Economists around the world are in almost universal agreement that globalization and free trade are overall beneficial. There is some disagreement about the magnitude of the benefits---some believe that free trade has more or less reached the limit of what it can provide, while others believe that further trade liberalization could expand global output substantially---but almost any economist you talk to will agree with the basic premise that, overall, in the aggregate, globalization is a good thing.
The problem is that we do not live "overall, in the aggregate". Globalization has large benefits for some people, and large costs for others. Many people are concerned that the benefits of globalization are being concentrated in the hands of a wealthy elite, while the costs are being spread across society as a whole. (From my own research on inequality, I believe that the primary cause of rising inequality is a feedback loop of concentrated wealth creating concentrated power and vice-versa; I don't see much evidence that globalization per se is a major cause. But globalization may contribute to this, and in any case rising inequality is definitely a big problem in many countries, particularly the United States.)
So, we have a problem here: The economists say we want more globalization (or at least to keep what we already have), while the general public often says that we need less globalization and more protectionism.
There are broadly three approaches that policy could take:
1. Do what the public wants, and institute more protectionism. Ignore the economists.
2. Do what the economists want, and expand globalization. Ignore the public.
3. Reform globalization in such a way that the public will want it just as the economists do.
(I suppose you could theoretically convince the economists to change our minds, but the data in favor of globalization is pretty strong, so I don't think that one is very likely.)
Option 2 has actually been the major policy plan for a long time, but people are getting increasingly fed up with policymakers who so clearly flout the desires of their constituents. If we leave things as they are, it's likely that people will start electing politicians who shift us over to option 1, which most economists believe would cause severe harm to millions of people around the world.
What we really need to do is option 3. I've linked a very good paper on this, how economists need to get better about engaging the public and explaining the benefits of globalization---and policymakers also need to take seriously the real costs of globalization and find ways to mitigate them.
Besides educating people about the benefits of globalization, the biggest change we need is an expansion of social safety nets and redistribution of wealth. An increase in aggregate wealth---which globalization indisputably brings about---only really benefits society if that wealth is shared widely. If the market will not do this automatically (and there is no particular reason to think it will, "trickle-down" slogans notwithstanding), it falls to public policy to make it happen some other way, probably the usual way of progressive taxation combined with heavy spending on public services.
Unfortunately (and bafflingly), many of the same people who would most stand to benefit from this approach of "free trade plus redistribution of wealth" (sometimes called the Nordic Model because it has been highly successful in Nordic countries such as Sweden and Norway) are actually its fiercest opponents. They often perceive redistribution of wealth as "taking from people who work" and "giving to people who mooch".
Most people simply don't seem to understand that the ludicrously high incomes of top CEOs have little or nothing to do with hard work or even high productivity, and instead reflect huge amounts of monopolistic market power that allows them to drain rents from the rest of society. (Despite sounding rather left-wing, this conclusion is largely uncontroversial among economists: In the paper I linked, these two statements are shown to be largely consensus in the field: "Excessive corporate power (market and political) is a concern." " Capture of market or political power by elites has negative implications for growth and welfare.")
I'd like to say I know how to get people to understand these things, but the truth is that I don't, and I'm not sure anyone does. Improved education to expand economic literacy would help, as would policymakers who are more open to conversation and compromise with critics of globalization. Economists could stand to be less dismissive of people who support protectionism, focusing on shared goals and talking about what the empirical data says on achieving those goals, instead of simply dismissing them as foolish or ignorant. We need to admit that globalization does come with costs, and talk about ways of mitigating those costs, rather than simply act like fanatical cheerleaders for globalization.
But in the end, we do need globalization; it will be vital not only for economic growth, but indeed for humanity's future.
No comments:
Post a Comment