Ever since the financial crisis erupted in 2008, there has been a call for “greater transparency” in financial services, and the same appeal has been used to force oil and mining companies to reveal their payments to governments of countries where they operate. But the recent Wikileaks imbroglio raises a key question: is greater transparency always good?
PRINCETON – Transparency seems to be the word of the day in a wide array of policy domains. But is greater transparency always good?
Ever since the financial crisis erupted in 2008, there has been a call for “greater transparency” in financial services. The financial-reform law passed by the United States Congress last month requires improved transparency from banks and other financial-services firms. Moreover, thanks to the hard work of Oxfam America and the Publish What You Pay coalition, the law also requires oil and mining companies – both US and foreign – that want to raise capital in the US to disclose their payments to the governments of countries in which they operate.
For many poor countries, wealth in natural resources is a curse rather than a benefit. Corrupt rulers can use the billions they receive from oil and mining corporations for personal extravagance, or to buy arms for troops to crush democratic resistance movements.
To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.
Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.
For four decades, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth under a centralized, authoritarian political system, far outpacing growth in the Western liberal democracies. So, is Chinese President Xi Jinping right to double down on authoritarianism, and is the “China model” truly a viable rival to Western-style democratic capitalism?
Artificial intelligence could be either the best or the worst thing that ever happened to mankind. To prepare for the profound changes to lives and livelihoods that lie ahead, the European Union should start establishing rules to protect all Europeans – and give the rest of the world a model to follow.
The global economy today is dominated by three major players – China, the EU, and the US – with roughly equal trading volumes and limited incentive to fight for the rules-based global trading system. With cooperation unlikely, the world should prepare itself for the erosion of the World Trade Organization.
Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US has shown. The challenge is to minimize the risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.
Despite all of the doom and gloom over the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union, key manufacturing indicators are at their highest levels in four years, and the mood for investment may be improving. While parts of the UK are certainly weakening economically, others may finally be overcoming longstanding challenges.
With Brexit looming, the UK has no choice but to redesign its future trading relationships. As a major producer of sophisticated components, its long-term trade strategy should focus on gaining deep and unfettered access to integrated cross-border supply chains – and that means adopting a multilateral approach.
Many leading Republicans who stand by Donald Trump, and even the multi-billionaires who fund them, may have misgivings about the US president, just as the industrialists of Germany's Herrenklub probably once despised Hitler. But with few exceptions, they continue to support him – and for similar reasons.
The Year Ahead 2018
The world’s leading thinkers and policymakers examine what’s come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.