Customer Reviews


33 Reviews
5 star:
 (21)
4 star:
 (7)
3 star:
 (3)
2 star:
 (2)
1 star:    (0)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


115 of 117 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Keep the Windows Open, But Don't Forget the Mosquito Screens
Every student in economics is familiar with Robert Mundell's triangle of impossibility. Based on the model that the Canadian economist developed with Marcus Flemming in 1962, this trilemma states that it is impossible to have a sovereign monetary policy, free capital flows, and a fixed exchange rate at the same time--that two, and only two, of these objectives could be...
Published on February 13, 2011 by Etienne ROLLAND-PIEGUE

versus
29 of 37 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A New Creed for the Democratic Party
Dani Rodrik is a gifted economist who has spent most of his professional life studying the evolution of the modern advanced liberal democratic economies. This book presents a political philosophy for the advanced countries. The audience is the interested layperson. There are no equations, tables or graphs in this book. Rather Rodrik's evidence is largely anecdotal, drawn...
Published on July 2, 2011 by Herbert Gintis


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

115 of 117 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Keep the Windows Open, But Don't Forget the Mosquito Screens, February 13, 2011
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
Every student in economics is familiar with Robert Mundell's triangle of impossibility. Based on the model that the Canadian economist developed with Marcus Flemming in 1962, this trilemma states that it is impossible to have a sovereign monetary policy, free capital flows, and a fixed exchange rate at the same time--that two, and only two, of these objectives could be met. This impossible trinity came to dominate policy debates in Europe in the run-up to the European monetary union in the 1990s--a rare example when the result of a theoretical model had a direct bearing on policy choices.

Although he doesn't develop a formal model, Dani Rodrik offers his own, more ambitious version of the impossibility triangle. The political trilemma of the world economy, as he names it, is that we cannot have deep economic integration ("hyperglobalization"), national sovereignty, and democratic politics at the same time. We have to sacrifice one of the corners of the triangle. And for Rodrik, the objective that has to be abandoned is clear and straightforward. We cannot compromise on democracy, and global governance is nothing but a distant dream. We therefore have to jettison hyperglobalization in favor of a more shallow form of global economic integration, a new version of the compromise that was embodied in the postwar system laid out at Bretton Woods. In particular, unrestricted capital mobility and indiscriminate trade openness will have to go. This will make the world a safer and better place for democracy.

Dani Rodrik, who teaches at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is a first-class economist. In academic and policy circles, people talk about him with respect and sometimes even with awe--it is better to have him on the same side of an argument than sitting across the table. Some economists perfidly point out that he has a talent for bending numbers to support his claims-- that he is an expert in the art of political econometrics, or the use of statistical regressions to support one's political positions. But this is how the game of economics ought to be played. Although Rodrik is sometimes considered as a maverick and a lone wolf, he speaks from inside the tent. No one would put into question his qualification as an economist. Sure enough, his arguments are often controversial and even provocative, but they are receivable and debatable by the academic community. "He is one of us", most if not all economists would acknowledge.

This is why his criticism of globalization ought be read with great attention and interest. It comes at a time when the high hopes invested in globalization have receded, and the negative aspects brought about by open borders and financial liberalization now take center stage. At this juncture, as Rodrik underscores, we need a new narrative to shape the next stage of globalization. "Economists have been responsible for the narratives that interpret development success and failure, narratives which in turn have guided policy in many parts of the world." They now have a special responsibility for shaping the debate: because they have been the cheerleaders of the previous phase of global openness, and because they can help distinguish snake oil from real ointments, and separate "the legitimate wheat from the 'protectionist' chaff".

Many prominent economists are now starting to have second thoughts on globalization. True, their choir was never at unison: some had different pitches, and their endorsement of free and open markets often came with caveats and restrictions. Even a staunch free-trader like Jagdish Baghwati expressed warnings about unrestricted capital mobility. Now more voices are beginning to worry about the consequences of deindustrialization, the growth of inequality, and the race to bottom standards and regulations brought about the current wave of globalization in developed economies. As Keynes once famously remarked, "When the facts change, I change my mind--what do you do, sir?" Rodrik, for one, never changed his mind on trade liberalization. He was one of the first economists to bring the debate from the seminar room to the political arena, and to argue against the simplistic case for free trade that is often doled out to journalists to supports claims about the benefits of globalization. He comments the matter with considerable talent and great humor--never was a class discussion on comparative advantage and international trade theory so lively and refreshing.

