The Multilateral Agreement on Investment has gone into temporary hibernation. Among the many reasons for the failure to get an agreement this time around, I suspect the following: a) the unwieldiness of achieving a mega-agreement among so many nations, b) the fact that several nations wanted a fistful of exemptions which defeated the purpose of the agreement c) the fact that popular opposition in several countries was making life hard for politicians, d) the failure of the US to pursue it forcefully and use its bullying power. But I fear these reasons are superficial. I'd like to explore the question in light of deeper developments in international capital.
A Canadian television commentator suggested that another reason the deal failed was that capital itself (or a significant portion of it) wasn't dead keen on it. He cited the fact that on the day of MAI's demise there was not a single story on it in the Wall Street Journal nor the next day either. He suggested that a) the vast majority of capitalists don't do major investments abroad and b) those capitalists who do invest abroad have found no big problems circumventing, compromising and ignoring local restrictions on investment anyway.
If he's right, then why did the proponents of the MAI launch it in the first place?
What I'm looking for is some sort of radical analysis of which fraction of capital wanted the agreement, why they wanted it, why other fractions didn't want it as much and didn't fight hard for it. Who do the finance ministers and aides in Paris represent and who do they not represent?
Anybody want to hazard some suggestions?
Larry Haiven, Associate Professor Dept. of Industrial Relations & Organizational Behaviour College of Commerce University of Saskatchewan 25 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan CANADA S7N 5A7 Tel. (306) 966-8451 Fax. (306) 966-8709 Email: haiven at commerce.usask.ca Visit my website at: http://www.commerce.usask.ca/faculty/haiven/default.htm