Persuasiveness of critiques of economic globalization

¶ … NAFTA to be impressive in its use of figures and facts but to be, simultaneously subjective. Scott reinforces his argument with plenty of facts that come from authoritative sources. He supports the article with graphs, tables, and figures that clarify and add weight to his information as well as giving more immediacy and credibility to his argument. On top of all of that, the style of the article -- divided and subdivided into clear categories adds additional readability and order to the whole.

On the other hand, I found the article to be subjective and heavy-handed.

Scott's argument is as follows:

Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs.

Many of these jobs are in high-wage positions in the manufacturing industries but the category of jobs lost crosses all spectrums. Aside from this negative outcome, NAFTA has caused other problems such as contributing to rising income inequality, suppressing real wages for production workers, weakening workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reducing fringe benefits. These are a tremendous amount of complaints that Scott has attributed to NAFTA and he, accordingly, has to prove them to establish his credibility.

Whilst Scott's article is replete with facts and he is obviously an expert on the matter, his heavy-handed crusade against advocates of NAFTA disturbs me. It would have made the article less subjective would Scott have objectively provided me with the rationale that prompted NAFTA's signatories to sign the agreement and that impels accord with the agreement. Empathy with, and understanding of the facts that result in approval of the agreement would have made the article more persuasive and less slanted.

Instead, Scott leaps right into the calumnies against NAFTA: False promises; growing trade deficits and job loss; NAFTA's negative effects on foreign direct investment; job losses in 50 states; long-term stagnation and growing inequality in the wages of U.S. workers without college degrees who made up 72.1% of the workforce in 2001; and its negative effect on workers in 3 countries who have been hurt for different reasons.

The article, as said, is impressive due to its hefty use of figures and scientific data that buttresses its argument. Graphics, too, contribute to overall impression. On the other hand, I find the article to be not only one-sided but also to attribute too many problems to NAFTA alone without considering other possible factors.

Whilst there may seem to be a correlation between NAFTA and decline in economics as well as steep unemployment and other negative global factors, correlation does not imply causality. There may be other factors, in addition to NAFTA that have caused these negative implications, NAFTA may be responsible for only some of them, or there may be a factor behind NAFTA that is responsible. By single-mindedly attributing all of the problems to NAFTA, Scott comes across as being too heavy. He does state that "NAFTA is not responsible for all U.S. labor market problems," but concludes "it has made a significant contribution to the state of the U.S. economy, both directly and indirectly." Greater qualification on his part and more objectivity would have made for a more impressive article.

Article 2

The claim -- that Africa is really a wealthy country -- sound unbelievable. Yet, Zachary brings plenty of evidence to support his point. Like Scott, Zachary's evidence includes figures and facts. Unlike Scott, his argument comes across as more believable since it refrains from crusading too intensely on one side of the issue. Zachary does address the other side of the coin -- that poverty is rampant in Africa. In this way, he takes into account those who may find his argument surprising. Yet, I find his address of this to be too meager: there is only a slight paragraph towards the end that admits that Africa still struggles in certain areas. Given the extent of Africa's reputation of poverty and given the enormous history that it has of these conditions play the quantity of its problems, it seems to me that the few sentences of admission are insufficient. Zachary does state that:

Public health also lags economic growth. So too do gains in human rights and effective government. Finally, a surge in anti-gay attitudes and actions highlight the problem that newfound prosperity can fuel prejudice.

Nonetheless, the fact that huge swathes of the Western world are as heavily occupied as they are in ameliorating Africa's poverty and that documentaries and figures are regularly released indicating intensity of this poverty, denotes that Zachary has to elaborate more on existent problems in order for his counter claim to be believable.