Dani Rodrik doesn't limit his argument to modern textbook economics. He excavates from the dusty shelves of economics libraries some forgotten books and tracts that are singularly relevant for today. Henry Martyn's Consideration Upon the East-India Trade, written in 1701, anticipates many of the arguments that economists who favored free trade would marshal much later. In 1961, James E. Mead wrote The Economics and Social Structure of Mauritius, and proposed the same kind of diagnostic tools and policy approach that Rodrik and his coauthors would later develop and sell out to the World Bank. This approach, called the "Growth Diagnostics framework", now serves as reference in international policy debates and is quoted approvingly by senior officials from emerging countries who are now the darlings of international gatherings. Development economics has come full circle: as Rodrik notes, "that industrial policy, in whatever guise, is once again considered acceptable, and indeed necessary, speaks volumes about how far we have retreated from the trade fundamentalism of the 1990s."

Rodrik also have his weak points. He is candid about his limitations as a forecaster. He didn't see the Asian crisis coming in 1997, and he got it wrong again in 2007 when he missed the subprime crisis that was brewing in the U.S. More to the point, he picked up the wrong fight in the late 1990s, arguing against free trade when the real menace was coming from the excesses of financial globalization. One gets the feeling he still gives too much importance to the trade agenda as defined by the WTO in comparison to the new trade rules and conditions negotiated away from public scrutiny in the bilateral or regional trade agreements that now span the world in a complex web of policy arrangements. Rodrik is on less familiar ground when the discusses international finance, and his plea for an international transaction tax could have been more substantiated.

In making the case for their pet theory, economists often miss the broader picture. Not so with Dani Rodrik. His list of principles and recommendations that close the book offer an all-encompassing agenda for a better and safer globalization. It is altogether fitting that the quote which best sums up his policy stance was offered by a Chinese student, who recommended to keep the windows open, but without forgetting the mosquito screens. This utterance could have been offered by a future statesman and, considering the wide audience that Dani Rodrik's essay deserves, it could as well be picked up by one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


40 of 40 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars "Hubris creates blind spots", February 23, 2011
By 
DRDR (Menlo Park, CA United States) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
The Globalization Paradox adds rhetorical flair to Dani Rodrik's previous work condemning the intrusions of the WTO and IMF on the mechanisms of nation-states. Rodrik now dubs his enemy "hyperglobalization" (previously known as "deep integration") and insists that it be slayed to promote the diversity of social concerns across the world's democracies. The book augments the global economic governance chapters of "One Economics, Many Recipes" (a 2007 hodgepodge of the author's previous work) with richer historical context and topical material on the financial crisis and China's rise. I read several thoughtful reviews of Rodrik's last book in economics journals, and I am disappointed these reviews did not lead Rodrik to engage more of the recent economic literature in trade policy. Yet I still appreciate this book for asking important policy-relevant research questions that economists have often neglected.

A sizeable chunk of the book is navel-gazing: humbly defending the economics profession, while criticizing its members for unequivocally endorsing free trade in public. His most pointed barb is accusing economists of using more conditional views of free trade in the seminar room. I'm reminded of Elhanan Helpman and Paul Krugman's seminal 1989 trade policy monograph, which surveys several trade models in which government intervention is optimal. Yet the authors conclude, "The design of an advantageous trade policy requires information of a kind that is simply not available." This was not one of the seven "hand-waving arguments" Rodrik cites in support of free trade, but it's an important argument he should have engaged.

Rodrik downplays the concern from economists that much of trade policy in democracies is political rent-seeking. If there were a referendum for every trade policy decision, and citizens were perfectly informed about the impact of each one, would trade policy be much different from today? In other words, what share of trade policy originates from opportunistic lobbyists rather than legitimate democratic social preferences? I can imagine U.S. citizens protecting a few paper mill towns, but I don't see them keeping sugar quotas or subsidies for Brazilian cotton farmers.

