For those who are unfamiliar, the AGOA is a part of U.S. legislation and significantly liberalizes market access to the US for 37 designated Sub-Saharan African countries. This acts as a catalyst for economic growth by encouraging governments to open their economies and build free markets. US Congress passed AGOA as part of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law May 18, 2000. In August 2002, President George W. Bush signed amendments to AGOA that expanded preferential access for eligible sub-Saharan African counties. Two years later, President Bush signed the AGOA Acceleration Act of 2004, which extended preferential access for imports from eligible sub-Saharan African countries until September 30, 2015, and extended and clarified textile-related provisions in the Act. As the law now stands, nearly all imports from eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa enter the U.S. duty-free through 2015. For extensive background information on AGOA and related trade issues click here.

With the abrupt ending of US trade talks with Southern Africa it is in wonder what will be the future of AGOA. A recent article from the Heritage Foundation states that economic growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa depends greatly on increasing the competitiveness of African businesses and entrepreneurs. AGOA contributes to that goal by providing duty-free access to the U.S. market for most imports from the region. However, trade preferences are not the best long-term solution. For sub-Saharan African countries to take full advantage of trade to spur growth and development, their governments must remove barriers to trade among themselves and should enter into a full free trade agreement with the U.S. This will take time to negotiate and implement. Instead of ending talks and limiting the scope of trade, the U.S. should be working to transform AGOA into a free trade agreement by its expiration in 2015.

Thus there are limits of the benefits of AGOA. The U.S. continues to undermine the competitiveness of African entrepreneurs with domestic subsidies and other tariff and non-tariff barriers, and African governments rob their people of the full benefits of trade by maintaining trade barriers to imports from other African nations and from the U.S. U.S. policymakers should take advantage of the next ten years of AGOA to use the its preferential trade access as a lever to lower trade barriers on essential medicines and supplies from abroad, spur the establishment of a region-wide customs arrangement, and transform AGOA into a free trade agreement between the U.S. and sub-Saharan Africa.

In a previous radio broadcast it is noted that US trade laws such as AGOA lead African nations to offer huge incentives to multinational investors. Many companies are described as footloose investors, moving from country to country following government incentives and low wages. The question the rises as to what happens to the rights of African workers?

While AGOA recommends that eligible countries establish - or at least make progress towards establishing - mechanisms for the protection of the International Labor Organization’s minimum labor standards, it does not explicitly condition the provision of preferences upon compliance with these standards. As a result, the AGOA labor clause has only been invoked twice and is rarely enforced. Moreover, in spite of the many pro-investment government policies already in place in many Sub-Saharan countries, in countries such as Lesotho for example, companies have lobbied national governments to further extend normal working hours and adopt a piece-rate system in garment factories throughout the country. Policies such as these render obtaining permanent contracts virtually impossible for workers, and automatically reduce the job security and already limited bargaining power working women have to demand fair and living wages.

The success of AGOA from the perspective of women workers and their economic and social rights has been mixed. It is debatable to what extent women working in these industries have made real gains, as the jobs they occupy have been largely low skilled and low paying. Women have been subject to a series of labor rights violations, and the jobs they occupy have not provided wages high enough to lift them out of poverty.

ILRF’s Trade program focuses on protecting workers’ rights through linkages with US trade law. We believe that in today’s global economic and trade system, it is of utmost importance that labor rights be upheld.

ILRF is involved in connecting labor rights and trade through a number of bilateral US trade laws. In a handful of trade agreements, the US has made certain benefits and tariff cuts conditional on a country’s commitment to labor standards. These benefits, and the risk of their loss, can be an effective incentive for governments to improve their policies regarding workers’ rights. ILRF is at the forefront of the process of using labor protections embedded in trade laws to fight for workers around the globe. AGOA is one of these trade laws.

ILRF works to encourage the US—along with other countries—to trade responsibly by preventing the exploitation of workers. Since the early years of our work, we have argued that laissez-faire economics must be tempered with social clauses for the protection of labor rights. These rights—which are human rights—must not be compromised in global trade.

For more info on how AGOA affects labor rights click here. Then click here to support workers rights.