{"id":30163,"date":"2017-01-13T14:30:11","date_gmt":"2017-01-13T03:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=30163"},"modified":"2017-01-13T11:58:04","modified_gmt":"2017-01-13T00:58:04","slug":"getting-past-globalization-bogeyman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/getting-past-globalization-bogeyman\/","title":{"rendered":"Getting past the globalization bogeyman"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
As we enter 2017, globalization has become a dirty word. Many see it as a conspiracy by elites to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. According to its critics, globalization leads to an inexorable increase in income and wealth inequality: the rich get richer, and everyone else gets nothing. One bogeyman begets another.<\/p>\n
While there is a kernel of truth in this view, it gets more wrong than right. And getting it wrong has consequences: at a minimum, scapegoating; more worryingly, bad policies that are likely to make our real problems worse.<\/p>\n
The first thing we need to understand when we think about globalization is that it has benefited an enormous number of people who are not part of the global elite. Despite continuing population growth, the number of people who are poor worldwide has fallen by more than a billion in the last 30 years. The beneficiaries include the no-longer poor in, among other countries, India, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, South Korea, and Mexico. In the rich world, all income groups benefit, because goods\u2014from smartphones to clothing to children\u2019s toys\u2014are cheaper. Policies aimed at reversing globalization will lead only to a decrease in real income as goods become more expensive.<\/p>\n
The call to rein in globalization reflects a belief that it has eliminated jobs in the West, sending them East and South. But the biggest threat to traditional jobs is not Chinese or Mexican; it is a robot. That is why manufacturing output in the US continues to rise, even as manufacturing employment falls.<\/p>\n
So our focus should be on managing rapid technological change so that it benefits everyone\u2014no easy feat, but not impossible, either. Tariffs and trade wars will do nothing to help.<\/p>\n
It is true that globalization has fueled greater income inequality. But much of this increase should be welcomed, not condemned. Whether inequality is bad depends on how it comes about and what it does. There is nothing inherently bad<\/a> about inequality.<\/p>\n In India and China, globalization has brought greater income inequality, because it provided new opportunities\u2014in manufacturing, in back-office jobs, and in software development\u2014that have benefited millions of people. But not everyone. That is just the way progress happens; while we might like it better if everyone were to prosper in tandem, such situations are incredibly rare. To decry this sort of inequality is to decry progress itself.<\/p>\n In rich countries, too, some<\/em> of the increase in inequality reflects better opportunities, owing to the move from a national to a global market. Those with exceptional talent and innovations now have the entire world in which to get rich. It is hardly a crime to get wealthy by sharing talent with more people or by making new things that benefit everyone.<\/p>\n Of course, there is a dark side to inequality. The rich have outsize political influence, and can often rewrite the rules to benefit themselves, their companies, or their friends. In the United States, this is not much of a problem in presidential elections, which remain open; but it is a huge problem for Congress, where our \u2018representatives\u2019 are so constrained by the need to raise money that they are unlikely to be elected or to stay elected without support from wealthy interests.<\/p>\n