What gains are left for further international liberalization? Rodrik argues wisely that because manufacturing liberalization has proceeded so far already, further liberalization will lead to much larger distributional effects than gains from trade. I was disappointed that Rodrik selectively cites Andrew Rose to suggest the GATT & WTO has had little effect on expanding trade, yet economists Arvind Subramaniam & Shang-Jin Wei have shown that only countries who actually liberalized themselves gained trade from the WTO -- as theory would predict. Rodrik is correct that overall gains from temporary migration (practically nonexistent at present) are much larger than gains from tariff liberalization. The same logic would suggest massive gains from liberalizing other forms of services trade (temporary migration of workers is but one form), and Rodrik does not mention this.

Even if one disagrees with Rodrik on normative trade policy, determining the ideal global institutions for balancing conflicting policy preferences across nation-states is still practically important. Rodrik makes a convincing case for the impossibility of global federalism (fantasy-crushing for Rodrik's Harvard Kennedy School students). He makes a good case that capital controls are necessary to allow for different national priorities in regulating finance. I'm less sold on Rodrik's claim that U.S. credit rating agencies are proof that labelling and corporate social responsibility cannot succeed: his example is a closed market in which government created rents by limiting entry to three firms. Regardless, I agree with Rodrik that nation-states are not going to completely surrender their sovereignty to a WTO-like organization, and there needs to be an institution that can allow them to negotiate over their distinct policy preferences.

Rodrik believes that the WTO overreached on national sovereignty, and he looks back longingly on the lighter integration of the GATT and Breton Woods regime from the late 1940s. What you won't learn from Rodrik is that Kyle Bagwell and Robert Staiger formalized such a theory, influential in the international law literature and published in top economic journals over the previous decade. Bagwell and Staiger suggest the ideal trade institution, similar to GATT, is one where nations negotiate over market access commitments, and countries should be free to choose any mixture of domestic policies and trade policies which maintains the negotiated level of market access. The mess of safeguard schemes that Rodrik instead proposes sound similar, yet it is hard to be sure without formalism. What is clear is that Rodrik believes domestic concerns are far more important than any international externalities created by trade and domestic policy choices, and he believes the market access focus of trade negotiations is problematic.

Rodrik used to have an active blog on international economics, but he came to a near full stop, believing that the blog and book-writing were substitutes. Still I hope the blog can be complementary to the further development of Dani's thinking on these important issues.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


18 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Important message on how to sustain civil society in the global eraif we, April 18, 2011
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
Dani Rodrik gets it! Globalization of trade and finance makes sense to the extent that it can, or should, lift the economic hopes of people across the planet if it can be managed and regulated in such a way that it doesn't undermine an even more important pursuit for the future of the world, which is to strengthen civil society at the level of nation states everywhere. He argues that in our zeal to foster world trade and finance under the mantle of "hyperglobalization", we run a great risk of subordinating democracy to the interests of multi-national corporations and financial technocrats for whom accountability is to maximize shareholder profit. Profit is a perfectly appropriate goal for the world's enterprises, but Rodrik seeks to strike a balance between that goal and the capacity of individual countries to sustain their own resources, ways of living, labor laws, environmental protection, and a host of other factors that can be achieved best within the context of national governance, where democratic decision-making occurs. His analogy is that of updating the Bretton Woods accord that brought prosperity to much of the post war "free world" before organizations like WTO and others pushed the global trade structure toward a regime that subordinates the civil interests of nations to business interests of corporations. That's the big picture. The reader will find the details for a "sustainable globalism" to be thoughtfully developed in this timely book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


29 of 37 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A New Creed for the Democratic Party, July 2, 2011
By 
Herbert Gintis (Northampton, MA USA) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
Dani Rodrik is a gifted economist who has spent most of his professional life studying the evolution of the modern advanced liberal democratic economies. This book presents a political philosophy for the advanced countries. The audience is the interested layperson. There are no equations, tables or graphs in this book. Rather Rodrik's evidence is largely anecdotal, drawn from his vast experience.

Rodrik's message is simple. The first stage of capitalism was dominated by a hegemonic capitalist class and unregulated markets, guided by an ideology of laissez-faire. The second stage was dominated by the distribution struggle between industrial capital and industrial labor, with Keynesian economics in the ascendency. We are now in a third stage of capitalism in which globalization has thrown the supporters of labor in disarray, and in which a new set of nation-state level regulations are needed to protect democracy without losing the economic benefits of globalization.

