How the U.S. screwed up globalization
Harvard's Dani Rodrik explains: If you play in the global economy, you bring an industrial-strength safety net
Topics: Globalization, How the World Works, Healthcare Reform, Politics News
I just started reading Dani Rodrik’s “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy.” Longtime HTWW readers will recall that I am a big fan of his idiosyncratic work, which often runs counter to the orthodoxy of mainstream economics but seems to do a lot better at representing the world as it actually is than the rest of his profession manages. And true to form, I hadn’t read 20 pages of the new book (now arriving in stores, but not officially released until late February) before I found myself compelled to share one of his typically provocative insights.
In Chapter 1, “Markets and States,” Rodrik discusses the “amazing fact” that the richest countries also have the biggest governments: “with very few exceptions, the more developed an economy, the greater the share of its resources that is consumed by the public sector.” His explanation: efficiently functioning markets require strong government institutions and oversight and intervention.
But there’s another correlation that’s even more interesting. Rodrik found himself befuddled by the work of Yale political scientist David Cameron, who had discovered that the economies with the largest governments were also those that “were the most exposed to international markets.” Since this was “a highly counterintuitive argument if you are used to thinking that markets can prosper only where the state does not intrude,” Rodrik decided to disprove the thesis by crunching the data himself.
But he failed. The correlation held.
Where was this correlation coming from? I considered many possible explanations, but none survived my battery of tests. In the end the evidence seemed to point strongly toward the social insurance motive. People demand compensation against risk when their economies are more exposed to international economic forces, and governments respond by erecting broader safety nets, either through social programs or through public employment… This need for expansion isn’t just because governments are necessary to establish peace and security, protect property rights, enforce contracts, and manage the macro economy. It is also because they are needed to preserve the legitimacy of markets by protecting people from the risks and insecurities markets bring with them.
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More Andrew Leonard.





Obama Pledges Support To Moore, Oklahoma
What Will The "Game Change" Sequel Be About?
Fox News Involvement May Spark Republican Outrage Over Media Spying
Liberal Super PAC Had Secret Bain Ties
Comments
32 Comments