The once-thriving practice of outsourcing manufacturing may be thwarted by rising energy costs.

According to the Wall Street Journal, many U.S. manufacturers have halted plans to build factories overseas because the costs to transport goods back home have risen. Some, such as the heater manufacturer DESA LLC, are even considering moving production back to the U.S. "My cost of getting a shipping container here from China just keeps going up — and I don't see any end in sight," said DESA retail heating division president Claude Hayes. The company now considers itself lucky to have kept its old U.S. factories.

The return of DESA's heaters to the U.S. coincides with a new report by CIBC World Markets called "Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization?" The report argues that high energy costs could potentially reverse the outsourcing that has occurred in some areas of manufacturing. Foreign trade cannot expect the same opportunities to develop markets in India as there were 30 years ago because of today's high energy costs. This situation could give countries closer to the U.S. like Mexico a little more appeal in the future than current economic giants such as China.

But do not expect outsourcing — the major transformer of world economies in the last 30 years — to go silently into the night. As Andrew Leonard points out in his article "Who Needs Tariffs When You Have Expensive Oil?" high energy prices do not affect all aspects of global trade, including the areas of telecommunications and computers. For example, the software industry in India will continue to thrive because it thrives on cheap Internet and not natural resources. So while some manufacturing may feel the pressure of high oil prices, American companies will continue to outsource in other ways.

Energy costs won't likely come down anytime soon. Could American manufacturing make a comeback?

Photo: Mark oh! (flickr)

Albanian women took vows of virginity to live as men in patriarchal society. Photo: Marielito (flickr)

In the U.S., cross-dressing is considered an oddity. In Northern Albania, not only is it commonplace, but it's been around for 500 years.

A fascinating article in the International Herald Tribune talks about the unique Albanian custom known as sworn virginity. Pashe Keqi is 78 years old. She has been living like a man — dressing, eating, and interacting on equal terms with other men — since she was 20. Her father was murdered in a blood feud and her brothers killed fighting Albania’s communist regime, so becoming a man was her only way to support her family.

"Back then, it was better to be a man because, before, a woman and an animal were considered the same thing," Keqi says. But being a sworn virgin means she gave up marriage, children, and sex — because traditionally only a man could bring her family security.

As an American woman, it terrifies me that such a ritual could until very recently be necessary for women to play an equal role in society. At the same time, since I live in a country still burdened by homophobia, it's also incredible to read about a society in which women can live as men without stigma.

There's something tragic about the loss of such a rare ritual, even if it shows that Albanian women have made great strides. After the fall of the Communist regime and exposure to the outside world, Albania granted its women increased status and power. They play a role in the economy outside the home. But change has also meant the loss of their native culture and regional identity.

In a society that now allows Internet dating, perhaps it's no surprise that the custom of sworn virginity is fast disappearing.

Controversial U.S. Farm Bill was just passed into law. Photo: Johnny Alive (flickr)

Critics of the newly passed U.S. Farm Bill say the measure will hurt poor farmers in the rest of the world.

The $100-billion Farm Bill, which passed into law in May, increases crop subsidies, boosts conservation spending and expands the food stamp program. It also guarantees annual payments to farmers and pays farmers for any crops they sell for less than the federally regulated minimum price.

President Bush claims that the bill "provides a safety net for [U.S.] farmers … without encouraging overproduction and depressing prices.” But international agencies – and even members of the president’s own administration – railed against the measure.

Deputy U.S. Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said the measure “heads in the wrong direction in terms of our international obligations,” and expects trade partners “to protest in every way they can." Australia is already making plans to challenge the Bill through the World Trade Organization.

Oxfam America says that by encouraging large companies to overproduce, U.S. government subsidies lead to dumping – selling surplus goods in international markets at prices under the cost of production. The humanitarian agency says this undermines local production, threatens millions of farmers worldwide and clearly violates WTO rules.

Even before this Farm Bill, U.S. farm programs were criticized internationally for their trade-distorting subsidies. This bill further undermines our moral authority. Horst Koehler, an official with the International Monetary Fund, criticized the U.S. for its "double standards" about open markets.

