Although I agree with what I see as the spirit of Dani Rodrik’s New York Times op-ed:
We need to rescue globalization not just from populists, but also from its cheerleaders. Globalization evangelists have done great damage to their cause not just by underplaying the real fears and concerns on which the Trumps of this world thrive, but by overlooking the benefits of a more moderate form of globalization.
We must reassess the balance between national autonomy and economic globalization. Simply put, we have pushed economic globalization too far — toward an impractical version that we might call “hyperglobalization.â€
The transition to hyperglobalization is associated with two events in particular: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s decision in 1989 to remove all restrictions on cross-border financial flows, and the establishment in 1995, after almost a decade of negotiations, of the World Trade Organization, with wide-ranging implications for domestic health and safety rules, subsidies and industrial policies.
The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals. Societies were asked to subject domestic economies to the whims of global financial markets; sign investment treaties that created special rights for foreign companies; and reduce corporate and top income taxes to attract footloose corporations.
[…]
The world’s trade regime is driven by a mercantilist logic: You lower your barriers in return for my lowering mine. But lack of openness is no longer the binding constraint on the world economy; lack of democratic legitimacy is.
It is time to embrace a different logic, emphasizing the value of policy autonomy. Poor and rich countries alike need greater space for pursuing their objectives. The former need to restructure their economies and promote new industries, and the latter must address domestic concerns over inequality and distributive justice.
I have some problems with his emphasis on democracy as opposed to other yardsticks like the rule of law or protection of civil liberties. As we have seen in Iraq, they don’t necessarily go together. I also have problems with his bifurcation of interests. Why is Dr. Rodrik concerned about “inequality and distributive justice” in the United States but not in China, where it’s much worse? Why so paternalistic?
I have a question. Dr. Rodrik cites Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China as examples of non-democratic countries. What would a democratic Russia, Saudi Arabia, or China do that the present countries aren’t doing? Quite to the contrary, IMO Russia is quite democratic. It just isn’t liberal or devoted to the rule of law. Those Russian opinion polls showing Putin with an 80%+ approval rating? Those aren’t fictions like opinion polls in the Soviet Union. The Russian people approve of what he’s doing.
I think we know what a democratic Saudi Arabia would be like. Think “Iraq”. Or maybe Al Qaeda.
What would a democratic China be like?
Rather than encouraging democracy, wouldn’t it be more prudent to encourage freedom secured by an independent judiciary and the rule of law? Why not harness our trade policies to our notional values?
