Dani Rodrik (Ökonomeprofessor an der Harvard University):
Das Globalisierungs-Paradox. Die Demokratie und die Zukunft der Weltwirtschaft. Aus dem Englischen von Karl Heinz Siber.
München: C.H Beck 2011 , 416 S.
Verlagsinformation, Inhaltsverzeichnis und Leseprobe >>>
Dani Rodrik. The Globalization Paradox. Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company 2011, 288 pp.
Die Globalisierung, die für viele in der Welt mehr Wohlstand brachte, ruft nun mehr und mehr kontroverse Aspekte hervor. Darauf bezieht sich dieses dieses interessante Buch.
In der EINLEITUNG - Die
Geschichte der Globalisierung, anders erzählt:
wird diese prägnant auf S. 17 skizziert. Wiederholt sich wie 1914 die Kontraktion des Welthandels, zumal die Corona-Pandemie seit dem Frühjahr 2020 nicht eingedämmt werden konnte?
Verdeutlichend schildert der Autor Ökonomen
sind auch Menschen (S. 22ff), die mit wissenschaftlichen
Zauberformeln agieren (S. 23) basierend und sich dabei im Horizont der Ideen von Adam Smith u.a. bewegen.
Das
Kapitel EINS (S. 27 ff.): Von Märkten und Staaten wirft einen historischen Blick auf die Globalisierung: Vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg wurde mit dem
Goldstandard der erste Versuch einer Art von Globalisierung unternommen. Die
transnationalen Vorschriften, die dabei geschaffen wurden, ermöglichten den
freien Fluss von Kapital und Waren. Allerdings wurde dadurch der politische
Gestaltungsspielraum der beteiligten nationalen Regierungen begrenzt. Man kann
in diesem Fall also von einer „goldenen Zwangsjacke“ sprechen.
Rodrik betont,
dass diese Art von System in der Vergangenheit stets unvereinbar mit den
Anforderungen des Demokratieprinzips war. Er verweist dabei insbesondere
auf den Versuch Großbritanniens Anfang
der 1930er-Jahre, zum Goldstandard zurückzukehren. Die Regierung musste
feststellen, dass es so unmöglich war, den wachsenden Ansprüchen einer größer
gewordenen Wählerschaft und der organisierten Arbeiterschaft gerecht zu werden.
In Kapitel ZWEI (S. 51 ff.) werden Aufstieg und Fall der ersten großen Globalisierung beschrieben und mit Kapitel DREI (S. 79 ff.) weiter unter der Frage verdeutlicht: Warum erkennt nicht jeder die Vorteile des Freihandels?
Das KAPITEL 4 untersucht näher (S. 103ff.) Bretton-Woods-System, das Allgemeine Zoll- und Handelsabkommen [GATT] und die World Trade Organisation [WTO]. Es geht um Chancen und Schwierigkeiten des Handels in einer politisierten Welt.
Im KAPITEL 5 (S. 129 ff.) werden die finanzielle Globalisierung und ihre Eskapaden kritisch dargestellt. Dazu gehört vertiefend auch KAPITEL 6 mit dem Bild Die Füchse und Igel des Finanzkapitals.
KAPITEL 7- Arme Länder in einer reichen Welt beschreibt die zentrale Herausforderung für die Weltwirtschaft. Sie besteht nach Rodrik darin, dass sich einige Länder schlichtweg in einer besseren Position befinden als andere. Demgegenüber ist es notwendig auf den Handelsfundamentalismus in den Tropen - KAPITEL 8 zu verweisen, um das politischeTrilemma der Weltwirtschaft - KAPITEL 9 - also die Unvereinbarkeit von Nationalstaat, Demokratie und grenzenloser Globalisierung ("Hyperglobalisierung") zu verstehen.
KAPITEL 10 steht unter der Frage: Ist eine Globalregierung machbar? Ist sie wünschenswert? Das sind Überlegungen, die in KAPITEL 11 unter der Frage der Digitalisierung fortgesetzt werden: Kapitalismus 3.0.
Im abschließenden KAPITEL 12 erklärt Rodrik, wie eine Globalisierung mit Augenmaß aussehen kann, was angesichts der Gewinner und Verlierer in der Weltwirtschaft und im Horizont der aktuellen Probleme unabdingbar ist. Es ist nämlich ausgesprochen schwer, für die Zukunft der Weltwirtschaft optimistisch zu sein.
Daher folgt im EPILOG eine Gutenachtgeschichte
für Erwachsene.
Denn: Nationalstaaten,
Demokratie und "Hyperglobalisierung" passen nicht zusammen. Die
Demokratie leidet unter der Globalisierung, weil Firmen dem demokratisch
beschlossenen Arbeitsrecht und den Steuern entgehen können, indem sie in
anderen Staaten investieren. Rodriks Lösung: Die Staaten müssen höhere Zölle
erheben und die Finanzmärkte müssten besser reguliert werden. Globalisierungsgegner
finden damit eine Theorie-Bestätigung zu ihren Thesen. Aber Rodrik ignoriert dabei, dass die
Globalisierung arme Länder wie z.B. China reich machte.
Im NACHWORT von Gabriel Felbermayer (Präsident des Insituts für Weltwirtschaft): Von der Hyper- zur
Hypoglobalisierung? werden die Spannungen skizziert, die
zwischen dem Globalisierungsbestreben der Wirtschaft (1), dem Wunsch der Länder,
ihre Souveränität zu behalten (2), und dem Erfordernis der demokratischen
Legitimation (3) bestehen. Das „Trilemma“ der Weltwirtschaft erfordert Kompromisse um die
Globalisierung besser zu gestalten.
Besonders das Hauptrisiko der globalen Erderwärmung wird von Rodrik nicht
adäquat gewürdigt. Die Bewältigung dieser Gefahr stellt die Menschheit vor gewaltige
Herausforderungen. 2017 einigten sich viele Staaten im Klimavertrag von Paris (Dezember 2015) darauf, die Erderwärmung im Vergleich
zu vorindustriellen Werten deutlich unter zwei Grad Celsius zu halten. Zudem
verpflichten sich die Vertragspartner dazu, Anstrengungen zu unternehmen, sie
auf durchschnittlich auf nur 1,5 Grad zu begrenzen. Die Klimaschützer kritisieren
von daher den Energie- und Verkehrssektor.
Doch besonders dynamische Faktoren der Welternährung könnten alle
Bemühungen behindern, und zwar die Weltbevölkerung und die benötigten Ackerflächen sowie Ernteerträge betreffend:
Lebensmittelverschwendung und verändernde Ernährungsgewohnheiten.
Darauf verweisen Michael Clark u.a. (2020):
Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the
1.5° and 2°C climate change targets: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33154139/
Insgesamt bietet das Buch jedoch gute Denkanstöße mit klaren Erkenntnisgewinnen. Es hält auch für Laien und Fachleute gleichermaßen als Zielgruppe wichtige Einsichten bereit.
- Andreas Fahrmeir
(Hg.): Deutschland. Globalgeschichte
einer Nation.
München: C H Beck 2020, 936 S., Illustr.
Rezension >>> - Deutscher Bundestag. Schlussbericht der Enquete-Kommission Globalisierung
der Weltwirtschaft. Drucksache des deutschen Bundestages vom 12.06.2002
https://archive.org/details/ger-bt-drucksache-14-9200 - Ludger Kühnhardt
/Tilman Mayer (Hg.): Bonner Enzyklopädie der Globalität.
Band 1 und 2. Wiesbaden: Springer 2017, 1627 S.
Wiesbaden: Springer 2017, 1627 S.
- Dani Rodrik. The Globalization Paradox. Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, W.W. Norton & Company, 2011, 288 pp.
Review
Essay
International
Journal of Constitutional Law,
Volume 11, Issue 3, July 2013, 809–812 https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot031
Link: https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/11/3/809/789521
 |
| Inhaltsverzeichnis und ausführliche Leseprobe >>> |
„This is
a timely book on an important subject for the future of the world economy. It
fills a niche in the market: a text that is readable by the general public, but
that can also be appreciated by scholars and experts in the field. The book
represents a significant contribution to the literature on globalization,
drawing on historical, political, philosophical, and economic considerations.
The author, Dani Rodrik—Professor of International Political Economy at the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University—is one of the outstanding
economists of our generation, and certainly one of the more original thinkers.
I had the good fortune of getting to know him during my time in Columbia
University; he combines common sense with intellectual rigor and credibility.
