Tariffs in Argentina
Having accessed the WTO website, I selected Argentina as a country for the analysis of tariffs. As the website confirms, in Argentina, the taxes and other duties on agricultural products are higher than those on non-agricultural products. According to the data provided by WTO, the final bound of tasks applied in 2014 was 32.3 for farm products and 31.7 for non-agricultural products. Besides, for agricultural products, only 5.5% were duty-free, whereas, for non-agricultural products, the figure was 22.1% (Argentina, 2015).
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The reason for such a difference is that Argentina is a producer and exporter of agricultural products, and higher duties on agricultural imported goods allow it to execute a protectionist policy. Argentina protects its own agrarian industry by restricting the opportunities for other nations to import their agricultural production to the country while no such issue exists in the case of the non-agricultural output. The GDP of Argentina in 2014 was US $ 540,197, which has made around 0.006% of the total world GDP (Argentina, 2015).
In Argentina, the presence of diminishing marginal returns cannot be observed yet. However, a tendency exists to the expansion of agricultural industry and shrinking the other kinds of industry. Some politicians and thinkers believe that Argentina should adopt economic specialization; mainly, the country should aim its productive forces at agriculture rather than other industry (Fernandez, 2015).
If such a policy is adopted, it will result in diminishing marginal returns since it will mean that the input to agriculture is increased while the information to other kinds of industry are decreased dramatically. Consequently, the additions in the input to agriculture would yield less increase in the production of this industry time, i.e., the marginal returns would be diminished.
The topic of child labor is ardently debated in the contemporary international community. Many thinkers, especially those from post-industrial countries, believe that child labor is a negative phenomenon, that the primary occupation of children should be educated and not work, and that, to eradicate child labor, labor agreements across the world should be standardized.
While I agree that it is better for a child to study than to work, mostly if we speak about a small child, the issue is somewhat complicated, and many factors should be considered before making any decisions. As K. McKinney (2015) emphasizes, the circumstances and traditions vary from country to country. In many underdeveloped countries, the work of children increases the chances of a family to survive and make ends meet. If the government has no means to help poor families raise their children, then the prohibition of child labor serves no purpose. Such a law would make children starve rather than help them. In 2013, the bill to prohibit child labor faced strong opposition in Bolivia since signing the bill would leave many Bolivian families without the means to survive.
Another problem exists in this sphere. McKinney (2015) mentions that it is transnational companies that are the primary supporters of the standardization of labor agreements for all countries. Indeed, the reason for their support is not their concern over children’s well-being. Multinational corporations know that the standardization of labor agreements would allow them to dictate their own labor policy in underdeveloped countries when traditional working practices (such as child labor) are eradicated. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not believe that the standardization of labor agreements is necessary or that it can solve the child labor problem.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
Argentina. (2015). Web.
Fernandez, M. (2015). The country will continue to decline without an open economy. Buenos Aires Herald, 4797. Web.
McKinney, K. (2015). Situating corporate framings of child labor: Toward grounded geographies of working children in globalized agriculture. Geoforum, 59(1), 219-227.