Dean Baker | Bernie Sanders, Open Borders and a Serious Route to Global
Equality
Monday, 03 August 2015 00:00 By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally for his presidential campaign in
Madison, Wisconsin, July 1, 2015. (Photo: Jen Wegmann-Gabb)
Some progressives expressed dismay last week to discover that Bernie
Sanders, the Vermont senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential
nomination, doesn't favor a policy of open immigration. While such a policy
would undoubtedly allow billions of people in the developing world to
improve their lives, there are not many people in the United States who
relish the idea of the country's population tripling or quadrupling over the
next three or four decades.
It is hard to justify people in the United States living so much better and
longer lives than people in places like Bangladesh or Burundi, just like
it's hard to justify the children of the rich and privileged in the United
States living so much better and longer lives than their poorer
counterparts, but there is not a plausible story where this inequality will
be addressed by mass immigration. There are, however, more serious ways to
think about addressing global inequality.
One of the main reasons that workers in the United States get much higher
wages than workers in the developing world is that they have more capital to
work with. They also are much better educated on average. The same policy
can help to address both gaps. Specifically, we can make our "intellectual
property" freely available to the rest of the world at the cost of
transferring it, which will generally be close to zero.
We can accomplish this by exempting the developing world from intellectual
property (IP) claims in the form of patent and copyright protection. This
would mean that poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America would be
able to get drugs for what it costs to manufacture them. There would no
longer be any issues with drugs costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Nearly all of them would sell for just a few dollars per prescription. The
same would apply to chemicals used in agriculture, also to newly designed
crops that use land or water more efficiently. The operating systems and
software on computers and cell phones would also be available at no cost, as
would be various programs applications in research and business.
To get an idea of how significant this would be, the Commerce Department
estimated the value of the stock of the intellectual property held by the
private sector at $2.4 trillion at the end of 2013, roughly 12 percent of
the total capital stock. It is also the fastest growing portion of the
capital stock. In real terms the value of intellectual property products
increased 40 percent more rapidly than the total capital stock over the last
two decades.
While not all of what is counted as intellectual property can be easily
transferred, since it depends on trained personnel who may not be available
in some developing countries, there is also much intellectual property
embedded in the value of physical capital. If developing countries could
produce equipment without having to pay licensing fees for using various
types of processes, it would substantially reduce the cost of building up
their own capital stocks.
The education aspect of this story would also benefit from ending IP claims
in the developing world. If schools and training facilities in the
developing world all could gain access to books, computer software, online
lectures and other educational material at zero cost, it would substantially
reduce the cost of education. In short, a substantial portion of the
benefits of the wealth can be transferred to the developing world simply by
changing IP rules.
Of course if current IP laws are not enforced in the developing world, it
may be difficult to enforce them in the US also. If drugs costing $100,000 a
year in the US can be purchased in Africa or India for a few hundred
dollars, it will be difficult to sustain the US price. This would mean a
need for different mechanisms to finance research.
Fortunately Senator Sanders has already been thinking along these lines.
Back in 2011 he proposed two bills that would replace patent monopolies with
more modern mechanisms for financing drug research. His specific proposals
may not be the best financing method, but they are at least a serious effort
to move away from the anachronistic patent system.
Unfortunately, US trade policy has been moving in the opposite direction. In
1993, the Clinton administration put the TRIPS provisions into the Uruguay
Round at the last minute. These provisions essentially required developing
countries to adopt US style patent law if they wanted to be part of the WTO.
Since this was very late in the negotiating process and countries did not
want to be excluded from the world trading system, developing countries had
to accept TRIPS before they even had time to analyze its implications.
Subsequent US trade pacts have consistently sought to make patents and other
protections longer and stronger. One of the major sticking points in
finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the strong patent protection the
United States is demanding for prescription drugs.
This is another area where there may be major differences between the
candidates. Regardless of which president gets elected in 2016, we are not
going to see any movement towards open borders. However, there is at least
one candidate who may support policies that will make it easier for people
in developing countries to benefit from the knowledge the world has
accumulated over many thousands of years. This can make a huge difference in
their lives.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
DEAN BAKER
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior
economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at
Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of
Truthout's Board of Advisers.
RELATED STORIES
Hard Work With Jeb Bush
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Dean Baker | Wolfgang Schäuble, the Hero of the Greek Austerity Crisis?