Our hypocrisy not only damages our reputation, but makes the EU and other large exporters less likely to adopt the kind of policies that will help the world’s farmers.

"My husband lost his limbs working in the factory," Jyoti Dave, a surrogate mother in India, told Reuters. "We could not manage even a meal a day. That is when I decided to rent out my womb."

Commercial surrogacy is nothing new. In the U.S., where it is legal in many states, companies such as Growing Generations offer up to US$25,000 to surrogates while charging couples between US$30,000 and US$45,000 per child.

Today rent-a-womb has gone international. Its headquarters
are in India, where surrogate mothers can earn US$5,000 to US$7,000 per birth — income equivalent to a decade's worth of a rural wages for a woman.

These surrogates offer their services to an international clientele hailing from Italy, Singapore, Sweden and other wealthy countries. Most of these couples turn to surrogacy after multiple failed in-vitro fertilizations or repeated miscarriages. It's no surprise India appeals to medical tourists; it offers affordable service, highly qualified doctors, and fewer legal hurdles than found in other countries.

Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman is among critics of commercial surrogacy who are disturbed by the idea of the human body as a commodity. Others are uneasy about the ability of the wealthy to essentially rent wombs from the poor.

Many participants in international surrogacy, however, argue that they are helping those in financial desperation. "How else will us uneducated women earn this kind of money," one surrogate mother explained to Christian Science Monitor, "without doing anything immoral?"

At first glance, the Homeless World Cup sounds like a joke. But in fact it's an inspiring event that uses the world's most popular sport to fight a worldwide problem.

In 2001, social entrepreneur Mel Young combined the international language of football with global homelessness to create this socially powered spin-off. Each year since, homeless people from dozens of countries (it was 48 last year) have participated on teams sponsored by nonprofits in their home country.

The annual event has had a significant impact on its participants. In a survey of those who competed in the 2006 edition in Cape Town 92 percent said they have "a new motivation for life” and 44 percent said since getting involved in organized soccer they've "improved their housing situation”

"The Homeless World Cup opened chances for me," said Angus, a Nigerian who became homeless in Austria after being granted asylum there in 2002. "The most important — I have good friends now. I also play football at a club, and I am getting an education. I am learning the German language and attending High School to get a diploma."

The social impacts of this tournament extend beyond its participants. Part of the mission is to improve public perception of the homeless by increasing awareness. In an interview with BBC News, Young says:

I think it just changes everybody. The homeless people involved change because they find inspiration, self-respect and self-esteem from the crowd applauding them. The public also change as they usually have a stereotypical view of what a homeless person is e.g. lives on the street, is dangerous etc.

Some people criticize the Homeless World Cups for using funds that could otherwise be spent building shelters. By daring to be unconventional, however, the organization has created greater benefits. They've not only established 50 local grassroots projects in participating countries, they've also boosted the self-image of a marginalized population.

This fantastic short film shot at the 2007 Homeless World Cup in Copenhagen reveals the enthusiasm of the players and the tournament:

Photo: Hattie Page (flickr)

Conventional wisdom says that America's standing in the world will go up — maybe even way up — if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected president. We'd sign multilateral global-warming treaties, seek advice from allies once again … maybe even accept an invitation to tea from Iran.

But the world is likely to respond to a Clinton or Obama presidency with only tepid applause if the two contenders continue spouting "dangerous and ill-informed" trade rhetoric, argues Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria.

In the magazine's March 10th issue, the influential columnist slapped the wrists of both Democratic contenders for promoting protectionist policies. All the talk about renegotiating Nafta, he says, has people in Latin America and India worried that one of their favored paths to greater economic growth — free trade and open markets — is about to close down.

"For a struggling farmer in Kenya," says Zakaria, in a not-so-subtle reference to Obama's roots, "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs."

The concern from abroad is real. The Economist, for example, recently warned readers to get ready for "grumpy isolationism."

