Subtitle: How Trade Shaped The World. Full disclosure: I am an apostate on free trade, at least between nations of very different income levels, so I am somewhat biased against this book. However, reading something from a point of view opposed to yours is a good exercise, so I gave it a shot, to see if it would save my libertarian soul.
Well, no. But it was interesting reading. Bernstein begins in ancient Sumer, spends a fair amount of time in the Silk Road and the Indian Ocean, takes us through the bizarre mix of audacity, luck, and barbarity which was European colonialism, and then ends up with the WTO meeting in Seattle in the late 1990's.
Bernstein does a creditable job of attempting to give his history of trade a neutral world view, looking at the Silk Road trade from the point of view of its origins as well as its destination points for example. One wonders what impact trade had on, for example, New World kingdoms prior to 1492, but whatever records existed on it probably are inaccessible to us now for reasons he can't do much about, so if his history of trade is Eurocentric then so are the records and histories he has to work from. Ibn Battuta is given more coverage than Marco Polo (albeit not all that complimentary), and the methods of Portugal, the Netherlands, and Spain in their colonial heydays are certainly not sweet-coated.
The larger question, though, is how well Bernstein is able to evaluate the impact of trade on the societies he studies. He is fairly clear-eyed about the costs and downsides of it, such as increasing income inequality and the political fragility that comes with it. He covers some of the work of recent decades dismantling (partially or wholly) the claim that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused or exacerbated the Great Depression. His explanation of Stolper and Samuelson's analysis of land, labor, and capital was one I was not previously familiar with, and it explains much that was previously muddled.
The idea is that in any nation at a given point in time, one or two of these will be plentiful, and the other relatively scarce, and those who control the scarce ones will oppose free trade.
Nation/time Abundant Scarce
(pro Free Trade) (anti Free Trade)
U.S. <1900 Land Labor, Capital
U.S. >1900 Land, Capital Labor
England >1750 Labor, Capital Land
Germany <1870 Labor, Land Capital
Germany,1870-1960 Labor Capital, Land
Germany >1960 Labor, Capital Land
This is not a model Bernstein created, but it is an example of the sort of good work which he brings from the study of trade to an educated layman like myself, and it helps to make the book worth reading for more than just the tales of blood-soaked, greed-fueled mix of courage and cruelty that make up the colonial period (and before).
I'd have to say that the book left me a little unsatisfied, though, and for a few reasons.
First, Bernstein has little to say about the impact of power disparities on the affects of trade. For example, how does it matter if the trade is between France/Germany, U.S./Canada, Argentina/Brazil, or India/China on the one hand, or U.S./Mexico, Germany/Greece, China/sub-Saharan Africa on the other? It seems unlikely there is not much to be said about how the impact of trade depends on this difference, and a survey of the world history of trade would be a good place to examine it.
Second, even while presenting and acknowledging the problems of free trade, Bernstein has little more than a shrug and "what can you do?" Well, it seems worth mentioning at least that the U.K, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and many other nations have had robust economic growth during periods where they gave their own industries very high tariffs or other protective barriers. He presents again Cordell Hull's idea that trade prevents wars, without doing much to back that up; if we buy lots of oil from Iran and sell them enough wheat to put all their farmers out of work, how does this prevent a war? It is as if he had spent 300+ pages surveying the history of world trade on a lark, before spending 75 or so talking about the problems of modern globalization, and then right when the reader is waiting for him to use the first part to help shed light on the second, he just sort of ends.
Having said all that, it is well written, with enough humor, maps, and well-done figures and tables to keep my interest. The stories of pre-modern trade are barbaric enough to make one's blood boil at times, even when it's not something like the slave trade or England forcing the Chinese to buy opium because otherwise they had nothing the Chinese wanted, but he gives us a break in between those episodes, and always leavens the numbers with good storytelling. I am happy to have read it, and would recommend it. His policy prescriptions, however, which amount to "carry on, more of the same", I cannot recommend.