The Globalization Paradox, by Dani Rodrik

1441 Words3 Pages

The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy Welcome to college! You can only afford to maintain two of the next three options: adequate sleep, a social life, and good grades. In Dani Rodrik’s new book- The Globalization Paradox, a similar triangle is evinced. The author presents us with a “trilemma” consisting of Hyperglobalization, Democratic politics, and the Nation-State. You can efficiently balance two of these three triangle “corners”– but no more than two. Rodrik claims our current worldview on globalization is that the more of it- the merrier. Yet this is flawed thinking in the fact that bigger globalization isn’t necessarily better globalization, instead we need to strive for “smart” globalization over “maximum” globalization. Rodrik uses a vast amount of real world events, past and present theories, and statistics as evidence. In this essay I will first give a brief overview of Rodrik’s main argument and his evidence supporting it. Moreover, I will attempt to compare Rodrik’s argument(s) to Friedman’s. Finally, I will analyze the specific claim Rodrik makes (and one I found most interesting) concerning hyperglobalization’s hindrance on national democracies. In an interview with the Peterson Institute, Rodrik claims he is trying to create “a new narrative to shape the next stage of globalization, and to address the imbalance between the national scope of governments and the global nature of markets”, in many ways, this book does just that. As previously stated, Rodrik has diagnosed a “Political Trilemma of the World Economy”. The first point is that of Hyperglobalization, which is the ambitious agenda of “economic liberalization and deep integration” (17). In other words, it is a rapid and w... ... middle of paper ... ...one I would like to focus on, it that globalization gets in the way of national democracy. In conclusion, Rodrik is saying we must reduce our ambitions for globalization, but that that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Because to ensure a healthy global economy, every nation-state needs to do what’s best for them, not what’s best for the global economy. Rodrik also addresses a misconception, we must not think of the global economy like the ecosystem, where everything we put in affects negatively or positively on others. Whereas the things in our ecosystem, the air, water, etc. belong to no one. Global trade and finance policies are semi-private goods. Trade is good for each country, in and of itself. The trade one nation state does is for the benefit of that nation state. So fundamentally, a global economy is brought about by each individual country’s own interest.

Open Document