n Nestle’s factories located in Uganda, before being shipped over and sold to retailers in Nestle’s home economies. The only profit the Ugandan’s truly receive, is the paltry price for which they sold the unprocessed coffee. It is very easy to rationalise this unfair exploitation with economic rules and models which follow logical principles, a task the WTO is trying to achieve using the support of its four major member-country economies; the US, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Unfortunately, on the other side of this free-trade coin, there is a country whose majority of members suffer from exploitative work practices and sub-standard work conditions.That the WTO serves as a forum for countries to “thrash out their difficulties”3 regarding their trade practices, is of no consequence when the foundations upon which the WTO’s rules and agreements stand is considered. The evolving international trading scene is akin to the changes which were and are taking place within the Australian economy. Privatisation of government companies and deregulation of industries, was a tactic designed to increase efficiency and provide better service (Steketee 2001). Yet we are seeing more and more evidence that efficiency comes with a different kind of price. In Australia, we noted that the people living in the country areas were forced to pay a greater sum for their services, due to the increased costs of providing those services (The Australian 2000). For us Australians, the introduction of competition resulted in the “[weeding out] of the weak companies . . . [in order to] encourage and reward the strong, efficient producers”4. Does this mean that because third-world economies cannot maintain the efficiency of developed economies, they should simply be “[weeded out]”4? Privatisation of government business enterprises has certainly increased their efficiency, but at what cost? It...
