In The Unequal Effects of Globalization, Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg looks at globalisation’s effect on inequality, emphasising regional frictions, rising corporate profits and multilateralism as focal points and arguing for new, “place-based” policies in response. Though Goldberg provides a sharp analysis of global trade, Ivan Radanović questions whether her proposals can effectively tackle critical issues from poverty to climate change.

The Unequal Effects of Globalization. Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg (with Greg Larson). MIT Press. 2023.

Find this book: 

Glancing at the megalopolis on the left and abandoned building on the right side оf the book cover, I made an assumption about its narration: from the 1980s onwards, trade unions and states were blamed for rising inflation and unemployment. Fiscal cuts, deregulation and privatisation replaced public interest with private ones: maximising profit, firms outsourcing manufacture. What at first went alongside and later instead of promised economic efficiency was wealth accumulation at the top and the surge of corporate profits. As workers’ real wages fell behind, inequality grew.

As an academic specialising in applied microeconomics, Goldberg investigates globalisation’s many dimensions and complex interactions, from early trade globalisation to the rise of China, from western deindustrialisation to its effects on global poverty, inequality, labour markets and firm dynamics.

I was wrong. As an academic specialising in applied microeconomics, Goldberg investigates globalisation’s many dimensions and complex interactions, from early trade globalisation to the rise of China, from western deindustrialisation to its effects on global poverty, inequality, labour markets and firm dynamics. The book does concur with my assumption, but it engages with it in a more unique way.

According to Goldberg, the increase in global trade is due to developing countries’ entry into international trade since the 1990s.

Starting from an economic definition of globalisation, the author emphasises the lowest ever levels of (measurable) trade barriers and, consequently, the highest global trade volumes. According to Goldberg, the increase in global trade is due to developing countries’ entry into international trade since the 1990s. It is inseparable from global value chains (GVCs), complex production processes that – from raw material to product design – take place in different countries. The author argues that “the increasing importance of developing countries in world trade reflects their participation in GVCs” (6). That is the creation story of hyperglobalisation. For Goldberg, it is observable by the total export share in global GDP: “being fairly constant in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it began rising after World War II and accelerated dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s.” That is exactly when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was founded, and many multilateral trade agreements were signed. The key was trade policy.

But not everyone agreed. Some economists, including Land Pritchett and Andrew Rose, contended the growth was not due to trade, but the development of technology and fall of transportation costs. Goldberg rejects this argument, pointing out that technology was developing long before. Hyperglobalisation started because trade policies encouraged multilateralism; “Trade policy – especially the creation of a predictably stable global trading environment – was at least as important as technological development“ (17).

Since international trade is largely about distributional gains and losses, the key question is whether the recent tensions and protectionism – such as Brexit, Trumpism and American trade war with China, to name the most visible examples – are just blips in irreversible globalisation, or signs of deglobalisation.

This is important because international trade is a perennial source of discontent within globalisation, and exploring its causes is the primary focus of this book. Since international trade is largely about distributional gains and losses, the key question is whether the recent tensions and protectionism – such as Brexit, Trumpism and American trade war with China, to name the most visible examples – are just blips in irreversible globalisation, or signs of deglobalisation. It depends on policy choices.

In the second half of the book, Goldberg turns to inequality and differentiates it into global inequality and intra-country inequality. From the global perspective, the author points out two major contributions. The famous “elephant curve“ developed by Lakner and Milanovic (2016, p. 31) showed very high income growth rates for world’s poorer groups from 1980 to 2013. This primary observation is accompanied, however, by the almost stagnant income of the middle classes in developed countries (the bottom of elephant’s trunk) and high rates of growth for the world’s top one percent (its top). But how high? The answer came five years later, when Thomas Piketty and colleagues concluded (2018, p. 13) this elite group captured 27 per cent of global income growth between 1980 and 2016.

Analysing internal inequalities, Goldberg states that globalisation affects people twofold: as workers and as consumers.

This still does not refute that income rose for all groups, remarkably reducing poverty. But what about inequalities? Goldberg further investigates whether there is a trade-off between global inequality and within-country inequality. Analysing internal inequalities, Goldberg states that globalisation affects people twofold: as workers and as consumers. These effects are well-researched in developed countries like the USA, where trade liberalisation with China since the late 1990s brought multi-million job losses. Citing scholars such as David Autor, Gordon Hanson, David Dorn, and Kaveh Majlesi, Goldberg finds this trend disturbing for ordinary citizens. One could suppose that although jobs were lost, this was compensated by lower consumer prices which benefitted everyone. However, that’s exactly what did not happen in the US. Firms took almost all benefits, which meant that greater trade did not reduce consumer inequality. Crucially, even if it had, it would not compensate for the negative effects on the labour market. Therefore, as Deaton and Case argued, it is no surprise that the millions of jobless, low-educated Americans whose quality of life and even life expectancy is in decline oppose globalisation.

But the advent of trade with China cannot fully explain this issue. There are severe labour mobility frictions that prevent people from moving to another town, county or state to find a better job. That is an American trademark since, as Goldberg suggests, “Europe normalized their trade with China much earlier and in a much more gradual manner“ (55). In other words – a policy problem needs policy solution.

[Trade’s] adverse effects, such as the exceptionally high benefit claimed by the top one percent and the stagnation of the middle class in the Global North, cannot be attributed to trade per se, but to a lack of policies that absorb disruptions.

Goldberg is an optimist: poverty has fallen throughout the world, pulling hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty (defined living on or below 1.9 international dollars per day) particularly in countries that plugged themselves into GVCs. Trade, therefore, played a positive role. This implies that its adverse effects, such as the exceptionally high benefit claimed by the top one percent and the stagnation of the middle class in the Global North, cannot be attributed to trade per se, but to a lack of policies that absorb disruptions. More than tariffs, this includes workforce development, social protection, corporate taxation, and other policies that protect people from unregulated market forces. This is where real improvement lies, with broad and sincere international cooperation.

[Goldberg] seems to suggest that the global economy is functional; it just requires a little fix here and there in order to fight climate change as one of the ‘challenges of tomorrow’

The author writes from a “middle position“, so neutral that there is no mention of the word “capitalism“ in the whole book. Goldberg is aware of inequalities, but still emphasises dynamic poverty reduction. She seems to suggest that the global economy is functional; it just requires a little fix here and there in order to fight climate change as one of the “challenges of tomorrow“ (90). (This might be ok if climate change was a challenge of tomorrow – but it is not.) The evidence has been mounting for decades: polar ice caps melting, rising sea levels, deforestation and biodiversity loss, desertification and soil depletion, plastic pollution and fishery collapse. Our world is dying today, and the consequences are fierce and unequal. While the common poverty-reduction argument based on $1.9 a day is severely disputed, economic equality is highly correlated with desired outcomes including higher longevity rates, political participation, better mental health and life satisfaction.

This position, which one could view as reinforcing a profit-centred status quo from the former chief economist of the World Bank does not surprise. Her monograph has certain strong points, namely its neutral overview, its in-depth analysis of trade and and its insight into new, relevant literature. But writing about globalisation today demands more. To confirm that a problem exists is not enough. We need immediate action.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.

Image Credit: Donatas Dabravolskas on Shutterstock.

In America, the only appropriate desires are those that rest comfortably atop plenty of money.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

“Let’s face it, the universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent, and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. That’s what makes the world interesting, that’s what makes it beautiful, and that’s what makes it work.”

Donella H. Meadows, Thinking In Systems: A Primer

The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 by Friedrich von Hayek. The tenets of its faith can be described best in the words of David Harvey in his book ‘A Brief History of Neoliberalism’.

“Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.”

Whilst it took a few decades for its proponents to win their arguments, since the 70s it has formed the backbone of political and economic thought that has driven public policy globally through national governments, and institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.

Mrs Thatcher was enamoured by Hayek and his book ‘Road to Serfdom’ which she read as an undergraduate at Oxford. It is reputed that at a Conservative party policy meeting, she took her copy of another of his books, ‘Constitution of Liberty’ from her bag, slammed it down on the table and declared, ‘This is what we believe’. From there, everything is history. Her insistence that ‘There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money’, provided the modus operandi for successive governments of all political stripes to implement policies that reflected Hayek’s political and economic beliefs.

It led to, as David Harvey also went on to say, ‘ the financialisation of everything … A power shift away from production to the world of finance’. It has overseen over those same decades the dismantling of public services, social security, deregulation and the breaking of labour and the unions, as well as huge increases in poverty and inequality.

Inevitably, this toxic philosophy has made the rich elite richer in what can only be described as an ongoing wealth grab. It has been responsible for the exploitation of some of the poorest countries in the world, who not only have had to watch as their own resources are plundered by Western corporations, but also have had to watch as their own existence is threatened by a climate crisis, not of their own making, but which keeps the profits of global corporations flying high.

