May 1, 2020 - 7:00am
Never one not to bang the drum for free trade, Daniel Hannan does so with great vigour in his column for ConservativeHome this week:
Always? Does the experience of this pandemic not raise the slightest doubt in the author’s mind? The Covid crisis is surely proof that major economic disruption can be global not just local — and that international supply chains can’t be guaranteed. Just ask the NHS managers trying to purchase sufficient PPE for their frontline staff.
Governments around the world have put their economies on something approaching (and, in some respects, exceeding) a wartime footing. Whatever their political complexion, they’ve found it necessary to make extraordinary interventions in one domestic industry after another. In every case, they’re doing so with their own national interests as the only consideration.
In these circumstances, would we want to subsist entirely on the crumbs fall from other nations’ tables?
Hannan holds up the example of Singapore — which he says, “does not produce one edible ounce”. But the city-state, being a tiny, almost completely urban, island has no choice but to rely on imports. Ours, however, is a green and pleasant land, well-watered and fertile. Why wouldn’t we produce a substantial proportion of our food? Why wouldn’t we want to be in a position to exercise stewardship over our beautiful landscapes, achieve the highest standards of food quality, sustain rural community life and act upon our national concern for animal welfare?
Hannan contrasts the example of Singapore with that of closed-off, supposedly self-sufficient North Korea. But those aren’t the only options, are they?
The fact is that our food security is best-served by a thriving, sustainable agricultural sector at home and by mutually-beneficial trading relationships with other nations. Like the proverbial belt and braces, both have a role to play.
It’s not that Hannan wants us to do away with British farming altogether. Indeed, elsewhere he’s praised our “innovative agri-food sector” and “efficient wheat.” And that’s wonderful — who hasn’t wandered through a field of waving corn, marvelling at its efficiency?
But in a world of unrestricted trade, our farmers would be up against truly ruthless competition: exploiters who think nothing of stealing land from its rightful owners, of erasing entire ecosystems, of treating workers like slaves and animals like objects.
Like Dan Hannan, I’m exasperated by those who think we can be totally self-sufficient. But I’m equally frustrated by arguments for free trade that don’t account for the complications.
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe argument for a sensible mix of domesticly produced and imported foods is sound. In the end food securtiy domestically should be about avoiding starvation if outside supply is cut and access to outside sources should domestic supply be affected by disease or natural disaster.
In the end the focus domestically should be to advance technology for agriculture and farming to keep domestic supply economically viable against cheap imports.
Remember many cheap imports are such because of an economic manipulation such as subsidies, dumping policy and currency manipulation.
The primary role of government is to provide the enviroment for any industry to domesticly thrive.
Depends on how much cheaper foreign produced food is…
I often agree with Daniel Hannan, but must agree with Peter Franklin on this; by all means have a market economy, and put one’s trust in it subject to legal oversight to exclude criminals and cartels, but a primary duty of a national government is to look after the security of its citizens. This means planning for unlikely disasters, such as war, epidemics, terrorism, accidents, and the consequences of climate and weather. Unfortunately, the rarity of these can make expenditure on them seem wasted, and it takes one of them to happen to remind us of their prudence, but such reminders seem to occur sooner or later.
In both world wars, this country has found itself short of timber and food, and took steps to secure them for strategic reasons. The shift from coal to oil became a problem, which stimulated development of nuclear energy, abandoned after 1997.
In what seems like a previous age, I was amused that warnings of the infamous ‘cliff-edge’ were illustrated by photographs of stationary commercial traffic, caused by the fishermen of a fellow-EU member in dispute with their own government. Now, we have more examples of inadequate strategic planning, probably going back years.
‘Just-in-time’ has real advantages for industry, but when I was in industry, it was reckoned that one’s suppliers should be within 50 miles, with more than one transport route in between. It’s not appropriate for critical supplies.
Is there not a need to return to strategic planning, preferably not by people with experience limited to higher education or political internships, and writing cliché-ridden but impractical policies?
I don’t think there have been many difficulties with international supply chains; the problem with PPE is that there was suddenly a greatly increased demand all over the world.
Nevertheless we have managed to obtain sufficient supplies without too much trouble.
Hadn’t really thought that free trade world in food means being exploited by people who steal land, erase ecosystems and treat workers like slaves etc. Oh that’s right, there’s some b*****d in Columbia not paying his workers the UK minimum wage. So better not trade in coffee. There’ll be an equally nasty person in Sri Lanka. Stop tea. And as for US wheat. A multi-national has bought up the farms of Iowa. Boycott required. In New Zealand, where I’m from, cows have been known to poop in the waterways – so best boycott our butter. And we shear sheep before the worst of winter is over too. So pull down the blinds, find whatever extremes justify the argument and plough on in the green and pleasant lands. More chocolate for the rest of us.
I wonder how much more produce Peter thinks we could or should grow domestically. As understand it, it’s roughly a half at present. I also wonder how he would increase the amount? and what that would cost? Return of the Corn Laws anyone?
The Corn Laws forbade imports in order to keep prices high; this protected the interest of landowners, but was detrimental to the interests of consumers. The alternative is surely subsidies to keep prices low, which would be in the interests of both producers and consumers; it would of course have a knock-on effect on the taxpayer, but might be judged worthwhile if it was also in the interests of national security.
The only legitimate reason for governments to make extraordinary interventions into their own domestic industries is in order to further their national interest; nothing unusual about that.
Unfortunately, in most cases, government intervention turns out to be counter productive and ends up causing more harm than good.
Another vacuous Covid-19 article in UnHerd. Please STOP.
Peter fails to mention that we are living in incredibly exceptional times. The gov’t doesn’t need to have domestic producers of everything ‘just in case’; They should have properly stocked up on enough supplies beforehand. If we want strong domestic industries we should become more competitive with a massive expansion in R&D, infrastructure spending, and a regulations audit to promote productive innovation.
Peter, I have read your article several times, and as far as I can see you are mainly agreeing with Dan!
After all during the 1st & 2nd world wars Britain had to import food – even with rationing. So food imports are vital to us, and to pay for them we have to export.
Obviously we wish the trade to be “fair”, but your idea of “fair” may not be other nations idea of “fair”.
If you take an idealistic view of trade you would be condemning us to
starvation. However the WTO does have remedies for actual dumping, which should eliminate most of unfair trade.
Just to calm you worries as to supply of food, I have recently bought oranges and raspberries from Spain and blueberries from South America – via my local supermarket – no problem with the pandemic.
The mention of oranges, brings back an old childhood treat; a tangerine in my stocking for Christmas. You may like to go back to those times, but I am not convinced it will be a vote winner.
The ultimate answer to everything will be to have a more sensible balance. Over the past few decades many things have become far too unbalanced. The pandemic offers an opportunity to find a better balance in lots of areas. Whilst I would not claim to know what the right balance is, I am convinced that clinging to dogmas of old belief systems will not produce the right answer. We should be prepared to challenge all old thinking in a sensible way. Some is happening as a direct result of the current situation. More working from home, staggering starting and finishing times for work etc. If these things mean that sections of our motorways no longer turn into car parks twice a day and tube stations no longer need to employ someone to push people into trains so the doors can close, why would we want to go back to the old ways.