Trump's 'Liberation Day' Tariffs: Fair trade or global trade war?

PJ 2024.6 What Comes After Neoliberalism? Jun 4, 2024 The steep tariff increases on Chinese goods that US President Joe Biden’s administration recently announced are just the latest in a long string of interventionist economic policies that fly in the face of decades of neoliberal orthodoxy. And the Biden administration is hardly alone: a growing number of governments, economists, and institutions are rethinking the free-market doctrine to which they long subscribed. In this Big Question, we ask Mehrsa Baradaran, Anne O. Krueger, Mariana Mazzucato, Dani Rodrik, Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Michael R. Strain whether the neoliberal era is ending – and if so, what will follow it. Featured in this Big Question Mehrsa Baradaran MEHRSA BARADARAN Anne O. Krueger ANNE O. KRUEGER Mariana Mazzucato MARIANA MAZZUCATO Dani Rodrik DANI RODRIK Joseph E. Stiglitz JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ Michael R. Strain MICHAEL R. STRAIN MEHRSA BARADARAN What follows neoliberalism? A true free market. In my latest book, The Quiet Coup: Neoliberalism and the Looting of America, I argue that, contrary to the standard historical narrative, neoliberal ideology has always been a red herring. Neoliberalism was not a backlash against Keynesian economics or rising Marxism. Rather, neoliberal dogmas were adopted in the 1960s to cover the empire with new clothes. While the world’s people demanded freedom from exploitation after centuries of colonial subjugation, Western neoliberal policymakers latched on to “market freedom,” which essentially meant “freedom for capital.” The core ideas of neoliberalism – often described as capitalism without state intervention – have repeatedly been debunked by volumes of research and simple reality: rising tides did not lift all boats, free trade did not usher in world peace, and markets were not necessarily more efficient than governments. In any case, debates about the virtues of markets over state power miss the mark, because they confuse what the ideology purports to do with what actually it does. Our economy resembles capitalism as much as our political system resembles democracy – hardly at all. From the beginning, neoliberalism was a Trojan horse. It promised market freedom but delivered the opposite: more laws, lawyers, subsidies, and, in the United States, the largest federal bureaucracy in the country’s history, which has ballooned since neoliberalism became state policy, now comprising more than 11 million employees with a total government budget of $6 trillion. In practice, neoliberalism invaded and reshaped the regulatory state, making the bureaucracy unintentionally complicit in its own delegitimization. Neoliberal economists and politicians convinced the public that government intervention in markets was harmful and inefficient, and neoliberal administrations promised to repeal laws constraining the market. But what neoliberalism actually accomplished was a reorientation of lawmaking away from the public that government was meant to represent, toward the industries it was supposed to oversee. Once industry became a key participant in the lawmaking process, laws became more specific, technical, and complex, making public participation more difficult and lobbyist expertise more necessary. Under the guise of economic liberalism, a worm of corruption entered our institutions, resulting in widespread distrust. What is less predictable is how this shared sense of distrust will affect our society. What must come after corruption is justice. And justice is a prerequisite for