agonzalez1_Stefano Montesi_Corbis_Getty Images_TTIP

La globalización es la única respuesta

Aug 6, 2016 Anabel González

CIUDAD DE WASHINGTON – El referéndum para decidir la salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (brexit) y las elecciones presidenciales en Estados Unidos han mostrado, entre otras cosas, que la falta de confianza pública en la integración global va en aumento. Esa desconfianza podría descarrilar los nuevos acuerdos comerciales que están en proceso de negociación e impedir que se inicien otros en el futuro.

El peligro implícito de este escenario no debería subestimarse. El aislacionismo y el proteccionismo, llevados al extremo, podrían poner en peligro el motor económico del comercio que ha traído paz y prosperidad al mundo durante décadas.

Como exministra de Comercio de Costa Rica, sé cuán difícil es para los países –desarrollados y en desarrollo por igual– diseñar políticas comerciales que beneficien a toda su población. Pero porque manejar los efectos de la globalización es complejo, no significa que deberíamos rendirnos y desistir.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s leading thinkers, including long reads, book reviews, topical collections, short-form analysis and predictions, and exclusive interviews; every new issue of the PS Quarterly magazine (print and digital); the complete PS archive; and more. Subscribe now to PS Premium.

Overcoming the Poisonous Politics of Protectionism PS OnPoint
The Washington Post/Getty Images
Subscriber Exclusive

Overcoming the Poisonous Politics of Protectionism

Simon Tilford examines how Barry Eichengreen, Joseph Stiglitz, Laura Tyson, and other <em>Project Syndicate</em> contributors address the anti-trade sentiment roiling advanced economies.

8

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 13 Comments on this article

Moses Solemon Aug 17, 2016

حترم رأي أنابيل جونزاليس و لا أوافقها موقفها من العولمة. إن العولمة لم تفد الفقراء و الطبقة المتوسطة بشيء بل جاءت نتائجها كارثية على المجتمعات الإننسانية و البيئة الطبيعة و موارد الأرض من الصين شرقا و حتى هاواي غربا.
كان المستفيدون هم الأثرياء جدا و الشركات الأممية و البنوك العالمية.
و كان الضحايا هم كل من هو فوق سن الخمسين من اليابان و مرورا بأوروبا و حتى الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.
لا أرى أن هناك مبررا أخلاقيا أو إنسانيا يجعلني أدافع عن العولمة التي ظلمت بلايين من البشر..
و في كتابي الصادر حديثا : " هذا هو الاقتصاد الحق" ذكرت هذه النقاط و ناقشت أيضا البدائل المحتملة لما بعد العولمة .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Lintner Aug 9, 2016

I see the author is trying to insert some kind of morality in globalisation. Im sorry, but the wellbeing of asians, africans and south americans is not the reponsibility of western governments. It´s the responsibility of their local governments, and if they are too corrupt or inept, it´s their problem, not ours. It would be way too easy to offload all the problems of the world on the backs of american or european taxpayers. The free ride is over. Time for responsibility. All over the world, not just in developed countries.
- jagjeet sinha Aug 13, 2016
  
  + 1
  
  @Peter
  
  The responsibility is indeed theirs - notwithstanding the author's insinuations of morality in globalization.
  Having seen how India repeatedly squandered its opportunities only to find China ten times larger.
  The corruption, the politics, the ineptness - and then try and blame The British Empire for their conundrum.
  Global Capital became infinitely more accessible in the 1990s - Global Funds were interested in higher NAV, wherever.
  Whether the higher NAV came out of China or India or Africa - was of minor concern.
  The free ride - abusing the morality of globalization - is indeed over.
  Time for responsibility.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
george jonisch Aug 9, 2016

"Populist and rightwing politicians" vs "us enlightened sophisticates" has been a major intellectual theme of late. I find myself needing to review the old definition of populism. For instance is it possible that Richard Haass' weekend article in WSJ.COM has some realistic concerns on an international geopolitical level, that contradict a more local-oriented approach? Is that local concern to be called "populism"? If the western urban definitions of cleanliness or decorum and deliberate restraint of emotional expression is suddenly confronted in "changed" neighborhood grocery stores or in a local parent teacher meetings and if that disparity causes communal disharmony and approbation; is that populism?
Are people entitled to expect maintenance of "social values" and "a way of life"? The constitution says we must let people choose their own religious behaviors. Does it guarantee agrarian village values in a industrial urban neighborhood? Does it guarantee minority religious law to usurp majority courts in secular populations? Is that populism? For the majority of middle class western neighborhoods the sudden and unacknowledged insertion of these and other "subtle" ways of being tkes away years and generations of "investment" in a person's most valuable possession; the home and "quality of life" around that home. Are these "populist" concerns? Really?
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Lintner Aug 9, 2016

