Well, if I'm to talk about the confused literature on globalization, I think one should first
ask what is globalization, otherwise the rest of the talk might be confusing, or at least
I would get confused.
By globalization, it usually meant the fact that countries of the world have been coming
closer together, especially in economics, as Suda Shinoi was discussing in her talk,
The countries are more continually involved with trade with one another and there's all
sorts of economic investments that countries have in each other, the multinational corporations
and foreign investors spending a lot of money in various countries.
Sometimes the term is also applied to political unions, but I won't be so much concerned
I'll be concerned with that. In this talk, I'll be concerned almost entirely with the economic aspects of globalization.
What I'd like to do is to discuss six recent books on globalization, at least some of which are partially confused.
If I get through those in the allotted time, I have a couple more in reserve,
I think I'll be able, the six I'll be discussing should take me to the end of the lecture.
Now, the first two books I want to discuss I'll take together are both by Joseph Stiglitz,
who was the winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001. And the two books are Globalization
and its Discontents. And then the second one, which came out just this year, is called Making
and Globalization Work. Now the title, Globalization and its Discontent, of course, evokes the
famous short book of Freud, Civilization and its Discontents. But I doubt that by entitling
his book in that way, Stiglitz was intending to suggest that his book also consists of
of Unfounded Speculation. Stiglitz is not an opponent of the free market. He's not
a full-fledged socialist. On the contrary, he accepts the argument from information advanced
by Friedrich Hayek that a socialist system couldn't work because no socialist planner
could amass all the necessary information to determine what the proper prices of goods should be.
In fact, Stiglitz himself is one of the great figures in the economics of information.
However, although he supports the market economy to some extent, he by no means favors an unrestricted free market.
Market.
In fact, he thinks that the problem with globalization today, the principal problem with globalization
today, is that the policies that have been advocated by the leading agencies promoting
globalization, such as the International Monetary Fund, have been too much oriented toward the
free market.
They're too free market.
We don't have enough government guidance and intervention.
And he says, well, globalization could be a good thing, but it hasn't really had very
good results.
And he said one example of this is there are enormous numbers of people in the world who
are extremely poor in spite of the fact that globalization is supposed to be advancing
very rapidly and we're supposed to be growing economically worldwide, but there are an awful
and a lot of poor people. He says, according to the World Bank definition of poverty, I
should say Stiglitz himself was the vice president and chief economist of the World Bank for
several years. According to the World Bank standard, someone counts as extremely poor
if he's living on less than $2 a day, and extremely poor if he's living on $1 a day.
Now, Gibbs figures, say, for 2004, the world population is about 6.5 billion. He said 40 percent of the world population is poor by that definition, and 877 million are extremely poor.
Now, I shall ask you to take note of those figures, because I'll be mentioning them a bit later in connection with another writer.
Right, but he said globalization isn't working very well because look at all the very poor
people.
Now, why is it that there are so many poor people if the economy of the world has been
developing so much, we've had tremendous increases in productivity.
Why is it that there are so many poor people?
He ascribes a good deal of responsibility to a policy pursued by the International Monetary
Fund.
He calls his policy the Washington Consensus.
The International Monetary Fund, as you know, was founded after the famous Bretton Woods
meeting with John Maynard Keynes, the principal British delegate to that meeting.
When the IMF was set up, according to Stiglitz, most things about it were quite good.
The purpose of the fund was that if economies weren't doing very well, the IMF would loan them a lot of money so that they could pursue proper Keynesian policies of increasing spending to get the country out of the economic dole jumps.
He said, obviously the thing to do, we know this very well from economic theory, is if there is a recession or depression, the government should just start spending a great deal of money right away to get us out.
Now it's odd that Stiglitz is generally regarded as one of the world's greatest economic theorists.
In fact, many people regard him as the greatest theorist of his generation.
and Yet, in both of these books, he gives extremely crude analyses of concepts. He doesn't deal with any of the criticisms in advance of the Keynesian policies.
But he says that the problem is that the IMF doesn't follow the Keynesian policies anymore.
The Washington Consensus View is one of austerity, that the government should really look at
We try to privatize as much as possible, should engage in free trade and other horrible policies
like that, instead of pursuing the truth that was brought to us in 1936 by John Maynard
Keynes.
I should say also that in characterizing the views of the opponents of Keynes, Stiglitz
again doesn't display much sophistication. He says that opponents of Keynes believe that
demand and supply are always in balance so that all unemployment is necessarily voluntary.
