John Rookard
Blog Post 4
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/business/lesotho-trout-for-japan/index.html?hpt=wo_t3
The article above discusses the relationship Japan has with Lesotho in order to benefit the fishery market of Japan. In Lesotho, the Katse Dam provides a great environmental setting for trout to flourish year round. In this process between the two countries, trout eggs are shipped from Denmark to Lesotho where they are kept in nurseries until the fish are able to survive in the water of the Katse Dam. Many would agree that there is a very different social feeling between Japan and Lesotho. I would like to argue that this relationship between Lesotho and Japan is a positive example of globalization because all actors benefit both financially and socially.
This exchange of fish and capital is an example of globalization and relates to Foer’s book How Soccer Explains the World because Japan can attempt to show Lesotho many uses of trout just like Silvio Berlusconi attempted to make Italy like Inter Milan Football Club. Currently, Lesotho relies primarily on South Africa for trade because South Africa surrounds Lesotho. Lesotho’s main industry is agriculture because of the arable land in the mountainous country. The diamond mining industry is starting to rise too which will only lead to higher economic gain. However, the farming of trout in Lesotho will produce winners on all sides.
This partnership is a great example of positive globalization. Japan receives trout which can then be processed for sushi and hopefully drive down consumer cost in the country. Lesotho receives an influx of money from Japan for raising these fish and shipping them to Japan. In the article, the reference was made about the extreme cost of this project. Although it may be costly I am in agreement with Fred Formanek because the demand for fish in Japan is constantly high. Globalization is a good thing especially when it comes to the trade of food. Food is needed all year but the weather in particular areas is not constant for growing year round. I believe that weather is the most important factor that this trout project has been so successful.
In regards to How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer tells us that Silvio Berlusconi was seen as a winner and used this to his advantage in the political spectrum. This came “at a time when the economy sputtered and all politicians in Italy seemed like corrupt losers” and Berlusconi’s soccer success helped him (Foer 185). So, how does this relate to Lesotho and Japan? I believe that if necessary Japan can show Lesotho how to take their 5% of trout kept in this exchange and create new foods. I do not foresee a massive sushi following being created in Lesotho but it can add another food for the people to eat.
Although this process is intricate and hit a few bumps in the road at the beginning because of the shipping arrangements it is a huge success. Globalization is not new. Globalization has been happening since new ideas and goods were traded in the Far East. Now today we see globalization advancing in a positive way with the Lesotho/Japan trout project.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn, Great Post. I do not know if this aspect of globalization makes both countries better off. Trade generally does make countries better off as it allows countries to specialize in the industries with comparative advantages. However, it is important to consider all of the social costs of fisheries. These costs include but are not limited to: consumption of energy involved with shipping the fish; ocean and air pollution caused by shipping; antibiotic use involved with fisheries; and resource allocation towards installing, operating, and maintaining the fisheries. Also, if Lesotho specializes in trout fisheries, then it may end up having opportunity costs of farming and diamond mining. If there is corruption in the government of Lesotho, then only a few will have increased wealth and a better standard of living, while a majority of the people would have lower standards of living. This leads to questions about the scope of government regulation, private vs. public enterprises, and regulatory vs. free markets. Also, it is worth it to take into consideration the culture of the people of Lesotho. Would the fisheries destroy the way of life of the people and would adding sushi as a food option be detrimental or beneficial to the culture?
DeleteThanks! While I did not account for environmental changes that may come from this partnership; you make good points. It is my belief that the negative implications that may come from this will be outweighed by the good. Since Lesotho is landlocked I think trade with another country other than South Africa will be beneficial, especially for a country that has had its economic and agricultural struggles. In regards to your last point about sushi being a detriment to the culture of people in Lesotho; I honestly do not have an answer. It is my hope that the introduction of trout into the lives of people will not hinder other factors of culture but as we know, culture is very intricate and sensitive. I do know that the people of Lesotho have a primary vegetable diet. With that said, I see no issue introducing fish into their diets, however, I have not lived in Lesotho or asked for opinions of the people that live in that state.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I appreciate that you are shedding positive light on globalization as it is often vilified. With that being said, I was wondering if you think globalization does more positive than negative or vice versa? I know this is a popular debate and I wanted to hear your view outside of the Japan and Lesotho example.
Also, do you think globalization is inevitable? You have pointed out that the practice is not new, so do you think the spread of goods is natural?
-Tyler Barton
Tyler: I do think the spread of goods is inevitable because it is so natural. As far as globalization being overall a positive or negative thing I honestly depends on what regions of the world you are living in. Some parts of the world benefit from globalization, however, sadly there is a gap that should be closer
DeleteI like the idea of what this post tries to do. Comparing the exchange of strategy and ideas in soccer with the exchange of goods and cultures was an interesting take on Foer's book. I am not sure Japan's trade with Lesotho will prove a great benefit to the food of Lesotho but I do believe the exchange helps Lesotho develop fish farming industry and opens trade avenues outside of Africa that could be of great benefit in the future. Great idea, it seems a stretch in some places but overall is an application of Foer's book.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that the primary cause of the global food trade is weather, since certain foods are often not available year-round, or even at all, in many places, since the weather causes growing season constraints. This leads to those places importing the desired foods, such as bananas being sold in Oslo. Though the use of hydroponics and other forms of growing food indoors are certainly starting to make a dent in the global food trade, I agree that weather is a primary factor.
ReplyDeleteThere is another major factor that contributes to the global food trade that you didn’t mention. Geography can also influence an area’s food demands, since non-arable land is more likely to import food, even when accounting for much lower populations.
A series of factor in in the specific case you mention, that of the trout, is the intense Japanese demand for trout that, combined with overfishing in traditional trout fisheries that supplied Japan, makes it economical for the arrangement you described to occur.
I don’t take issue with you not including the above points, since you had limited space and had to prioritize. However, I do take some issue with your assertion that this trade is a huge success. Granted, it does meet the Japanese demand. However, I view the designation of “huge success” in the context of trade as having to clear a relatively high bar. Though this point is most definitely semantical, I view a huge success as needing a sustainable model. Due to the high costs of air shipping trout eggs and water shipping refrigerated trout meat, let alone the negative environmental effects of aquaculture, I don’t view this as a huge success, since it lacks sustainability.
Ben:
DeleteAs you know, this partnership is new and has had its rough patches. At this present time it can be deemed as a huge success because everyone in this is winning economically and socially. However, you would argue the environment is not a winner in this. I think it will take some time for this process to find a more sustainable way to work. However, it is my hope with the revenue obtained in this partnership a country like South Africa may add regulations that will help the environment.