The enemy for Rodrik is ultraglobalism, in which unregulated international capital flows prevent countries from redistributing in favor of the less well off, free trade principles prevent countries from applying their own environmental and product safety standards, and hypercompetition prevents countries from implementing desirable pay scales and occupational safety and health regulation. In short, says Rodrik, ultraglobalism is the enemy of democracy, because it prevents voters from making meaningful choices about the future direction of their own society.

Rodrik's recommendations for a healthy economic policy are far from radical. He recognizes that the prospects for "global government" are slim, so meaningful economic regulation will continue to be exercised at the nation-state level. He then asserts that each country has the right to determine its own social arrangements, regulations, and institutions, even when this self-determination interferes with globalization, and thus requires serious levels of economic protectionism. A replacement for Bretton-Woods for the control of international economic relations should permit the proliferation of national differences in the philosophy of economic regulation, should refrain from imposing the institutions of one country on another, except that democracy should be fostered in all countries, and non-democratic nations should not have full access to the international economy.

There are serious problems with Rodrik's argument, in my view. It is clear that his new regulatory order is aimed at resuscitating the power of organized labor to collude with big capital to raise wages and prices, and curtail competition over these and the quality of goods by restricting international competition. If Rodrik's regulatory system were in place in the last quarter of the 20th century in the USA, we would still be driving the gas-guzzler pigs of cars that the Big Three forced down our throats since WWII. What Rodrik calls "democracy" is really the exercise of special interests whose main goal is to prevent real competition. We can do without.

I do not think much of labor unions for the advanced liberal democracies in the present era. The maintenance of occupational safety and health are better served through national legislation that affects all workers, not a privileged few in a highly organized industrial sector. In the industrial era, where many important industries were oligopolistic so the bosses earned huge monopoly profits, the role of the union was to redistribute a portion of these monopoly profits to the firm's workers. With globalization, oligopoly has given way to competitive industries in which there is no monopoly surplus for redistribution. Accordingly, labor unions have all but disappeared except in the public sector, where workers can fight for a bigger share of the tax dollar.

It is interesting to consider the two major capital-labor battles in the USA that rage as I write: the owners of the National Football and National Basketball Associations pitted against their players. Why is there a battle? Because the NFL and NBA both have charters granted by Congress that gives them monopoly rights. With these rights come monopoly profits, whence the logic of the Players' Associations. In a competitive sports framework, unions are simply not worth the candle.

Of course, Rodrik's is an attempt to articulate a liberal political philosophy for an era in which the traditional supports for the Democratic party have weakened. I do not think his well-meaning attempt will be successful.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Things missing, December 28, 2011
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
This is a nice book that helps explain a great deal of present economic and financial dynamics. I liked very much its realistic (ie scientific) attitude towards the limits of globalization due to unavailability of global institutions of regulation and governance. The book does a good job in explaining the dangers and collateral damages of unrestricted trade and finance. However, the author never explains fully the political and economic powers that enforced globalization on EU and USA states. After reading the book you are not much wiser as to why European and American societies had to be disturbed and inflicted with mass unemployment and financial disasters before the problematic nature of all was realized again (cause
this has happened before). It is as if the lives of millions of Europeans that needed hundreds of years in order to achieve their remarkable social and economic order were part of a grotesque experiment.

Overall the book has some good ideas. But the discussions are not as direct as should have been and at places it all appears as a kind of postdisaster wishful thinking rather than an uncompromising analyses of the shaping forces of social and economic dynamics. Three stars for its correct conclusions.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Fine critique of deep globalisation, August 5, 2011
By 
William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, argues against financial globalisation and for countries to put their people first through industrial policy. He points out that the Bretton Woods system was built on the belief that countries' domestic needs would and should trump the global economy's demands.

Countries that rely on international finance do poorly. He writes, "The benefits of globalisation come to those who invest in domestic social capabilities. These investments in turn require some degree of support for domestic firms - protective tariffs, subsidies, undervalued currencies, cheap funding, and other kinds of government assistance ... The deep integration model of globalisation overlooks this imperative. By restricting in the name of freer trade the scope for industrial policies needed to restructure and diversify national economies, it undercuts globalisation as a positive force for development."

As Rodrik notes, "National democracy and deep globalisation are incompatible." Governments cannot meet both the demands of foreign creditors and the needs of their own people.

