This Global Show Must Go On

THE last 20 years have brought the world more trade, more globalization and more economic growth than in any previous such period in history. Few commentators had believed that such a rise in trade and living standards was possible so quickly.

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

David G. Klein

 

More than 400 million Chinese climbed out of poverty between 1990 and 2004, according to the World Bank. India has become a rapidly growing economy, the middle class in Brazil and Mexico is flourishing, and recent successes of Ghana and Tanzania show that parts of Africa may be turning the corner as well.

Despite these enormous advances, however, there is a backlash against globalization and a widespread belief that it requires moderation. Ordinary people often question the benefits of international trade, and now many intellectuals are turning more skeptical, too. Yet the facts on the ground show that the current climate of economic doom and gloom simply isn’t warranted. The classic economic recipes of trade, investment and good incentives have never been more successful in generating huge gains in human welfare.

The globalization process has had its bumps, of course, as reflected recently by rising commodity prices, but that is largely a consequence of how much and how rapidly prosperity has grown. Countries like China have become richer so fast that global production of energy and food have been unable to match the pace. But rapid economic growth is the right direction, even if some of the remaining poor are suffering from high food prices.

For all the talk of a needed “timeout” from globalization, world trade is actually accelerating, and that is for the better. Big changes often come bunched together, so that when good things are happening it is important to maintain the trend. It’s true that the tariff-reducing talks at the World Trade Organization have stalled and that the Democratic Party, at least in its rhetoric, has moved away from the free-trade legacy of President Bill Clinton.

But the volume of trade is nonetheless likely to keep rising, if only because the world economy is expanding. Furthermore, a vast majority of Americans have never been better poised to benefit from global exchange and from the prosperity of the rest of the world.

Trade advocates focus on the benefits of goods arriving from abroad, like luxury shoes from Italy or computer chips from Taiwan. But new ideas are the real prize. By 2010, China will have more Ph.D. scientists and engineers than the United States. These professionals are not fundamentally a threat. To the contrary, they are creators, whose ideas are likely to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, not just the business elites. The more access the Chinese have to American and other markets, the more they can afford higher education and the greater their incentive to innovate.

Conservative and liberal economists agree that new ideas are the fundamental source of higher living standards. We urgently need new biotechnologies, a cure for AIDS and a cleaner energy infrastructure, to name just a few. Trade is part of the path toward achieving those ends. A wealthier China and India also mean higher potential rewards for Americans and others who invest in innovation. A product or idea that might have been marketed just to the United States and to Europe 20 years ago could be sold to billions more in the future.

Those benefits will take time to arrive, but trade with China has already eased hardships for poorer Americans. A new research paper by Christian Broda and John Romalis, both professors at the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago, has shown that cheap imports from China have benefited the American poor disproportionately. In fact, for the poor, discounting in stores such as Wal-Mart has offset much of the rise in measured income inequality from 1994 to 2005.

Despite all these gains, the prevailing intellectual tendency these days is to apologize for free trade. A common claim is that trade liberalization should proceed only if it is accompanied by new policies to retrain displaced workers or otherwise ameliorate the consequences of economic volatility.

Yes, the benefits of a good safety net are well established, but globalization is not the primary source of trouble for most American workers. Health care problems, bad schools for our children or, in recent times, bad banking practices have all produced greater disruptions — and these have been fundamentally domestic failings.

What’s really happening is that many people, whether in the United States or abroad, are unduly suspicious about economic relations with foreigners. These complaints stem from basic human nature — namely, our tendency to divide people into “in groups” and “out groups” and to elevate one and to demonize the other. Americans fear that foreigners will rise at their expense or “control” some aspects of the economy.

ONE approach is to appease these sentiments by backing away from trade just a bit, or by managing it, so as to limit the backlash. Giving up momentum, however, isn’t necessarily the right way forward. If we are too apologetic about globalization, we can feed core irrationalities, instead of taming them. The risk is that we will frame trade as a fundamental source of suffering and losses, which would make voters more nervous, not less.

It is wrong to play down the costs of globalization, but the reality is that we’ve been playing down its benefits for a long time. Politicians already pander to Americans’ suspicion of foreigners. There is no need for the rest of us to jump on this bandwagon. Instead, we need more awareness of the cosmopolitan benefits of trade and the often hidden — but no less real — gains for ordinary Americans.

If we look at trends of the last 20 years, we have every reason to believe that the modern era of free trade is just getting started.

自由贸易时代才刚刚开始

泰勒•柯文（Tayler Cowen）文

过去的20年，世界范围内的贸易增长、全球化进程和经济增长比历史上任何一段时间都要快。大部分人都认为，贸易增长和人们生活水平的改善将不会再有如此快的速度了。

根据世界银行的统计数据，1990到2004年，超过4亿中国人口脱离了贫困，印度成为一个快速增长的经济体，巴西和墨西哥的中产阶级群体不断壮大，而加纳和坦桑尼亚的巨大成功预示着非洲经济也即将迎来一个快速发展的新阶段。

尽管全球化带来了巨大的发展，但是关于这个问题还是存在一些不同意见，人们普遍相信全球化的进程应该是适度的、可控的。普通大众经常会质疑全球化所带来的收益，而现在越来越多的学者也开始持怀疑态度。事实上，虽然目前的全球经济正笼罩在一片忧郁、昏暗的气息下，但是古典经济学中关于贸易、投资和激励因素的理论从来没有像今天这样为我们带来了大量的财富。

当然，全球化的进程会带来一些阵痛，例如近期的日用品价格上涨，但从整体来看，这是财富快速增长的必然结果。像中国这样的经济体的爆发式发展，使得全球能源和食物的增长速度远远不能满足其需求。但是经济的快速增长是一个正确的趋势，即使一部分没有富起来的人需要承受食品价格高企所带来的痛苦。

顶着“暂停”全球化的舆论压力，国际贸易仍然在加速发展，而总体来说这对我们是有利的。要发展就必须付出一些成本，所以维持国际贸易增长的趋势是非常重要的。但事实是，国际贸易组织里降低关税的呼声越来越微弱，而民主党也偏离了比尔•克林顿（Bill Clinton）总统所确定的所谓自由贸易格局。

尽管如此，因为世界经济的不断发展，全球贸易总量看起来还是不断增加的。此外，美国人也已经做好了从世界贸易发展和全球繁荣中获取利益的准备。

全球化的支持者将目光集中于商品进口给美国人带来的收益，例如从意大利进口的优质皮鞋和从台湾进口的电脑芯片。但真正的收益确实全球化所带来的创意、思想的沟通。到2010年，中国所拥有的博士数量将超过美国。这些专家对于美国来说并不是一种威胁，正相反，这些创造者的新创意和新构想不仅仅给商业精英们带来了新的机会，也将更好地提高美国普通大众的生活水平。

无论是保守主义还是自由主义的经济学家都相信，新创意和新构想是提高人民生活水平的关键因素。我们迫切地需要新的生物技术来治疗艾滋病、提供洁净的能源等等。贸易是达到这一目标的一个可行方法。一个更加富裕的中国或印度，同样意味着有更大的潜在能力美国和其他致力于创新的国家提供更多的利益。20年前卖到美国或欧洲的新产品或新创意，未来将价值数十亿美金。

当然，要实现这些收益还需要一定的时间，但是与中国的交易已经给美国生活在贫困线以下的人们带来了许多好处。芝加哥大学商学院的克里斯蒂安•布罗达（Christian Broda）和约翰•罗密里斯（John Romalis）两位教授在最近发表的一份研究报告中指出，进口廉价的中国商品在某种程度上改善了美国的贫富差距问题。实际上，对于贫困人口来说，1994年到2005年间，沃尔玛之类的大型超市中的打折商品，抵消了大部分由于收入不均所带来的痛苦。

尽管自由贸易为我们带来了如此多的收益，近期的舆论仍然是在反思自由贸易的不良影响。民众普遍认为，要实现贸易自由化，首先要解决的两个重要问题是对失业工人的教育、培训和尽量减少由于经济波动所带来的不良影响。

没错，各种各样的贸易保护政策为我们建立了一道坚固的安全网，但是大部分美国工人面临巨大困难的根本原因并非全球化。最近出现的健康保障问题、子女教育问题或者金融业危机给我们带来了许多困扰——而造成这些问题的根本原因是国内经济的衰退。

问题的真正根源在于，无论是美国还是其他国家的人们，都对与外国之间的经济关系抱有过分的怀疑态度。这种态度源于基本的人性——也就是我们本能地将本国人和外国人划分为两个不同的群体，并且天然地亲近本国人而疏远外国人。美国人害怕因为其他国家的经济发展会加剧其自身的经济问题或部分控制美国经济。

解决这些问题的一个方法是略微减少一些贸易额，或对国际贸易进行相应的控制，以缓解这种情绪给贸易带来的不良影响。但是完全抑制自由贸易却不是个好主意。如果我们一味地抑制全球化的进程，就是助长了这些错误的舆论观点所带来的恶劣影响，这显然不是解决问题的正确方法。将自由贸易视为美国民众生活水平下降和经济衰退的根本原因，只会让选民们更加恐慌。

抑制全球化是错误的，但事实却是长期以来我们从全球化中所获得的收益一直在减少。政客们一味地迎合美国民众对外国人的怀疑心态，但是我们完全没必要趟这个浑水。我们应该对此有更加清醒的认识，无论是贸易给世界经济带来的利益还是隐藏于其中的——更为重要的——给美国民众带来的利益。

回顾过去20年来的经济发展趋势，我们完全有理由相信，自由贸易的时代才刚刚开始。