Let’s fast forward to the present, where the consequences lie before us in all their horror. With a particular emphasis here on the UK and the effects of neoliberal dogma on the lives of citizens, which has resulted not just from decades of such policies, but the last 13 years of Tory austerity which have done so much damage to the public and social infrastructure meant to provide the foundations for a functioning economy and societal well-being.

Analysing the effects of austerity on the population, a study compiled by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health and the University of Glasgow (and debated in the House of Lords) ‘adds to the growing evidence of the profound and deeply concerning changes to mortality trends observed as a result of UK Government economic ‘austerity’ policies. These have slashed billions of pounds from our public services and social security system with devastating impacts. Without support, people have been swept up by a rising tide of poverty and dragged under by decreased income, poor housing, poor nutrition, poor health and social isolation – ultimately leading to premature deaths…’

The response to the pandemic which began in 2020, highlighted as nothing ever could, the effects of cuts to public spending on public health systems and social care services, and the inhumane effects of welfare reform on working people and some of the most vulnerable in our society. The human reality is shocking.

Last week’s Autumn Statement exposes not just that cruelty, but also highlights the false narrative upon which that cruelty is meted out by politicians, and the economic dogma which directs public policy and spending.

Jeremy Hunt was clear; ‘There’s no easy way to reduce the tax burden. What we need to do is take difficult decisions to reform the welfare state’. His Chief Secretary to the Treasury was even blunter, people must ‘do their duty’, get back to work, sick or not, or face the consequences, lose benefits. As if these were choices to be made by the sick or those struggling with their mental health, and not political choices borne of a political class that has lost its way.

As Ayla Ozmen at the Charity Z2K commented, ‘There is no evidence to support the idea that there are fully remote jobs available that are suitable for these groups. This is simply a cut for those of us who become seriously ill or disabled in the future and need the support of social security, and risks worsening people’s health and pushing them further from work.’

Frances Ryan, disability campaigner and journalist at the Guardian put it even more starkly. ‘The Tories are back monstering people on benefits.’ This was nothing to do she said, ‘with saving money’, but was, in fact, ‘performative cruelty’, ‘nothing more than a raid on the income of those who already have the least whilst being demonised by those with the most.’

We have, as she said, been here before. People died. It can be no accident. This is a deliberate choice by a currency-issuing government to inflict harm on those least able to defend themselves, and to be frank, those who have suffered more than their fair share of the politics of austerity and cuts to public spending.

The Spectator predictably chose a divisive headline for this month’s publication, ‘Britain’s welfare system is out of control,’ writing that, ‘the number of Britons claiming sickness benefits – 2.8 million – will still keep rising to 3.4 million by the end of the decade. Reversing this trend, it seems, is a political impossibility.’ 

The more accurate headline would have been, ‘Tory Government out of control’, since the reality is that government austerity lies at the heart of an ailing nation. A government displaying psychopathic tendencies couching its plans in the language of reducing debt, taking a responsible approach to public spending, and rewarding hard work. Language reminiscent of George Osborne in 2012 when he commented in a radio interview that it was, ‘unfair that people listening to this programme going out to work, see the neighbour next door with the blinds down because they are on benefits. The nasty party isn’t back, it never went away. It is depressing to note, equally, that the opposition, in its rhetoric about fiscal discipline and growing the economy to raise the revenue for public services, promotes the same lie that drives their proposed policies.

Household budget economics rules the roost. A narrative that is designed to deceive by shifting responsibility away from the government, to create an ever more divided society, whilst at the same time shovelling more and more wealth upwards as data published by Oxfam at the beginning of the year demonstrated. That the richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of Britons.

This is a government already using its currency-creating powers to serve wealth, but covering its tracks by using a false narrative about how it spends, so it can justify cuts to spending on serving the public purpose. Whilst the poorest must ‘do their duty’ and sacrifice themselves on the pyre of austerity, this as the evidence shows, does not apply if you are wealthy, a corporation, or an arms manufacturer selling death and destruction. The, ‘there is no alternative’ slogan applies only if you are poor, hungry, homeless, old or sick. See the contradictions?

It’s not much better in the Labour camp.

Whilst Wes Streeting, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health & Social Care, on the same neoliberal wavelength, proposes an open door for the private healthcare sector, (ignoring the fact it’s been open for decades, in fact since Tony Blair), he claimed a few weeks ago that ‘the money simply isn’t there to continue NHS spending because the Tories have trashed the public finances.’