He argues against trade fundamentalism, as expressed in World Trade Organization rules and in World Bank and IMF practice. Fixed exchange rates and capital mobility both enslave countries to other countries' monetary policies. Opening up to foreign economic intervention means facing greater risks, and less growth. More capital inflows do not mean more growth.

In 1991, Argentina's Convertibility Law tied the peso to the dollar, strangling the economy, just as the euro is doing to Greece, Portugal, Cyprus, Italy and Spain. In 2001-2, Argentina defaulted on its foreign debt, reimposed capital controls, devalued the peso, froze utility prices, increased social spending, improved its tax collection and created import substitution industries. The markets screamed, but Argentina's economy grew by 63 per cent in six years, pulling 11 million people out of poverty.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Democracy vs. profits..., April 19, 2014
By 
MADC "mdiaz" (America Latina) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
First, excuse me for my English.
I found this book to be very well researched and documented from a historical point of view. From a technical perspective, the explanations are clear and the logic and conclusions are solid. But we, people from the poor countries feel there is another side to the story. One that Mr. Rodrik mentions just in passing: there IS a dark side. Are there hedgehogs, or just economists responding to their ideology or to the money they get paid by the elites and/or transnational corporations running the globalization show? There is no way they didn't know what would be the results or consequences of the models they proposed and still defend. Well, the results are there for all to see and the scheme is to get the world back to what Mr. Rodrik presents as Capitalism No. 1, and that is deep globalization with the WTO and the FMI doing the job the gunboats did in the past.
I really think this is a book that everybody should read and study..
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars On The Horns Of A Trilemma, July 31, 2011
This review is from: The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (Hardcover)
Dani Rodriks's new book is a very interesting - and rather alarming - look at the current state of globalization. His basic proposition is that we are currently experiencing the:

'fundamental political trilemma of the world economy: we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalization. If we want to push globalization further, we have to give up either the nation state or democratic politics. If we want to maintain and deepen democracy, we have to choose between the nation state and international economic integration. And if we want to keep the nation state and self-determination, we have to choose between deepening democracy and deepening globalization. Our troubles have their roots in our reluctance to face up to these ineluctable choices.' (Introduction P XVII-XIX)

Over the course of the following twelve chapters, Rodrik gives us a history of globalization and free trade (pre- and post-World War 1), a consideration of the economic theories and policies that have affected the responses to them (Keynes, Bretton Woods, GATT, WTO, the 'Washington Consensus' etc.) and a look at specific national responses to globalization (South Korea, China, Argentina, South Africa amongst others), before returning to and expanding on his theme of the 'Political Trilemma' (Chapter 9). Finally, he makes a number of proposals for the design of 'Capitalism 3.0' (Chapter 11) before looking forward to 'A Sane Globalization' (Chapter 12).

Initially, Rodrik examines the relationship between states and markets. He suggests that '...markets are not self-creating, self-regulating, self-stabilizing, or self-legitimizing.' (P22 in italics) He continues: 'If states are indispensable to the operation of national markets, they are also the main obstacle to the establishment of global markets'. (P22)

Thus we see the beginnings of the 'trilemma'. Global markets fall between national regulatory systems. One solution to this, historically, was mercantilism (P23).

The first great era of globalization, prior to the First World War, Rodrik suggests, was down to a number of factors - new technologies played a major part, but so did a growing acceptance of Adam Smith's ideas, leading to a desire to reduce tariffs and other 'transactional costs'. However, the reduction of these costs was also largely down to imperialism which helped to minimise the 'regulatory gaps' between nations. Even so, the actual period of 'free trade' was relatively brief - roughly the 1860's and 1870's (P26). The fact is that the role of the nation state was always crucial, always underpinning 'free trade'. It is not simply a question of removing the state from the picture - 'free trade' cannot exist without the state. The relationship between the two is complex, subtle and quite inextricable.

