La mondialisation n'est pas coupable

by Paul Krugman

Le développement du libre-échange est souvent considéré comme la source de tous les maux de nos sociétés. Accusé de provoquer la montée du chômage et des inégalités, il génère des conflits commerciaux entre nations et justifierait le retour au protectionnisme. Spécialiste reconnu des questions économiques internationales, Paul Krugman s'insurge contre ces idées reçues popularisées par nombre d'essayistes influents aux États-Unis. Certes, la nouvelle théorie du commerce international a remis en cause une partie des résultats du modèle dominant fondé sur les avantages comparatifs. Pourtant, elle ne conduit pas à prôner un protectionnisme systématique. C'est le progrès technique, par son impact sur la compétitivité et les qualifications, qui est la source essentielle des changements actuels.

Dans ce recueil d'articles, l'auteur ambitionne de vulgariser les avancées de la recherche économique pour "un public non spécialisé", par "des textes clairs, efficaces et même amusants". Un pari réussi. --Gery Dumoulin

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Society, Politics, Business, International Relations

222 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published March 1, 1996

About the author

Paul Robin Krugman is an American economist, liberal columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times. In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

Reviews

[Elisala · Rating 2 out of 5]

J'ai pas fini. 1/ L'économie c'est pas mon truc, il faut m'expliquer bien doucement ou en me répétant plusieurs fois pour que je comprenne, et il y a de grandes chances pour que j'oublie l'explication 3 pages plus loin (c'est peut-être que je n'avais pas vraiment compris). 2/ Il s'agit d'un recueil d'articles, et les premiers sont un peu tous les mêmes. Alors 2/a on pourrait se dire que c'est parfait pour que peut-être je finisse par comprendre et 2/b peut-être que les articles encore après apporte de la nouveauté mais franchement 2/c je m'en fous un peu. C'est-à-dire que j'ai fait une pause à un moment pour me changer les idées avec Changement de décor et quand je suis revenue à ce livre... Pffff gros soupir pas envie là. 3/ En plus franchement je ne crois pas à son raisonnement. J'entends et je suis d'accord avec l'idée que parler de "competitivité entre états" c'est débile, mais l'auteur me semble faire beaucoup trop confiance à la fameuse main invisible. Genre: augmenter la productivité amène une augmentation des salaires? Ben non. Pas plus tard que l'autre jour j'ai lu un article qui montrait que non, en fait, pas du tout. Notamment aux Etats-Unis(1), le salaire minimum n'a pas augmenté depuis je ne sais plus quand (longtemps) et ne reflète ni l'inflation ni l'augmentation de la productivité (certes, il s'agit du salaire minimum et non du salaire réel, mais n'empêche). Idem concernant le rapport entre capital et salaire: ce rapport a passablement augmenté ces derniers temps, ce que l'auteur n'a pas du tout vu venir. En fait toute la spéculation (et autres jeux boursiers) dans l'économie mondiale actuelle n'est pas du tout abordée, ce qui est gênant pour bien aborder le sujet à mon sens. On lui trouvera comme excuse que le livre date des années 90 (le siècle dernier, quoi!), mais tout de même, il me semble que d'autres que lui y voyaient déjà clair à l'époque sur les risques de la spéculation et les dérives capital vs. salaire. Et puis ce monsieur est un fervent admirateur de la croissance, il faut de la croissance sinon badaboum. *roulement d'yeux* Et là, aucune excuse par rapport à la date du livre, le rapport Meadows était déjà en âge de conduire.
(1) tiens d'ailleurs 4/ c'est très Etats-Unis-centered, et bon ben pfff ça fatigue quoi.

Fichtre, je ne pensais pas avant de commencer cette note que j'étais aussi remontée contre ce livre. Bon ben ça c'est fait.

[Holly Cline · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this quite a bit. It's true that it became repetitive at times, but that's the nature of putting together a collection of independent essays and speeches revolving around the same overarching topic. There will be overlap.
.
In particular, I enjoyed the essays that reminded us how the Soviet Union and Japan were perceived decades ago. With these not so distant in the past examples, I really think Krugman achieves what he set out to do. That is to take his economist's view of international trade and bring it to the lay person. The final essay of the book also does a good job of this with his comparison of 1894 Chicago & 1994 LA.

However, I don't know that this book is really as accessible as Krugman wanted it to be. There are a few essays that dip a little too far into economic theory for his goals. I myself was an economics major. I have been formally taught about most of the models he references so for me, it is easy to follow along with his (admittedly oversimplified) arguments. But I'm not convinced some of my friends or family members would be able to follow along with ease or even at all. Krugman does mention a few times just why explaining economic theory to non-economists is so hard. He even acknowledges that some things he discusses will fly right over a lot of heads.

