fellows, (ii) be an enjoyable, meaningful activity which develop human capabilities. In the capitalist system labour becomes distorted e.g. industrial work tends to be monotonous and dulling without any enjoyment at all. People are more or less coerced to work for their survival and accept even the most horrific work conditions; work is only performed on the capitalist's terms1/2. If workers did not have to fight for their survival and labour was directed to the meaningful activity of helping others instead of profit making for capitalists, incentives in the form of profit would be without value. The want to share wealth and material amongst the community is inscribed in the human essence and constitutes meaningful activity. It is not merely possible


The capitalist society enhances personal freedom  The Western democratic capitalist system protects individual's rights and liberties through freedom from of interference by other people. Mature adult citizens are believed to have the capacity to choose what kind of life they want to lead and create their own future without paternalistic coercion from the state (Berlin, 1958). The capitalist society's ideals could perhaps be best exemplified with the American dream where everyone has an initial equal opportunity to reach their full potential, each individual being choosing their own path free from external coercion,. James Truslow Adams defines the American Dream as the following in 1931 "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement"1. The current President of United Stated Barack Obama is a typical example of a person who has achieved the American dream. Barack Obama did not start his life with a traditional "fortunate circumstance" previous presidents had enjoyed (e.g. George Bush). Nevertheless he succeeded in transcending his social class, his race etc. and became the president of United States2. Thus capitalism provides everyone with a fair chance to reach great achievements in their life if they seize the opportunities.  1 James Truslow Adams papers, 1918-1949. (n.d.). Columbia University Library. Retrieved June 7, 2011  2 Barack Obama is the American Dream writ large. (2008). Mirror. Retrieved June 7, 2011


Incentive in form of profit benefits society as a whole  The strongest motivational force a human being can feel towards work is a potential reward for their effort, therefore those who work hard and contribute most to society should justly also gain the most in form of increased wealth (e.g. private property). When work is uncoupled from reward or when an artificial safety net provides a high standard of living for those who do not work, society as a whole suffers. If those who work will benefit equally as the ones who do not there will be no reason to work and the overall productivity will be lowered, which is bad for society. Incentives are therefore necessary since it increases the overall standard for the whole society in form of material wealth, the fact that individuals are driven to succeed and earns what is rightfully theirs is thus in all our interest. With an overall higher productivity even the worst off may benefit more than they would have if the productivity had been low e.g. through charities etc.1/2/3/4  1 Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.  2 Bradford, W. (1856). History of Plymouth plantation. Little, Brown and company.  3 Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.  4 Perry, M. J. (1995). Why Socialism Failed. University of Michigan- Flint, Mark J Perry?s personal page.


In order to avoid economic crisis there is a need to return to a separation of commercial banking from investment banking which was e.g. implemented as legislation in the U.S.A. under the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act (scrapped under President Clinton in the 1990s). It is dangerous to allow banks to get into a position where they can be shut down by pursuing exciting, but high risk investment banking activities such as real estate speculations. The rationale for this separation is that it was a commercial banking crisis which posed the systemic risk, investment banks should be left alone from state interference and left to the influence of the market. "This leaves a much more limited, and practicable, but still absolutely essential, role for bank supervision and regulation: namely, to ensure that the core commercial banking system is thoroughly sound and adequately capitalised at all times. The crisis can thus be resolved through a separation of the banks since the commercial banking won't be affected when investment banks go bust, the whole system will not be dragged down if only a few investment banks misbehave since commercial banks are the backbone of the economy. Financial crisis doesn't have to be something "inherent" in the capitalist system due to overproduction but can be accommodated through some regulations1.  1 Lawson, N. (2009). Capitalism needs a revived Glass-Steagall. Financial Times. Retrieved June 14, 2011 1.


The reasons behind the poverty gap are not purely because of a capitalist expansion; a clear example may be seen at the development of the African region between the 1960.  Free market economics also provides the solution to such inequality; labor will gravitate towards companies which provide the best working conditions and wages. For example, while most automobile companies offered two dollars per day as wages, Henry ford offered five, guaranteeing him the best of the best by way of labor. The important point is that the employers do not enslave the workers, the workers are more than free to try to find better employment, be it in better pay, better conditions, easier work, better benefits or more satisfaction.


Socialism provides a more sustainable way of living  Capitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation


Socialism is a more secure system than the free market in Capitalism  'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis1.  1 Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011


Socialism leads to a more humane equal society  The gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 20081, this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year2. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible3. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened.4  1 The World?s Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes.  2 Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011  3 Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011  4 Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.


In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: (i) energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; (ii) maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy1.  1 Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond "Green Capitalism." The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011


business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces

f the government wants to save money, they should not be trying to reduce smoking levels, since smokers are the source of a great deal of tax income. While the NHS might spend some of their money on smokers (whose health issues may or may not be directly to their smoking habit), the government receives much more money from the taxes paid on cigarettes. For example, smoking was estimated by researchers at Oxford University to cost the NHS (in the UK) £5bn (5 billion pounds) a year [1] , but the tax revenue from cigarette sales is twice as much – about £10bn (10 billion pounds) a year [2] . So governments which implement smoking bans actually lose money.  [1] BBC News. “Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn.” BBC News. 8 June 2009.  [2] Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. “Tax revenue from tobacco.” Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association. 2011.


This ban would lower healthcare costs.  The health problems that smokers experience cost taxpayers (where healthcare is provided by the government) or the individual (for private healthcare) a lot of money. Decreasing the number of smokers – as a result of a reduction in both “social smokers” (those who smoke when out with friends) and “passive smokers” (those who do not smoke themselves but are exposed to the second-hand smoke of others) – will lead to a decrease in these healthcare costs. This has been reported – for example – in Arizona, where a study found that hospital admissions due to diagnoses for which there is evidence for a cause by smoking have decreased since the statewide smoking ban, and that costs have thus decreased [1] .  [1] Herman, Patricia M., and Walsh, Michele E. “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban. American Journal of Public Health. 101(3). March 2011.


While some studies have shown that numbers of smokers in countries in which a smoking ban has been introduced have fallen, it seems that these results only represent those people who were trying to quit smoking anyway, with the smoking ban acting as an added incentive. Studies in England have shown that while there was a rise in the number of smokers trying to quit soon after the ban in 2007, that rise has fallen again since1. So, while there was an initial fall in the number of smokers, the smoking ban in England is not having a continuing effect on whether more people are giving up the habit.Additionally, it can be argued that since people are continuing to smoke in countries with a smoking ban, but not doing so in public, there must be more smoking going on within the home. If there are any dangers of second-hand smoke, then a smoking ban moves those dangers from responsible adults who can choose whether to go somewhere where smoking is allowed (in public) to children who cannot (in the home), which is immoral.  1 Lies, Elaine, 'Smokers quit after ban, but numbers ebb: study', Reuters, 6 June 2011,


Exposing non-smokers to second-hand smoke goes against their rights.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a list of rights to which the United Nations has declared that all human beings should be entitled) states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"1. More than 50 studies carried out worldwide have found that people are at an increased risk of lung cancer if they work or live with somebody who smokes2. Given these very serious health risks, it goes against people's human rights to be exposed to second-hand smoke when they have not chosen to breathe it in. To avoid this happening, smoking should be banned in public places, so that non-smokers can be sure that they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke.  1 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', General Assembly of the United Nations,   2 'Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking', World Health Organisation, Vol.83, 24 July 2002,


It is very difficult to properly scientifically measure the risk for non-smokers of being exposed to second-hand smoke. To do a proper experiment, scientists would need to find a large group of people who had never been exposed to cigarette smoke before, split them into two groups, and then systematically expose one group to second-hand smoke for a period of time while the other group stayed smoke-free. They would then have to wait and see if more of the group exposed to second-hand smoke developed lung cancer than the other group over their lives. This would be a very expensive and time-consuming experiment. Besides this, it would be very difficult to find people who had never breathed in cigarette smoke and keep half of them that way for their whole lives for comparison. Because of these difficulties in the ideal experiment, scientists often just use questionnaires, asking people to try and remember how many cigarettes the person they live with smokes in a day, for how many hours a day they are exposed to smoking, etc. These kinds of studies are far from precise, since human memory is not very accurate, and so no truly scientific conclusions can be drawn1. Therefore, it is not a fact that non-smokers exposed to the smoke of others are at a serious health risk, so the proposition cannot say that having to sometimes be around other people who smoke goes against non-smokers' human rights.  1 Basham, Patrick, and Roberts, Juliette, 'Are Public Smoking Bans Necessary?' Democracy Institute, Social Risk Series Paper, December 2009,


This ban would not be so easy to introduce. A ban on smoking in all public places would not be easily accepted by all. For example, there are groups in England seeking to change the existing ban there so that more places are exempt; the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign wants to change the smoking ban so that large venues can have a designated smoking area which can be avoided by non-smokers1.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,


This ban would encourage smokers to smoke less or give up smoking altogether.  Not being able to smoke in public will make it more difficult for smokers to keep up with their habit. For example, if they are no longer able to smoke in the pub, smokers would have to go outside – possibly in the rain or other uncomfortable weather – and be away from their non-smoking friends every time they wanted to have a cigarette. So, a smoking ban would encourage smokers to smoke less frequently and maybe even give up. This can be seen in countries already with smoking bans. For example, a study in England found that in the nine months after the smoking ban was introduced, there was a 5.5% fall in the number of smokers in the country, compared to the much lower fall of 1.6 % in the nine months before the ban [1] . This can only be a good thing, since giving up smoking decreases the risk of death, even for those suffering from early stage lung cancer [2] .  [1] Daily Mail. “Smoking ban spurs 400,000 people to quit the habit.” Daily Mail. 4 July 2008.  [2] Parsons, A., Daley, A., Begh, R., and Aveyard, P.. “Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis.” British Medical Journal. 340. 21 January 2010.


This ban would be easy to introduce.  A ban in all public places would be no more difficult to introduce than existing bans preventing smoking in only some public places. As long as people are given plenty of notice of changes, as was done in airports in Saudi Arabia, and the rules are made clear and readily available1 there should be few difficulties in introducing this ban.  1 Smith, Louise. “Smoking in public places: the ban in force – Commons Library Standard Note.” Parliament. 20 May 2011.


While pubs and restaurants might lose money from some smokers initially, they will gain money from those who are more likely to eat/drink somewhere if they know they will not have to breathe in second-hand smoke. Even the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign admits that pub business is on a decline in the UK anyway, and that the current economic environment in the country is probably partly to blame1. Some pubs have actually seen improved business since the introduction of a smoking ban, like the Village Pub and Grill in Wisconsin, who say that they get more families coming to eat during the day, and have non-smokers staying longer in their bar 2 The lack of smoke indoors also makes pubs a better environment in which to work.  1 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,   2 Linnane, Rory et al., 'One Year After State Smoking Ban, Village Pub Sees Better Business, Health', ShorewoodPatch, 6 July 2011,


In some countries, compliance rates have actually been high, proving that it is not a problem with the idea of having a ban but with the authorities themselves in different countries. In Scotland, for example, reports from 3 months after their smoking ban was introduced showed that about 99% of premises were following the law properly1. This shows that the opposition should not use the fact that a smoking ban might be difficult to enforce in some places in the initial stages of the law change as a reason not to introduce such a ban in the first place. Lots of laws are difficult to enforce, but still necessary in order to protect people.  1 'Smoking ban gets seal of public approval', The Scottish Government, 26 June 2006,


Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.  Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest".  1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations,


This ban would put many pubs, clubs, etc. out of business.  If smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them, preferring to stay at home where they can smoke with their friends. This will put many pubs out of business. In fact, since the smoking ban was introduced in the UK, many pubs have closed and blamed their loss of business on the smoking ban1. The Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign estimates that the smoking ban in the UK is responsible for 20 pub closures a week2. This is an unfair consequence for the many pub-owners across the world.  1 'MPs campaign to relax smoking ban in pubs', BBC News, 29 June 2011,   2 'Why we want government to amend the smoking ban', Save Our Pubs & Clubs,


This ban would be difficult to enforce.  Given the popularity of smoking, a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places would be difficult to enforce, requiring constant vigilance by many police officers or security cameras. It has been reported that smoking bans are not being enforced in Yakima, Washington 1, Atlantic City2, Berlin 3and other places. In New York City, the major has said that the New York Police Department (NYPD) are too busy to enforce the ban on smoking in their parks and on their beaches, and that the job will be left to citizens4.  1. Guenthner, Hayley, 'Smoking Ban Difficult to Enforce in Yakima', KIMA TV, 1 April 2011,   2. Sajor, Stephanie, 'Smoking Ban Not Enforced at Atlantic City Casinos', ThirdAge.com, 25 April 2011,   3. AFP, 'Smoking Ban not Enforced in Parts of Germany', Spiegel Online, 2 July 2008,   4. 'NYC Smoking Ban In Parks Will Not Be Enforced By NYPD: Mayor', Huffington Post, 2 November 2011,


While all humans do have the right to rest and leisure, they should not be allowed to do so at the expense of the health and safety of other human beings. Serial killers enjoy killing people1, but it is against the law to commit murder. Smoking in public places should be banned despite the fact that smokers enjoy doing it, because it endangers the health of others.  1 Blackwelder, Edward, 'Serial Killers: Defining Serial Murder', Criminology Research Project Inc.


business economic policy international europe house believes eu should abandon

The costs of starting and maintaining business in agriculture vary among European countries as well – the costs of additional materials can be much cheaper in for example Poland than in France. The costs of life vary among European countries as well. Subsidies which are sufficient for Polish farmers to live a decent life are simply not enough for French one. If one of the reasons behind this policy is to preserve traditional ways of life, then part of the role is to keep farmers out of relative poverty as well.  Also the current reform of CAP address these issues – the conditions for all countries should converge in the next years as there is a change replacing the Single Payment Scheme with a basic payment scheme. [1] It is a matter of setting the system right – not giving up on it altogether. Even for farmers in discriminated countries, it is far better that they receive some benefits than no benefits at all.  [1] European Commission, ‘establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy’, Europa.eu, 19 October 2011,  p.7


It is unfair to new members of EU  Not only are the largest recipients of CAP western countries – France, Spain and Germany - also the payments per hectare of arable lands differ significantly between new and old members of EU. The new members of EU with their economies often struggling and more dependent on agriculture (as is the case of Poland, Bulgaria or Romania) need more monetary support compared to their western counterparts to produce food of same quality and be competitive in EU market. However, the payments for hectare of land vary from 500€ in Greece to less than 100 € in Latvia. [1] These different conditions undermine the EU’s ethos of fairness and equality of countries.  [1] EurActive, ‘Eastern EU states call for ‘bolder, speedier’ farm reforms’, 14 July 2011,


Developing countries often face a problem when the local people simply cannot afford food (for example as a result of drought or floods destroying local crops) – thus giving them food for greatly reduced price helps a lot of people to survive at day to day basis. Even for farmers they are unlikely to grow the full range of crops so benefit from being able to obtain cheap foodstuffs. These countries can also if they wish control their import tariffs to ensure that the price of European food is comparable to local one – it is not that they are entirely helpless. The local producers have other benefits given by European Union – reduced taxation on exported agricultural products and development help – which help to compensate for these possible detrimental effects. Even without these programs, EU is still the biggest importer of foodstuff from the developing world by a big margin – therefore in balance the developing countries still receive more than lose by these seldom exports from EU.


