Botox protectionism

Defenders of the trade status quo sometimes like to point out that the economic argument in favor of free trade is identical whether you're talking about trade between countries, individuals or state lines. And that's true, so long as you believe the models and are willing to dismiss the notion of a national interest. Some interest gets protected at the expense of another: there may be a surplus created, but who can say where this goes without looking at specific distributions?

In the latest news off of Roll Call, it's Botox that's getting protected:

Those wrinkle-busting Botox injections can cost $500 a squirt, but if you were waiting for the price to come down when a generic version hits the market, well, get used to your frown lines.

That’s if a bill introduced late last week by Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) makes it into law.

The measure, which would create a pathway for generic versions of biotech drugs, exempts pharmaceuticals that contain “select agents and toxins,” such as Botox’s botulinum toxin type A, mainly on the the grounds of national security, according to people on both sides of the issue...

A lobbyist for the generics industry said the national security argument doesn’t hold up. “They spin it as a national security issue — that botulism could be used in terrorist plots,” said this lobbyist. “I don’t know how in the hell they justify how generic botox is any more of a terrorist threat than brand-name Botox.”

The fact that this is a protectionist measure that is not free trade that benefits Botox producers at the expense of other segments of society is not discussed in the article. Barton, who voted against fair trade on 19 out of 20 votes, says on his website that "I firmly believe that free and open trade benefits all people." Eshoo claims to have a good trade record because she supports labor standards and trade adjustment assistance, but she was only marginally better and voted against fair trade on 15 out of 19 occasions, including through her votes for NAFTA, WTO, and the Peru FTA. Isn't this discrepancy worth a mention?

On the other hand, as our own Health Research Group at Public Citizen has pointed out, to the extent that Botox is dangerous, maybe it's a good thing that it's made out of reach for more people!

Nobelists on trade, globalization

Leonid Hurwicz, Roger Myerson, and Eric Maskin were awarded the Nobel in Economics yesterday for their work in mechanism design theory. Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution has a pretty good explanation of this work, and Maskin told the Times:

Mechanism design, Professor Maskin explained, can be thought of as the “reverse engineering part of economics.” The starting point, he said, is an outcome that is being sought, like a cleaner environment, a more equitable distribution of income or more technical innovation. Then, he added, one works to design a system that aligns private incentives with public goals.

One recent subject of Professor Maskin’s wide-ranging research has been on the value of software patents. He determined that software was a market where innovations tended to be sequential, in that they were built closely on the work of predecessors, and innovators could take many different paths to the same goal. In such markets, he said, patents might serve as a wall that inhibited innovation rather than stimulating progress.

What Maskin is writing about is the textbook theory of the value of free trade. It also complements work in the development economics literature about how "late developers" can adopt the technological advancements of rich countries, thus "leapfrogging" a stage of development. It should be noted that this is something that our current WTO- and NAFTA-enforced intellectual property protectionism regime sharply limits.

Maskin has also written recently on inequality and globalization:

Supporters of the anti-globalization movement argue that “globalization has dramatically increased inequality between and within nations” (Mazur, 2000), and in particular that it has marginalized the poor in developing countries and left behind the poorest countries. Meanwhile, more moderate mainstream politicians argue that the poor must invest in education to take advantage of globalization (Clinton, 2000). Such views are difficult to reconcile with a standard Heckscher-Ohlin trade model with two countries, two goods, and two factors (skilled and unskilled labor, or alternatively capital and labor) [which predicts that] inequality will rise in the rich country and fall in the poor country...

There are, however, at least two empirical problems with the Heckscher-Ohlin story. First, it predicts that bilateral trade will be greatest when factor endowments are most different, ceteris paribus (Vanek, 1968). There is little trade between advanced countries such as the U.S. and very poor countries such as Chad. A second problem with the Heckscher-Ohlin model is that evidence from examination of specific developing countries following trade liberalization and from cross-country studies does not suggest that trade liberalization generally reduces inequality in poor countries and in fact frequently suggests that trade liberalization can increase inequality...