Now obviously the opponents of Keynes wouldn't believe, say, if the government has minimum
and Wage Legislation or unions have enforced certain restrictions on wages, that unemployment
is voluntary in those circumstances, but somehow Stiglitz omits that.
Now if one looks, however, at what Stiglitz says in his books, how he describes various
events, what he himself says about the events of the world from his perspective, knows a
What he says actually doesn't at all correspond to his diagnosis of the situation.
One of the chief examples he gives to show that globalization isn't working very well
is that in the East Asian countries in 1997, 1998, there was an economic collapse in Thailand,
in South Korea, Indonesia. These countries have been doing very well, but there was a
collapse. What brought about the collapse? Well, as he himself mentioned, what happened,
say, in Thailand, there was a collapse in the financial system because speculators on
money had suddenly decided the money of Thailand was going to fail, and they withdrew their
Money from it and took it elsewhere, causing collapse in the Thailand monetary system, and
also in the other countries there have been very heavy firms that engage in very speculative
borrowing from banks, and the lenders just withdrew, thought these firms were going to
fail in demand and payment of their money, and investors withdrew capital very rapidly
from these countries causing a downturn. Now, readers familiar with the Austrian view will
not fail to notice that what Stiglitz is describing is entirely in accord with the Austrian view
of the business cycle that expansion of bank credit can in certain circumstances lead to
and Economic Crisis, and yet, what happens here, this is certainly not, this expansion
is certainly not something, a free market policy, on the contrary, one can only have
such expansion if we have a monetary system that allows fractional reserve banking in a
free market monetary system of, say, a golden commodity standard, one couldn't have just
The process Stiglitz is describing, yet he says that these financial collapses, which
seems to be one of just what the Austrians have been talking about, it shows the fault
of the free market, that shows the dangers of not following proper Keynesian policy,
whereas what he seems to be describing is rather the failures of the Keynesian policy
that's a very inflationary policy. There's been currency speculation and speculative loans,
all sorts of things that wouldn't be in place if there were a genuine free market society.
Again, another example he gives is that in Russia, he said, well, after the collapse
In the course of communism, the economy didn't improve at all.
In fact, the productivity of the economy in Russia is less than it was under at least some years of the communist period.
So he said, well, doesn't this show how bad the free market is?
Because the free market is supposed to be much better than socialism, communism, but in fact, it's not doing as well.
It's not that he wants to bring back communism.
The shows, again, we have to have the government coming in and intervening.
But what he describes in the book is, again, a situation where when the Soviet government privatized,
what happened was the government gave industrial plants and all sorts of property to businessmen,
people who were friends of those in power.
and Power, sometimes people in government just took over and privatized certain property themselves, and then there were no laws putting in place property rights, so the new owners, putting that word in quotation marks, engaged in what is called asset stripping, they tried to convert their new property into cash as fast as possible and get the money out of the country because they knew their alleged titles weren't secure.
and, again, one thing that happened was when the property was allegedly privatized, then it became subject to local groups, government groups who would try to seize it or get, extort money from the owners and put it under regulation.
So, again, this is not at all a situation of a free market. It's on the contrary one of a government intervention of a chaotic kind.
Kind, and yet Stiglitz gives us a key example showing the failures of the free market.
Now there are, in the two books, there are some useful chapters. For example, Stiglitz
has what I thought was an excellent discussion of the problem of dumping in foreign trade.
Now, people who favor tariffs will sometimes say, well, free trade may be alright if there's
fair competition, but what happens if, say, one country deliberately sells goods below
cost in order to drive our producers out of the market, just so that once they're driven
out of the market, then they can raise prices and get a monopoly on trade, meanwhile the
The people in our country will have lost their businesses and jobs.
Now, as Stig was pointing out, here he's making a point similar to that that Murray Rothbard
made in his discussion of transitory pricing in Man Econ and State.
It really doesn't make much sense to say that a business is going to sell below cost.
That isn't a good way of making money.
It was like the old story where someone told a friend of his that he was selling below
cost.
And someone asked him, well, how can you make any money if you do that?
He said, well, I make it up in volume.
But now if it's counter to that, well, then the businesses could, if they sell below cost,
they'll have a loss at first, then they'll make it up by raising prices later.
______ points out there's no real cases where that's ever been shown to have happened.
People talk about it.
It's never been shown to have happened.