CAP is costly and unfair to other industries  Currently CAP costs the European Union approx. 40% of its whole budget. However, this money is used to provide subsidies for industry that only employs less than 5 % of workforce and creates less than 2 % of GDP. [1] We can easily assume that nearly half of EU’s budget can be used more effectively and can, instead, be used to support other, more potential industries which can boost the currently sluggish economic growth. Moreover, the subsidies for European farmers are so high they can contribute up to 90 % of farmers’ pre-tax income. [2] No other industry has such privileges – when European coal and iron industry became uncompetitive and needed to be slimmed down, the European union did not subsidise the industry to such degree even though such action could have saved thousands of jobs.  [1] Charlemagne, ‘Milking the budget’, The Economist, 22 November 2012,   [2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005,


The importance of agricultural industry cannot be valued on the merit of how much percent of GDP it creates. It is one of the industries that are vital for the society as whole – without food the society cannot properly function. In the case of complicated world we are now living in food security – the ability to be self-sufficient in producing food at least to some degree – is important. Also agriculture is not the only industry which is subsidised – the subsidies to other industries such as coal and steel come directly from member states’ budget and not EU’s. Thus for example Germany subsidizes car production by about $1300 per vehicle. [1] The 40% figure is therefore deceptively high as it is the only industry through which subsidies go through the EU budget rather than individual member states.  [1] Davison, Remy, ‘Far from pole on car subsidy grid’, Business Spectator, 26 July 2013,


Even the larger companies can have difficulties in a market in which their consumers, the supermarkets, have so much power over prices. The result is often that supermarkets buy their produce at below the cost of production – as is happening with milk in the UK where it costs 30p per litre to produce but they are only being paid 25p per litre. [1] The costs of producing food in Europe even with mechanisation can be high because of the expensive workforce, and smaller farms on average than in the US. Therefore subsidies to larger companies are needed to keep even larger farmers in business. Often the larger companies involve smaller producers who produce the original, unique specialties and enjoy the stability of larger firm. It is hard to say that support of these companies is not useful.  [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Milk prices row and how the system works’, 23 July 2012,


It harms the economies of developing world  The current model of CAP results in major oversupply of food and beverages. In 2008 the stockpiles of cereals rising to 717 810 tons while the surplus of wine was about 2.3 million hectolitres. [1] This excess of supply is then often sold to developing countries for prices so low that the local producers cannot cope with them. The low prices of European food can be attributed to the higher efficiency of producing food because of use of advanced technologies as well as the CAP. Agriculture makes a small fraction of GDP in Europe, but in developing countries of Africa or Asia it is entirely different with large numbers dependent on much smaller plots of land. Hence, the consequences of CAP and high production in the EU can be the rise of unemployment and decline of self-sufficiency of these affected countries.  [1] Castle, Stephen, ‘EU’s butter mountain is back’, The New York Times, 2 February 2009,


It doesn’t serve its purpose (subsidies to larger farmers)  The CAP as originally proposed was aimed to support small, local, family farmers which have difficulties with sustaining their business in competitive environment. The conference in Stresa in 1958 that helped define CAP’s objectives stated “Given the importance of family structures in European agriculture… all means should be taken in order to strengthen the economic and competitive capacity of the family enterprise.” [1] However, the current model of CAP gives direct payments to farmers according to area of their farms. That means that the major recipients of CAP are actually the biggest players in agricultural industry. According to Economist, 80 % of the subsidies go to 20 % of the richest farmers. [2] Therefore, the money is spent to support large companies and wealthy landowners who could easily compete in EU market even without such abhorrent support from EU taxpayers.  [1] Knudsen, Ann-Christina, ‘Romanticising Europe? Rural Images in European Union Policies’, Kontur, no.12, 2005,  p.52  [2] The Economist, ‘Europe’s farm follies’, 8 December 2005,


The standards of quality can and are checked for imports. Only food, produced without potentially harmful agents and in a certain way, can be sold on European market. The fact that food was not produced in EU does not mean that food is of lower quality, or that there are fewer checks to ensure their quality. In a recent years there were many cases when the food produced in EU was not what it should be – horse meat scandal in 2013 [1] or scandals in Poland with rotten meat. [2] The CAP and EU are not enough to ascertain the quality of produced food and therefore it is unreasonable to follow this argument.  [1] Meikle, James, and McDonald, Henry, ‘Cameron tells supermarkets: horsemeat burger scandal unacceptable’, theguardian.com, 16 January 2013,   [2] UPI, ‘Europe’s food scandals multiply’, 8 March 2013,


In the current interconnected world it is hard to imagine a situation when the EU will be unable to buy enough food for its citizens on the global market. Countries of the EU are among the richest in the world and have enough soft power to negotiate favourable terms of trade from developing countries in nearly any situation. [1] Even if the subsidies created by CAP were abandoned, the agricultural industry will hardly be decimated. The numbers of farmers may decline, there would be consolidation into bigger farms, however there always will be markets where European food will be sold – due its regional specifics, high quality or simply patriotism, when people buy food produced in their own country to support it.  [1] Zahrnt, Valentin, ‘Food Security and the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Facts against fears’, Ecipe Working paper, No. 1, 2011,


It protects rural communities  People in EU are hard to convince that staying in rural areas and working as a farmer is a viable life choice. The profit is often low, the starting costs are high and work is hard. The income of a farmer is usually around half of the average wage in a given country and the number of these farmers fell by 20% in the last decade. [1] By having CAP we have an additional incentive for the people to stay in villages. The direct payments help the people with the starting of business, subsidies helps them to sell their goods at reasonable prices. The process of urbanisation is at least slowed and that, by extend, helps to preserve traditional culture of such communities and thus diversity of European culture itself.  [1] Murphy, Caitriona, ‘Number of EU farms drops 20pc’, Independent, 29 November 2011,


CAP protects the quality of the food in EU  The role of CAP is to produce food at affordable prices while maintaining its quality. By having policies which favour agriculture in Europe it is easier to control the quality of the food, maintain it and also support the diversity of the food produced in EU. [1] The goods imported from developing countries are often not produced under such scrutiny as are those in EU. In EU the quality standards of production are one of the highest – the hygiene, the amount of additives in products – all these are set and controlled by the EU. The result of it is that European citizens eat healthy food of high quality which is still affordable – mainly due to subsidies and payments obtained via CAP.  [1] European Commission, ‘The Common Agricultural Policy A partnership between Europe and Farmers’, 2012,


CAP maintains European food security  The subsidies to agriculture are important for maintaining self-sufficiency to enable Europe to feed its own citizens. In the world of fluctuating markets, global climate change, commodity crisis such in 2008, the state intervention is even more important because that means that the needed goods can become unavailable. Without EU’s help the prices can fluctuate wildly which can be of concern mainly for poorer parts of EU, where the major part of household spending is still food and non-alcoholic beverages. To prevent this kind of situations only the continent-wide policy can be an effective measure. The markets of other countries can compensate losses from others and vice versa. The result of a secure supply of affordable food has been that the amount an average EU household devotes to food has halved since 1960. [1]  [1] European Commission, ‘CAP – how much does it cons’ ‘Food Prices’, ec.europa.eu,


We can see from continuous decline of farms in Europe that the CAP has been ineffective in creating enough incentive for people to stay in villages and farms. And it is doubtful if even the reform of CAP can change this situation. In the last 40 years CAP was reformed in one way or another however the declining trend has still continued. It is reasonable to assume that leaving the agricultural sector without state interventions (which are basically CAP) will eventually result in some sort of stable equilibrium emerging with farmers who can make money from farming, or other activities remaining without subsidy.


