Political change and American consumerism
Dan Harris, writing on the China Law Blog, recently offered the following bit of provocative thesis that he found in an LA Times op-ed article by Nathan Gardels.If you're a subscriber, you can get access to the whole LA Times article, but here's the part Dan quoted. Even without the rest of the article, this excerpt could be a useful writing prompt (FRQ?) to assign after your students have done some study of China.
Gardels wrote:
"Americans won't hesitate to cut the import lifeline and shift away from Chinese products that might poison their children or kill their pets.
"Unlike organized labor or human rights groups, consumers don't have to mobilize to effect change; they only have to stop spending. And their bargaining agents -- Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us -- have immensely more clout than the AFL-CIO and Amnesty International in fostering change in China.
"Ironically, the United States' 'most favored nation' trade treatment for China (and its later entry into the World Trade Organization), which labor and human rights groups so virulently opposed in the past, has become a Trojan horse. China's future is now so linked to the American consumer that Beijing will be forced to curb corruption and strengthen regulation through the rule of law or face the certain doom of its export-led growth..."
posted by Ken Wedding @ 7:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home