All in all, I think Pop Internationalism does a reasonably good job discussing international trade on a level that a wider range of people can understand. He's certainly done a better job than anyone else I've ever read or heard. But there's a long way to go before economists find a way to communicate with the masses.

[Simonh]

Prep

[Rachel Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although outdated (many of his predictions are irrelevant due to the passage of time), Krugman's book makes powerful statements about international trade and the status of global competition. I found the book to be interesting in topic, but rather dull to read in actuality. The essays, like many books comprised of economic essays, were repetitive. Overall - content was decent, but not particularly fun!

[Randy Carlson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not bad, it's Krugman so it is whiny, self-absorbed and nasty. That said, he brings up good points on why economists are not taken seriously.

[ricardo]

4

[Isaac Chan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Note: I only read the essay ‘Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession’

Outstanding essay. I have of course already been familiar with certain key economic concepts, e.g. countries don’t compete with each other the same way corporations do, and the trade balance itself says nothing about the strength of one’s economy. Krugman elucidates these concepts and argues the title claim extremely convincingly, but I had held his views through slightly different intuitions: firstly, my intuition that trade is a positive-sum game (via comparative advantage), hence there’s no such thing as competition in trade; secondly, my intuition that for every trade deficit, there’s a corresponding capital surplus, so there’s no such thing as getting your country’s ‘bottom line’ (which, as Krugman teaches, there’s not even such a thing as a bottom line for national accounts) ripped off by other nations. My 3rd intuition was borrowed by a very pithy quote by Hume, whereby true wealth is characterized by the ‘spirit of industry’ and domestic productivity. Competitiveness, as reinforced by Krugman, is meaningless.

But Krugman, of course, reinforced this central concept with a skill on orders of magnitude higher. But in particular, there were several points which I do not immediately understand or agree with:

i) In Krugman’s toy model (to demonstrate why ‘competitiveness’ in trade is meaningless for national standard of living), his central assumption that I have identified is that: the key to balancing trade is the exchange rate.

Is this necessarily true?

Clearly, this ignores the Marshall-Lerner condition. Getting the exchange rate right alone is insufficient – the elasticities of demand for exports and imports are the other necessary condition to balance trade.

Now that I say it, I’ve nailed down why I felt uncomfortable thinking about Krugman’s simple model.

ii) Krugman measures the ‘standard of living’ as purchasing power for imports. This is the 2nd of his key assumptions in his simple model. The simple terms of trade, I guess, is a cruder proxy for this ‘purchasing power’.

On this, I’ve never really understood (since my A-level days) why it seems universally accepted in elementary econ textbooks why purchasing power for imports is a proxy for standard of living, and at this point I’m too scared to ask. I guess buying imports is of course, intuitively nice and all, but why is this doctrine? Apparently, according to this essay, the US Commerce Dept even publishes smtg called ‘command GNP’, defined as US exports/ price index for US imports.

I guess this is consistent with US empirical reality. As the US grew more prosperous in the post-War era, their trade deficit ballooned. Human nature to desire imports?

iii) As noted, I’d like to see an update on the sectoral value-added figures.



Throughout this essay, the central meditation I had was the aggregation problem. That is, the root cause of the analogizing of national accounts to company accounts is the failure by the average mind to aggregate from their everyday, intuitive micro experiences to non-intuitive macro aggregates.

The final, prescient admonition that Krugman raised is particularly chilling and disheartening in current times: ‘If top government officials are strongly committed to a particular economic doctrine, their commitment inevitably sets the tone for policymaking on all issues, even those which may seem to have nothing to do with that doctrine. And if an economic doctrine is flatly, completely and demonstrably wrong, the insistence that discussion adhere to that doctrine inevitably blurs the focus and diminishes the quality of policy discussion across a broad range of issues …’

[Diego Ferreras · Rating 5 out of 5]

Delightful collections of essays in Krugman’s crisp and witty prose, dissecting the fallacies that pass for common wisdom about international trade and competition (“pop internationalism”). Written in the 90s, but more relevant than ever in these days of renewed protectionist zeal.

[Mikael Larsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

In light of current trade wars building up, it is a kind of hopeful read.

This too will pass.

Ignorance is a bliss?