We propose a model of production by workers of different skill-levels (Kremer and Maskin, 1997) that is consistent with 1) the small scale of trade between countries with very different factor endowments and 2) the possibility that globalization may increase inequality in both rich and poor countries.

Their model shows that it's possible that the least-skilled masses in poor countries will be totally marginalized under globalization, and that inequality can thus rise in both rich and poor countries. Maskin and co-author Michael Kremer conclude, "if people measure their status relative to others in their own society, then they will perceive inequality increasing. This analysis corresponds to the view of many anti-globalization protestors that globalization benefits elites in both rich and poor countries."

Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead embrace free trade

Nine Inch Nails just announced that they're following Radiohead's lead and making their music available for download at whatever price fans want to pay. Conversation over at Dani Rodrik's blog has already spoken about some of the economic issues involved.

This is huge. Technological change is unraveling the entertainment industry's ability to use protectionist devices like copyright and patents to have the nanny state enforce their monopolies. As Dean Baker writes:

Whether or not copyright protection is a desirable public policy, it is undeniably a huge government intervention in the market. In the case of prescription drugs, patent monopolies raise the average price of protected drugs by more than 200 percent, and in some cases by as much as 5,000 percent. In the case of copyright protection, items like software and recorded music and movies that would otherwise be available at zero cost over the Internet, can instead be sold for hundreds of dollars. Clearly these forms of protection are substantial interventions in the economy.

The fact that copyright and patent protections are forms of intervention does not mean that they are bad, but it is essential to at least recognize this fact in order to assess their merits. Suppose we eliminated all welfare to needy mothers in the form of cash benefits from the government, and instead assigned them the right to control traffic intersections in major cities. Then we allowed these poor mothers to charge people to make turns from the intersections. These women could have the police arrest anyone who crosses the intersection under their control without paying them their royalty, just as Bill Gates will have the police arrest anyone who sells Windows without paying him a royalty. The royalties they collect could provide enough income to support them without any money from the government. In this way, we could get rid of welfare - the classic big government social program — and still ensure that poor mothers have the income needed to support their family.

Giving people the right to charge royalties to cross intersections is government intervention in the economy and is every bit as much “big government” as if the government taxed people and redistributed the money to low-income mothers. It would not change anything if we declared the right to charge fees at an intersection a “copyright.” Government intervention by any other name is government intervention.

But trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO, although often described as "free trade" agreements, in fact contain provisions that extend the reach and length of government intervention on behalf of copyright holders. This is not surprising, since these industries are among the top lobbyists for NAFTA-style trade pacts.

Progressives should reject these NAFTA expansions to Peru and other countries. These deals will increase patent protectionism at the expense of the poor and sick in Peru. And while copyrights may seem like a less burning issue, pacts like CAFTA have already cut away at free trade in Central America by forcing a crackdown on vendors engaging in free trade in music and computer programs, much as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have done to the delight of their fans.

Drinking, Dieting, Industrial Policy

As I recently noted, Ha-Joon Chang is coming out with a book very soon in the US - "Bad Samaritan: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the threat to the developing world." The book has spawned a sharp debate over at the Financial Times over the desirability of active trade and industrial policies.

After having studied industrial policies myself, I remember being surprised to hear a presenter at the American Enterprise Institute say that "the arguments for industrial policy don't hold up to closer scrutiny." Granted, any argument for or against industrial policy has to be sensitive to local conditions (landlocked Chad is unlikely to build a successful shipbuilding industry, as Martin Wolf notes), so I didn't quite understand what the presenter was referring to... was the statement meant to discredit the boom years of Latin America in the 1960s, Korea in the 1970s, China in the 1990s? It couldn't have been to celebrate the experience of Latin America or Africa for the last quarter century - during which time practically no industrial policies were practiced (except in Chile, as I talk about here.), right?

So I have still been waiting for further clarification from orthodox economists about what is meant by this pooh-poohing of the lessons of history. Here are the arguments, summarized from the FT debate, with the quick and dirty response taken from Ha-Joon:

• Orthodoxy: Dude, industrial policy is so 19th century. Sanity: Latin America, Asian, and Scandinavian development did not happen in the 19th century, dude.
• Orthodoxy: Korea didn't use industrial policy (that's why it grew before the late 1970s), except when it did (that's why it didn't grow in the late 1970s, early 1980s). Sanity: That is so 1980s of you. Korea used industrial policy before, during, and after the period in question, and it grew the whole time, except when it didn't, and that was due to a little something called a world recession.
• Orthodoxy: Free trade is the best! But if you practice free trade and you don't grow, blame it on on some other policy. Sanity: Where are we, Middle Earth?

The whole debate is worth a read, and it is not as idiotic in tone as I have made it seem. But the days when orthodox economists could shove facts under the rug for 20 years is gone, and you can tell it's causing some growing pains. To part, here are some choice Hajoonisms:

• I feel like a man being accused of promoting a copious consumption of vodka when all I have done is to recommend moderate amount of red wine as a part of balanced diet.
• It may be possible to dismiss the US as an "exception", but if there are another two dozen countries that have to be dismissed as "exceptions", then the theory has simply too many holes (the exercise reminds me of the pre-Copernican practice of drawing "epi-circles" in order to square evidence with geo-centrism).
• I think it is wrong to dismiss one’s opponent’s theory by labelling them with negative words (‘nineteenth-century’). How would Alan feel if I described him and his colleagues as "defenders of free-trade theory that was so strongly advocated by American slave-owners and opium-trafficking British imperialists"?
• I am a man whose book recommending the Mediterranean diet has been reviewed by a well-known anti-fat dietician, who unintentionally misrepresented me as praising beneficial qualities of all fats, when I had only praised olive oil. This was bad enough, but then a few other anti-fat dieticians read the review, go into a Pavlovian reaction on seeing the word, "fat", and accuse me of promoting excessive consumption of all fats, brandishing American obesity figures and Scottish heart-attack statistics. I regretfully have come to conclusion that I was absolutely right to say what I said at the end of chapter three in the book – "Trade is simply too important for economic development to be left to free trade economists".

Sherrod Brown and Tom Allen Demand Pro-Public Health Trade Policy

Well, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine) have done it again. While the Deathstar Deal is needlessly splitting party unity on trade, they are showing the positive fair trade alternative. Check out this Dear Colleague that they are circulating, and go to the Essential Action page to learn more about the issues at stake.

July 9, 2007

*Support our Nation's commitment to the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health*

Dear Colleague:

We write today to invite you to co-sponsor a resolution that reaffirms the commitment of the United States to the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (S. Res 241) and (H. Res 525).

The 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, to which the United States and all WTO members are signatories, "affirm[s] that the [TRIPS] Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all." This international agreement properly emphasizes the importance of public health considerations in implementation of patent rules.

However, the Bush administration included Thailand on its 2007 Special 301 Report for intellectual property violators, citing "a weakening of respect for patents."

Health groups bash process and substance of "deal"

Health Gap, Essential Action and Student Global AIDS Campaign - some of the nation's leading groups fighting for access to life-saving medicines - have released a statement bashing the process and substance of the "deal." Their conclusion, even with the "deal" fixes, the FTAs "restrict rather than expand access to lifesaving medicines." Read the full analysis after the jump.

Civil society putting Big Pharma on the defense

Around the world, news is streaming in that civil society - and even governmental pressure - is putting Big Pharma on the defensive, deepening the people's revolt that David talked about here.

First off, Brazil. According to the Working Group on Intellectual Property (GTPI) from the Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples (REBRIP), the Brazilian federal government has decided

to issue a compulsory license for the antiviral drug, Efavirenz, whose patent is current held by Merck Sharp & Dohme. This historical decision reinforces the efforts of civil society groups fighting for access to medicines, for the sustainability of public health policies, such as universal and unlimited access to antiretroviral medicines used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, and for the strengthening of the Brazilian public health care system, the Unique Health System (SUS).