tax health health general healthcare weight house would implement fat tax

Choosing to introduce a new policy based on experience with a different, seemingly similar case, is not a good idea.  Tobacco and fatty food are vastly different things for a couple of reasons. An obvious one is the fact that fat is in fact necessary nourishment, even the trans-fat kind. Cigarettes on the other hand have absolutely no value to a persons’ health – their detrimental impact is quite infamous.  A different one is the importance of dosage. While smoking is harmful in all doses, indulging in larger amounts of fatty food isn’t. Consuming what we consider “junk food” in moderation has no ill effect on health. [1] This results in legislating for any kind of fat tax much more difficult as the tax needs to allow consuming fat in moderation while preventing excess.  [1] Roberts A., Let Them Eat Cake (Why Junk Food Is OK For Kids, In Moderation), published 5/9/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011


There is ample precedent in the form of other “sin” taxes  A sin tax is a term often used for fees tacked on to popular vices like drinking, gambling and smoking. Its roots have been traced back to the 16th century Vatican, where Pope Leo X taxed licensed prostitutes. [1]  More recently, and with greater success, US federal cigarette taxes were shown to have reduced consumption by 4% for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes. [2]  Given the success achieved with uprooting this societal vice, which on a number of counts is similar to the unhealthy food one - immense health costs linked to a choice to consume a product – we should employ this tried and true strategy to combat the obesity epidemic.  In fact, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed 5000 people for 20 years, tracking food consumption and various biological metrics. The report states that “Researchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ate it less.” [3]  Thus leaning on the successful tradition of existing “sin” taxes and research that points out the potential for success of a similar solution in this arena, it should be concluded that a fat tax is an important part of a sensible and effective solution to the obesity epidemic.  [1] Altman, A., A Brief History Of: Sin Taxes, published 4/2/2009,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] CDC, Steady Increases in Tobacco Taxes Promote Quitting, Discourage Smoking, published 5/27/2009,  , accessed 14/9/2011  [3] O'Callaghan, T., Sin taxes promote healthier food choices, published 3/10/2010,  , accessed 9/12/2011


While the tax might level out the playing field, it does so to the detriment of those that would need our protection the most.  Instead of making healthy food more accessible, we would make all foods less accessible – a truly nonsensical and harmful situation that we should do our utmost to avoid. Moreover, given that many individuals in lower socio-economic groups will have become used to eating “junk” food, when prices rise they will not necessarily move to the healthier alternative. It is likely that they will stick to what they know, and end up paying more from their limited budgets for it. The end result is likely to be that these people will still buy junk food first but will pay more and thus will not be able to afford any healthier foods.


An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter  The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn. [1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US. [2]  The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few.  We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions. [3]  Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death.  Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature. [4]  Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for.  [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006,  , accessed, 9/14/2011  [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011


An important source of extravagant medical spending around the world, especially in the US, can be traced to inherent inefficiencies of current medical care systems. [1] And the current trends show the situation to be worsening.  It is thus impossible for anyone to really say whether the rising cost of the medical care system can really be attributed to obesity related diseases, especially since those are some of the most common ailments of the modern age.  It is also unfair to single out obesity as the single cause that should get such intense scrutiny and attention. What about the connection between consumption of meat and colorectal cancer? [2] Should we introduce an additional levy in that case as well?  [1] Connolly, C., U.S. ‘Not Getting What We Pay For’, published 11/30/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] The HMS Family health guide, Red meat and colon cancer, published in March 2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011


A fat tax levels out the playing field for healthier food  An important reason why people continuously turn to unhealthy, fat, sugar and salt laden food, is the simple fact that it’s often cheaper than a more wholesome meal comprised at least in part of fresh produce.  A study done at the University of Washington found that “when they compared the prices of 370 foods… junk foods not only cost less… but junk food prices are also less likely to rise as a result of inflation.” [1]  A similar conclusion was reached by a group of Australian researchers, who found that the prices of healthy food have risen 20 per cent above inflation, while the harmful counterpart have actually dropped below inflation – as much as 20 per cent below. [2]  Noting that obesity is more prevalent in groups of lower socioeconomic status, we find that the price of food is a substantial incentive for consumption.  Thus it is only reasonable to levy a tax against unhealthy, fatty food in order to give healthy food a fighting chance.  [1] Parker-Pope, T., A High Price for Healthy Food, published 12/5/2007,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Burns, C., The rising cost of healthy foods, published 10/16/2008,  , accessed 9/12/2011


Even if this policy might cause some families to spend more on their food – even more than they feel like they can afford – it still is more important to start significantly dealing with the obesity epidemic. We feel that nothing short of forcing these low income families – which are also the ones where obesity is most prevalent – to finally change their eating habits will make a dent in the current trend.  But there is a silver lining here. These are also the families that are afflicted most by obesity related diseases. Thus spending a couple dollars more on food now will – necessarily – save them tens of thousands in the form of medical bills.  Reducing obesity will also make them more productive at work and reduce their absenteeism, again offsetting the costs of this tax. [1]  We should look at this tax as a form of paying it forward – spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future.  [1] ACOEM, Obesity Linked To Reduced Productivity At Work, published 1/9/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011


Such a limited view of the role of government may be something we have seen in the past, but even conservative governments today are warming to the ideas of social support, progressive taxation, etc.  This shows a clear trend that the perception of government is changing – and rightly so. The challenges of the 21st century are vastly different from those of a hundred or more years ago, when that idea of government was popular or mainstream.  Given the very recent and very cataclysmic events involving the world’s economy, that were arguably sparked by some very bad financial choices made by consumers, one could think that societies around the globe would be more than ever inclined to answer yes to those questions.  In fact, what the government is doing in this case is respecting its boundaries – it cannot ban certain choices of food outright, although this might be the fastest solution. What it’s doing instead is providing a disincentive for a certain individually and societally harmful choice. That sort of action is entirely legitimate, as it doesn’t infringe on a person’s right to make a certain choice, yet it awards those who make the socially conscious one and it also protects the society in general from harm, since it takes important steps to reduce medical spending.


A tax is not an effective instrument to fight obesity  There are very legitimate concerns whether artificially increasing the cost of fatty food by specifically targeting it with a tax would have a significant effect on the obesity trend.  In fact, research shows that a fat tax would produce only a marginal change in consumption – not the dramatic shift in public awareness the proponents of the fat tax are hoping for. The reason, LSE researchers believe, is simple: “those on the very poorest diets will continue to eat badly.” [1]  Other than the economic reasons for such behavior, it could be argued that is also a thing of habit and culture: fast fatty food is quick, accessible and tasty. [2] Thus while a tax might be useful in reducing things such as the use of cigarettes – which are at heart an unnecessary “luxury” and thus more easily affected by the price – eating food, whether junk or not, is necessary. It also seems that the fast fatty kind of food is fulfilling a specific need, a need for a quick, tasty and filling meal, something people consider worth paying good money for.  The fight against obesity ought to be multifaceted, complex and well thought out – and a fat tax is none of those things. We should approach the issue with more cunning and introduce other programs: such as increasing the availability of healthy food by introducing healthy vending machines; [3] increasing the amount of physics exercise by requiring it in school, improving possibilities for recreation and access to public transportation thus encouraging people to burn more calories [4] and, most importantly, proper education on the topic if we want to create lasting change. [5]  [1] Tiffin, R., Salois, M., A fat tax is a double whammy for the poor – it will do little to prevent obesity in those on lower incomes, and will hurt them financially, published 9/2/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011  [2] Hitti, M., Top 11 Reasons For Fast Food's Popularity, published 12/3/2008,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [3] Yara, S., Best And Worst Vending Machine Snacks, published 10/6/2005,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [4] CDC, Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States, published 7/24/2009,  , accessed 9/14/2011  [5] Bunce, L., ‘Fat tax’ solutions ignore wider social factors driving junk food habits, published 8/16/2010,  , accessed 9/12/2011


