Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Global cities
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Investor Protection: The Secret Corporate Takeover

Joseph Stiglitz 14th May 2015

Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz (CC Raimond Spekking)

The United States and the world are engaged in a great debate about new trade agreements. Such pacts used to be called “free-trade agreements”; in fact, they were managed trade agreements, tailored to corporate interests, largely in the US and the European Union. Today, such deals are more often referred to as “partnerships,” as in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But they are not partnerships of equals: the US effectively dictates the terms. Fortunately, America’s “partners” are becoming increasingly resistant.

It is not hard to see why. These agreements go well beyond trade, governing investment and intellectual property as well, imposing fundamental changes to countries’ legal, judicial, and regulatory frameworks, without input or accountability through democratic institutions.

Perhaps the most invidious – and most dishonest – part of such agreements concerns investor protection. Of course, investors have to be protected against the risk that rogue governments will seize their property. But that is not what these provisions are about. There have been very few expropriations in recent decades, and investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, a World Bank affiliate (the US and other governments provide similar insurance). Nonetheless, the US is demanding such provisions in the TPP, even though many of its “partners” have property protections and judicial systems that are as good as its own.

The real intent of these provisions is to impede health, environmental, safety, and, yes, even financial regulations meant to protect America’s own economy and citizens. Companies can sue governments for full compensation for any reduction in their future expected profits resulting from regulatory changes.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for requiring warning labels on cigarettes. Admittedly, both countries went a little further than the US, mandating the inclusion of graphic images showing the consequences of cigarette smoking. The labeling is working. It is discouraging smoking. So now Philip Morris is demanding to be compensated for lost profits.

In the future, if we discover that some other product causes health problems (think of asbestos), rather than facing lawsuits for the costs imposed on us, the manufacturer could sue governments for restraining them from killing more people. The same thing could happen if our governments impose more stringent regulations to protect us from the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions.

When I chaired President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, anti-environmentalists tried to enact a similar provision, called “regulatory takings.” They knew that once enacted, regulations would be brought to a halt, simply because government could not afford to pay the compensation. Fortunately, we succeeded in beating back the initiative, both in the courts and in the US Congress.

But now the same groups are attempting an end run around democratic processes by inserting such provisions in trade bills, the contents of which are being kept largely secret from the public (but not from the corporations that are pushing for them). It is only from leaks, and from talking to government officials who seem more committed to democratic processes, that we know what is happening.

Fundamental to America’s system of government is an impartial public judiciary, with legal standards built up over the decades, based on principles of transparency, precedent, and the opportunity to appeal unfavorable decisions. All of this is being set aside, as the new agreements call for private, non-transparent, and very expensive arbitration. Moreover, this arrangement is often rife with conflicts of interest; for example, arbitrators may be a “judge” in one case and an advocate in a related case.

The proceedings are so expensive that Uruguay has had to turn to Michael Bloomberg and other wealthy Americans committed to health to defend itself against Philip Morris. And, though corporations can bring suit, others cannot. If there is a violation of other commitments – on labor and environmental standards, for example – citizens, unions, and civil-society groups have no recourse.

If there ever was a one-sided dispute-resolution mechanism that violates basic principles, this is it. That is why I joined leading US legal experts, including from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, in writing a letter to President Barack Obama explaining how damaging to our system of justice these agreements are.

American supporters of such agreements point out that the US has been sued only a few times so far, and has not lost a case. Corporations, however, are just learning how to use these agreements to their advantage.

And high-priced corporate lawyers in the US, Europe, and Japan will likely outmatch the underpaid government lawyers attempting to defend the public interest. Worse still, corporations in advanced countries can create subsidiaries in member countries through which to invest back home, and then sue, giving them a new channel to bloc regulations.

If there were a need for better property protection, and if this private, expensive dispute-resolution mechanism were superior to a public judiciary, we should be changing the law not just for well-heeled foreign companies, but also for our own citizens and small businesses. But there has been no suggestion that this is the case.

Rules and regulations determine the kind of economy and society in which people live. They affect relative bargaining power, with important implications for inequality, a growing problem around the world. The question is whether we should allow rich corporations to use provisions hidden in so-called trade agreements to dictate how we will live in the twenty-first century. I hope citizens in the US, Europe, and the Pacific answer with a resounding no.

© Project Syndicate

Pics
Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph E Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank, chair of the US president’s Council of Economic Advisers and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.

You are here: Home / Politics / Investor Protection: The Secret Corporate Takeover

Most Popular Posts

new world order,state,citizen A new world order: from warring states to citizensPaul Mason
Tesla,IF Metall,electric car,union US electric-car maker faces Swedish union shockGerman Bender
Israel,Hamas Israel and Hamas: the debasement of discourseRobert Misik
Israel-Palestine,refugee,refugees Israel-Palestine: a comparative perspectiveBo Rothstein
Germany,sick,economic Germany’s true economic diseasePeter Bofinger

Most Recent Posts

human security,Europe,investment,military Investing in human security in EuropeChiara Bonaiuti
citizenship education,European Union,democratic European citizenship education—antidote to hateRéka Heszterényi
healthcare,hospitals,social dialogue,pandemic Healthcare depends on the health of social dialogueJorge Cabrita and Victoria Cojocariu
multi-level,Europe,networks,sovereignty Barking up the wrong European treeJan Zielonka
renewable,fossil-fuel,energy,renewables,inflation,prices The renewable answer to Europe’s fossil-fuel inflationFelix Heilmann and Maximilian Krahé

Other Social Europe Publications

Global cities cover pdf Global cities
strategic autonomy Strategic autonomy
Bildschirmfoto 2023 05 08 um 21.36.25 scaled 1 RE No. 13: Failed Market Approaches to Long-Term Care
front cover Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans

Eurofound advertisement

How will Europe’s green transition impact employment?

Climate-change objectives and decarbonisation measures are vital for the future of Europe. But how will these objectives affect employment and the labour market?

In the latest episode of the Eurofound Talks podcast series, Mary McCaughey speaks with the Eurofound senior research manager John Hurley about new research which shows a marginal increase in net employment from EU decarbonisation measures—but also potentially broad shifts in the labour market which could have a profound impact in several areas.


LISTEN HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Transforming capitalism in the Age of AI

Will the EU once again accept Big Tech's power as a fait accompli while belatedly trying to mitigate risks, or can it chart a different course?

Join our conference on the EU approach to the digital transition. On Wednesday, 6 December, FEPS and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Competence Centre on the Future of Work are co-organising an evening of high-level debates on the digital future of Europe. There will be keynotes by the European Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, Nicolas Schmit; Evgeny Morozov, founder of The Syllabus; and Phoebe V Moore, globally recognised expert on digitalisation and the workplace. The event will be moderated by John Thornhill, innovation editor at the Financial Times.


MORE HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI European Collective Bargaining Report 2022 / 2023

With real wages falling by 4 per cent in 2022, workers in the European Union suffered an unprecedented loss in purchasing power. The reason for this was the rapid increase in consumer prices, behind which nominal wage growth fell significantly. Meanwhile, inflation is no longer driven by energy import prices, but by domestic factors. The increased profit margins of companies are a major reason for persistent inflation. In this difficult environment, trade unions are faced with the challenge of securing real wages—and companies have the responsibility of making their contribution to returning to the path of political stability by reducing excess profits.


DOWNLOAD HERE

ETUI advertisement

Response measures to the energy crisis: a missed opportunity to feed the socio-ecological contract

With winter coming and Europe ready to get through it without energy shortages, power cuts and recession, new research conducted by the ETUI in seven EU member states (AT-FR-DE-GR-IT-PL-ES) highlights that, with some 80 per cent of spending being directed to broad-based measures, short-term national government support during the recent energy crisis was poorly targeted. As a result, both social- and climate-policy goals were rather sidelined, with the biggest beneficiaries of public fossil-fuel subsidies being higher income groups and the wealthiest people.


AVAILABLE HERE

Friedrich Ebert Stiftung advertisement

It‘s all about jobs: investing in Europe’s workers and qualifications for a competitive clean economy

An ecological miracle on the labour market? Or rather job losses? The impact on employment and job profiles in Europe of ecological modernisation is a question driving politics and society.

We have taken a close look at studies and forecasts on the development of the European labour market. One thing is clear: without qualified and motivated workers, the economy will not flourish and the modernisation process will come to a standstill. Europe must deliver on a massive scale in the coming years to remain at the forefront.

We spoke to trade unionists and experts: what trends do we need to shape, what risks do we need to avoid, what course do we need to set now? Key findings in this study from FES Just Climate.


DOWNLOAD HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641