But at this point, what he's saying has been made by other authors, but what I thought
he's especially good at is that he says that he points out, again, based on his knowledge,
expert knowledge from his—he was also on the Council of Economic Advisories under President
Clinton, that in actual cases where people claimed, in case of dumping, what happens
is, he says, this is just really a trick by business groups to, that what they do is they'll
say that various countries such as China are engaged in dumping, but their estimates of
cost are artificially high.
I think there was one case where there were golf carts being made in one of the Asian countries,
I think in China, and they calculated, they said it was dumping because the costs in this
country were less than the cost of producing the golf carts in Canada, so the fact that
they were selling them at these lower costs showed they were selling below cost, and of
course that doesn't follow at all.
Now, I want to next turn to two books by another economist, the Indian economist Jagdish Bhagwati,
who, although is not a Nobel Prize winner, is usually in the front running in the list
when people are saying who is going to be getting the Nobel Prize. He's a name that
very often figures. Two books by him I want to consider, one called In Defense of Globalization
and the other is free trade today.
I should say Baguati has very different views from Stiglitz,
but he's like Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia
University.
So I imagine department meetings in that university,
economics department meetings, aren't entirely congenial.
Now, what Baguati is largely, although not entirely
in the books, defending a free trade and free market policy.
And what makes his books unusual is this,
that economists, neoclassical economists, unlike Austrians,
have a particular model of the economy
that they're very concerned with,
in which they try to come up with conditions for efficiency,
The defined efficiency is in this way that an economy is efficient if there can't be a Pareto superior change.
Pareto superior change is a change of some kind that would make at least one person better off and no one worse off.
So what the neoclassical economists do is try to come up with conditions, specify conditions for what's called Pareto optimality where you can't have such changes.
So what Bhagwati and others tried to do at one time was to say, even though free trade usually works best, one can come up with examples where free trade isn't always the efficient course of action.
One example of such a case is not one that Badwadi himself came up with. It's an old example. It's the so-called terms of trade argument.
As you know from neoclassical theory, a monopolist, by raising his price above the competitive price, can get extra profits for himself.
Now, of course, Austrians don't accept this view. Murray Rothbard in the Man Economy and State has a classic discussion at this point showing that there's no way to distinguish the market price from the so-called competitive price.
But in the neoclassical view, you can have such a distinction.
Now, supposing there are a number of producers of a certain item in a country, if the government
imposes an export tax on this item, it can have the result that all the businesses taken
together will act as a monopoly when considering foreign customers.
So by imposing the export tax, all the business taken together will have certain monopoly
gains.
And it's claimed, according to this argument, it would show that a tariff would actually
be a better economic policy from the point of view of that country than complete free
trade.
As I say, Bhagwati, although he didn't develop that argument, was famous for coming up with
argument showing exceptions to free trade from this point of view, except for these neoclassical assumptions.
So what he does in these two books is rather to argue against his own previous views.
He said, well, there may be such cases, but they really don't amount to very much.
It's not worthwhile going after them, trying to come up with them, because they're really not going to get you much gains.
and also you can show that if you do want to intervene, there are other ways to intervene than tariffs that really are even more efficient.
But these two points aren't the main point he stresses in the book, it's rather this, that he says that these points would show that these experiences with free trade aren't so good,
The next point he makes, which I think is the key point in the two books, is he says if there are alleged gains from interferences with trade, then businesses that will benefit from these gains will spend a lot of money trying to get these gains.
This is a case, of course, what Gordon Tullot calls, invented the concept, although not
the phrase, calls rent-seeking, that if there is some benefit available by government interference,
people spend a lot of money trying to get this benefit for themselves, and the money
they spend is really what economists term a deadweight loss. It's not productive. So
It turns out that there's a lot of money invested in this rent-seeking, so it's a big drain
on the economy, and so by having complete free trade, we avoid this whole problem altogether.
I should say that Baguady, who does not suffer from the vice of false modesty, is very anxious
to say that what he's talking about should not be called rent-seeking.
He has some other term for it, something like profit-seeking, because he wants to say that
his concept is not the same as Gordon Tulloch or Ann Kruger's concept.
He has a very different concept, but I must say, although I'm not an expert at all on this field, it seems quite a distinction without a difference to me.
But regardless of how it's to be termed, I think he's right that this is a very good point against this kind of economic interference.
Now, the last books I want to consider are also two books by another of them, by these two, again by another Indian economist, Deepak Lal, who is a professor at UCLA.