It hits the most vulnerable part of society hardest  The practical consequence of an additional tax on what the government considers fatty unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poorest part of the population, who often turn to such food due to economic constraints.  These were the concerns that stopped the Romanian government from introducing a fat tax in 2010. Experts there argued, that the countries people keep turning to junk food simply because they are poor and cannot afford the more expensive fresh produce. What such a fat tax would do is eliminate a very important source of calories from the society’s economic reach and replace the current diet with an even more nutritionally unbalanced one. Even the WHO described such policies as “regressive from an equity perspective.” [1]  Clearly, the government should be focusing its efforts on making healthy fresh produce more accessible and not on making food in general, regardless if it’s considered healthy or not, less accessible for the most vulnerable in our society.  [1] Stracansky, P., 'Fat Tax' May Hurt Poor, published 8/8/2011,  , accessed 9/12/2011


A fat tax infringes on individual choice  Introducing such a tax would constitute an overstepping of the government’s authority. The role of government in a society should not expand further than providing basic services such as education, legal protection, i.e. only the services necessary for a society to function and for the individual’s rights to be protected.  Such a specific tax is completely uncalled for and very unreasonable in the context of a fair society with a government that knows its place in it.  Protecting the individual should go no further than the protection against the actions of a third person. For instance: we can all agree that governments should put measures in place to protect us from thieves, scammers, etc. But should it also protect us from frivolous spending? Limit us in the number of credit cards we can own? Tell us how we can invest our money?  Of course not. But what this tax does is exactly that – it is punishing the citizens for a specific choice they are making by artificially inflating its cost.  Thus it is clear that levying such a tax against a specific choice an individual should be able to legitimately make is a clear overstepping of the government’s authority. [1]  [1] Wilkinson, W., Tax the fat, not their food, published 7/26/2011,  , accessed 12/9/2011


Though one might be inclined to agree with the statement, that a fat tax on its own would be insufficient to solve the problem of rising obesity, it is also simply not the case.  There are numerous educational campaigns underway, from celebrity chef Jamie Oliver’s school dinners to the first ladies ‘Let’s move’ that are effectively targeting that aspect of the fight against obesity.  What is needed to balance these is tangible action by the government that is able to underwrite and solidify what these campaigns are saying. In short, to help our society practice what we preach.


finance international africa house would provide access microfinance unbanked

One of the key benefits highlighted about Oxfam’s Saving for Change Initiative is the empowerment provided for women. Women are argued to be more independent, able to organise within communities, and provided with a voice of power. However, are women empowered?  In the cases of microfinance in Cameroon, Mayoux (2001) highlights the inequalities operating within community groups. The message is we cannot rely on communities, and social capital, for empowerment as women within such communities have different relations to power. The ability for women to use savings and credit for self-empowerment is limited by wider, traditional, gender inequalities. Microfinance may act to reinforce unequal power relations and positions within society.  Furthermore, women’s empowerment needs to be understood as complex. [1] Real, and strategic, empowerment for women goes beyond increased access to economic resources. So how can microfinance ensure true empowerment?  [1] See further readings: Sutton-Brown, 2013.


Small is beautiful: community empowerment  Microfinance is empowering the communities that are using it - showing in development, small is beautiful. Communities are empowered to change their conditions. For example taking the case of savings - microfinance allows for savings. Half of the adults that saved in Sub-Saharan Africa, during 2013, used an informal, community-based approach (CARE, 2014). First, having savings reduces household risk. CARE is one of many organisations working in innovations for microfinance. At CARE savings have been mobilised across Africa by working with Village Savings and Loans Associations. Overtime, CARE has targeted over 30,000,000 poor people in Africa, to provide necessary finance. Savings ensures households have financial capital, can invest resources in education, health, and the future. Savings is security in livelihoods.  Second, microfinance is providing key skills. Oxfam’s Savings for Change Initiative provides training on savings, and lending, to women in communities in Senegal and Mali. Evidence from Mali indicates startup capital provided has ensured better food security, women’s empowerment in the financial decision-making of households, and crucially, a sense of community bond among the women (Oxfam, 2013). Gender based violence within households may also be reduced [1] .  [1] See further readings: Kim et al, 2007.


Can we rely on business to solve social problems? Ultimately the model proposed through microfinance schemes is the creation of a consumer market where risks are already high. This has shown to be one of the key factors of microfinance failing in South Africa (Bateman, 2013). The microcredit provided across South Africa, post-apartheid, aimed to solve social problems - however, it has acted to support risky consumption not investment. With a lack of secure incomes, due to high levels of unemployment, underemployment, and informal employment, the rate of repayment is low. Households have been forced into severe poverty by being provided with credit which they can’t pay back. Even among those who do invest how many of their business ideas will succeed?


Microfinance and protection  Access to a small loan provides benefits for the poor’s ability to access high quality health care. A lack of access to banking facilities - loans and credit - may mean the poor are left excluded from health care services as these are usually not free. Microfinance institutions accept the irregularities of the poor’s income, so enabling health care to be affordable to the poor by providing access to finance. As Ofori-Adjei (2007) shows the integration of microfinance institutions within healthcare systems in Ghana is required to resolve the issue of inaccessibility. Ill health should not put a household into a state of poverty - microfinance provides this protection.  Microfinance schemes not only provide loans to access health care but are now integrating non-financial services, such as health education, within their finance schemes.


A livelihoods approach  The livelihoods approach provides a useful model to understand how poor people live [1] ; and remains important to recognising the benefits of microfinance.  The provision of microfinance reduces vulnerability to shocks and changes such as losing a job; enhances people’s access to assets that they use and need (such as finance, friend networks, and land); and this fundamentally acts to change the lives of the poor. Microfinance provides social protection through tapping into social capital. Further, microfinance means aid is not simply provided, but the individual is taught valuable financial skills and given the means to sustain themselves for their lifetime.  [1] See further readings: IFAD, 2013.


The provision of microfinance within livelihoods is based on a positive view of social capital [1] and cohesion. The idea relies upon a perception whereby social networks within the community are able to positively organise funds and remain democratic in how they manage poverty. It fails to acknowledge negative aspects of social capital - such as how networks can act to exclude and restrict who becomes a part of the scheme. Civil society is not without internal politics, with competing interests, and can be uncooperative.  [1] Social capital represents the relationships and linkages between people and/or groups, of which are formulated with rules and norms. See further readings:


Loans provided are embedded with conditions, which can constrain what an individual can do with the money. A microfinance loan is still a loan, it needs to be paid back, if someone is in poor health for a long period they will run into difficulty. Can saving schemes enable social protection in the long term when the amount saved is just enough to cover one sick person? We need to realistically evaluate what the loan enables, provides, and how long for. To provide real health security a much more comprehensive finance system is needed, such as insurance


There is a need to reinvigorate Africa’s agricultural system; however, the ability for microfinance to do this is debatable. The distribution of loans is not necessarily adequate or responsive to the need. The loans provided need to be able to provide security and protection in the face of environmental crisis. There are some things microfinance can’t solve; more variable rains and desertification for example. Loans can only be provided if the risks are known and the risks are getting higher so too will be the costs of loans.  Additionally, multiple factors are responsible for Africa’s agrarian crisis. The lack of an agriculture marketing board for farmers to control price, insufficient infrastructure, and the legacies of structural adjustment, all act to constrain the agricultural system.


Ending poverty through entrepreneurialism  Introducing finance provides communities with access to startup capital. Access to financial capital is vital in several respects for initiating capitalism. Firstly, access to capital enables entrepreneurialism. The poor have business ideas that would benefit both themselves and their community they just require access to capital to invest in such ideas. The Initiative ‘Lend with Care’ is providing access to capital to empower entrepreneurs [1] .  Secondly, the cumulative effect of small-scale savings and borrowing, enabled through microfinance enables individuals, families and communities, to enter markets - of land and property. Being able to buy property and land can enable personal security, dignity, and increasing returns.  [1] See further readings: Lend with Care, 2013.


