“The Duty of Assistance”
“The Duty of Assistance”
by Jay R. Mandle
Following John Rawls, the philosopher Jon Mandle writes in a personal communication that there is “a kind of global duty of justice – a “Duty of Assistance” – that wealthy economically developed societies have toward those in extreme poverty.“ It is, however, not easy to identify how a developed country should fulfill its “Duty of Assistance.” As Rawls puts it, “there is no recipe, certainly no easy recipe…to help a burdened [poor] society to change its political and social culture.”
As the newly re-elected Donald Trump threatens to impose stiff protectionist tariffs on United States trading partners, the relationship between the United States and China can serve as a case study of the issues involved in implementing a duty of assistance. Indeed, since 1978, the relationship between those two countries demonstrates that international trade can be an important facilitator of the economic development of low-income countries. At the same time, it also illustrates that economic dislocations are imposed on the rich nation when it fulfills its global duty of justice. These dislocations in turn can create a political backlash in the developed nation that has the potential to undermine its willingness to continue to satisfy its duty of assistance.
China’s development success is incontestable. Paul Krugman describes it as “the greatest economic success story in history.” In 1980, its economy generated only about 2 percent of global output. That figure now stands at about 19 percent. As a result of its successful economic development, dire poverty in China has been all but eliminated.
The impetus for Chinese economic development occurred in 1978, as the Chinese Communist Party (CPP) moved away from the growth-stifling policies associated with its Great Cultural Revolution. But even as its economy became more oriented to growth, China maintained its authoritarian political system. The dominant role of the CCP in decision-making at all levels of society remained unchallenged.
The international trade policy of the United States toward China was not conceived as a commitment to assistance. Trade between the two nations grew because American business firms found it profitable to import from and export to that country. But trade with the United States did assist China’s development process. Central in this regard was the fact that American product markets were not protected by high tariffs. With this the case, Chinese firms were able to sell to United States consumers and businesses, at prices relatively unhindered by taxes on goods imported from China. With access to the vast size of American markets, Chinese firms increased their level of output without a concern that they were producing more than they could sell. As international trade between the two countries grew, the United States actually became the leading destination for Chinese exports. In 1986, Chinese exports to the United States totaled $4.7 million. Ten years later that figure was $62.6 million, and by 2022 Chinese exports to the United States peaked at $536.0 million.
While United States consumers were the beneficiaries of the increased availability of products imported from China, there was an economic downside for the United States. The increased sale of imports drove some American firms out of business. The result was not simply job loss by American workers, but the devastation of communities that housed those firms. Corrective government policies could have mitigated those negative consequences in the United States. Most obvious would have been income support for displaced employees and their families, and an active industrial policy that would create new employment opportunities to replace those that were lost.
But such policies were not adequately implemented in the United States. As Chinese goods arrived in the country’s ports, about a million American workers were made jobless. The impact of China trade almost exclusively fell on the shoulders of manual workers in labor intensive industries, often located in relatively small urban locations. There was little or no effort by the government to ease the pain. These workers became the innocent victims of America’s assistance to Chinese economic development.
The American government’s failure to address the needs of these victims created a protectionist political groundswell. Those who have been economically damaged joined with others who feel themselves vulnerable, demanding increased taxes at the border on imports from China and other poor countries. That political coalition of Americans who reject the “Duty of Assistance” extends across the political spectrum from Right to Left. If, as is likely, the coalition succeeds in its protectionist agenda, the United States government will soon abrogate its duty to assist poor countries. With their exports to the United States met with protectionist tariffs, the global poor outside of China will be denied the chance to secure the prosperity that economic development creates.