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Dean Baker | Social Security Trustees' Report Lacks the Usual Panic
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Dean Baker | Bernie Sanders, Open Borders and a Serious Route to Global
Equality
Monday, 03 August 2015 00:00 By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks at a rally for his presidential campaign
in Madison, Wisconsin, July 1, 2015. (Photo: Jen Wegmann-Gabb)
Some progressives expressed dismay last week to discover that Bernie
Sanders, the Vermont senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential
nomination, doesn't favor a policy of open immigration. While such a policy
would undoubtedly allow billions of people in the developing world to
improve their lives, there are not many people in the United States who
relish the idea of the country's population tripling or quadrupling over the
next three or four decades.
It is hard to justify people in the United States living so much better and
longer lives than people in places like Bangladesh or Burundi, just like
it's hard to justify the children of the rich and privileged in the United
States living so much better and longer lives than their poorer
counterparts, but there is not a plausible story where this inequality will
be addressed by mass immigration. There are, however, more serious ways to
think about addressing global inequality.
One of the main reasons that workers in the United States get much higher
wages than workers in the developing world is that they have more capital to
work with. They also are much better educated on average. The same policy
can help to address both gaps. Specifically, we can make our "intellectual
property" freely available to the rest of the world at the cost of
transferring it, which will generally be close to zero.
We can accomplish this by exempting the developing world from intellectual
property (IP) claims in the form of patent and copyright protection. This
would mean that poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America would be
able to get drugs for what it costs to manufacture them. There would no
longer be any issues with drugs costing tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Nearly all of them would sell for just a few dollars per prescription. The
same would apply to chemicals used in agriculture, also to newly designed
crops that use land or water more efficiently. The operating systems and
software on computers and cell phones would also be available at no cost, as
would be various programs applications in research and business.
To get an idea of how significant this would be, the Commerce Department
estimated the value of the stock of the intellectual property held by the
private sector at $2.4 trillion at the end of 2013, roughly 12 percent of
the total capital stock. It is also the fastest growing portion of the
capital stock. In real terms the value of intellectual property products
increased 40 percent more rapidly than the total capital stock over the last
two decades.
While not all of what is counted as intellectual property can be easily
transferred, since it depends on trained personnel who may not be available
in some developing countries, there is also much intellectual property
embedded in the value of physical capital. If developing countries could
produce equipment without having to pay licensing fees for using various
types of processes, it would substantially reduce the cost of building up
their own capital stocks.
The education aspect of this story would also benefit from ending IP claims
in the developing world. If schools and training facilities in the
developing world all could gain access to books, computer software, online
lectures and other educational material at zero cost, it would substantially
reduce the cost of education. In short, a substantial portion of the
benefits of the wealth can be transferred to the developing world simply by
changing IP rules.
Of course if current IP laws are not enforced in the developing world, it
may be difficult to enforce them in the US also. If drugs costing $100,000 a
year in the US can be purchased in Africa or India for a few hundred
dollars, it will be difficult to sustain the US price. This would mean a
need for different mechanisms to finance research.
Fortunately Senator Sanders has already been thinking along these lines.
Back in 2011 he proposed two bills that would replace patent monopolies with
more modern mechanisms for financing drug research. His specific proposals
may not be the best financing method, but they are at least a serious effort
to move away from the anachronistic patent system.
Unfortunately, US trade policy has been moving in the opposite direction. In
1993, the Clinton administration put the TRIPS provisions into the Uruguay
Round at the last minute. These provisions essentially required developing
countries to adopt US style patent law if they wanted to be part of the WTO.
Since this was very late in the negotiating process and countries did not
want to be excluded from the world trading system, developing countries had
to accept TRIPS before they even had time to analyze its implications.
Subsequent US trade pacts have consistently sought to make patents and other
protections longer and stronger. One of the major sticking points in
finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the strong patent protection the
United States is demanding for prescription drugs.
This is another area where there may be major differences between the
candidates. Regardless of which president gets elected in 2016, we are not
going to see any movement towards open borders. However, there is at least
one candidate who may support policies that will make it easier for people
in developing countries to benefit from the knowledge the world has
accumulated over many thousands of years. This can make a huge difference in
their lives.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Dean Baker
Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-director of the Center for Economic
and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He previously worked as a senior
economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at
Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of
Truthout's Board of Advisers.
Related Stories
Hard Work With Jeb Bush
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-EdDean Baker | Wolfgang Schäuble, the Hero of
the Greek Austerity Crisis?
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-EdDean Baker | Social Security Trustees' Report
Lacks the Usual Panic
By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
Show Comments
