There is little doubt that the years following the Second World War were characterised by a rapid growth in international trade which reached levels never previously seen. Naturally, this growth was not equally distributed; some countries or groups of countries showed higher levels than others. This was a true global phenomenon of growing intensity, involving the entire world, and can be attributed to two types of causes, the first of which are primarily economic and the second political.
Of the various factors driving economic growth, undoubtedly the growth and diversification of demand for commodities from various sectors of society played a fundamental role. This brought about the evolution of the economic system towards a “society of well-being”, characterised by high levels of both individual and general affluence. The increase in consumption – both derived from and contributing to this improved level of well-being – was necessarily matched by a structuring of economic processes aimed at minimising production costs for commodities. In turn, this favoured a tendency toward greater specialisation and complementarity of economic systems based on the assumption of the effectiveness of production differentiation, with a consequent increase in international trade.
[…] International trade also benefited from political factors derived from shared convictions that improved relationships between nations were closely connected to the intensification of trade relations. […]
The development of international commerce can be divided according to three main directives: exchange between highly industrialised markets, the relationship between markets and Public Sector commerce, the relationship between developing countries.
The exchange between industrialised countries has developed more than other types of international commerce over the past few years, reaching levels of trade previously unseen between these countries. In the European scenario, we can affirm that this growth has received much impetus from the creation of integrated economic areas such as the eec and the efta; further growth is expected when the customs union is completed, and the eec envisages the elimination of trade barriers and the harmonisation of fiscal legislation. Intensification of trade with other industrialised “third countries” is probable in light of the favourable attitude shown by many governments, in addition to the positive outcomes of conferences such as the “Kennedy Round”, which focus on topics such as the liberalisation of international trade.
The foreseeable intensification of trade between industrialised countries is underpinned by factors that we will briefly discuss. […]
The first factor is the reciprocal exchange of commodities which may be lacking in one country and are produced in another. This complementarity is not only limited to primary or raw materials or agricultural products but includes also manpower and capital. It seems logical that a country with greater availability of manpower, and relatively low labour costs, be chosen as a base for activities requiring a good deal of manpower; similarly, countries with readily available capital will attract industries that have elevated capital investment requirements. […]
In addition to this complementarity-driven exchange, another factor is the need for ever-expanding markets, especially for certain sectors of production. In many commodity sectors the economy of production and the possibility of undertaking scientific research are feasible only with high volumes, and very often the domestic market is not sufficient to sustain such activity. This means that the co-operative planning of investment and production must be extended to a wider market, creating new scenarios for international trade.
Collaboration generated through the intensification of contacts and relationships creates awareness of the interdependence between countries and is decisive in improving political relations in general. Another important issue briefly discussed above is the prospect of public-sector exchange between countries, which seems to show favourable potential for development from a technical perspective, and also for the convergent approach in tackling economic problems. […]
Western countries have shifted towards a more Capitalist concept from the Liberalist approach of the 1900s, and have accepted this change, not only in form but also in substance: an important example is the acknowledgement of the wider functions of the state in the economic sphere and the introduction of new instruments such as planning, even if only in an advisory capacity.
More decisive steps are being taken in Socialist countries where we see – if only fairly recently – a gradual transformation from a policy aimed at maximising production volumes to greater efficiency in production. This has led to a less rigid top-down and highly planned organisation, creating the need for a series of measures – partly implemented and some still hypothetical – which will certainly shift these economic systems towards those of Western countries.
[…] The new setup of the international trade scenario has generated greater awareness of the advantages to be gained from the exchange of labour. Thus, comecom, the common market of Eastern European countries, transformed its role as an international advisory body for planning and organisation to take on the role of economic development in its member countries. This transformation was the premise for the most recent phase, which is supported by the President of the Council Ministers of the ussr Kosygin, and has created greater exchange between the Soviet economy and Western markets, for the procurement of mainly machinery and industrial plants, offering in exchange finished goods as well as raw materials and agricultural products.
International trade is taking on a growing role in Socialist countries and is becoming a priority issue in all economic strategic planning. This process is taking place in a climate of greater political ease which has reduced the moral objections that existed in the past, especially on the part of the United States, which opposed any intensification of trade relationships with Soviet bloc countries. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether this much-discussed greater understanding between countries should be attributed to the intensification of economic exchange and interdependence. The problem of exchange therefore takes on a more technical aspect, and in this regard, we should highlight some aspects and trends which could become significant in the years to come.
One effect might be an inversion in our international trade balance with these countries, from a credit to a debit position with the elevated levels of exchange envisaged, especially for entire industrial complexes (the case of fiat is a macroscopic example). This will create a need to search for counterparties to increase our imports from those countries. Ongoing negotiations by eni for the supply of methane from the ussr may be the first important step towards resolving this problem.
Secondly, we have to foresee that greater public-sector exchange between these countries will also involve greater reciprocal exchange of know-how and experience regarding scientific research: at present this flow is almost unidirectional, but undoubtedly in the coming years we will have a counterpart, especially with the Soviet Union. We must also remember that our relationship with countries behind the Iron Curtain is interesting for many reasons; from a technical point of view, for their diversity of climate, of tastes and customs, and also on account of their dimensions. Again taking the example of the Soviet Union, the problems they face with production and distribution are macroscopic when compared to our markets: these new opportunities may prove useful in upgrading our productive system to deal with much greater volumes.
[…] The third important area for international commerce is that of developing countries. If we differentiated between the two groups of problems examined previously, when dealing with developing countries, clear distinction between these issues is even more important. Our position towards developing countries does not only regard economic and political matters but also moral issues. If it is a moral obligation for developed countries to ensure that income is distributed to the less affluent within that country, it is logical that that this same ethics should be extended to the relations between richer and poorer states.
[…] Economic collaboration with poorer countries requires great effort on our part to fully understand the problems of the people that we encounter. We have to remember that the primary objective of many of these countries is demographic and economic equilibrium, to overcome the problem of famine.
We must also understand that it is often difficult to adapt to progress, and for poorer countries this phenomenon can sometimes become overwhelming. Populations that have no experience with the steam age nor that of electricity, find themselves facing problems of the atomic age: thus they still travel by bullock carts with enormous aeroplanes flying above, they see modern bulldozers operating while semi-clothed men continue to toil with primitive methods.
This reinforces our conviction that the first issue to resolve when dealing with these countries is that of preparing the people, which can be done locally and through periods of time they spend in our countries. Obviously, the choice between these two alternatives depends on many factors and considerations. The technically preferable solution for us of training people in our own countries might have drawbacks from a social perspective, considering the possible consequences from a psychological point of view when these persons return to their own countries, after experiencing an environment that they no longer find in their homes.
Contemporaneously to the preparation of human resources, there is also the problem of financing: an initial solution is through contributions mainly from governments and international public financial organisations to create infrastructures, and necessary investment to prepare for other industrial and agricultural initiatives. As these initiatives have no immediate nor direct financial return, support from private industry is difficult.
The private sector could step in at a later phase, both with investment and also through trade.
It is well known that developing countries mainly export agricultural or mineral primary materials, the price of which is directly related to the fluctuations of economic development and monetary value. This rigidity should not be over-evaluated in a negative sense: indeed, it can have some positive prospects because the demand from industrialised countries of such products is constant and often increasing. […]
We also have to consider the gradual industrialisation of currently underdeveloped countries, which will generate a growing demand for these products from the producer countries, which will create a natural integration of supply-demand between these countries. This industrialisation will logically be focused on sectors requiring high levels of manpower profiting from low local labour costs; this can also lead to further complementarity between the two groups of markets to encourage further intensification of trade.
[…] Following this examination of the prospects of the development of international trade and, more in general, of global economic relationships, we can see that the future offers us further possibilities, beyond those activities which are already ongoing. These considerations and others more specifically economically or politically related – favouring greater interdependence between countries or groups of countries – highlight how economic choices cannot be made independently at a national level without other wider considerations. This gives us a very particular vision of economic relationships between countries in the sense that they should not be seen as an end, but more as a means to achieve much vaster and more challenging results.
I mentioned the issues of awareness and comprehension of the individual, which should and will contribute to these relationships, therefore demonstrating that effective and fruitful collaboration between different people is something achievable. This is the true objective that must be followed if we want to see international trade as something more than a mere mercantilist activity. This objective has to be followed with equilibrium, and free from narrow-minded or overly ambitious goals, which may distract us with specific problems or interests which – although legitimate – may be more marginal. We must also remember that when undertaking large-scale projects we risk committing serious errors, and therefore a gradual and linear approach is a fundamental condition for effective and long-lasting success.