Next stop, Thailand. Here, too, civil society is successfully pressuring governments to issue compulsory licenses for life-saving drugs. According to Congress Daily (sorry, not linkable):

U.S. officials added Thailand to the Priority Watch List in their Special 301 report, partly because of Thailand's handling of compulsory licenses it issued to import generic versions of two HIV/AIDS drugs and a heart medication ... Health activists and advocates of fewer restrictions on the use of intellectual property criticized the move. One of them, James Love, executive director of Knowledge Ecology International, said, "The sanctioning of countries for using legitimate and important flexibilities in the [WTO] agreement brings shame to all U.S. citizens who are increasingly seen in Thailand and elsewhere as bullies and hypocrites."

And, final stop, the U.S. of A. Here, public health groups and fair trade activists' pressure on House Democratic leadership may be leading to a groundbreaking reversal of the "patent protectionism" long practiced by the Clinton and Bush administrations in trade deals. Says Mark Drajem of Bloomberg (not linkable):

The negotiators also want to remove requirements that drug patents be extended if the companies face long delays in getting approval to sell their products in those countries, they said. The proposals, if adopted as part of a larger package of changes, would mean House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and the White House would cut provisions the U.S. insisted upon when those trade agreements were being negotiated... Health activists back the changes, saying they will mean cheaper life-saving medicines for AIDS victims and others in poor nations, according to Rohit Malpani of Oxfam America.

Needless to say, Big Pharma is not happy about these changes, which is why it's crucial that we continue to make our voices heard by clicking here.

Rangel speak at IIE

House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) gave a speech last night to the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Worth noting is the continued deliberations over what/how/if labor rights may/could/should/will be incorporated into FTAs and Fast Track. Follow the full verbatim transcript after the jump.

Corporate lobbyists hate Americans, part deux

Well, we've already heard from the U.S. Council for International Business and the Emergency Committee for American Trade, and they told us that they hate working Americans. Today, we found out (not that this is really a huge surprise or anything) that the National Association of Manufacturers does too! NAM will oppose any free trade agreement that includes new labor standards for American workers. This from Bloomberg's Mark Drajem - sorry, not linkable:

The National Association of Manufacturers, the largest industrial lobbying group, said it will oppose new trade agreements unless Democrats agree to exempt the U.S. from new labor provisions. [...] The business group is joining organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in objecting to proposals, pushed by Democrats in Congress, that the organizations say may force revisions in state and federal labor laws such as those that limit the ability of workers to strike.

Also, in a rare moment of candor, NAM president John Engler actually said this, as reported in the article: "In addition to the labor provisions, the manufacturer's group opposes Democratic proposals to change the intellectual property provisions of the pending agreements so that developing countries can make cheaper versions of generic drugs sooner, Engler said."

In other words: "Our profit is more important than your wages or life-saving medicines." Catnip anyone?

Because drug prices aren't high enough already

As predicted, the U.S.-Korea FTA (what should we call this thing? SKFTA? SKOFTA? KORUS, like USTR is calling it? Hmm...) will almost certainly lead to an increase in drug prices — apparently not just in Korea, but maybe in the U.S. as well. According to a PharmaTimes story yesterday:

As part of the FTA, Korea has agreed to abandon its policy of requiring drugmakers to negotiate prices with the government in order for their products to be placed on the national health care system's positive reimbursement list. This policy was reported to be a major stumbling block at the talks, with US negotiators regarding it as a potential barrier to trade. Korea has also agreed to extend its patent period on innovative drugs [...] the Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights has forecast that these concessions will increase costs to Koreans by 1 trillion won over the next five years, while US critics have warned that they could also increase drug prices in the USA.

Interestingly, doesn't the Korean price-negotiation scheme that U.S. negotiators nixed sound awfully like the Democrats' Medicare drug bill that the House passed in January?

For more on this issue in general, over at Beat the Press, Dean Baker frequently riffs on how patent protection for drug companies is, ironically, a kind of protectionist boondoggle for Big Pharma, despite being promoted by "free-traders" as a necessary part of new FTAs.