Comments on: Is globalization in danger of going too far?

By: ivan

ivan — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:19:15 +0000

I agree with DDR. As Brad DeLong points out: this piece from Rodrik isn’t about economics, it’s about politics: saving social-democracy in the age of neoliberalism.

By: DRR

DRR — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:34:11 +0000

The more I read Rodrik, the less I’m enamored of him and the less suspicion I have that he’s arguing in good faith.

They need flexibility to interfere in trade when trade conflicts with deeply held values at home – as, for example, with child labour or health and safety concerns – or severely weakens the bargaining power of workers.

I.E. Carte Blanche, with a broad definition of these already broad caveats to close off trade.

Dani Rodrik is a protectionist & trade reactionary of the EPI school, who by his own admission is a product of reactionary trade policy. Which is fine, except that he keeps pretending to be something else. The only difference between him and Jeff Faux is that he comes from a better school and Jeff Faux is at least honest.

By: Richard Baldwin

Richard Baldwin — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:16:43 +0000

Dani is at it again. This time, though, he has forgotten that Europe has much less problem with globalisation since we do have policies that pre-commit us to sharing the pains and gains.
BTW, negotiating policy space, that is what they do right now. The rich do it by excluding certain sectors and using AD/CVD and the poor nations do it by not making any committments (and they almost never have on tariffs).

By: Emmanuel

Emmanuel — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:52:24 +0000

Irwin and Rodrik seem to cleave neatly into the hyperglobalist and transformationalist views of globalization. Perhaps my bias is self-serving as a political science major, but I stick closer to the view that governments still have an ability to shape the progress of globalization. The so-called there is no alternative (TINA) to economic integration can only be enabled by political choices.