Streeting, like his Labour colleague Rachel Reeves, promoting the myth that there is a finite pot of money and the Tories have spent it all, which will require some fiscal discipline, which will in turn involve not being able to afford free school meals for all children, or a functioning NHS.

‘I’m not going to be able to magic money out of nowhere’, said Rachel Reeves with her serious, former economist at the Bank of England face. As if she couldn’t possibly know how government really spends. But in a horrible game of, ‘we’ll be fiscally responsible one-upmanship,’ she is effectively denying monetary reality and condemning people to more hardship. Well, not the corporations of course. They’ll come in for some star partnership treatment. Labour’s proposal for a ‘partnership’ with business, as if somehow it doesn’t have already the monetary tools it needs to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those that have sufficient power and influence to swing the rules in their favour.

Next up, we have Gordon Brown, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer for Labour, who just prior to the Autumn Statement, and in the same vein, advocated partnerships with big business and charities to address the growing poverty that has arisen out of the politics of Tory austerity and neoliberal dogma.

Heady words like Corporate Social Responsibility were banded about by the man who advocated deregulation and a light-touch government, praising the City of London for its achievements. All just before the financial sector came crashing down around our ears and the government was forced to bail it out, using those elusive currency-issuing powers the current government is denying long-suffering citizens. His light touch led to the politics of austerity by the Tory government, the dismantling of public and social infrastructure, cruel welfare reform, food banks and growing homelessness, all based on a false narrative of how government spends.

Dear Gordon, we don’t need big business or charity to sort out this avoidable disaster. With 3.8 million people, including one million children, destitute in Britain today, what we need is a government that is politically motivated to change things for the better to give people the tools they need to live productive lives that enrich their existence and not condemn them to a life of penury. We need politicians to embrace how money really works, not the lie that passes for reality.

While Gordon Brown calls on companies to step in, the new Chair of the Charity Commission vowed to crack down on ‘squeamish charities accepting donations’ and accused wealthy British citizens of ‘not pulling their weight when it came to charitable giving.’ A little bit of philanthropy does you good, apparently, not to mention reducing the tax bill.

Putting aside the proposed crackdown on squeamish charities in an era when ethical and moral considerations have been thrown out of the window by a political class more concerned with serving the dictates of the US hegemon and its corporate masters, anyone demonstrating such values should be praised not castigated.

As we have said many times before, charities are a failure of government. Their purpose is to mitigate a rotten economic system designed to exploit and impoverish some people and enrich others. Whether charities like the Trussell Trust feeding hungry people or the myriad charities supporting the homeless living in temporary accommodation or on the street, they function as an alternative to state involvement in serving public purpose.  This was the point of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ to shift responsibility into the wider society.

Such charities are now struggling to meet growing need as a result of government-imposed austerity that has ironically led to cuts in their funding. This is a government-created vicious circle deriving from the politics of austerity, the demonisation of deficit and public debt, and a market-driven neoliberal ideology that favours a small state, with charitable provision of welfare, and privatised public services acting not in the interests of citizens, but rather the state acting as a cash cow for private profit.

It also derives from a toxic ideology of personal responsibility designed to absolve the state from any duty of care for its citizens. This has involved blaming and shaming people for what we are told is personal failure. Just what the neoliberal doctor ordered to keep citizens poor, downtrodden, divided and struggling to survive by forcing them to sacrifice themselves to preserve the economic status quo for the already excessively wealthy.

A status quo which is transferring more wealth into the hands of corporations and wealthy individuals who, in turn, are then invited to do their bit and donate to charity. As if people are dependent on their philanthropy, their goodwill, on their largesse to keep body and soul together. A fabrication that rests on the false notion that the government needs taxes to spend.

This narrative is constructed on the lie that government spends like a household budget, that its sources of funding are taxation or borrowing. Economic well-being depends on neither. It depends on a government that puts the needs of citizens as a priority to create a functioning economy and a healthy, thriving society. That in turn depends on the political decisions a government makes as the currency issuer, imposer of taxes and legislator. Decisions about how real resources are distributed and to whom. In fact, we are talking here about the sort of society we as citizens want to live in.

Instead, we are told that our economic and social well-being is dependent on the state of the public finances, whether the economy is growing enough to afford public services, or for those on the left, how much we will need to tax the wealthiest to pay for public infrastructure.