The book,
which draws on earlier works by the author, is divided into twelve chapters,
following an introduction aptly entitled: “Recasting Globalization’s
Narrative.” Chapter 1 provides a historical assessment of the interaction
between states and markets. The “globalization’s conundrum” is summarized in
the following words: [G]lobal markets are doubly problematic: they lack the
institutional underpinnings of national markets and they fall between existing
institutional boundaries. This dual curse leaves economic globalization fragile
and full of transactions cots. . . . It renders the quest for perfect
globalization a fool’s errand (pp. 22–23).
Chapter
2, entitled “The Rise and Fall of the First Great Globalization,” discusses
first the ascendancy of free trade beliefs during the nineteenth century thanks
to the efforts of economists such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, and
then considers the gold standard and its eventual demise, finishing the chapter
with a brief exposé of the calamitous protectionism in the interwar period.
Chapter 3 makes a qualified case for free trade in the context of its implications
for distributive justice and social norms. Chapter 4 discusses the Bretton
Woods regime (“compromise”) and institutional framework and the move from the
transitional General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (following the
failed International Trade Organization) to the permanent World Trade
Organization (WTO). Drawing on Robert Lawrence, Rodrik makes a distinction
between “shallow” and “deep” integration:
Under
shallow integration, as in Bretton Woods, the trade regime requires relatively
little of domestic policy. Under deep integration, by contrast, the distinction
between domestic policy and trade policy disappears. . . . Global rules in
effect become the domestic rules (p. 83).
He
concludes that: [t]he reality is that we lack the domestic and global
strategies to manage globalization’s disruptions. As a result, we run the risk
that the social costs will outweigh the narrow economic gains and spark an even
worse globalization backlash (p. 88). Chapter 5 discusses what he calls
“Financial Globalization Follies,” commencing with the demise of the Bretton
Woods consensus on capital controls and fixed exchange rates, and concludes
that “financial globalization has failed us” and that countries that have
opened themselves to international capital markets have faced great risks and
crises.
Chapter
6, entitled “The Foxes and Hedgehogs of Finance,” divides economists into two
groups, foxes and hedgehogs. Rodrik draws on the ancient saying attributed to
the Greek poet Archilochus that “the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog
knows one big thing” and compares “the hedgehogs who think freeing up markets
is always the right solution (the ‘big idea’) and the foxes who believe the
devil is in the details” (p. 114). He considers himself amongst the “foxes,”
regarding Joe Stiglitz as “the most consummate fox among today’s economists”
(p. 121), and recommends skepticism towards the hedgehog type of economists who
sport one big idea (be it “efficient market hypothesis” or “rational
expectations”). He is rightly concerned about “the huge chasm that has
developed between the reach of financial markets and the scope of their
governance” (p. 129) but firmly rejects the case for global financial
regulation: “The very idea that we could erect a perfect system of global
regulation for international financial flows is itself a fairy tale” (p. 129).
Chapter 7, under the title of “Poor Countries in a Rich World,” considers
different country experiences, contrasting the resulting poverty in many
countries in Africa with the success stories of east Asia, in particular China.
Rodrik considers that “[p]olitics is only part of the answer” (p. 158), and
goes on to explain in Chapter 8 the economic narrative to understand these
divergences. He criticizes “trade fundamentalists” and advocates a new
development strategy (a “post-Washington consensus” consensus) recalibrating
the balance between states and markets.
Chapter
9, entitled the “Political Trilemma of the World Economy,” is a key chapter in
the book. Rodrik argues that we cannot have “deep economic integration” (he
uses the term “hyper-globalization”), national sovereignty (nation state), and
democratic politics all at once (pp. 200–201). We can have at most two out of
three. Since democracy cannot be compromised, and he rejects the “global
governance” option, he proposes a return to national sovereignty. He considers
that:global standards and regulations are not just impractical; they are
undesirable. The democratic legitimacy constraint ensures that global
governance will result in the lowest common denominator, a regime of weak and
ineffectual rules (p. 204). His solution to strengthen the nation state is a
critique of hyper-globalization. He considers that this hyper-globalization
agenda “gives predominance to the needs of multinational enterprises, big banks
and investment houses over other social and economic objectives” (p. 206).
Chapter 10 further elaborates his case against “global governance.”