Rodrik examines the relationship between the state, civil society, free trade and globalization in detail in Chapter 3. He also criticises his fellow economists:

'When economists oversell globalization by presenting an incomplete case for it, they not only lose an opportunity to educate the public, they also lose credibility. They become viewed as advocates or as hired guns for the "stateless elites" whose only interest is to remove impediments to their international operations.' (P66)

Rodrik next considers the Bretton Woods agreement and the development of a limited form of globalization post-World War 2. He, like many economists, sees this as a golden era for which Keynes and Harry Dexter White were largely responsible. Rodrik sums up Keynes' views on globalization as:

'Unqualified commitment to free trade was feasible only when societies were ruled by narrow technocracies with faith in a uniform type of capitalism. It ceased to be practical, or even desirable, in a world where nations were experimenting with alternative visions of political economy.' (P68)

Again, an indication of the 'trilemma'.

Freeing up trade in goods, Rodrik believes, has largely been a 'good thing'. But it was with the freeing up of finance that things started going awry. With the 'stagflation' of the 70s and the subsequent move towards 'supply side' economics and floating exchange rates, capital became 'excessively' mobile. This caused huge problems: in Latin America, Mexico, Europe, South East Asia (1997-8), Russia (1998), Brazil (1999), Argentina (2000), Turkey (2001). (See Naomi Klein for an alternative perspective on this).

It turns out that those countries that were most successful, as has been noted many times before (Roubini, Stiglitz et al), were those who precisely did not open up their economies to the vagaries of globalization; South Korea, Taiwan, India and, of course, China, have all protected their fledgling industries, ensuring their establishment before opening them up to international competition. Rodrik specifically rejects Tom Friedman's contention that donning a 'Golden Straightjacket' of 'free trade, free capital markets, free enterprise and small government' (P189) was the only way to successful economic progress. But:

'...Friedman's central insight remains valid. There is a fundamental tension between hyperglobalization and democratic politics. Hyperglobalization does require shrinking domestic politics and insulating technocrats from the demands of popular groups. Friedman erred when he overstated the economic benefits of hyperglobalization and underestimated the power of politics. He therefore overestimated the long-run feasibility, as well as desirability, of deep integration.' (P189-190)

Again, we see the 'trilemma' raising its head, again we see the tension between national democracies and global markets. And globalization is not yet complete. Although trade and finance are pretty well globalized, there is a third area that has barely begun the process - and that is labour.

Finally, Rodrik moves on to possible ways forward. Admitting that a global government is unlikely to arrive any time soon, his solution is essentially to limit the scope of globalization, promoting the importance of democratic national governments over the demands of, as he puts it, hyperglobalization, even at the expense of efficient markets. He expands on these ideas in 'Designing Capitalism 3.0'.

Whether you think that these proposals are feasible or not, judge for yourself. Making markets subservient to local/national regulatory systems will inevitably increase 'transaction costs' but if this means a 'saner' globalization surely this is a price worth paying.

However, some of his proposals struck me as simply unrealistic. In particular, I was not impressed with his proposals regarding labour. He suggests that workers from developing countries should be allowed temporary (five year) visas to come and work in richer countries. To avoid these workers overstaying, the visas should work on a 'one in, one out' basis, so that the worker would have to return to their country in order to allow another worker the opportunity.

At this point, I think it would be an idea to read 'Immigrant Nations'. Will these workers be allowed to bring their families with them? If such a worker brings a child with them, that child will be educated in the host country for the duration of their stay. What of the cultural differences? If such a worker was to start a family in the host country during their five year period, will the whole family return? In a labour market which is increasingly 'hour glass shaped', (see Owen Jones, amongst others) these workers will most likely be either highly skilled professionals or un/semi-skilled workers who will push down the value of wages in the host country, making them an inevitable source of tension.

Overall, this is a very readable book, making many valid points. But in the end, I was unconvinced. Quite frankly, I think it's too late. As I've said elsewhere, I believe that the Goldman Sachs Vampire Squid and the Kleptocracy (a.k.a. "stateless elites") have got far too firm a hold and we are more likely to see the rise of a new form of feudalism. In the end, hyperglobalization is just another Road to Serfdom. We are so doomed.
Sorry. :-)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars the book is about the commerce in the history, March 16, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
To understand the globalization, we need to understand the history, specialy the history of the commerce. The book explains relations between economy and politics
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Globalization Paradox by Rodrik, February 5, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This is a great book. Rodrik tries to deliver a complicated concept in a way that even readers without too much economics background can understand. His point of view for globalization is completely different from what we see everyday from the media or politicians. However, he has the data to support all his arguments. This book makes rethink about human's and of course my own future.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy
$26.95 $15.42
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.