We are living a destructive lie that is readily promoted by a self-serving media. The daily round of nonsense that passes as monetary reality.

Whether it’s Philip Inman in the Guardian suggesting that since the days of cheap investment credit are over, chancellors must find a different source of revenue, namely increased taxes, The Times implying that a lower borrowing bill will give the Chancellor some ‘fiscal headroom’, as if he’s suddenly found a few more quid in the pot to spend or deliver a tax cut because of it. Or indeed, Andrew Neil, who explained to his attentive audience in the Daily Mail, that ‘the bond markets are where governments go to borrow money from investors […] when their spending plans exceed the amount they are able to raise in tax.’ Apparently, we need to ‘free ourselves from their tyranny.’  ‘The era of big government, cheap money and untrammelled borrowing is over’ he said.

Presenting the public accounts as if the government were a business or private individual that has to cut back in hard times or borrow to fund its spending because it has a limited pot of money. The Treasury gnomes working hard to balance the books, find some spare money down the back of the sofa, rob Peter’s department to pay Paul’s, or beg the capital markets for a loan. All rubbish.

As Professor Bill Mitchell notes, ‘debt issuance is a redundant part of the process… a hangover from past currency arrangements.’ Clearly the media hasn’t caught up. This is the con that drives public policy decisions and leads people to believe that government’s primary role is to balance the accounts, rather than deliver a functioning, stable and sustainable economy, the corollary of which is societal well-being.

The bottom line is that lower interest rates for government borrowing make no difference at all to the capacity of government to spend, or indeed cut taxes.

The cost has been high and will continue to be. Neither of the main political parties frames its role as an initiator of public purpose, rather they think they are Dicken’s Mikawber borne again. We have two political parties obsessed with fiscal discipline, whilst at the same time aiming to shift responsibility into the wider economy and society through partnerships with business or charity. Full on neoliberalism. Full on Hayek vision for government and society.

This is how the government and ones in waiting, and media lackeys like Andrew Neil keep the public trapped in a lie about how government spends, by presenting government finances as a household budget. It serves as an ideologically driven justification for cuts to public spending, not because it’s necessary, but to keep the neoliberal stranglehold in place which is about dismantling public infrastructure and enslaving citizens. This is what Andrew Neil supports. This is the big lie that distorts reality and will ultimately be the death of us if we fail to grasp its fundamental importance to our survival.

According to this narrative, money is a scarce commodity. Which it is not. The role of government is not to balance the books, but to serve its citizens. To decide how real resources are distributed and to whom, through its spending, taxation and legislative policies. It should be pretty obvious by now, who the current beneficiaries are, the corporate estate, the military machine, and those with excessive wealth, power and influence.

This distribution is a political choice driven by ideological aims and it is regrettable that those seeking progressive change are still caught like rabbits in Mrs Thatcher’s headlights. There is a lot at stake. A liveable planet where world citizens have their needs met and crushing poverty and inequality cease to be the norm. When a Labour spokesperson justifies Rachel Reeves watering down her green transition pledges because of the state of the public finances, and that fiscal rules were more important than any policy, you know that without a doubt we are in serious trouble.

What happens in the wider economy starts at the top with the government and flows down resulting from its spending, taxing and legislative policies. We need to understand that the state of the public finances is an irrelevant sideshow and that the real test is what government has done to ensure a functioning and balanced economy, that respects the planet and the human beings that depend on it for their survival.

We need as a matter of urgency to understand what a functioning democracy, with an informed public no longer willing to throw themselves on the pyre of harmful austerity could achieve. The art of the possible to save humanity from a political class intent on serving the interests of a small group of people, not to mention their own interests through the revolving door. As Jason Hickel notes in his book ‘Less is more: How degrowth will save the world.

“When people live in a fair, caring society, where everyone has equal access to social goods, they don’t have to spend their time worrying about how to cover their basic needs day to day – they can enjoy the art of living. And instead of feeling they are in constant competition with their neighbours, they can build bonds of social solidarity.”

It is currently no more than an aspiration for change, but the struggle must continue to make it a reality for humanity.

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here.

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Pinterest

tumblr

Viber icon
Viber

The post The empire of lies (and its consequences) appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Registration is now open for a housing and homelessness study tour of London (UK) that I’m helping to organize.

More information is available here: https://pheedloop.com/form/view/?id=FOR596K0XGYKSXE78