But Zakaria, a left-of-center globalist, represents the concern emanating from what you might call the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party. (Online comments on his Newsweek piece include: "I'm an Obama supporter, but his crazy anti-trade talk is worrisome.") These were the New Democrats who cheered when Bill Clinton's 1993 push for Nafta seemed to finally rid the party of its longheld protectionist plank — and who hung their heads when his wife repudiated the pact in Ohio. (Obama largely followed suit, leading The New Republic's Josh Patanick to bemoan Obama's "disappointing" shift on trade. Matt Cooper of Portfolio.com labeled both Obama and Clinton "phony populists.")

Perhaps it's not surprising to see the candidates try to nuance — or, in Clinton's case, outright disown — their previous pro-trade statements. But it's worth watching how the eventual winner chooses to frame the issue this fall, and whether they can find, as Zakaria recommends, "a way to speak about the pain of globalization" while acknowledging its benefits.

One way may be to emphasize how trade can reliably advance America's stated aim to lift millions abroad out of extreme poverty. Surely the candidates can argue that America can both create good jobs and open our markets to products like cotton from Mali. Such a move would not only lend a hand to poor African farmers, but also help us climb back into the world's good graces.

In last week's print edition of The Economist, it is suggested that lavatories must come before laptops in the leapfrogging of technologies. The article suggests that most new technologies need to follow a traditional path when diffusing into emerging markets. Basic infrastructure is still a primary concern in these countries and the introduction of high-tech products does not directly address the core issues. "Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have gone medium-tech first." Cell phones may prove to be the exception of a rapid technological advance in the developing world.

A new BBC global poll reveals a notable divide in world public opinion: while many in the richest countries express concern about the pace of globalization, those in developing countries are more likely to believe that globalization is moving too slowly.

"People in some developing countries want to accelerate globalisation and appear to believe that this will help break down some of the inequities in their country," said Steven Kull of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, a co-sponsor of the poll.

According to the Christian Science Monitor's January 30 article, Namibia's rug-weaving industry can provide us with a lesson on globalization.

The New York Times is producing a fascinating series of articles and multimedia examining the human toll, global impact and political challenge of China's epic pollution crisis.

We've all heard globalization linked to the growth of multi-national corporations. However, an article from yesterday's Business Week takes a look at how globalization is driving the growth of small entrepreneurs.

"These young entrepreneurs are trying to make their marks independent of what their fathers and grandfathers have done. These young people and their companies are growing fast and becoming relevant on the global scale," he says. While previous generations were often constricted by government red tape and low customer expectations, younger entrepreneurs who take their cue from the international business models they see online are more open to new ideas and are setting higher standards for their companies.

Today an International Herald Tribune article asks, "is economic history about to change course?" As power transfers from the west to the east, many economists are worried about a protectionist backlash by governments in attempt to regain control.

"Economic theory tells us that globalization is a win-win, but it isn't, at least not in the West," Roach said. "The theory was written for another era. We have to ask some hard questions about unfettered capitalism. We need a new script."

The risk is that Western governments, mindful of the growing backlash among voters, will be tempted to rewrite the script by engaging in old and new forms of protectionism.

Many are predicting 2008 to be a year for the economic history books.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz paints a grim picture of the global economic outlook for 2008. Stiglitz warns that this is likely to trigger a backlash against the forces of globalization and that:

For those who think that a well-managed globalization has the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries, and who believe in global social justice and the importance of democracy (and the vibrant middle class that supports it), all of this is bad news.

In the end, Stiglitz believes that central banks will be able to restore order after a global slowdown in which the inflationary pressure is wrung out of the system.

The Economist has a correspondent traveling in rural Thailand to view the impacts of globalization there. Recently visiting a rural market to see whether the traders are feeling the pinch from the opening of a Tesco a few miles away, the correspondent reports:

Are these local traders feeling the heat from the giant superstore down the road? Not really, say the handful that we talk to: Tesco’s opening doesn’t seem to have had much effect on the market’s trade at all. As the retailer itself points out, even the supposedly threatened “mom and pop” stores are often benefiting from Tesco’s spread, because they can buy their supplies from the nearest superstore and sell it on at a small mark-up, rather than having to rely on inefficient and expensive wholesalers, as before. It is probably much the same as we found with the fishermen on the Mun river: those who are suffering make a big noise about it while those who are unaffected or actually benefiting from the change remain quiet.