In 1992, Singapore, a prosperous but somewhat up-tight city-state known for caning its criminals, decided there was too much gum on the sidewalk, so it outlawed gum. But, in response to pressure brought to bear by the U.S. government (after lobbying by the Wrigley Corporation) the Singaporeans will now let you buy sugarless gum over the counter to chew at will, hopefully with your mouth closed. This was actually part of our bilateral, free trade agreement with Singapore.
This is a troubling decision, for two reasons. First, the gum problem isn’t a trade problem. You couldn’t chew Wrigley gum in Singapore, or Singaporean gum, or any country’s gum. Sure, some people chewed gum anyway, but like it or not, the prohibition wasn’t about trade. It was about the law – the Singaporeans simply like their streets very clean. Economists have a term for this – it’s called a “cultural preference.”
Gum might seem like a trivial example of this, but how about whether genetically modified foods can be sold in Europe? Our producers say these modified foods are safe, and they might be right, but that’s not the point. The point is that, just like gum-hating Singaporeans, the Europeans don’t like anybody playing with their food, or at least their food’s chromosomes. You can’t buy American modified food, or European modified food, or anybody else’s modified food in Europe. It’s not like in Japan, where they once claimed that Japanese skis were uniquely able to ski across Japanese snow. We should save our belligerence for instances like that one, where American products are being unfairly handicapped, and not for countries that exercise their right to decide what they want to eat -- or what they want stuck to the bottom of their shoe.
But even more troubling; why are we wasting our time on Singaporean chewing gum in the first place? The world is now eighteen months into a series of global free trade negotiations that are on the brink of failure. But the U.S. is preoccupied by an endless series of bilateral trade agreements with such economic powerhouses as Singapore, Bahrain, and Morocco.
We’re doing that because we’re using access to the U.S. market as a whip to get other countries to toe the American line. Nations like Chile and Egypt are getting the message that they can have a trade deal with the U.S. only if they vote our way in the U.N., or support the U.S. in trade disputes with Europe.
That’s a bad policy. Forcing Singaporeans to allow our gum to be sold isn’t trade – it’s bullying. And forcing other nations to jump through American political hoops before they can sell their products will end up driving them into the arms of other trading partners. It’s time for the U.S. to use trade to bring the world together, not bring the world to heel.
Gum
In 1992, Singapore, a prosperous but somewhat up-tight city-state known for caning its criminals, decided there was too much gum on the sidewalk, so it outlawed gum. But, in response to pressure brought to bear by the U.S. government (after lobbying by the Wrigley Corporation) the Singaporeans will now let you buy sugarless gum over the counter to chew at will, hopefully with your mouth closed. This was actually part of our bilateral, free trade agreement with Singapore.
This is a troubling decision, for two reasons. First, the gum problem isn’t a trade problem. You couldn’t chew Wrigley gum in Singapore, or Singaporean gum, or any country’s gum. Sure, some people chewed gum anyway, but like it or not, the prohibition wasn’t about trade. It was about the law – the Singaporeans simply like their streets very clean. Economists have a term for this – it’s called a “cultural preference.”
Gum might seem like a trivial example of this, but how about whether genetically modified foods can be sold in Europe? Our producers say these modified foods are safe, and they might be right, but that’s not the point. The point is that, just like gum-hating Singaporeans, the Europeans don’t like anybody playing with their food, or at least their food’s chromosomes. You can’t buy American modified food, or European modified food, or anybody else’s modified food in Europe. It’s not like in Japan, where they once claimed that Japanese skis were uniquely able to ski across Japanese snow. We should save our belligerence for instances like that one, where American products are being unfairly handicapped, and not for countries that exercise their right to decide what they want to eat -- or what they want stuck to the bottom of their shoe.
But even more troubling; why are we wasting our time on Singaporean chewing gum in the first place? The world is now eighteen months into a series of global free trade negotiations that are on the brink of failure. But the U.S. is preoccupied by an endless series of bilateral trade agreements with such economic powerhouses as Singapore, Bahrain, and Morocco.
We’re doing that because we’re using access to the U.S. market as a whip to get other countries to toe the American line. Nations like Chile and Egypt are getting the message that they can have a trade deal with the U.S. only if they vote our way in the U.N., or support the U.S. in trade disputes with Europe.
That’s a bad policy. Forcing Singaporeans to allow our gum to be sold isn’t trade – it’s bullying. And forcing other nations to jump through American political hoops before they can sell their products will end up driving them into the arms of other trading partners. It’s time for the U.S. to use trade to bring the world together, not bring the world to heel.