The two books are one, I believe, I unfortunately wasn't here present at the lecture, but I believe one of them, Jeff Herbiner, I've been told he's talked about it, is called,
in Praise of Empires, and the other, which has just come out, is called Reviving the Invisible Hand.
Now, what I especially liked about Reviving the Invisible Hand, which I think is the better of the two books,
is that Lowe directly responds to some of the points that Stiglitz raised in his criticisms of the free market
and his defense of the status guidance of globalization.
You'll remember that I gave some very frightening statistics
from Stiglitz on how prevalent world poverty is.
And Stiglitz was saying, well, if we have so many poor people,
how can it be the case that free market globalization's working?
Obviously, something's wrong.
Well, Lal contends that these, although he certainly
He admits there is a great deal of poverty in the world.
Raoul contends that the statistics the World Bank people have used are based on false methods of collection.
He says it's based on his own experience as someone who was working for the Indian government,
engaged in collecting data of various kinds.
In some cases, when people were asked to do surveys of how many people were poor,
They would simply fill out the forms that they'd had from the previous years, so no wonder the number of poor people isn't decreasing because they're just filling out the same figures they used in previous years.
Of course, this evidence is partly anecdotal, but Lau also points out that in some cases, the figures have been exaggerated because the calculations are using figures from two different sets of data to come up with who the poor people are,
So that they're taking the rich, who are the more well-off people from one way of looking at it, and who are the poor people from a different way, and they're kind of amalgamating the two in a way that's unacceptable.
Now, Lal also challenges Stiglitz on the basic point he makes, where Stiglitz says his theoretical argument of the market is imperfect.
As I mentioned, neoclassical economists tried to develop the exact mathematical conditions under which we can show that the economy is Pareto-efficient in the way I explained it.
The most important, the key work there was, of course, the famous paper by Kenneth Arrow and de Bruy, showing the exact mathematical condition under which a market economy is efficient.
Now, what Stiglitz is famous for in economic theory is that he said, well, if these conditions that Arrow and de Bruy have specified, he said they're very strict conditions.
for example, they require perfect markets in all commodities. If we don't have some of these conditions satisfied, then, he says, we can show that the market isn't Pareto-efficient. We can come up with Pareto-superior changes.
He says, especially in cases where we have, say, one person in an exchange knows more than another, a case of what they call asymmetric information.
So Stiglitz said, if whatever we have, such a case of marketing imperfection, then there's theoretically a case for government interference.
Interference. Now, Lau quotes very effectively, I think, a devastating quotation from a paper
that Stiglitz wrote with Greenwald in 1986. It was one of the key papers in Stiglitz's
career. And Stiglitz said something like this. He said, well, we're not considering in this
paper any inefficiencies that would result by competitions among people to get, say,
The government would say, well, we've got an inefficiency here, so we're going to grant certain people subsidy.
What if you had businessmen spending resources trying to get the subsidy?
So Stiglitz said, we're not going to consider that.
He said, it could be argued that by not considering this, we haven't really shown any that the market is,
If this is, by not considering this, we haven't really shown any, that the market is, that there is some case that the market is inefficient.
But he just passes that by. So, Lau is pointing out that Stiglitz has really given away his whole case here.
But I don't think the book, the book contains much more than an attack on Stiglitz.
I just have mentioned a couple of key points that I think are very valuable, one Lyle makes.
He adopts, although not entirely, something of an Austrian view of the business cycle,
but he says, what if you don't accept this? What if you think that the market economy
will periodically lead to recession? He says, even if you think that, then it's still the
This is the case that the market does better than other systems.
Sometimes a business, say you have periods where large numbers of businesses fail,
this is sometimes a very painful process and people have to readjust,
but it's still, the economy is still growing.
And if we look, say, at Thailand, it's doing better than countries like,
say, other countries such as North Korea that didn't have depressions, it's better to have
ups and downs if you're growing fast enough than to have sort of a level growth if the
growth is slow.
Lao also, I think Brie, in a call said, well, makes it at some point, if, say, we can't,
We're not able to negotiate free trade with other nations. Other nations insist on retaining
their tariffs and the best policy for a nation to follow is unilateral free trade. This is
a key point that I think many are less inclined to accept the conclusions of sound reasoning
The Theory of Money and Credit
I think is a case where the cure is worse than the disease, but in spite of this failing, I think that he's the best of the three authors I've mentioned.
Thank you very much.