[Niall Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

v brill - reminder that economics is useful

[Gordon Kwok · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book by Professor Krugman on some of the myths espoused by other so-called experts in the field and what are the actual factors that lead to growth. I would say the general theme of the book is that greater productivity results in rising incomes.

[Lynne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm almost done with this book, and I've really been enjoying it (though not speeding through it as it is absolute crap as elliptical trainer fare). It demands that you dust off some old macroeconomic concepts that probably haven't seen the light of day in a while, most importantly the way that trade always works to benefit both sides, even if one has absolute advantage in the production of every single, conceivable good and service. I don't know about you, but I think this is easily lost in today's controversies: Lou Dobbs! Free trade! Fair Trade! WTO! NAFTA! etc, etc. etc... Remember good old comparative advantage? I've said "competitive advantage" so often in the last few years that comparative seems angry that we forgot about her advantages. This book is here to remind us in no. uncertain. terms.

I don't want to say too much more or I'll ruin all the fun.

It was written in 1993, though...at the time, according to Krugman's numbers, the amount of international trade that was going on at the time was so miniscule as to be unable to move the needle of most economic measures, and I do wonder if that's still the case today. Perhaps when I finish, I shall look up a few key indicators, though likely I will get involved doing something much more mundane. Or lucrative. Or capitalistic. Like buying shoes.

If you do read it, please ring me up so we can discuss. I am enthralled with the subject and remember with pleasure how complex the entire notion of trade is.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's well-written and a quick read. Krugman savagely demolishes bad arguments made by those that subscribed to "competitiveness" theories, thought that NAFTA would have massive impacts (good or bad) upon the United States, and made other errors. This short tome should be part of any international economics library. My only complaint is that, due to the book being a collection of previously published articles, some messages are repeated too frequently in the course of 220 pages.

Some may find the discussion of NAFTA, international competitiveness, and the Clinton administration quaintly dated. But one of the most important lessons in international economics (which you can learn from following Jagdish Bhagwati or reading Against the Tide) is that errors rear their heads again and again under guises that historically aware economists will recognize as old hat. For example, the competitiveness bug seems to have bitten Malcolm Gladwell.

There's still much to learn from this classic collection of essays

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great series of essays on the marginalization of basic economic theory with respect to the growth of trade and its treatment in the media. I would definitely recommend this title to someone who is interested in a non-partisan view of the benefits of trade to the macroeconomy as well as the dangers of using phrases like "our nation's competitiveness" or "global competition" while discussing the topic. I understand that Krugman wanted to present this book in chronological order, but I think it'd probably be best for most people to go the Moby Dick route: start in the middle, go to the end, and then go back to the beginning.

I feel sorry for Paul Krugman. He valiantly stood up to members of his own party and some other well known liberal economists (Bob Reich, Lester Thurow, et. al) in order to battle a widespread, mistaken belief that globalization is a threat to our well-being. It looks like he lost...

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good thing to pick up if you're interested in economics, have (or had) a basic understanding of it, and want to reawaken that part of your brain. Krugman writes in a very straightforward manner and makes some interesting points about globalism, international trade, NAFTA, the "Asian Tigers." Probably the most interesting points he makes here concern the way in which we perceive economic theories and problems, and he criticizes those who pursue populist policies when it comes to economics. My only complaint is that he repeats himself a lot in this book, but as it's a collection of essays, each written to stand on its own, I suppose that's expected.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you aren't an economist, a lot of this might seem kind of wonky, but he lays out some basics of international economics as well as you are likely to get it without some more formal training. And he has this smug, self-assuredness about him that would be kind of annoying if you didn't agree with him (or, basically, share his attitude), but pre-NYT stint where he tends to be a bit more political and less interesting.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Krugman is a very intelligent economics author. In Pop Internationalism, he discusses common myths about globalization and applies theory and data to disprove many of them. His writing style is so loose and understandable that people who don't know anything about econ can easily understand his works. I highly recommend this book to everyone.

[Joshua Concepcion · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the books that should be read and re-read. It's nearly 20-years old, yet it is as relevant as ever. It's been sad to witness a first rate intellectual like Krugman become the combative, irresponsible intellectual he is today.

Still, this book is great.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Most of the articles are a pretty good read. I might have gotten more out of it if I knew more about economics.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should be required reading for voters. I often find myself wishing old-line liberals read this book to understand the pie-expanding benefits of free trade.

[Benjamin Thomas Sutpen]

http://sensemania.blogspot.com/2008/1...

[Fran · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book includes the highly controversial "The Myth of Asia's Miracle"

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

This could have been 40 pages, but that would be a great and still relevant 40 pages.