{"id":31368,"date":"2017-04-18T11:00:17","date_gmt":"2017-04-18T01:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=31368"},"modified":"2017-04-18T10:49:28","modified_gmt":"2017-04-18T00:49:28","slug":"late-compensate-free-trades-losers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/late-compensate-free-trades-losers\/","title":{"rendered":"Too late to compensate free trade\u2019s losers"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
It appears that a new consensus has taken hold these days among the world\u2019s business and policy elites about how to address the anti-globalization backlash that populists such as Donald Trump have so ably exploited. Gone are the confident assertions that globalization benefits everyone: we must, the elites now concede, accept that globalization produces both winners and losers. But the correct response is not to halt or reverse globalization; it is to ensure that the losers are compensated.<\/p>\n
The new consensus is stated succinctly<\/a> by Nouriel Roubini: the backlash against globalization \u2018can be contained and managed through policies that compensate workers for its collateral damage and costs,\u2019 he argues. \u2018Only by enacting such policies will globalization\u2019s losers begin to think that they may eventually join the ranks of its winners.\u2019<\/p>\n This argument seems to make eminent sense, both economically and politically. Economists have long known that trade liberalization causes income redistribution and absolute<\/em> losses for some groups, even as it enlarges a country\u2019s overall economic pie. Therefore, trade deals unambiguously enhance national wellbeing only to the extent that winners compensate losers. Compensation also ensures support for trade openness from broader constituencies and should be good politics.<\/p>\n Prior to the welfare state, the tension between openness and redistribution was resolved<\/a> either by large-scale emigration of workers or by re-imposing trade protection, especially in agriculture. With the rise of the welfare state, the constraint became less binding, allowing for more trade liberalization. Today the advanced countries that are the most exposed<\/a> to the international economy are also those where safety nets and social insurance programs\u2014welfare states\u2014are the most extensive. Research<\/a> in Europe has shown that losers from globalization within countries tend to favor more active social programs and labor-market interventions.<\/p>\n If opposition to trade has not become politically salient in Europe today, it is partly because such social protections remain strong there, despite having weakened in recent years. It is not an exaggeration to say that the welfare state and the open economy have been flip sides of the same coin during much of the twentieth century.<\/p>\n Compared to most European countries, the United States was a latecomer to globalization. Until recently, its large domestic market and relative geographical insulation provided considerable protection from imports, especially from low-wage countries. It also traditionally had a weak welfare state.<\/p>\n When the US began opening itself up to imports from Mexico, China, and other developing countries in the 1980s, one might have expected it to go the European route. Instead, under the sway of Reaganite and market-fundamentalist ideas, the US went in an opposite direction. As Larry Mishel<\/a>, president of the Economic Policy Institute, puts it, \u2018ignoring the losers was deliberate.\u2019 In 1981, the \u2018trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program was one of the first things Reagan attacked, cutting its weekly compensation payments.\u2019<\/p>\n The damage continued under subsequent, Democratic administrations. In Mishel\u2019s words, \u2018if free-traders had actually cared about the working class, they could have supported a full range of policies to support robust wage growth: full employment, collective bargaining, high labor standards, a robust minimum wage, and so on.\u2019 And all of this could have been done \u2018before administering \u2018shocks\u2019 by expanding trade with low-wage countries.\u2019<\/p>\n