Roads to Prosperity
Gobernanza global sin líderes
Dani Rodrik
|
|
|
|
CAMBRIDGE.– La economía mundial está ingresando en una nueva fase, en la cual lograr la cooperación global será cada vez más difícil. Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, complicados por la carga de sus grandes deudas y bajo crecimiento –y por lo tanto, preocupados por cuestiones internas–, ya no son capaces de fijar las reglas mundiales y esperar que los demás se adecuen a ellas.
Sumándose a esta tendencia, las potencias en ascenso, como China e India, valoran otorgan un gran valor a la soberanía nacional y la no interferencia en las cuestiones internas. Esto las torna reticentes a la hora de aceptar normas internacionales (o a exigir que otros cumplan ese tipo de regulaciones) y, por lo tanto, es poco probable que inviertan en instituciones multilaterales como lo hizo EE. UU. pasada la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Como resultado, la oferta de liderazgo y cooperación globales continuará escasa, lo que exigirá una respuesta cuidadosamente calibrada en la gobernanza de la economía mundial –específicamente, un conjunto de reglas más limitado que reconozca la diversidad de las circunstancias nacionales y las demandas de autonomía en las políticas. Pero las discusiones en el G-20, la Organización Mundial del Comercio y otros foros multilaterales continuaron como si el remedio adecuado fuese más de lo mismo: más reglas, más armonización, y más disciplina en las políticas nacionales.
Si repasamos un concepto básico, encontraremos que el principio de «subsidiariedad» proporciona la forma correcta de pensar sobre las cuestiones de gobernanza global. Nos dice qué tipos de políticas deben coordinarse o armonizarse en forma mundial, y cuáles deben dejarse en gran medida en manos de los procesos internos de toma de decisiones. El principio demarca áreas en las que necesitamos una amplia gobernanza global de aquellas en que un reducido conjunto de normas mundiales es suficiente.
Las políticas económicas pueden dividirse, en líneas generales, en cuatro variantes. En un extremo están las políticas internas que no generan derrames (o generan derrames muy pequeños) fuera de las fronteras nacionales. Las políticas educativas, por ejemplo, no requieren acuerdos internacionales y pueden dejarse tranquilamente en manos de los decisores locales.
En el otro extremo se encuentran las políticas que implican los «comunes globales»: el resultado para cada país no está determinado por sus políticas locales, sino por (la suma total de) las políticas de otros países. Las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero son el caso arquetípico. En esas esferas de política se puede argüir fuertemente en favor de establecer normas globales vinculantes, ya que cada país, por su cuenta, tiene incentivos para desatender su parte en el cuidado de los comunes globales. El fracaso de los intentos por lograr acuerdos globales nos condenaría a todos a un desastre colectivo.
Entre los extremos existen otros dos tipos de políticas que generan derrames, pero deben ser tratadas en forma diferente. En primer lugar, están las políticas de «empobrecer al vecino», a través de las cuales un país deriva un beneficio económico a expensas de otros. Por ejemplo, sus líderes restringen la oferta de un recurso natural para elevar su precio en los mercados mundiales, o implementan políticas mercantilistas que generan grandes superávits comerciales, especialmente en la presencia de desempleo y capacidad ociosa.
Debido a que las políticas de empobrecer al vecino crean beneficios imponiendo sus costos sobre otros, también deben ser reguladas en forma internacional. Este es el argumento más fuerte para fomentar una disciplina mundial mayor que la actual respecto de las políticas monetarias chinas o grandes desequilibrios macroeconómicos, como el superávit comercial alemán.
Las políticas de empobrecer al vecino deben distinguirse de las que pueden llamarse políticas de «empobrecerse a uno mismo», cuyos costos económicos se asumen principalmente en forma local, aunque también pueden afectar a otros.
Consideremos los subsidios agrícolas, las prohibiciones de organismos genéticamente modificados, o las normativas financieras laxas. Si bien estas políticas pueden imponer costos a otros países, no se implementan para extraer ventajas de ellos, sino porque otros motivos de políticas locales –como las preocupaciones distributivas, administrativas, o de salud pública– prevalecen sobre el objetivo de la eficiencia económica.
En el caso de las políticas de empobrecerse a uno mismo, los argumentos en favor de endurecer la disciplina global son mucho más débiles. Después de todo, no debiera estar en manos de la «comunidad global» decirle a cada país cómo ponderar objetivos que compiten entre sí. Imponer costos sobre otros países no es, en sí misma, una causa de regulación global. (De hecho, los economistas rara vez se quejan cuando la liberalización del comercio de un país daña a sus competidores.) Las democracias, particularmente, deben poder cometer sus propios «errores».
