Odličen komentar Jeffa Madricka v New York Timesu glede tega, kako se je v praksi izšla dogma o splošni koristnosti proste trgovine in globalizacije in zakaj danes Američani tako nasprotujejo nadaljnji liberalizaciji trgovine. Prišel je do podobnih sklepov kot Dani Rodrik in blizu mojemu pogledu na koristnost procesa globalizacije. Države, ki so se odprle na vrat na nos, brez varoval, glede trgovine in kapitalskih tokov, so jo odnesle bistveno slabše (dolge stagnacije in finančne krize), kot pa države, ki so obe vrsti tokov nadzirano liberalizirale (Kitajska, Indija, Brazilija). Paradoksalno pa so najbolj pridobile države, ki so popolnoma kršile pravila liberalizacije v času intenzivnega gospodarskega razvoja in izvajale močne industrijske politike (sedanje OECD države z močnim protekcionizmom v drugi polovici 19. stoletja, azijski tigri v drugi polovici 20. stoletja z izvoznimi subvencijami).

Madrick (avtor pravkar izšle knjige “Seven Bad Ideas: How Mainstream Economists Have Damaged America and the World” ) iz tega izvede tudi nekaj pravil za bodoče politike liberalizacije (glejte spodaj).

Komentar se dobro dopolnjuje z mojim jutrišnjim komentarjem v Sobotni prilogi.

Expanding global markets is a worthy goal, but history offers lessons that can lead to more constructive trade, capital and currency policies.

The first is that gradual reform is more effective than a sudden turn to free markets, deregulation and privatization. Shock therapy in Russia was a failure, and nations from Argentina to Thailand paid a dear price for liberalizing capital markets too quickly. The historical models of sustained growth are clear: gradual development of core industries; economic diversification; improvements in literacy and education, especially for women; slow, deliberate opening of capital markets; and the protection of labor from abusive pay and working conditions.

A second lesson is that nations should be left space for experimentation. Some spend too much on social programs, others too little; some need transportation infrastructure, others improved banking; some require literacy programs, others advanced education; some need to subsidize emerging industries, others to privatize bloated state industries; some need worker protections like unemployment insurance, others need labor mobility. Most have too few regulations to protect the environment, finance and consumers.

A third lesson is that models of growth that depend indefinitely on exports are not sustainable. The large imbalances in trade between China and the United States distort economies. The same is true of Germany’s huge trade surpluses, which are based on a fixed euro and restrained domestic wages.

Finally — and this is especially true for rich nations — every free-trade agreement should come with a plan to strengthen the social safety net, through job training, help for displaced workers, and longer-term and higher unemployment benefits. Free-trade deals must also be accompanied by policies to stimulate growth through infrastructure investments, subsidies for clean energy and, perhaps, other industries, as well as loans to small businesses, and even wage subsidies.

Free trade has been a priority for the Obama administration, but Congress, wisely, has not given it “fast track” authority, as it gave Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to negotiate new trade deals without its approval.

Any trans-Pacific agreement, its terms still a secret, should be discussed in the open with ample protection of worker rights and healthy debate over regulatory changes requested by developing countries or big business. A trade agreement with the European Union makes more sense, but the danger is that environmental, financial and product-safety regulations will be watered down to meet the demands of corporate interests.

Economists are correct that free trade need not be a zero-sum game. But the genuine gains in prosperity from free trade can be maximized, and broadly shared, only if the policy errors of the past 40 years are properly understood.

Vir: Jeff Madrick, New York Times