I don't disagree with Rodrik's political argument here per se -- but I doMa la globalizzazione, ovvero il libero commercio, è davvero in grado di comprimere i prezzi? E qui cominciano i problemi.
have a few quibbles about it's generalizability... In focusing strictly on the
employment effects, ... Rodrik elides the biggest gain from trade -- lower
prices. ...
I vari interventi sono raccolti da Mark Thoma in un suo lungo post che merita segnalazione.
Se devo scegliere un suggello alla discussione faccio mie le parole con le quali Alex Tabarrok si pone la questione decisiva, ovvero: prima ancora di applicare l' attrezzistica dell' economia positiva, dobbiamo compiere una scelta morale circa la comunità che intendiamo tutelare: individuo, comunità nazionale o comunità internazionale. La risposta utilitaristica varia a seconda dell' ottica scelta.
Trade and the Moral Community, by Alex Tabarrok: Much of the recent
tradedebate between Rodrik, Mankiw, Tyler and others (see Tyler's excellent post
forlinks) is primarily not about positive economics but about the relevant
moralcommunity. Rodrik, for example, hasn't argued that trade does not
increaseaggregate wealth he has argued that trade is not guaranteed to increase
nationalwealth - something quite different. I consider three moral communities
and thecase for trade.
Peter wishes to trade with Jose. The individualist
says therelevant moral community is Peter and Jose and presumptively no one
else. Trade,the right of association, is a human right and on issues of rights
the moralcommunity is the individual. When Jose offers Peter a better deal than
Joe it'swrong - a moral outrage - for Joe to prevent Jose at gun point from
trading withPeter.
The more common view expressed implicitly by Dani Rodrik,
but by manyothers as well, is the nationalist view, the moral community is Peter
and Joe.Joe gets a vote on Peter's trades. Peter should be allowed to trade only
if bothPeter and Joe benefit, otherwise too bad. Jose counts for less.
A
third view, that of the liberal internationalist, says that Peter, Jose and Joe
countequally and are together the moral community.
Now how does the
positiveeconomics apply to these three cases? Peter and Jose presumptively are
betteroff from trade otherwise they wouldn't trade so the individualist
economist (theeconomist who takes Peter and Jose as the relevant moral
community) will supportfree trade. The liberal internationalist will also
support free trade becausethere is a strong argument from positive economics
that trade increases totalwealth (comparative advantage, specialization,
competition etc.).
In between, we have the nationalist economist for whom it
depends..."