Chapter
11 proposes seven principles for a new model of globalization, after
considering how intertwined the concepts of globalization and capitalism have
become. The first principle, and this is something that, as a legal scholar, I
fundamentally agree with, contends that markets need other institutions to
support them, notably courts of justice, legal arrangements to enforce property
rights, and regulations to rein in abuse and fix market failures, since
“markets do not create, regulate, stabilize or sustain themselves.”
Interestingly, he points out that “what is true of domestic markets is true
also of global ones.” The logical extension of his argument (which would
contradict a basic tenet of the book, Rodrik’s choice to solve the “trilemma”)
is that if national markets need adequate national rules, international markets
need adequate international rules! This would mean that national sovereignty,
rather than global governance, should be sacrificed in order to solve the
“trilemma” (We can—indeed—globalize democracy at the cost of national
sovereignty—p. 200). The other six principles deal with a number of issues
including democracy and legitimacy in the context of nation states, different
ways of achieving prosperity and the role of non-democratic countries. Not all
the principles are equally relevant and there are some inter-linkages.
The final
chapter of the book, entitled “A Sane Globalization,” applies these seven
principles to four key areas: the international trade regime, global finance,
labor migration, and global labor flows and how to accommodate China in the
World Economy. The book finishes with a cautionary afterword: “A Bedtime Story
for Grown Ups”—the story of a little isolated fishing village . . .
I
disagree with Rodrik’s assertion that a return to national states and national
sovereignty provides an answer to the current woes. I contend that the
dichotomy between international markets and national laws and policies can be
best tackled by the internationalization of the rules and institutions
governing global markets. The answer, in my opinion, is more international law
and less national law. This is particularly needed in international finance
where formal international law is sorely missing. Reliance on national law and
soft law international standards was a contributing factor to the global
financial crisis. The dichotomy between national rules and global financial
markets reached its zenith with the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Formal
international law has legitimacy and is in accordance with the principles of
democratic politics. By formal international law I mean “hard” international
law, which emanates from international treaties. In addition to concerns about
democratic legitimacy, the greatest limitation of international soft-law is the
lack of effective enforcement, since it is only by its adoption into national
law that it typically becomes enforceable. What is the solution forward? I have
discussed it elsewhere.1 In my opinion, the International Monetary
Fund, the institution at the center of the international monetary and financial
system, is best placed to adopt a role as a “global sheriff” with regard to
international financial stability. Either by creative reinterpretation of the
Articles of Agreement of by an amendment of such Articles the IMF can be
formally given such a mandate.
When
it comes to modern financial markets, sovereignty is an inadequate principle to deal with financial
conglomerates, complex groups and, generally, with cross-border institutions
and markets. It is not a good principle to deal with crisis management either,
nor with the home–host country divide. Indeed, like a tsunami that does not
respect territorial borders, the effects of a financial crisis spread beyond
geographic frontiers. In some parts of our modern life, we need to move beyond
national sovereignty. This has happened already in some regional areas, such as
the European Union, where countries have been ready to make sacrifices in terms
of national sovereignty for the sake of European unity. And it happens whenever
countries sign international treaties.
Financial
markets transcend national boundaries. And so do financial stability and
systemic risk. It may actually be in the best interests of countries to pool
sovereignty in some areas. Drawing on the lessons of history, it was in the
context of World War II that countries were ready to make the sacrifices needed
in terms of sovereignty by signing a number of international treaties that gave
rise to international organizations such as the United Nations, the
International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. John Maynard Keynes had wisely
stated that in order to win the war we needed to “win the peace.” It was this
understanding that also inspired Henry Morgenthau (then US Treasury Secretary)
to proclaim in the opening remarks of the Bretton Woods conference in New
Hampshire in July 1944 that “prosperity like peace is indivisible.” Neither
Keynes nor Morgenthau were thinking only in territorial/national terms: they
were thinking in international terms. This international frame of mind does not
imply a negation of sovereignty in all areas of our life. But we need
international organizations with adequate mandates and international rules for
markets to prosper.
Overall,
I found the book highly enjoyable. I agree with Rodrik’s skepticism about the
hedgehog types of economists, who promote one big idea regardless of context.
As he lucidly points out, “the ‘science’ of economic policy is not like
physics, where each generation of ideas successively displaces the previous
generation’s. At best, we learn how to tackle the complexities of the world a
bit better with each new wave of research” (p. 133). Indeed!“
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen