Race to the Bottom

 

Jack Hammond

jhammond@hunter.cuny.edu

 

            Phase 1 of this game is modified from a game invented by Bill Bigelow described in his books Rethinking Globalization and The Line Between Us, where it is called "Transnational Capital Auction."  I have borrowed liberally from his description in The Line Between Us while introducing modifications which I believe make the game more playable.  Phase 2 is my own contribution.

 

            Phase 1 simulates the processes of capital mobility and neoliberal restructuring whereby third world elites attempt to make their country's laws more friendly to international capital so as to attract investment.  They compete with other countries by relaxing environmental and labor regulations and lowering minimum wages and corporate taxes.  (This is the "race to the bottom.")

 

            Phase 2 suggests that ordinary people can organize to confront international capital and their own elites by forming alliances and bargaining or resisting the imposition of conditions which favor international capital but harm workers and citizens.

 

Number of players: flexible, but ideally 20-40; there should be 4 to 7 teams, and each team should have 4 to 6 players.

 

Materials needed:

 

Copies of two forms: points (1 copy per team) and bids (3 forms per team; but note that each printed sheet can be cut up into eight forms).  These forms are bilingual (English-Spanish) but can be modified according to the needs of the group playing the game.

 

Optional materials:

 

Prizes for the winning team (Bigelow suggests candy bars)

 

Handout describing the game, one for each player ("The Transnational Capital Auction Game," p. 106 of The Line Between Us, though the procedure described there varies somewhat from the procedure I present.)  I believe these are unnecessary and the information can be conveyed just as well in the introductory briefing.

 

Playing time: I have played this game in two successive 75-minute classes, and in one two-hour block of time.  Some groups get into the bargaining procedure very enthusiastically and want to take longer. The debriefing can be as long as desired.  If time is short, it can be eliminated, though I think the game is more satisfactory with at least some wrapup.

 

Procedure:

 

1. Write a chart for scores on a blackboard or newsprint with three columns, headed "Round 1," "Round 2," "Round 3," and as many rows as there are teams.

 

2. Divide the players into teams of 4-6 players, depending on the total number of players.  Distribute the points sheet, one to each player, and the bids sheet, three to each team.

 

Phase 1

 

1. Initial briefing: Explain that each team represents the governing and financial elites of a country, and that they are in competition for the investment of a multinational corporation choosing where to locate a factory.  They must decide how friendly they want their business environment to be to international capital.  Ask players what conditions a company might look for in deciding where to locate.

 

            In choosing specific financial and regulatory conditions, they will earn more points by choosing conditions which are more friendly to international capital (i.e. lower wages and corporate taxes, less regulation).  They will have three rounds of bidding, and after the third round the country with the second highest number of points will be declared the winner and the company will locate its factory there (because too stringent conditions might increase the risk of a revolution, or damage the country's international image too much).

 

            In the briefing the coordinator can choose to discuss multinational investment, the conditions that attract it, and the debate over whether sweatshops are a necessary prelude to greater development or a simple mechanism of exploitation.  The coordinator can invent and supply some details about what kind of factory it is, how many workers it will employ, etc.  (Clothing and textiles, one of the chief low-wage export industries, are a good bet, since many players will be wearing clothes made in low-wage offshore factories.)  A discussion of role-playing may be helpful to prepare people for what may be an unaccustomed experience.

 

            Three things should be emphasized: Players are playing a role and they should make decisions not according to their personal preferences but as they think the financial and governing elites of a country would make them; conditions more favorable to capital earn more points; but the company will not choose the country with the highest number of points, but the country with the second highest number of points.

 

2. First round: each team meets and discusses the conditions it will establish.  After debate and reaching agreement, the team fills out a Bid form.

 

            The first round will take some time because people will doubtless have questions about the workings of the game and the team may disagree about the appropriate strategy.  The coordinator should circulate among the teams and answer questions as necessary.  The coordinator, while listening to a team's discussion, can also remind them not to be too soft-hearted but to adopt the conditions that will win the location of the factory.

 

            The team writes its decision on the Bid form.  The coordinator collects the forms and writes each team's scores on the board.  Depending on time, the specific bids under each heading (minimum wage, child labor, etc.) can be discussed briefly.

 

3. Second and third round: each team has seen where it stands relative to the other teams.  It discusses whether to change its bid.  These rounds should go more quickly as players are now familiar with the game.  Again, the coordinator collects the bids and writes the scores on the board.

 

            After the third round, the country with the second highest number of points is declared the winner.

 

Phase 2:

 

1. The players now change roles.  They are all residents of the winning country and most live in the city where the factory will be located.  The coordinator assigns to each team one of the following roles (the coordinator can choose which of the roles to include).

 

Nationwide trade union federation

Local manufacturing workers' union

Local chamber of commerce

Women's organization

Human rights committee

Environmental protection organization

Community organization of the shantytown next to where the factory will be built

Political party (specify: populist, social democratic, revolutionary)

 

Point out that, unlike in Phase 1, there is no clear outcome and no winner in phase 2. 

 

2. Strategic planning: Each team discusses its reaction to the new factory.  Will it accept, resist, bargain with the company, or something else?  In particular, does it want to make alliances with any other team?

 

3. Meeting and negotiation: The coordinator announces that each team can now meet with any of the other teams.  They discuss possible joint strategies.

 

4. Action decisions: Each team meets by itself and finalizes its strategy.

 

5. Each team makes a short presentation of its conclusions to the whole group.

 

Phase 3: Debriefing

 

Participants discuss the play of the game and their reaction.  The experience from "within the role": did the conflicts seem realistic; how difficult was it to reach agreement; how much did each team insist on or concede, etc.  From the standpoint of participants: did they get into their roles; did they have strong feelings; especially for playing a role that did not coincide with their personal feelings, did their attitude change; etc.

 

The discussion can be completely open-ended; or the coordinator may want to discuss some of the following issues if they do not come up spontaneously:

 

            Did you get into your role? How did it feel?

 

            In phase 1, did you concentrate on the substantive issues (value of the minimum wage, importance of environmental protection etc.) or on the number of points?

 

            Did you become more aware of the pressures felt by developing countries to accommodate international capital?

 

            In phase 2, did your attitude to your own role change?

 

            Did your potential alliance partners react the way you expected them to?

 

            Overall: Did your attitude toward sweatshops change as a result of playing the game?

 

            How did this game compare as a learning experience with reading about sweatshops and transnational capital?

 

            How would you modify the game to make it more realistic, more playable, or more enlightening to the players?

 

Resources:

 

            Bigelow, Rethinking Globalization

 

            Bigelow, The Line Between Us

 

            Briggs and Kernaghan, "The US Economic Agenda: A Sweatshop Model of Development."  NACLA Report on the Americas 27, No. 4 (Jan.-Feb. 1994), 37-40.

 

            Krugman, In Praise of Cheap Labor. http://www.slate.com/id/1918/

 

            Levinson, "Economists and Sweatshops."  Dissent 44 (Fall 1997) 11-13