Por supuesto, no hay garantías de que las políticas locales reflejen con precisión las demandas sociales; incluso las democracias suelen ser secuestradas por intereses especiales. Por ello, la justificación de las normas globales es muy diferente en el caso de las políticas de empobrecerse a uno mismo, y exige requisitos procedimentales diseñados para mejorar la calidad de las políticas locales. Los estándares globales relacionados con la transparencia, la amplia representación, la responsabilidad y el uso de evidencia empírica, por ejemplo, no limitan al resultado final.
Distintos tipos de políticas requieren distintos tipos de respuestas en el nivel global. Actualmente se desperdicia demasiado capital político global en armonizar políticas de empobrecerse a uno mismo (especialmente en las áreas del comercio y la regulación financiera) y no se aplica suficiente sobre las políticas de empobrecer al vecino (como los desequilibrios macroeconómicos). Los esfuerzos excesivamente ambiciosos e incorrectamente dirigidos hacia la gobernanza global no nos harán ningún bien en un momento de escasez en la oferta de liderazgo y cooperación mundial.
Dani Rodrik, profesor de Economía Política Internacional en la Universidad de Harvard, es autor de La paradoja de la globalización: Democracia y el futuro de la economía mundial.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.
www.project-syndicate.org
Traducido al español por Leopoldo Gurman
Para descargar un podcast de este comentario en inglés, use el siguiente enlace:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/projectsyndicate/rodrik66.mp3
You might also like to read more from Dani Rodrik or return to our home page.
|
|
justoffal 01:56 15 Jan 12
This was a good read! I would like to seize on the opportunity to echo your sentiments on Global emissions standards and for a moment to see the humor in the apparent calamity that is the stuff of Global Warming prophecy.
while china sits large in the politically correct eco-preservation circles I find it amusing and alarming at once that anyone would take seriously their commitment to international welfare. As they complete one coal fired plant per week on average they also control large holdings in the up and coming carbon credits markets.
Don't you find that interlining? I do! This is like throwing out the Umpire and relegating his duties to the guy on the mound. While China fills the skies with Co2 emissions making the carbon credits increasingly more valuable...they also get to sell permission to other nations to do the same.
Not a bad con eh?
gamesmith94134 08:48 15 Jan 12
Gamesmith94134: global finance’s Supply-chain Revolution
“Open feedback mechanisms ensure a supply chain’s ability to respond to a changing environment, but, in the case of financial supply chains, feedback mechanisms can amplify shocks until the whole system blows up.” It was because there is no firewall available during the crisis, and the pipeline was open with few operators in the financial control like Mr. Sheng said, also, there is even fewer currencies like Euro-dollar only was available in most transactions, even though the public funds like sovereignty debts were being privatized in the open trade, and it create the explosion by volume in sum of money was credited. Firewalls I took off the technical terminology means there is no safety transitory zone established physically, that our financial system allowed the flow in the supply chain freely as the computerized transaction allowed, and there is less time available for reexamination on lack of control, source of origin, birth of credits.
Especially, when the parties took the international reserves for granted that Fed and ECB cut it interest rates to its minimal for the non-inflationary measure that many would consider money are free if they can beat the time. Generally, the 22 players turned the international financial market into their casino. When their governments were the ones who called to upbeat its economies from the recession after the expansion of the debts hitting it fiscal ceiling, and the slow down cut their productivity in near recession. At the same time, the rigid exchange rate went lopsided that created the tension between the debtor and creditor. It exploded.
At present, the financial system must evolve itself with firewalls that stop contagion of the collateral damage over the money with no backing, and shrink the pool of cash for credit lending. Some might call it deleverage of the past 20 years mishaps, or change of climate in our global financial that the supply-chain must stop and check itself; besides, most of us would know by now that money supply and productivity are not on the same parallel at certain point under the influence of inflation an deflation. Without the assurance of the balance payment or imbalance of its exchange rates, the supply-chain will reverse itself.
Perhaps, I like it better if the sovereignty debt and private investment should not be classified as same in enjoying the low interest rate, that sovereignty debt should be handled separately by the Central Banks and World Bank if it does affect the exchange rate when evaluated by IMF for it answer to lack of control.
Transfer Unions must be established to void unsafe transaction and the Trans-continental Zoning to confirm the source of the origin on all transactions when the transaction is registered to enter its zones, or cut hot cashes that undervaluing ones currency from another that influences the international currency exchange rate. Besides, I see the floating rate system is a joke if it put sovereignty in defensive; and it should go with its yardstick like performance that values at each quarters.
Finally, international banks are “too big to fall” should became a legend only, and they must be downsized that international is not licensed to evade sovereignty. There are more of reforms available in regional account and obey to safety net where it allows. Perhaps, if the banker can purchase these sovereignty bonds and metro bonds from the central bank like FED or ECB instead of chasing the wild goose in the open market; the general public can have some credits available for doing business.