Rebuilding agricultural systems  Africa is faced with an agrarian crisis. Microfinance is providing rural communities a chance to gain food security and reduce vulnerability to risks such as climate change, unstable demand, and political tensions. Microfinance supports small scale agriculture – which is more sustainable, effective for growth, and beneficial for communities than larger scale agriculture. In Zimbabwe, small scale farming has the capability to improve production, benefiting households, communities, and the Nation (IRIN, 2013; Morrison, 2012).  Kiva, a microfinance NGO, is providing affordable capital to remote communities. Loans have been provided to small-scale farmers and a rental system has been set-up enabling farmers to borrow tools and resources needed.


Africa’s microfinance schemes can be different, and are fundamentally different. Across Africa there is a history of informal lending. Microfinance is not new, but rather embedded in traditional practices. This means communities are aware of the obligations, rules, and practice of microfinance.  Additionally, the path taken by microfinance lenders shows stricter controls are being taken to ensure that the loans are not subprime. In a bid to ensure the safety of the poor the Bank of Ghana has set up minimum capital requirements for the borrower and new regulations to ensure money-lent is repayable.


All policies have barriers and potential disadvantages and for a scheme to be rolled out the advantages must outweigh the costs. In the case of microfinance advantages are higher. Microfinance has a low cost for implementation, and can therefore be distributed nationwide. Rolling out microfinance schemes means a majority of the population will become able to access vital services through a flexible loan.  Microfinance not being able to reach everyone is not a reason to enable it for those it can reach. If bad governance prevents sustainability then something needs to be done about governance – it does not invalidate microfinance as a concept. And all those involved in supply do have close enough objectives to run the scheme there simply needs to be compromises to ensure they remain the same.


Deeper issues unresolved  Microfinance provides a quick-fix solution for the poor. The individual, or community, is provided with a loan to invest in their future. However, although access to capital is a key concern for enabling entrepreneurialism it is not the silver bullet. Microfinance schemes will fail without providing a stable political and economic environment that makes a good climate to invest in.  Microfinance is essentially short-termist. It encourages investment but only in things that will bring a quick return. With interest rates as high as 30% the person taking the loan needs to pay it back as quickly as possible. This can sometimes be against an individual’s long term interests, for example access to microfinance often reduces primary school attendance as this is a long term investment that will not pay back the loan money (IOE, 2011).


Debt cycles and the curse of microfinance  Microfinance is incorporating free market ideologies and subprime (lending to those who may not be able to repay) lending at a smaller scale. Unstable crises’ form as a result, and debt is intensified for the poorest - of which are given access to credit they are not able to repay. This is a problem with all lending, microfinance is no exception.  In India the pressures of microfinance repayment has become linked to suicide and early mortality (Biswas, 2010). The stress of looking for microcredit, and then how to pay it back, has created a crisis within the microfinance industry. Regulation is required on the microfinance organisation: controlling the distribution of credit and the use of threats if the individual defaults.


Realistic barriers  There are significant barriers to introducing microfinance. Microfinance can’t reach everywhere; a lack of infrastructure, or poor infrastructure, can mean that microfinance initiatives often can’t reach where need is greatest. Those who are poorest most need money just to get buy, not to invest. They would be unable to repay even tiny loans. It returns to the question of who is the poorest, and what do we know about them - where they are, what they need, and why are they poor?  Secondly, structural constraints limit the ability for microfinance to be sustainable and provide a long term solution. Bad governance, inadequate structures to regulate microfinance, and political instability, mean the theoretical benefits of microfinance may not become a lived reality.  Thirdly, who is involved in the supply? The involvement of multiple actors - NGOs, communities, the state, and private sector, complicates how microfinance is being run and therefore the effectiveness. Tensions emerge with such partnerships as each actor has the different objectives and motivations.


Microfinance does not have to be short term financing. Because it is a community based loan that is based on trust if those wanting the loan can explain why they want a loan over the longer term then it is possible to get longer loans. Moreover long term investment should not be something those who are struggling day to day have to think about; such investments as education should be made by the government not relying on individuals to realise their long term interests. No one would argue that microfinance is the solution to a poor education system.


economic policy tax politics government house doesnt trust republicans economy

The reason for the apparent superiority of Democrat administrations is that they use government as a job creation service; using taxpayers’ money to create jobs in a bloated federal administration [i] .  Ultimately, these are not real jobs as they are not actually producing wealth, merely circulating what already exists. Real growth and real economic health comes from unleashing the innovativeness and industry of the American people to create new businesses and expand existing ones. The Democrat approach leads to taxes rising The Republicans can reduce taxes because they leave the creation of jobs where it belongs – in the private sector.  [i] “Historical U.S. Job Creation – Under Democratic and Republican Presidents and President Obama” Democraticunderground.com. 2 September 2011.


Historically Democrats have presided over more economic stability whereas the GOP is the party of boom and Bust  During the past 60 years Democrats have been considerably more likely to preside over a balanced budget than their Republican rivals. Since the OPEC shocks of the mid-70s the average unemployment rate under Republican Presidents has been 6.7 % as opposed to 5.5% under democrats. Even expanding that period out to the whole of the post-war period, unemployment has averaged 4.8% under democrats and 6.3% under democrats [i] .  Republican presidencies have been marked by higher unemployment, bigger deficits and lower wages.  [i] Larry Bartels. “Why the economy fares much better under Democrats.” Christian Science Monitor. October 21st, 2010 .


It is really not up to the Government to decide when a job is “good enough”, frankly when the alternative is welfare any job looks fairly attractive. It is also much easier to find new work when you are already in the job market. As well as providing an income, jobs also give the worker pride and self-respect.  It is in the interests of employers to pay as much as the market can bear – this way they get the best person for the job, however, it is not the role of government to tell them how much they should be paying as this removes the incentive to work hard.


Bush squandered an extraordinary economic legacy on tax cuts for the wealthy and too expensive and unnecessary wars.  The Clinton legacy was one of extraordinary economic health including an enormous $4,000 billion surplus. This could have been used to improve services and create jobs. Instead the Bush administration squandered this, mostly on tax cuts for the wealthy and two expensive wars. He turned the surplus on its head, leaving a budget deficit of $482 billion in 2009 with, frankly, not a lot to show for it [i] .  [i] Andrew Taylor. “Bush Leaving Next President Record Federal Deficit”. Huffington Post. 28 July 2008.


The logic behind tax cuts is two-fold. The first is that it isn’t the government’s money, it belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it. The second is that cash in people’s pockets acts as a stimulus to the economy which it doesn’t sitting in the government’s vaults.  In terms of who benefited from the cuts, a single person earning $30,000 a year was paying $4,500 by the end of Bush’s presidency as opposed to $8,400 at the end of Clinton’s.  It’s easy to create a surplus if you simply take people’s money away from them [i] .  [i] “Taxes: Clinton vs Bush”. Snopes.com 22 April 2008.


The events of late 2008 had a variety of complex causes. To try and blame them on one thing alone is not to understand the problem.  What is clear however is that an active financial sector creates jobs and wealth for the American people providing them with the security of a job, a pension and a home in a way that government can only dream of.  There is also no doubt that light regulation allows business to grow and create jobs, the only way out of recession is to allow business to do what it does best; grow America for all our futures.  As Ronald Reagan put it “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem”.


Democrats focus on increasing wages, creating better consumers.  Quality customers can only be created by paying people enough to allow them to purchase goods and services. You can create as many jobs as you like but if they’re created at a level where consumers can’t even afford to survive it does absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. Instead Democrats believe in working with labour to ensure that wages are set at levels that both respect the worker and have a positive effect on the economy. [i]  [i] Mark Pash, CFP_ wi8th Brad Parker. “Progressive Economic Principles: Creating a Quality Economy.”


