In a recent article in Foreign Affairs, economists Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter propose a new deal for globalization. While their argument is cogent, their premise is more questionable. They assume that people’s opposition to globalization is simply driven by economic motives: the individual skill level determines whether one benefits or not from globalization and, thereby, one’s position toward it; hence the solution they propose: reforming fiscal policy so as to distribute the gains of globalization more evenly and, thereby, make it more politically viable. Building on this logic, they claim that “there is greater support for engagement with the world economy in countries that spend more on programs for dislocated workers.”
While countries that trade more do have larger social programs, we should be careful when drawing conclusions about the best way to solve the globalization debate. For example, even though France spends considerable amounts in helping workers affected by layoffs, has a relatively generous welfare state, and the European Union recently established a Globalization Fund to target workers affected by trade liberalization, it is among the countries where people have the most negative opinion of globalization. Therefore, something else is necessarily at work. In a recent post on his blog, Dani Rodrik pointed out that values and ethics also mattered: “There is plenty of evidence that suggests that people are concerned about globalization not (just) because their pocketbooks are adversely affected but because they do not think its outcomes are right or fair.” Hence the need to make the rules of globalization fairer.
I share these two policy recommendations. A more distributive fiscal policy and fairer rules will undoubtedly make globalization more politically viable and sustainable. However, these economists neglect politics. Many people blame globalization for their situation in great part because government officials often say that globalization is to blame for the unpopular policies that they implement. Similarly, corporations regularly say that they have no choice but to cut wages or offshore their operations to make it in today’s global economy. Put briefly, pinpointing globalization has become a great blame-avoidance strategy. Furthermore, as I have shown in my own research on the French antiglobalization movement, many old leftist organizations have found in antiglobalization mobilizations a way to renew their discourse and alliances and, thereby, prevent their decline. Again the reference to globalization is used strategically for political and organizational purposes. It is a resource.
Therefore, implementing a new fiscal policy and reforming the rules of globalization will not necessarily be enough to make globalization politically viable in all countries. Globalization is the perfect scapegoat for people trying to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and for actors looking for a second life. Perhaps globalization will never be completely politically viable, feeding a constant tension requiring periodic adjustments.