If someone question on the equities dealing among the banks, why only the politicians who talk over the policy on financial and there is no financial police system to oversight the banking as a whole. I think the United Nations Security Council can build a better division on financial security than G7 or G20, and it is inclusive for the globalized finance and my past experience tells me so. Evolve or not, we may stand by and watch the outcome of our present crisis and it not over yet till everyone would feel safe from hegemony through these firewalls. If some suggest cooperation from community in forgiving ones’ debt, it would be worse than my New Year project in losing weight every year, and I have been laughing at myself all my life. Without firewall in safeguard one’s wealth, each would isolate itself from contagion for a long, long time.
May the Buddha bless you?
owais 04:05 17 Jan 12
I am not sure I entirely agree on your characterization of agriculture subsidies as "beggar thyself". You do mention costs imposed by such actions on other countries, but if seen within the overall message of your piece which is about rationalization/prioritization of global actions then putting agriculture subsidies as a "beggar thyself" is questionable. In fact agriculture subsidies, particularly by developed countries should be more on the global agenda because of the huge costs it imposes on poor countries.
I also think that besides domestic sovereignty and non interference, appetite for global leadership also needs confidence which some of the emerging economies are finally exhibiting with the economic success that they have achieved. Thus, although it may take a bit more time I expect these emerging and rapidly growing economies to take on greater role including leadership in setting the global governance agenda.
Owais
gamesmith94134 06:19 17 Jan 12
gamesmith94134 05:06 19 Oct 11
Gamesmith94134: Sarkozy Prods Regulators
Mr. Sarkozy called for minimum cash deposits for derivatives trades, a central global registry for all commodities trades, and drafting new rules against "market abuse" and World Trade Organization has the best of Inter-agency Task Force on Statistics of International Trade in Services and Inter-agency Task Force on International Merchandise Trade Statistics available.
However, the data does not give the best of control even through the offices of the World Trade Organization; it would depend on the zone like EU or OCED in charge on the anti-trust or Sherman act in similar that oversees on the mergers or purchases. The best controls of on the derivatives trades that even call of minimum cash deposit, because cash deposit is not sufficient for control since commodities and resource trading has a delay process and element in completion of the trade. If seller and buyer compromise on the deal, then, Zone by EU or OCED might underwrite legislatives in resolving the imbalance through its political power to extend control over its regional resources. Then, the sovereignty nation can purpose the regulator to monitor the transaction or settle on the disputes over the region. The best choice is through the global supervision like World Trade Organization since the Organization can provide a better vision on the both trade and merchandise interactions. And the GATT is part of its control too. This is the best protection on fair trade if the regulators can act properly according to the legislative and apply its duty with free will.
The worst scenario is the creation of such gatekeeper by another power broker through the community of commerce that no one would have a specific control over it and each sovereignty nations cannot get its collective bargain from it gatekeeper. Then, gatekeeper turns jailor.
I think Lee A Licata wrote: “I believe a freer economy, with fewer rules, but with rules that make some sense, (like if you buy the commodity, you have to take possession of it, and if you short the commodity, you have to have possession first) is the way to go....”
May the Buddha bless you?
Zsolt 10:37 17 Jan 12
It is a very interesting article but I am not sure it takes the present world system into consideration completely.
We all agree that today we live in a global world.
Global means that we are interconnected at multiple levels, not only economically but also politically, culturally, in sports, education, and through the Internet this interconnected nature extended into the virtual realm as well. We cannot even drink our morning coffee without being connected to multiple countries, and thousands of people contributing in order to take a single sip. Today we see hundreds of examples of our interconnected and interdependent network through economical, financial problems, environmental issues, how even a small change by one person or nation can have vast efcet on someone else even on the other side of the planet.
In short in such a global, integral system there are no policies, plans, actions that would not cause "spillovers". Whatever one individual or nation does, effects each part of the network. Some people call this the "butterfly effect".
Since the article mentions education as "non-spillover" policy, what can we say about racism, hate, discrmination for example, raising children in one country to hate people in other countries based on culture, genetics or religions? Or in the face of the mass immigration of the workforce in the global world harmonising professional education is essential to make sure the migrating work force is useful at every corner of the planet.
Most importantly it is a general, harmonized global education that can raise a new generation, or educate the present adult population on how to live, survive and prosper in this global human society which in essence behaves as a single organism whether we like it or not.
Today in the face of the global economical crisis we lose sight of that economics is just a single, although very important symptom of the true multi faceted global human crisis, which requires the building of completely new political and economical structures for example in order to build a peaceful, sustainable future for all of us.
And this process starts with a global education program which will give the foundations for all the other structures.
kirkomrik 01:10 14 Jan 12
Hey Dani,
Great article. Thank you.
I've postedon this as well
http://wp.me/p26aPU-aX
- kk