Deregulation contributed to the banking crises and, therefore the 2009 economic crash  It is clear that the economic meltdown was, in large part, caused by deregulation of the banking and financial sectors. The Republican obsession causes not only environmental damage and low wages but it doesn’t even succeed in its avowed aim of leaving the market free to generate wealth. In just a way of letting the parties friends in the boardrooms of corporate America to get even richer by gambling with the homes and pensions of ordinary, hard-working Americans [i] .  The Congressional Republican response to the 2008 crash was to pass a bill that curtailed 38 environmental regulations, blaming the EPA for the stalled economy. Why is anyone’s guess.  [i] “Why Government Becomes the Scapegoat”. Governemtnisgood.com


The Obama administration received one of the worst political legacies in US history. A broken economy, half a trillion dollars’ worth of debt, two expensive wars, a sick healthcare system and much more besides. In just three short years he has stopped the country haemorrhaging Money in Iraq and Afghanistan, introduced a healthcare system based on medical need rather than the ability to pay and has made progress in improving the economy. Although things are still difficult for many Americans and there are not enough jobs, the idea that having the Republicans back in the Whitehouse is clearly untrue. They were in large part responsible for creating the economic mess in the first place with reckless over-spending and unjustified tax hikes. They turned one of the best economic inheritances in history on its head, leaving the country broke, in debt and with nowhere to go.


George Bush announced that cutting government was one of his greatest priorities, his actions could not have been further from this ambition. As with most Republican presidents, government spending grew considerably on his watch. Indeed no president since FDR presided over a larger rate of growth in the federal budget. The largest recipient has been the military with over $5tn dollars spent on defence during his two terms. To take one example, when the Transportation Security Administration took a guess at the cost of a national computer system in 2002, it pegged the price at $1bn. A few years later the price was running at five times that [i] .  [i] Jon Ward. “Big Government Gets Bigger”. The Washington Times. 19 October 2008.


Republicans more enthusiastically support market capitalism  A free market is at the core of many of the other freedoms we enjoy. When government gets too involved in the running of commerce – whether through taxation, regulation or the state ownership of companies, history has shown us that they start controlling other aspects of citizens lives in an effort to get the economic outcomes that they want. Corporations – along with organised religion – provide useful counter-balance to too much government power. As nice as it sounds that we should divert the wages of the rich to bring the poor up to middle class standards of living, it just doesn’t work [i] .  [i] “Why am I a Republican?” Early Riser. 7 February 2006.


“After three years, it is clear that President Obama’s budget-busting policies have not created jobs and have only added to our debt,”  The Obama administration has been profligate with taxpayers’ money, has failed to deal with the economic crisis and has increased the debt. His policies on health care show that he is more interested in controlling people’s lives than he is in encouraging enterprise and industry. It’s the same story that is always heard from Democrats; they say that they’re interested in encouraging business but instead all they really want to focus on is getting the government involved in as many areas of life as possible – especially in the running of the market. After three years in office Obama has done nothing to improve the life chances of the American people, growth and employment have stagnated, GDP growth has been under 1% per year while unemployment is up to 9.1% from 7.8%, [i] while regulation and taxation have blossomed.  [i] Kristol, William, ‘Weekly Standard: Obama No FDR ON Unemployment’, npr, 2 September 2011,


Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth  The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office.  These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation. [i]  [i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006,


The idea that free markets are innately linked to democracy in some way is simply untrue. Equally there is a difference between markets that are free and those that are unfettered.  Free markets are good to the extent that they create jobs and generate wealth. They cease to be good when they become an end in themselves, indeed when that happens, it very rarely encourages democracy.  In a situation where corporations are, by law, required to maximise profits no matter what there is clearly a role for government in setting some parameters in terms of what terms of what can be considered acceptable behaviour for corporate citizens within a civilized society.


economic policy employment house would make raising business and labour standards

Developing nations are plagued with corruption as well as desperate economic situations and are often in competition with each other in exporting whether that is manufacturing for slightly richer countries of South East Asia or natural resources in Africa.  In the context of such an economic rat race, it would be unfair to impose a western standard on these countries. An increase in standard is not a cheap process as it increases the costs of labour and will stretch resources resulting in cutting back the number of jobs and hence will increase unemployment and poverty just as happened in many Latin American countries [1] . It is better to employ many and provide some means of sustenance to all, as will happen with very low wages and standards, rather than employ less and give (relative) luxury to a few. Developing nations that have lower labour standards can gain a comparative advantage in trade: the lower the cost of the industry, greater the turnover of the industry. [2]  [1] Stern, R. and Katherine Terrell, ‘Labor Standards and the World Trade Organization’, Discussion Paper N 499,2003   [2] ‘The benefits of International Labour Standards’, International Labour Organisation,


International labour and business standards go hand in hand with development standards and will de facto increase implementation levels  What are international labour and business standards? They are globally acceptable methods of doing business and employing labour. These include Conventions Against Forced Labour [1] , Discrimination [2] and Child Labour [3] . These also form guideline structures for social policy such as labour dispute resolution bodies, employment services and good industrial relations. Therefore, this goes hand in hand with reducing poverty and increasing the standard of living of the employees, and hence the standard is a facet of development in itself. This helps in achieving the goals of a stable long term plan for economic growth as well paid workers are necessary for consumer spending. Employing higher standards would be a way to tackle the problems with distribution of aid at the grassroots and increase efficiency within the system organically. [4]  The poorest countries invariably have the lowest standards of labour and business. It is essential to raise these standards to an international level, implementing standards against practices like child labour. If this is done then the purpose of development aid, which is to increase the day to day standard of living of the people, will improve. In an absence of such a pre-requisite, a developing country will be free to employ standards that do not reflect the same principles of the donor nation. Thus, to avoid a hypocritical scenario, this pre-requisite is necessary.  [1] C029 - Forced Labour Convention, Adoption: Geneva, 14th ILC session, 28 June 1930,   [2] International Labour Office, ‘Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention’, International Labour Organisation, 1958 No.111,   [3] ‘ILO Conventions and Recommendations on child labour’, International Labour Organisation,   [4] ‘How International Labour Standards are used’, International Labour Organisation,


This is a common logical fallacy. With limited resources, there is a limited bandwidth within which one can stretch the standard above the capable standard. It is not favourable to increase this gap too much for then it is not realistic. Many countries have ratified ILO Conventions but not implemented any of it. [1] For example India has ratified both ILO core conventions on discrimination but domestic laws have not managed to curtail the widespread discrimination on the basis of caste, particularly for being a Dalit, gender, and ethnicity. [2]  It is important that the standards not only need to be raised, but rather the current standards need to be implemented better – which means a stricter hand to the current regulations.  [1] Salem, Samira and Rozental, Faina. “Labour Standards and Trade: A Review of Recent Empirical Evidence” Journaln of International Commerce and Economics. Web Version August 2012.   [2] ‘India Hidden Apartheid’, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Human Rights Watch, February 2007,  P.80


When developing countries employ poor labour standards, other countries follow the example in order to be competitive  As long as developing nations constantly keep employing poor labour standards, it will keep putting a strain on the global economy. This is because other countries will be pressured to do the same just to remain competitive. This creates a race to the bottom effect and would create “poor conditions and loss of freedom in the global South, and causes workers in the global North to lose their jobs to cheap outsourced labour”. [1] Higher labour standards in developing countries therefore also benefits developed countries. However the converse is also true; labels like ‘fair trade’ provide a guarantee of ethical quality and show that consumers are willing to pay more to ensure good labour standards.  [1] ‘Changing Global Trade Rules’, International Labor Rights Forum,


