Rodrick, Dani 2011 “The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy”
The research question of the work of the author revolves around the paradox of globalization. He argues that the ultimate globalization paradox is that which works best when pushed slightly. According to the author, individuals must witness the new arrangements in global economies that are based on deliberation of the populations where it is present, and that is within nations. The author argues that economists have, for years, driven forward the globalization cause in financial institutions, trade and labor markets. Yet, consistent warning signs have indicated that this might not always be beneficial. Although globalization of the economy has driven unprecedented prosperity levels in developed countries, and is not beneficial at all for millions of poorly paid workers in Asia the author shows the concept to be unstable and resting on shaky pillars. The main argument of the author is that nations cannot pursue democracy simultaneously, economic globalization and national self- determination. He argues that protectionism will result if we allow governments too much power, and that unstable economy of the world with little political and social support will result if we give too much freedom to the markets. His main arguments are not for maximum globalization but smart globalization.
There are a number of variables that the author uses to argue his point. There are both independent and dependent variables. An example of a dependent variable in the text is markets. He argues that markets have to be coterminous with the institutions of regulation and governance that govern them. The market is, therefore, dependent on such things as governance and regulation. It is also dependent on the scope of workable. He emphasizes that markets are institutions that need support of other institutions that are non- market. His argument is that any type of long- distance market needs a non- market organization to develop it. Markets are not self- regulating, self- creating, not self- stabilizing and not self- legitimizing.
In this case, the author shows governance as an independent variable. He argues that the main idea behind legitimate governance today is the notion of the nation state. The modes and institutions of governance are independent because they are the ones that influence other variables like markets. Globalization is another notion in the text that a reader can take as an independent variable. It is an independent variable because, just like governance, it regulates and limits certain functions in the nation state, trade, and rules and regulations governing trade.
Rodrik’s hypothesis seems to be that hyperglobalization is today’s enemy of the world, and that nations have to address it to promote social concerns diversity across all of the world’s democracies. His conclusions are that we have to contend with an economy of the world that is a patchwork when it comes to governance. He argues that we run the risk of running into two risks if we do not get this balance right. The risk of legitimacy deficit is one possible risk if we push global rules too much. Instability and inefficiency is another possible risk that might occur if we push global markets too far. He concludes that recognizing and acknowledging the centrality of the nation is more likely to lead to an economy of the world that is healthy than trying to damage it.
The text is based on both qualitative and quantitative data to examine the social global and national trends that determine the paradox of globalization. The author, for example, carries out a number of surveys from which he derives a number of quantitative and qualitative data, which he uses to support and base his central arguments. The evidence plays a big role in his formulation of the main arguments he makes about globalization, governance, and several other trends in several state nations.
In presenting their ideas, the author is able to bring forth a number of theoretical frameworks. Some of these include globalization, institutionalism and liberalism. In the text, he criticizes globalization enthusiasts who are unalloyed, particularly focusing on their desire to liberalize capital movements and foreign trade fully. While acknowledging and showing the fact that extensive engagement with the economy of the world can lead to raised material living standards, the author worries that the unintended impacts might lead to unnecessary and even unwanted social distress. He is also not so happy about by the empirical casualness of the points and arguments advanced in liberalization support. He argues that there are numerous ways to development, and societies that are democratic should be freed to practice their collective preferences without having the policy and institutional preferences of outsiders imposed on them.
Unfortunately, the author does not apply the same thoroughness and scrutiny to how democracies make their decisions, which he does to the other arguments in the book like the one that concerns different ways to the development. He also argues that, as a forecaster, he is limited. He is unable to predict a number of financial crises. It also seems that the author is on unfamiliar grounds when discussing international finance. In conclusion, the author gives a number of recommendations. For instance, he points out that state nations should focus on global rules that improve their domestic deliberation quality. Further, he advises that state nations should legitimize national disparities in regulatory bodies, subject to safeguards of procedures that ensure deliberation that is high- quality.
Rodrick, Dani. The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy. W. W. Norton & Co., 2011. Print.
Write a comment: