Editor's Note

Internationalism -- solidarity extending across borders -- is an essential element of democratic commitment. But the strategic implications of this commitment -- in a depressingly unequal world, comprised of separate states, and marked by profound skepticism about whether politics ever makes life better -- are hotly contested. One view, much discussed during the NAFTA debate, is that internationalist solidarities should be expressed through conditions on trade agreements: in particular, through labor standards that restrict favorable terms of trade to countries that pay decent wages, and provide other basic worker protections (health, safety, rights to organize). Given the benefits American consumers reap from low-cost labor, such standards have a natural appeal: supporting them may strike us as a minimal form of internationalism, perhaps a minimal expression of moral decency.

According to Alice Amsden, matters are not so straightforward, at least when it comes to standards that link Southern wages and Southern productivity. Such standards may be better at protecting North-ern wages than improving living standards in the South. And even when it comes to reversing wage-stagnation in the North, Amsden thinks that in-creased global growth is a better bet than imposing conditions on trade agreements.

Rothstein rejects this skepticism, though he emphasizes that standards need to be formulated cautiously and applied universally. Focusing on Bangladesh -- an important case for advocates of standards -- Rothstein argues that appropriate standards would help protect children from exploitation, improve wages, and restore some confidence in the capacity of states to regulate markets for the human good.

--Joshua Cohen