freedom, which itself must be achieved in reality, before the world can truly enjoy a free market and shared prosperity. ANNE O. KRUEGER Over the last 250 years, a spectacular transformation has occurred, with living standards, health, education, and the quality of life rising sharply around the world. As the Nobel laureate economic historian Robert Fogel pointed out in 2007, the poverty line in 2000 was at a real-income level that, in 1900, was attained by only the richest 6-7% of Americans! This transformation began in the 1800s, when the United Kingdom adopted “neoliberal” policies, such as providing incentives for the private sector, first, to produce goods and services in a competitive setting, and, second, to open up to trade. Other countries – today’s advanced economies – soon followed suit. In the 1990s, many developing countries (including China) also undertook policy reforms that reflected neoliberal ideas. The impact was immense: from 1990 to 2020, the share of the world’s population living in extreme poverty plummeted from over 58% to just 9.3%. It is an astonishing achievement. Of course, uneven progress in advanced and developing economies left some groups behind. When shortcomings became evident, measures were taken to address them. Child labor was prohibited, and education became mandatory. Antitrust laws were passed. Private firms were forced to adhere to more stringent safety codes. Banking regulations were adopted. Social safety nets were put in place to help the unemployed, the elderly, and other disadvantaged groups. Rising productivity and incomes were central to progress. As people grew richer, spending on both private-consumption and public goods increased. The private sector had plenty of incentive to keep improving productivity, develop new products, and otherwise fuel economic dynamism. The public sector also did its part, providing infrastructure (from water to transportation), strengthening education and training, enforcing safety standards, establishing realistic commercial codes, and more. Despite all that success, governments are increasingly forsaking reliance on markets and attempting to identify promising industries and private firms for special treatment. In the US, this is taking the form of both protectionist measures and targeted incentives and support, especially for semiconductors, batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels, and even steel and aluminum. Many other countries are doing the same: semiconductor subsidies are now in place in Europe, Japan, India, and of course China. These policies may well induce additional investments and production, but they have important disadvantages. For starters, they shift competition from reducing costs to qualifying for government incentives, which are more readily earned by larger companies. Moreover, the government officials responsible for ascertaining the technical validity of investment plans are often underqualified or represent a reallocation of resources from private industries. In fact, evidence suggests that, historically, a large share of public-sector efforts to “pick winners” or take the lead in producing goods and services have fared poorly. Subsidization is a negative-sum game. To improve the well-being of all and generate resources for further government activities, the neoliberal formula – rely on incentives and competition in the private sector for most activities, within the framework of competition policy, commercial codes, and sensible standards – remains the best one that humanity has so far devised. MARIANA MAZZUCATO Yes, the state is making a comeback. But for neoliberalism truly to become a thing of the past, that comeback must take a different form. The COVID-19 pandemic, the recent bout of high inflation, and rising geopolitical tensions have highlighted for governments what it takes to tackle massive crises. But addressing the challenges that lie ahead – most notably, the climate crisis – will require more sustained efforts to achieve “mission-driven government,” which recognizes that the economy will not grow in a socially and environmentally desirable direction on its own. This will require a new social contract between the state and business, and between capital and labor. For example, governments can condition firms’ access to public funding – such as that included in the industrial strategies that a growing number of governments are embracing – on their behaving in ways that maximize public value. With share buybacks in the US alone set to surpass $1 trillion for the first time ever, this might mean requiring firms receiving public funding to share a portion of their profits and reinvest them in productive activities, such as worker training and research and development. This is not about providing corporate welfare, but about shaping markets, so that they are centered on stakeholder – rather than only shareholder – value. It’s also an opportunity to give previously excluded voices a seat at the table. Despite this clear potential of green initiatives to boost incomes, productivity, and economic growth, the false dichotomy between economic prosperity and environmental sustainability persists. If the progressive left continues to struggle to articulate a compelling counternarrative, the green transition will lack the political support it needs to succeed, and we will be unable to overcome the limiting neoliberal conception of the state as a market-fixer, rather than a market-shaper. DANI RODRIK The neoliberal consensus has been overtaken by new concerns about geopolitics, national security, supply-chain resilience, climate change, and the erosion of the middle class. We should not mourn its passing, as it was unsustainable and had many blind spots. Whether something good comes out of it will depend on the nature of the response, which could be either reactive or constructive. The reactive response is driven by external developments – mainly fears of the economic and geopolitical impact of China’s rise. Its main focus is reversing, or at least delaying, the consequences, and it tends to take a zero-sum approach: your win is my loss. Versions of this approach can be seen in both the US and Europe. In the US, it takes the form mainly of weaponizing trade for geopolitical ends: while the Biden administration characterizes its export controls on China as “carefully tailored,” others see them as tantamount to a “full-blown economic war.” In Europe, the key concern is loss of market share, with leading voices fretting about global competitiveness – a misguided concern which economists thought they had buried. The constructive response, by contrast, tackles genuine social, economic, and environmental problems, aiming to repair the fissures created by neoliberal policies, without concerning itself with what other countries are doing. It encompasses policies that create good jobs and restore the middle class, mitigate climate change through industrial policies and by phasing out fossil fuels, and rebalance the economy toward the needs of ordinary people, rather than large corporations or financial interests. The requisite industrial policies can produce adverse effects on trade, but that is not their main goal. We should not fret about each country or region doing its own thing, as long as the response is primarily of the constructive type. A world in which each country is looking after the health of its own economy and society, and taking care of the environment, is one that also produces a better global economy. JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ The neoliberal agenda was always partly a charade, a fig leaf for power politics. There was financial deregulation, but also massive government bailouts. There was “free trade,” but also massive subsidies to big agriculture and the fossil-fuel industry. Globally, this led to the creation of rules that preserved colonial trade patterns, with developing countries producing commodities and the advanced economies dominating high-value-added industries. That it was a charade has now been made apparent by the US, which is providing huge subsidies to certain industries – essentially disregarding World Trade Organization rules – after decades of scolding developing countries that even considered doing the same. Admittedly, the US is acting partly in the service of a good cause: the green transition. Nonetheless, its actions demonstrate that the powerful not only play a disproportionate role in making the rules, but also flout them when they become inconvenient, knowing that there is nothing that others can do it about it. Meanwhile, poor countries have no choice but to follow the rules, no matter the consequences. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an estimated 1.3 million died unnecessarily because WTO rules on intellectual-property rights prevented full vaccine sharing. Those rules were enforced, rather than suspended, because some rich countries chose to put pharmaceutical profits above all else. The worry is that a world with no rules – governed by the “law of the jungle” – could be worse than a world with rules based on flawed economic principles that perpetuate unfair power dynamics and are unevenly enforced. That is why, as Dani Rodrik and I have argued, we need a new governance architecture, based on the minimal set of rules necessary to make our global system work. We need narrow agreements to advance shared goals and to ensure some semblance of a level playing field. Advanced economies should be allowed to provide subsidies only for narrowly defined objectives, like the green transition, and only if they commit to transfer technology and provide a commensurate amount of funding to developing countries. The rule of law is as important globally as it is within countries, but the type of law matters. The US and other advanced economies need developing countries and emerging markets to cooperate with them on a host of issues. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are also competing with authoritarian governments to win their hearts and minds. With our current playbook, we’ve been losing. The end of neoliberalism, the recognition that some of the institutions created under its aegis are failing, and the new geopolitical realities provide us with a critical opportunity to rethink globalization and the rules that have underpinned it. We must seize it. MICHAEL R. STRAIN The neoliberal era is not ending in the US, because over the long term, political success rests on a foundation of policy success, and the “post-neoliberal” policies embraced by Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden are not succeeding. Trump broke with the bipartisan free-trade consensus to which his recent predecessors subscribed when he launched a trade war with China. The result was higher prices for consumers and fewer jobs for manufacturing workers. Lose-lose. Biden has maintained and extended the Trump tariffs, and has embraced industrial policy to jumpstart domestic clean-energy innovation and semiconductor manufacturing. But substituting the judgment of politicians for the judgment of markets is meeting with predictable results: the US lacks the workforceneeded to use these funds effectively. Moreover, other countries are retaliating, blunting the impact of the subsidies. The White House is tripping over itself, pursuing contradictory goals. Biden’s $2 trillion economic stimulus, signed in March 2021, cast aside even a rhetorical commitment to fiscal responsibility. The inflation to which it contributed is a major headwind in his quest for re-election. Finally, Biden’s regulatory agenda rejects the consumer-welfare standard in competition policy in favor of a “big is bad” standard. This approach is chillingdeal-making and persistently losing in courts. The US is set to continue on this unproductive path, regardless of who wins the November election. Trump and Biden are trying to out-do each other on how high they can raise tariff rates, and one of Trump’s potential vice presidential picks argues that Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, responsible for antitrust enforcement, is the “best person” in the Biden administration. Meanwhile, Trump’s immigration proposals would cause severe economic damage. These policy failures will have political consequences – not in 2024 apparently, but certainly in the coming years. Ironically, they will end up solidifying the consensus around the importance of free people and free markets. Featured in this Big Question Mehrsa Baradaran MEHRSA BARADARAN Writing for PS since 2024 1 Commentary Mehrsa Baradaran is Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, specializing in financial regulation. She is the author of How the Other Half Banks: Exclusion, Exploitation, and the Threat to Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2015), The Color of Money: Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap (Harvard University Press, 2017), and, most recently, The Quiet Coup: Neoliberalism and the Looting of America (W.W. Norton & Company, 2024). Anne O. Krueger ANNE O. KRUEGER Writing for PS since 2014 80 Commentaries Follow Anne O. Krueger, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is Senior Research Professor of International Economics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Development at Stanford University. She is the author of International Trade: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford University Press, 2020). Mariana Mazzucato MARIANA MAZZUCATO Writing for PS since 2015 70 Commentaries Follow Mariana Mazzucato, Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London, is Founding Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose and a co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water. She was Chair of the World Health Organization’s Council on the Economics of Health For All. She is the author of The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy (Penguin Books, 2019), Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (Penguin Books, 2022), and, most recently, The Big Con: How the Consulting Industry Weakens Our Businesses, Infantilizes Our Governments and Warps Our Economies (Penguin Press, 2023). A tenth anniversary edition of her book The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths was published by Penguin in September. Dani Rodrik DANI RODRIK Writing for PS since 1998 222 Commentaries Follow Dani Rodrik, Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard Kennedy School, is President of the International Economic Association and the author of Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy (Princeton University Press, 2017). Joseph E. Stiglitz JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ Writing for PS since 2001 340 Commentaries Follow Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment. He is the author, most recently, of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society (W. W. Norton & Company, Allen Lane, 2024). Michael R. Strain MICHAEL R. STRAIN Writing for PS since 2022 29 Commentaries Follow Michael R. Strain, Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author, most recently, of The American Dream Is Not Dead: (But Populism Could Kill It) (Templeton Press, 2020). 新自由主義之後會發生什麼事？ https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/what-comes-after-neoliberalism 2024 年 6 月 4 日 美國總統拜登政府最近宣布對中國商品大幅提高關稅，只是一系列與數十年來新自由主義正統觀念背道而馳的干預主義經濟政策中的最新一項。拜登政府並不孤單：越來越多的政府、經濟學家和機構正在重新思考他們長期以來信奉的自由市場主義。 在這個大問題中，我們詢問了Mehrsa Baradaran、  Anne O. Krueger、  Mariana Mazzucato、  Dani Rodrik、  Joseph E. Stiglitz和Michael R. Strain 新自由主義時代是否正在結束——如果是的話，接下來會發生什麼。 在這個大問題中精選 梅赫薩·巴拉達蘭 安妮·克魯格 瑪麗安娜·馬祖卡托 丹尼·羅德里克 約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨 麥可·R·斯特蘭 梅赫薩·巴拉達蘭 新自由主義之後是什麼？真正的自由市場。在我的最新著作《無聲的政變：新自由主義與對美國的掠奪》中，我認為，與標準的歷史敘事相反，新自由主義意識形態一直是一種轉移注意力的東西。新自由主義並不是對凱因斯主義經濟學或新興馬克思主義的強烈抵制。相反，新自由主義教條在 20 世紀 60 年代被採用，為帝國穿上新衣服。儘管世界人民在經歷了幾個世紀的殖民統治後要求擺脫剝削，但西方新自由主義政策制定者抓住了“市場自由”，這本質上意味著“資本的自由”。 新自由主義的核心思想——通常被描述為沒有國家幹預的資本主義——一再被大量的研究和簡單的現實所揭穿：水漲船高並沒有使所有船隻升起，自由貿易並沒有帶來世界和平，市場不一定更有效比政府。無論如何，關於市場相對於國家權力的優點的爭論沒有切中要害，因為它們混淆了意識形態聲稱的作用與實際作用。我們的經濟與資本主義的相似程度正如我們的政治制度與民主的相似程度一樣——幾乎完全不同。 從一開始，新自由主義就是特洛伊木馬。它承諾市場自由，但卻帶來了相反的結果：更多的法律、律師、補貼，以及美國歷史上最大的聯邦官僚機構，自新自由主義成為國家政策以來，該機構不斷膨脹，目前擁有超過1,100 萬名僱員，政府預算總額為 6 兆美元。在實踐中，新自由主義入侵並重塑了監管國家，使官僚機構無意中成為其自身合法性喪失的共犯。 新自由主義經濟學家和政治家讓大眾相信政府乾預市場是有害且低效的，新自由主義政府承諾廢除限制市場的法律。但新自由主義實際上實現的是將立法重新定位，從政府本應代表的公眾轉向政府本應監管的產業。一旦工業界成為立法過程的關鍵參與者，法律就會變得更加具體、技術性和複雜性，使公眾參與更加困難，也更需要遊說專業知識。在經濟自由主義的幌子下，腐敗之蟲進入了我們的機構，導致了廣泛的不信任。難以預測的是，這種共同的不信任感將如何影響我們的社會。 腐敗之後必然到來的是正義。而正義是自由的先決條件，自由本身必須在現實中實現，世界才能真正享受自由市場和共同繁榮。 安妮·克魯格 在過去 250 年裡，世界發生了巨大的轉變，世界各地的生活水準、健康、教育和生活品質急劇提高。正如諾貝爾經濟學獎得主羅伯特·福格爾在2007年指出的那樣，2000年的貧困線處於1900年只有最富有的6-7%的美國人才能達到的實際收入水平！ 這種轉變始於 1800 年代，當時英國採取了「新自由主義」政策，例如為私營部門提供激勵措施，首先是在競爭環境中生產商品和服務，其次是開放貿易。其他國家——當今的已開發經濟體——很快也跟進。在1990年代，許多發展中國家（包括中國）也進行了體現新自由主義思想的政策改革。影響是巨大的：從 1990 年到 2020 年，世界赤貧人口比例從 58% 以上驟降至 9.3%。這是一項令人驚訝的成就。 當然，已開發經濟體和發展中經濟體的進展並不平衡，導致一些群體落後。當缺點明顯時，就採取措施加以解決。童工被禁止，教育變成強制性的。反壟斷法獲得通過。私人公司被迫遵守更嚴格的安全規範。通過了銀行法規。建立社會安全網，幫助失業者、老年人和其他弱勢族群。 生產力和收入的提高是進步的核心。隨著人們變得更加富裕，私人消費和公共物品的支出都增加了。私營部門有足夠的動機不斷提高生產力、開發新產品或以其他方式推動經濟活力。公共部門也盡了自己的一份力量，提供基礎設施（從水到交通）、加強教育和培訓、執行安全標準、建立切合實際的商業法規等等。 儘管取得了這些成功，但各國政府越來越多地放棄對市場的依賴，並試圖尋找有前途的產業和私人企業來給予特殊待遇。在美國，這採取了保護主義措施和有針對性的激勵和支持的形式，特別是針對半導體、電池、電動車、太陽能板，甚至鋼鐵和鋁。許多其他國家也在做同樣的事情：歐洲、日本、印度，當然還有中國，現在都實施了半導體補貼。 這些政策很可能會吸引額外的投資和生產，但它們也有很大的缺點。首先，他們將競爭從降低成本轉向獲得政府激勵措施，而大公司更容易獲得政府激勵措施。此外，負責確定投資計畫技術有效性的政府官員往往資質不足，或代表私人企業資源的重新分配。事實上，有證據表明，從歷史上看，公共部門「挑選贏家」或在生產商品和服務方面發揮領導作用的努力大部分效果不佳。補貼是一個負和遊戲。 為了改善所有人的福祉並為進一步的政府活動創造資源，新自由主義方案——在競爭政策、商業守則和合理標準的框架內，依靠私營部門的激勵和競爭來開展大多數活動——仍然是最佳方案人類迄今已設計出的一種。 瑪麗安娜·馬祖卡托 是的，國家正在捲土重來。但要讓新自由主義真正成為過去，這種捲土重來就必須採取不同的形式。 COVID-19 大流行、最近一輪高通膨以及不斷加劇的地緣政治緊張局勢，讓各國政府凸顯出應對大規模危機所需採取的措施。但應對未來的挑戰 — — 尤其是氣候危機 — — 將需要更持續的努力，以實現“使命驅動型政府”，即認識到經濟本身不會朝著社會和環境理想的方向增長。 這將需要國家與企業之間、資本與勞動力之間建立新的社會契約。例如，政府可以將企業獲得公共資金的機會（例如越來越多的政府正在採用的產業策略中所包含的資金）作為條件，以企業的行為方式實現公共價值最大化。光是美國的股票回購就將首次超過 1 兆美元，這可能意味著要求接受公共資金的公司分享部分利潤，並將其再投資於生產活動，例如工人培訓和研發。 這不是為了提供企業福利，而是為了塑造市場，使市場以利害關係人（而不僅僅是股東）價值為中心。這也是一個讓以前被排除的聲音在談判桌上佔有一席之地的機會。 儘管綠色措施在提高收入、生產力和經濟成長方面具有明顯的潛力，但經濟繁榮與環境永續性之間的錯誤二分法仍然存在。如果進步左派繼續努力提出令人信服的反敘事，綠色轉型將缺乏成功所需的政治支持，我們將無法克服新自由主義觀念的限制，即國家是市場操縱者，而不是市場-塑造者。 丹尼·羅德里克 新自由主義共識已被對地緣政治、國家安全、供應鏈彈性、氣候變遷和中產階級侵蝕的新擔憂所取代。我們不應該哀悼它的消逝，因為它是不可持續的並且有很多盲點。是否會產生好的結果取決於反應的性質，可以是反應性的，也可以是建設性的。 這種反應是由外部事態發展所驅動的——主要是對中國崛起帶來的經濟和地緣政治影響的擔憂。它的主要重點是扭轉或至少推遲後果，並且往往採取零和方法：你的勝利就是我的損失。這種方法的版本在美國和歐洲都可以看到。在美國，其形式主要是為了地緣政治目的而將貿易武器化：雖然拜登政府將其對華出口管制描述為“精心設計的”，但其他人則認為這無異於一場“全面的經濟戰爭」。在歐洲，主要的擔憂是市場份額的喪失，主要聲音對全球競爭力感到擔憂— — 經濟學家認為他們已經埋葬了這種被誤導的擔憂。 相較之下，建設性的回應是解決真正的社會、經濟和環境問題，旨在修復新自由主義政策造成的裂痕，而不關心其他國家正在做什麼。它包括創造良好就業機會和恢復中產階級的政策，透過產業政策和逐步淘汰化石燃料來緩解氣候變化，以及重新平衡經濟以滿足普通民眾的需求，而不是大公司或金融利益的需求。必要的產業政策可能會對貿易產生不利影響，但這不是其主要目標。 我們不必擔心每個國家或地區各做各的，只要回應主要是建設性的。一個每個國家都關心本國經濟和社會健康並保護環境的世界，也能創造出更好的全球經濟。 約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨 新自由主義議程在某種程度上始終是一場謎題，是強權政治的遮羞布。金融管制放鬆了，但政府也進行了大規模的紓困。有“自由貿易”，但也有對大農業和化石燃料工業的大量補貼。在全球範圍內，這導致了保留殖民貿易模式的規則的製定，即發展中國家生產商品，而發達經濟體主導高附加價值產業。 美國現在已經清楚地表明這是一場騙局，在數十年責罵甚至考慮這樣做的發展中國家之後，美國正在向某些行業提供巨額補貼 — — 基本上無視世界貿易組織的規則。誠然，美國的行動部分是為了一個好的事業：綠色轉型。儘管如此，它的行動表明，有權勢的人不僅在製定規則時發揮了不成比例的作用，而且在規則變得不方便時藐視規則，因為他們知道其他人對此無能為力。 同時，貧窮國家別無選擇，只能遵守規則，無論後果為何。在 COVID-19 大流行期間，估計有130 萬人不必要地死亡，因為世貿組織的智慧財產權規則阻止了疫苗的全面共享。這些規則得到執行，而不是暫停，因為一些富裕國家選擇將製藥利潤放在第一位。 令人擔憂的是，一個沒有規則的世界——由「叢林法則」統治——可能比一個基於有缺陷的經濟原則制定規則的世界更糟糕，這些規則會延續不公平的權力動態，而且執行不平衡。這就是為什麼，正如丹尼·羅德里克和我所說，我們需要一個新的治理架構，基於使我們的全球體系運作所需的最低限度的規則。我們需要達成狹隘的協議來推進共同目標並確保某種程度的公平競爭環境。已開發經濟體只應被允許為狹隘目標（例如綠色轉型）提供補貼，前提是它們承諾向發展中國家轉移技術並提供相應數量的資金。 法治在全球範圍內與在國家內部一樣重要，但法律的類型很重要。美國和其他已開發經濟體需要發展中國家和新興市場在許多議題上與他們合作。無論我們願不願意承認，我們也在與獨裁政府競爭，以贏得他們的民心。按照我們目前的策略，我們一直在失敗。 新自由主義的終結、人們認識到在其支持下創建的一些機構正在失敗，以及新的地緣政治現實為我們提供了重新思考全球化及其支撐規則的重要機會。我們必須抓住它。 麥可·R·斯特蘭 美國的新自由主義時代並沒有結束，因為從長遠來看，政治成功取決於政策成功的基礎，而唐納德·川普和喬·拜登總統所奉行的「後新自由主義」政策並沒有成功。 川普發起對華貿易戰，打破了前任所達成的兩黨自由貿易共識。結果是消費者的價格上漲，製造業工人的就業機會減少。雙輸。 拜登維持並延長了川普的關稅，並採取了產業政策來推動國內清潔能源創新和半導體製造。但用政治家的判斷代替市場的判斷會產生可預見的結果：美國缺乏有效使用這些資金所需的勞動力。此外，其他國家也在報復，削弱補貼的影響。白宮正在自相矛盾，追求著相互矛盾的目標。 拜登於 2021 年 3 月簽署的 2 兆美元經濟刺激計畫甚至拋棄了對財政責任的口頭承諾。它造成的通貨膨脹是他尋求連任的主要阻力。最後，拜登的監管議程拒絕競爭政策中的消費者福利標準，轉而支持「大就是壞」標準。這種做法令交易令人寒心，並在法庭上不斷敗訴。 無論誰贏得 11 月的大選，美國都將繼續走這條毫無成效的道路。川普和拜登正試圖在提高關稅的幅度上超越對方，川普潛在的副總統人選之一認為，負責反壟斷執法的聯邦貿易委員會主席莉娜·汗(Lina Khan) 是美國「最佳人選」。拜登政府。同時，川普的移民提案將造成嚴重的經濟損失。 這些政策失敗將產生政治後果——顯然不是在 2024 年，但肯定是在未來幾年。諷刺的是，他們最終將鞏固關於自由人民和自由市場重要性的共識。 在這個大問題中精選 梅赫薩·巴拉達蘭 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 Mehrsa Baradaran 是加州大學歐文分校法學教授，專門研究金融監管。她是《另一半銀行的方式：排斥、剝削和對民主的威脅》 （哈佛大學出版社，2015 年）、《 金錢的顏色：黑人銀行和種族財富差距》 （哈佛大學出版社，2017 年）的作者 ，以及最近，  《無聲的政變：新自由主義與對美國的掠奪》（WW Norton & Company，2024 年）。 安妮·克魯格 自2014 年 起為 PS 撰寫 80 則評論 跟隨 安妮·克魯格（Anne O. Krueger），前世界銀行首席經濟學家、國際貨幣基金組織前第一副總裁，約翰·霍普金斯大學高級國際研究學院國際經濟學高級研究教授，約翰·霍普金斯大學國際發展中心資深研究員。她是《國際貿易：每個人都需要知道的事》 （牛津大學出版社，2020 年）一書的作者。 瑪麗安娜·馬祖卡托 自2015 年 起為 PS 撰寫 70 則評論 跟隨 馬祖卡托 (Mariana Mazzucato)，倫敦大學學院創新與公共價值經濟學教授，倫敦大學學院創新與公共目的 研究所創始所長，全球水經濟委員會。她曾擔任世界衛生組織全民健康經濟學理事會主席。她是《一切的價值：全球經濟中的創造和獲取》  （企鵝圖書，2019 年）、《 使命經濟：改變資本主義的登月指南》  （企鵝圖書，2022 年）以及最近出版的《 大騙局：如何實現》一書的作者。她的著作《創業狀態：揭穿公部門與私部門的神話》十週年紀念版 由企鵝出版社於 9 月出版。 丹尼·羅德里克 自1998 年 起為 PS 撰寫 222 則評論 跟隨 丹尼‧羅德里克 (Dani Rodrik)，哈佛大學甘迺迪學院國際政治經濟學教授，國際經濟協會主席，著有《直言貿易：健全世界經濟的想法》（普林斯頓大學出版社，2017 年）。 約瑟夫·E·斯蒂格利茨 自2001 年 起為 PS 撰寫 340 則評論 跟隨 約瑟夫·E·史蒂格利茨（Joseph E. Stiglitz），諾貝爾經濟學獎得主、哥倫比亞大學教授，世界銀行前首席經濟學家（1997-2000）、美國總統經濟顧問委員會主席、高級經濟委員會聯合主席。他是國際企業稅改革獨立委員會的共同主席，也是 1995 年 IPCC 氣候評估的主要作者。他最近是自由之路：經濟學與美好社會（WW Norton & Company，Allen Lane，2024）。 麥可·R·斯特蘭 自2022 年 起為 PS 撰寫 29 則評論 跟隨 美國企業研究所經濟政策研究主任 Michael R. Strain 最近著有《 美國夢未死：（但民粹主義可能會扼殺牠）》  （坦普爾頓出版社，2020 年） 。 我們的貢獻者 5590 名貢獻者，82 名常規貢獻者 窗体顶端 窗体底端           最近的 常規的 全部 排序方式：AZ# 評論# 年 PS 寫作 . . 拉贊·哈利法·穆巴拉克 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . 拉贊·哈利法·阿爾·穆巴拉克 (Razan Khalifa Al Mubarak) 是 COP28 聯合國氣候變遷高級代表，也是國際自然保護聯盟主席。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 伊恩·布雷默 . 自2006 年 起為 PS 撰寫 31 則評論 . 布雷默 (Ian Bremmer)，歐亞集團和 GZERO Media 創辦人兼總裁，聯合國人工智慧高階諮詢機構執行委員會成員。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 溫妮·拜安伊瑪 . 自2016 年 開始為 PS 撰寫 7 則評論 . 溫妮‧拜安伊瑪 (Winnie Byanyima) 是聯合國愛滋病規劃署執行主任兼聯合國副秘書長。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 納迪亞·卡爾維諾 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 2 則評論 . 納迪亞·卡爾維諾 (Nadia Calviño) 是歐洲投資銀行行長。 . . . 保羅·塞薩里尼 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . 保羅·切薩里尼 (Paolo Cesarini) 是歐洲數位媒體觀察站主任。 . . . 加利普·達萊 . 自2019年 開始為PS寫作 3則評論 . 加利普·達萊（Galip Dalay），牛津大學博士研究員，查塔姆研究所高級顧問研究員，中東全球事務委員會非常駐高級研究員。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 約書亞·甘斯 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . 約書亞‧甘斯 (Joshua Gans) 是多倫多大學羅特曼管理學院策略管理學教授。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 艾莉西亞·加西亞-埃雷羅 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . Alicia García-Herrero 是 Bruegel 的高級研究員，法國投資銀行 Natixis 亞太區首席經濟學家，也是 AGEAS 保險集團的獨立董事會成員。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 克里斯托夫·勒克萊克 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . Christophe Leclercq 是 Euractiv Media Network 的創辦人，也是 Europe MédiaLab 的主席。 . . . 聖地亞哥·利維 . 自2017 年 開始為 PS 撰寫 2 則評論 . 聖地牙哥‧利維（Santiago Levy）是布魯金斯學會全球經濟與發展計畫的非常駐高級研究員，也是美洲開發銀行前首席經濟學家和部門與知識部門的前副行長。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 比奈費爾·諾羅吉 . 自2005 年 起為 PS 撰寫 2 則評論 . Binaifer Nowrojee 是開放社會基金會主席。 . . . 艾瑞克·波斯納 . 自2019 年 起為 PS 撰寫 32 則評論 . 艾瑞克‧波斯納 (Eric Posner) 是芝加哥大學法學院教授，著有《反壟斷如何讓工人失敗》（牛津大學出版社，2021 年）。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 瑪麗亞·若昂·羅德里格斯 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . 前歐洲議會議員瑪麗亞‧若昂‧羅德里格斯 (Maria João Rodrigues) 現任歐洲進步研究基金會主席。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 喬裡·羅傑 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . Joeri Rogelj 是倫敦帝國學院格蘭瑟姆氣候變遷與環境研究所氣候科學與政策教授兼研究主任，也是政府間氣候變遷專門委員會和聯合國環境規劃署報告的主要作者。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 薩洛梅·薩馬達什維利 . 自2022 年 起為 PS 撰寫 3 則評論 . 薩洛梅·薩馬達什維利（Salome Samadashvili）是格魯吉亞駐歐盟使團前團長，也是格魯吉亞議會議員和格魯吉亞萊洛黨政治秘書。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 艾倫·約翰遜·瑟利夫 . 自2007 年 開始為 PS 撰寫 9 則評論 . 諾貝爾和平獎得主、利比里亞前總統艾倫·約翰遜·瑟利夫是非洲前線第一組織的創始人​​，也是流行病防範和應對獨立小組的聯合主席。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 伊洛娜·索洛古布 . 自2022 年 起為 PS 撰寫 9 則評論 . Ilona Sologoub 是 VoxUkraine 的編輯。 . . . 艾夫尼·帕特爾·湯普森 . 自2024 年 起為 PS 撰寫 1 則評論 . Avni Patel Thompson 是 Milo 的創始人兼首席執行官，Milo 是一家人工智慧驅動的合作夥伴，幫助父母解決管理家庭的無形負擔。 . 閱讀更多 . . . 阿克塞爾·韋伯 . 自2015 年 開始為 PS 撰寫 6 則評論 . 阿克塞爾·A·韋伯（Axel A. Weber）是布雷頓森林委員會多邊改革工作小組聯合主席，曾任瑞銀集團董事長和德意志聯邦銀行前行長。 . 閱讀更多 . . . S·亞歷克斯·楊 . 自2022 年 起為 PS 撰寫 3 則評論 . S. Alex Yang 是倫敦商學院管理科學與營運學教授。 . 閱讀更多 . 我們的選擇 政治1 美國企業將後悔放棄民主 卡塔琳娜·皮斯托爾 解釋了為什麼支持唐納德·川普對於當今美國經濟巨頭來說是一個糟糕的選擇。 精選 . 烏克蘭戰爭的新舊教訓 . 2024 年 6 月 4 日 小約瑟夫·S·奈 . . 政治秩序的首要地位 . 2024 年 6 月 4 日 安德烈斯貝拉斯科 . . 歐洲央行過早降息的危險 . 2024 年 5 月 31 日 阿克塞爾·A·韋伯 . . 仍然受到華盛頓共識的困擾 . 2024 年 5 月 31 日 安塔拉‧哈爾達爾 . 窗体顶端 取得我們的每週通訊 窗体底端 . 政治1 . 莫迪與印度的未來之路 . 伊恩·布雷默 (IAN BREMMER) 調查了該國在一場出人意料的勢均力敵的選舉後面臨的挑戰和機會。 . 進一步閱讀 . RAGHURAM G. RAJAN 印度大選和該國的經濟未來 . 現在的可持續發展0 . 全球暖化 1.5°C 目標必須實現 . 喬裡·羅傑 (JOERI ROGELJ) 認為，《巴黎協定》設定的門檻仍然至關重要——即使它被打破了。 . 進一步閱讀 . 西蒙娜·塔利亞皮特拉 (SIMONE TAGLIAPIETRA) 歐洲如何完成綠色協議 . 政治0 . 歐洲需要一位民主專員 . 保羅·切薩里尼等人。 描述歐盟拯救民主不可或缺部門的戰略輪廓。 . 進一步閱讀 . 朱迪金斯伯格 我們的自由取決於新聞自由 . 經濟學0 . 墨西哥新總統的經濟議程 . 聖地亞哥·利維 . 克勞蒂亞·謝因鮑姆必須放棄這樣的幻想：隨著成長加速，非正規部門將自然消失。相反，她必須致力於消除因正式和非正式活動的不同待遇而產生的不正當激勵措施，並改革稅收制度。 . 進一步閱讀 . 阿米尼奧·弗拉加等人。 拉丁美洲的成長難題 . 政治0 . 烏克蘭戰爭威脅俄羅斯的區域影響力 . 加利普·達萊 解釋了為什麼如果沒有全面勝利，克里姆林宮在黑海和地中海的權力將會減弱。 . 進一步閱讀 . 妮娜·赫魯雪娃 讓俄羅斯為永久戰爭做好準備 . 文化0 . 政治秩序的首要地位 . 安德烈斯貝拉斯科 (ANDRÉS VELASCO) 解釋了為什麼沒有自由就不可能追求自由或平等。 . 進一步閱讀 . 彼得辛格 對以色列的批評何時是反猶太主義的？ . 政治0 . 東線的歐洲並不平靜 . 謝拉科夫斯基 (SŁAWOMIR SIERAKOWSKI) 解釋了波蘭、芬蘭和波羅的海國家如何為與俄羅斯的潛在戰爭做準備。 . 進一步閱讀 . 約施卡·費雪《 無世界秩序》 . 大局觀1 . 新自由主義之後會發生什麼事？ . 近半個世紀以來，各國政府一直宣揚自由貿易、放鬆管制和超全球化的優點，現在卻開始徵收進口關稅和出口限制，採取產業政策，並對綠色科技等受惠行業的國內企業提供大量補貼。由於許多觀察家預示著新自由主義的消亡，我們詢問了PS評論員接下來會發生什麼。