Globalisation means that 6 billion living in poor countries have a claim on wealth of 1 billion living in rich countries. That´s not going to work, the discrepancy is too big. You cant expect americans or europeans working hard for stagnating or even declining wages forever. Globalisation is finished. Get used to it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Aug 8, 2016

The half lie is doubly dangerous. Globalization does indeed provide greater efficiency - this is not contentious. But then you hide behind this and suggest more of the same winner takes all economics that created the mess we are in. Oh wait, I see it now, you work for the World Bank and so elitespeak and doublespeak are your mother tongues.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ken Verrett Aug 8, 2016

Free trade and Globalization do not result in a short run zero sum. Both depend on competitive advantages to benefit. A narrow minority by definition will suffer. Theoretically the factors of production will adjust. But not in the short run. Where free trade and globalization has failed it is in the negotiators returning home and developing policies to help redirect those factors that are expected to be hurt. Not doing so over time creates a growing minority, merging and vocal, to threaten the long run promise. In fact that may be the Achilles Heel: a void of leaders capable of recognizing the short run downsides, and with an inability to convince the population to prepare for the expected disruption.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Aug 7, 2016

The globalized rape of the planet is doubtless more efficient than the isolated local/national version -- but the net result for humanity in the long run is exactly the same.

So to my view, globalization may indeed be "the only answer" -- but an answer to what is, in the end, the wrong question -- and dangerously so.

We need a "revaluation of values" that defines the future and the nature of distributive justice in terms that go beyond the economic. Without that, it seems to me that we will continue a descent into a Hobbesian state of nature and the war of all against all -- with survival the stake.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul A. Myers Aug 7, 2016

Globalized world trade is preponderantly in tradeable goods and services. But if advanced countries elevate their aggregate demand by increased production of public goods which are mostly produced using local labor, then employment can be increased while increasing the overall standard of living through the richer provisioning of public goods.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Aug 6, 2016

Not that simple. Germany has run a successful policy within the EU of marginalizing the UK. As both the former German ambassador to the EU and the Bavarian leader have made clear, this is because saying no to a British Europe was an insurance policy against Globalization. What Germany has done is ruthlessly prioritise its middle class over the stability of the Eurozone, leading to mass migration from the south to the Uk, and ironically, as that was a straw that broke the Camels back - hence Brexit.
- Steve Hurst Aug 6, 2016
  
  @Andrew
  To that you can add the Reunification and pressure on the ECB to lower rates to help enable it inducing an EU bubble, followed by the idea of capturing the ex communist states as geopolitics to keep them from Russian inflluence, seen again with Ukraine
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Aug 6, 2016

Why is globalization the only answer? So the rich can get richer or I can compete with someone in the 3rd world who earns a wage I cannot possibly compete with? Nobody asked me if I wanted to reduced to poverty to help the 3rd world. Guess what I don't. You talk about good faith, The only faith I have seen in globalization is that the rich should get even richer. There is NO good faith involved at all. The negotiators of these agreements are representing their interests which is to say corporate interests not mine. More Globalization? Are you really trying to incite violence and revolt? The losers in the first world are already rebellious and you wish further job and income losses ? Obviously you are not in the same world with people who are paid by the hour.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 6, 2016

'The danger implied by this scenario should not be underestimated.'

Danger to who exactly?

'Finally, and most important, wealthy countries should support developing countries’ efforts to integrate themselves further into the global economy.'

I believe this is called unconditionally give us your cash as well as your jobs

Most in the West have got charity fatigue having heard for decades from developing countries they will shortly walk on their own but never do. I believe this is called aid dependency

'First, countries should dismantle protectionist measures they have in place, and make a firm commitment not to implement policies that distort global markets.'

Fine, go talk to China
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/hEd0VZdes

La globalización es la única respuesta

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Overcoming the Poisonous Politics of Protectionism

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

La globalización es la única respuesta

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification