Koliko integracije je treba žrtvovati za ohranitev suverenosti in demokracije?

Če je še pred dvema desetletjema, ko je Dani Rodrik pisal o politični trilemi globalizacije, bilo naslovno vprašanje irelevantno oziroma je bilo postavljeno prej kot “Koliko demokracije in suverenosti je smiselno žrtvovati za več odprtosti?“, je danes povsem samoumevno v večini zahodnih držav. Dejstvo je, da je “globalizacija šla predaleč” iz vidika porušitve notranjega gospodarskega in političnega ravnotežja v razvitih zahodnih državah in da je zaradi tega to udarilo nazaj v obliki desničarskega populizma. In dejstvo je, da večina zahodnih držav zdaj išče poti nazaj k manj odprtosti in več suverenosti in demokracije.

Kar se mene tiče, je bil Brettonwoodski sistem s kapitalskimi kontrolami (brez prostega pretoka finančnega kapitala) in z nepopolno liberalizirano trgovino (predvsem pri občutljivih proizvodih, kot so hrana, tekstil in jeklo) iz vidika ekonomsko – politične vzdržnosti optimalen. In kar se mene tiče, bi bil v kontekstu EU povratek nazaj na prostotrgovinsko območje (brez monetarne unije in brez prostega pretoka kapitala ter brez popolne mobilnosti delovne sile in trgovine s storitvami) iz vidika ekonomsko – politične vzdržnosti optimalen. Hočeš nočeš se nam zdaj dogaja nekontroliran povratek nazaj na staro, zadnje delujoče stanje. In ker gre za nekontroliran proces, ki ga vodijo populistične desničarske struje, se lahko v tem procesu marsikaj nezaželenega zakuha. Tudi razpad EU in kakšna vojna.

Spodaj je krasen komentar iz Financial Timesa o Rodrikovi trilemi ter dveh novih knjigah Ivana Krasteva in Steva Richardsa. Vredno poletnega branja.

A decade ago, the economist Dani Rodrik identified what he called the “inescapable trilemma of the world economy”. According to Rodrik, democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are incompatible. You can combine any two of those elements, he said, but not have all three simultaneously.

Nation states in the age of globalisation face a stark choice, therefore. They could, for instance, pool their sovereignty in some sort of worldwide federation, tailoring their politics to the needs of global markets. But if the experience of the EU is anything to go by, the prospects for such a utopian scheme are not good. If neighbouring countries with a shared cultural and historical inheritance struggle to integrate, what hope is there for federation on a global scale?

That leaves two other options in Rodrik’s view. States could retain their sovereignty but make the pursuit of global economic integration their over­riding policy objective, to the exclusion of other domestic goals. But that seems incompatible with the practice of democratic politics, which is all about making trade-offs between competing aims or goods. The remaining course, then, would be to sacrifice some measure of economic integration in the interests of sovereignty and democracy. This is roughly what happened in the postwar Bretton Woods system, in which countries retained capital controls as a brake on trade liberalisation.

Rodrik’s thesis has aged rather well. Indeed, if anything, the political and economic turmoil that has shaken the world’s major democracies in the 10 years since the global financial crisis shows that the trilemma is sharper and more painful than ever. It also shows that governments are no nearer coming to terms with it than they were when he first formulated it. Two new books — one by the Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev, the other by the British political journalist Steve Richards — are, in different ways, attempts to wrestle with the far-reaching consequences of their failure to do so.

Preberite več v Jonathan Derbyshire, Financial Times

%d bloggers like this: