This seminar of the Fabian City, Business and Politics Network took place on 13th June 2007, contributors included David Coats of the Work Foundation and Richard Exell of the TUC. Participants emphasised the benefits of global integration as well as social provision for individuals who lose out as a result of international competition and labour mobility.

Participants agreed that the benefits of global integration generally far outweigh the disadvantages. It was pointed out that around a quarter of all British jobs could be made less secure by a reduction in trade with other countries, in this context fears about the off-shoring of British jobs are often overblown. Further, our economy is strengthened by access to large developing markets such as China. Although we are currently a net importer from China there is great potential for us to export to this rapidly growing economy. Where goods are imported there has often been British input at the design or consultancy stage. It was broadly agreed that the Government has not told a strong enough story about these benefits, emphasising instead the amount of goods produced by other countries as a scare tactic to drive greater productivity.

Despite these benefits it was generally acknowledged, although to varying degrees, that global integration also has some damaging consequences. Concern was expressed that gains are not always spread evenly or realised immediately. It is often individuals who experience the adverse effects of the global market when their jobs are off-shored or their firms restructured. It is also important to recognise the shadow of insecurity that is created by the fear that jobs will go.

Migration too was presented as beneficial, improving Britain's productive capacity and ultimately driving up the numbers of jobs and wage levels. Critics have been forced to acknowledge this but now focus their concerns on the distribution of these benefits; it is most frequently those at the bottom of the income scale who lose out most from migration. The most vulnerable workers are the low-skilled and low paid who may lose jobs to new migrant workers. It was observed that following the closure of the Rover plant at Longbridge there was an average net loss in income across the workforce of £3000 per annum. Closer analysis reveals that the majority of managers and highly skilled staff moved into similar jobs with similar salaries, it was the low paid and low skilled employees who took the hit. It is these workers that government policy must focus on – others are more capable of fending for themselves. Trade Unionists feel they must acknowledge these concerns to guard their legitimacy and to avoid losing support to populist movements. It was agreed that a responsible Trade Union will argue for protection not protectionism.

However, there was disagreement about the extent to which Trade Unions are behaving responsibly in this debate and concerns were expressed about a rising tide of protectionist sentiment amongst unionists.

There was criticism too of the Government's current approach, which acknowledges the existence of adverse consequences of global integration and the importance of protecting workers but provides insufficient support in terms of Jobs Seekers Allowance and benefits to the unemployed. Structural change is unavoidable, but participants argued that the role of the centre-left is to moderate its consequences. It is possible to structure the economy to protect workers with strong Trade Unions and a high minimum wage at the same time as enjoying economic growth and high employment rates, as is the case in many small Nordic countries. Good social provision means that Danish workers have a greater sense of job security despite shorter job tenures than in the UK. The US was highlighted as a contrasting example; in the US where there is no effective floor in the labour market, with a very low minimum wage. There, open borders have depressed wages. This impact has been limited in the UK by a rapidly rising minimum wage that has made the lowest paid workers relatively better off. It was argued that there must be a bargain between workers and the Government; a global economy must come with a social wage. This would aid Trade Unions when persuading members that global integration is in their interests.

It was argued that many of the problems attributed to global integration are more a result of domestic policy; for instance on the ease of mergers and acquisition, the role of private equity, labour regulation and technology. All of these factors, some asserted, are more important than trade. Often fears of off-shoring are mis-placed; the majority of skilled workers have little to fear from peasants in China and the importance of proximity to markets often makes off-shoring undesirable.

It was also suggested that the majority of challenges under discussion are actually more closely linked to European, not global, integration and the migration that has resulted. It was argued that Europe should be revived as a social project, which will ameliorate some of these difficulties but also provide legitimacy for Europe to an increasingly Euro-sceptic working population

It was observed that the growth in China and Asia's economies are the greatest anti-poverty project on earth, it is important not to stand in the way of that. Concerns about job quality and working conditions in developing economies should be met by stronger requirements to comply with labour standards before we will trade with foreign businesses. That fairness is vital in legitimising globalisation.

Developing a more positive and inspiring narrative around global integration will be vital in encouraging people to embrace it. The benefits of more open markets and borders do outweigh the risk, but participants agreed that it is important to acknowledge and react to the fears of individuals without scaremongering or resorting to protectionism and inflexibility.

Back to the Challenges of Global Integration