Labour standards are necessary to protect basic human rights  Labour and business standards are a cornerstone of agreement on universal human rights between various international actors and so it is right that they should be linked to aid. In 1998 the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work were adopted and are considered binding on all members regardless of whether they have ratified the conventions. [1] The business and labour regulations protect the basic worker rights and improve job security through demanding the elimination of discrimination and empower workers through the recognition of “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining” [2] like in those in developed western countries. This then provides a minimum standard and aid should only be given to those that ensure those minimum standards they have signed up. It would also help compliance to prioritise those who go further in their protections of labour when it comes to receiving aid. It should be remembered that there has been general acceptance of international labour standards not just for human rights reasons but also because having minimum standards is beneficial economically – for example a 40 hour working week is more productive per hour than a 60 hour week. [3]  [1] the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, ‘About the Declaration’, International Labour Organisation,   [2] ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, Adopted by the International Labour Conference at its Eighty-sixth Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998 (Annex revised 15 June 2010),   [3] Robinson, Sara, ‘Bring back the 40-hour work week’, Salon, 14 March 2012,


Not all standards benefit human rights and some could even undermine individual’s most basic human rights such as that to sustenance and shelter. Standards combating child labour, for example, could be misguided. In many developing countries, child labour is an important source of income for children’s food and education.  Holding to the ILO’s convention on child labour would therefore affect families’ and children’s income and development opportunities. Since child labour is dependent on level of economic development, developing countries should work on combating poverty before reducing child labour. India implemented most international standards, including the convention for child labour. However, research has found that children working full time have better chances of making it to adulthood than those who work less, because they’re better fed [1] . Children’s physical wellbeing will often therefore benefit from being allowed to work.  Rather than imposing labour standards the way to end such practices is to provide incentives that pay for parents to send their children to school as with the Bolsa Familia in Brazil. [2]  [1] Cigno, Alessandro, and Rosati, Furio C., ‘Why do Indian Children Work, and is it Bad for Them?’, IZA Discussion paper series, No.115, 2000,  , p.21  [2] Bunting, Madeleine, ‘Brazil’s cash transfer scheme is improving the lives of the poorest’, Poverty Matters Blog guardian.co.uk, 19 November 2010,


This is similar to the debate of imposing uniform carbon emission caps on all nations. This would be unfair as the developing world would be at a disadvantage as it takes away one of the ways in which poorer countries compete effectively in the global market; through having lower prices as a result of those lower standards. That is why keeping lower standards that are more easily met is better than having an unachievable and unfair standard.


Strategic interests can be put to risk by such pre-requisites. Donor nations have strategic interests when awarding aid, which ensure that future trade relations are well secured (such as United States and the Middle Eastern oil states). This is why aid goes to countries that often have links with the donor.  If there are too many conditions attached and when the developing countries cannot meet them these countries will go elsewhere. China is increasingly a competitor in giving aid and overtly at least ties in far fewer conditions into the aid they give. Sudan was cut off from aid programmes due to its internal conflict, but China invested in development projects without asking for any conditions [1] .  [1] Zafar, A. "The Growing Relationship Between China and Sub-Saharan Africa: Macroeconomic, Trade, Investment, and Aid Links." The World Bank Research Observer 22.1 (2007): 103-30.


Increasing a standard, even if not as high as the donor would want, increases the standard of the present situation  Increasing the required standard of business and labour will result in increases to the current standard labour and business standards even before aid is entirely tied as countries implement changes to ensure they get the most possible aid. Simply setting an expected level of labour and business standards will therefore create improvement in those standards. In the case of the Decent Work Country Programme for Bangladesh 2006-2009 Bangladesh has been implementing the program due to its positive benefit towards achieving the millennium development goals. This is despite challenges such as the lack of employment opportunities in the country. The programme has been successful in improving social protection, working conditions and rights for female, male, and children workers in a few sectors and areas [1] .  [1] International Labour Organization, Bangladesh: Decent Work Country Programme 2012-2015, 2012


Historically the donor of Foreign Aid has always set down pre-requisites  When a donor nation parts with foreign aid for development to a nation, it must always choose who it prefers to give it to as there is a limited pot of money to donate there needs to be a way of allocating it. It is not surprising therefore that countries with shared colonial histories tend to dominate aid flows, thus Britain has historically given most aid to countries that were its colonies; in 1960 Malta and Cyprus received most, while India was the biggest recipient for much of the rest of the 20th Century. [1] Further, often countries offering aid, such as the US, the UK, and the EU, require the pre-requisite of democracy or the start of a democratisation process. Therefore, it is justified to add a pre-requisite for better standards of business and labour as it helps implementation, and principally meets the goals of the developmental aid itself. [2]  [1] Provost, Claire, ‘UK aid: where does it o and how has it changed since 1960?’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 14 April 2011,   [2] Dollar, David and Alesina, Alberto. “Who Gives Foreign Aid to Whom and Why?” Journal of Economic Growth, Volume 5, No. 1(Mar., 2000).


The concept of a nation’s sovereignty is losing weight against the rights of a global citizen. Citizens everywhere in the world should be able to enjoy equal standards of employment and not suffer at the hands of a nation’s neglect. The rights of a nebulous entity such as the state should not be equated with the much more vital rights of individual workers to humane standards of treatment and good working conditions.


Achieving development at the cost of principles of development is not acceptable. The means by which you achieve development is equally important, and will remain integral in the principles and priorities of a nation once it achieves developed status. The road is as important as the destination! Building the economy on poor labour standards is building on unstable ground as those jobs will simply move as soon as costs rise in any way.


There is nothing wrong with individualised standards. It is the question on implementing them better and not raising standards  The chances that these international labour standards are even relevant to these developing nations are low. For example, India need not ratify the two core conventions on protecting trade union rights because these are rights that pertain to workers in formal employment. A majority of India’s workforce is not in formal employment, and hence not covered by any legal provisions. Similarly in many developing economies a large portion of the workforce is engaged in subsistence farming, something that labour standards are never going to apply to as those involved will do whatever they need to in order to get by. Therefore, there needs to be a different standard applied to the situation specific problems. What needs to be recognised is how no to low labour standards in developing countries can be a significant improvement over the only alternative that was previously available; subsistence farming. One size fits all does not work in such a diverse global economy and donors should recognise the benefits of helping development to bring people out of subsistence farming.


There is uneven implementation of labour standards even in western countries  Western countries often do embrace high levels of labour standards or do not follow their labour regulations. Germany for example has no minimum wage [1] while the USA has no legal or contractual requirement to provide minimum amounts of leave. [2] Moreover it is the demand for the cheapest possible products that drives down labour standards worldwide. If western nations truly want to change labour standards then the way to do it is with the consumer’s wallet not the aid chequebook. British clothing retailers such as Primark are often shown to be buying their products from sweatshops that use illegal workers, and exploit their labour [3] . If there is to be real lasting change in labour standards western firms need to be the ones pushing high labour standards and consumers would need to not automatically go for the cheapest product available.  [1] Schuseil, Philine, ‘A review on Germany’s minimum wage debate’, bruegel, 7 March 2013,   [2] Stephenson, Wesley, ‘Who works the longest hours?’, BBC News, 23 May 2012,   [3] Dhariwal, Navdip. "Primark Linked to UK Sweatshops." BBC News. BBC, 01 Dec. 2009. Web.


Development has many facets of which pure economic growth is a priority, especially in the context of a developing nation  It is a nation’s own sovereign decision to decide its own standards and pace itself. It is a sovereign right of self-determination of a nation to freely comply or refuse to comply with international standards. It is unfair to back a developing nation up against a wall and force them to ratify higher standards in return for aid.  It is notable that the countries that have developed fastest have often been those that have ignored the whims of the aid donors. The Asian tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, later followed by South East Asia and China) did not receive aid, but preserved authority over their developmental policies. Their success story does not involve the international labour standards and goes against many of the policy prescriptions, such as free trade, of international institutions, such as the World Bank and the ILO [1] . This shows that nations that follow their national interest rather than bending to the whims of donors are the ones that ultimately do best economically. These states only implement labour standards when they become beneficial; when it is necessary to build and maintain an educated labour force.  [1] Chang, Ha-Joon, “Infant Industry Promotion in Historical Perspective – A Rope to Hang Oneself or a Ladder to Climb With?”, a paper for the conference “Development Theory at the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century”, 2001,