What do you think?
Rate this book
Hablemos claro sobre el comercio mundial: Ideas para una globalización inteligente (Deusto)
La globalización no ha beneficiado a todo el mundo. Muchos trabajadores europeos y estadounidenses han resultado excluidos debido a la externalización de ciertos trabajos industriales a China, México y otros lugares. Al mismo tiempo, el proceso de internacionalización ha favorecido al sector de las finanzas y a profesionales altamente especializados, capaces de beneficiarse de unos mercados en expansión descontrolada.
La globalización no ha sido la única responsable de la creciente desigualdad que existe en los países avanzados. Sin embargo, las políticas comerciales que la hicieron posible han creado enormes problemas, a los que no son ajenos los países que se aprovecharon de ella.
Como recuerda este libro exhaustivo y apasionado, hay muchísimo en juego. La globalización mal gestionada está teniendo consecuencias importantes. No sólo en Estados Unidos, sino también en el resto del mundo desarrollado —en especial en Europa— y en los países con ingresos bajos y medios. Por ello, es de capital importancia lograr un equilibrio entre la apertura económica y el derecho a la gestión del espacio político de los Estados.
En lugar de abogar por unas fronteras cerradas o defender a los proteccionistas, Rodrik demuestra que se puede restaurar un equilibrio juicioso entre la gobernanza nacional y la global. Para ello, repasa las recientes experiencias de varios países avanzados, la eurozona y las naciones en desarrollo y propone un camino futuro con nuevas ideas, donde se reconcilian la actual economía de la desigualdad y las nuevas tecnologías con una democracia abierta y con inclusión social.
525 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 9, 2017
100 people are currently reading
1100 people want to read
About the author
Dani Rodrik
79 books266 followersDani Rodrik is the Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
April 21, 2018
I find that my hit percentage on economics books is about 50%. One out of every two books I read is excellent, and the other is awful. Very little seems to be in between. Unfortunately for me, this book is in the latter group. It is supposed to be, I think, an effort to show that a mainstream economist can be less than totally enthused about unlimited free trade and “hyper-globalization,” without being on the side of Trump or “illiberal democracies,” and without giving up his neoliberal ID card. But "Straight Talk on Trade" is just a mess.
Why that is so is given away in the Preface. The reader’s heart drops when Dani Rodrik informs us this is not a fresh book, but merely a compilation of “my monthly syndicated columns, as well as a few other short and lengthier pieces, [of which] I have done only a light edit of the original text.” In other words, this is simply a mélange of rewarmed offerings done earlier on a deadline, not tied together in any meaningful way, other than that the theme is “economics.” It is not the “visionary framework” promised by the dust cover; rather, it is what is known as a “money grab.” I should have stopped reading there. But I did not. I suffered that you may avoid suffering.
Holistically, Rodrik’s project seems to be to rescue globalization from its excesses. That is, he is a neoliberal in good standing, no doubt chummy with George Soros and Pankaj Mishra, but he is afraid that the evil populists are given ammunition by economists and politicians who over-promise what globalization has to offer, and then under-deliver the social goods to their constituents. Not for Rodrik, therefore, fantasies about emerging global governance or the demise of the nation-state. Instead, he preaches that the nation-state has to be run by clear-eyed politicians who will save us from the populist beasts. In this project, though, he has to walk a tightrope, since he can’t afford to be seen as an ally of the beasts—but he agrees with some of their points, such as that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was probably a bad idea, and that perhaps we should note that some people are made worse off by globalization.
To the end of rescuing globalization, from its excesses and its enemies, Rodrik offers twelve chapters, each just copied from his earlier work. Concepts and phrases frequently overlap and are repeated, so it is hard to tease out a set of principles, much less a “visionary framework.” But if you poke at the pile enough, several basic points, all simplistic and unoriginal, pop out their heads. First, economics is hard and non-specific, and economists too often express pithy certainties to the media which they do not really believe in their unqualified form. Second, gains from free trade are unevenly distributed, within any given country, and between countries as well. Third, developing countries that are not yet developed may have trouble developing to First World standards, due to structural limitations in the global economy. Fourth, although each country should choose its own path, developing countries will pay no cost at all if they immediately implement a full-scale social justice regime as they develop, and in fact all developing countries are morally obligated to do so. Fifth, democracy, but only approved forms of it, is just awesome, and an economic tonic like none other.
Surrounding these points, like a mist of stinging insects, are tiresome obeisances to the imperative need for more “liberalism” for everyone in the world (meaning, of course, policies dictated by the Left that aggressively implement emancipation and individual autonomy are the only ones allowed), demands for more action against global warming, claims how unspecified “green technologies” and “green industry” are needed to save both the world and its economies, demands for how we must have increased global re-distribution to achieve “social legitimacy,” and innumerable vague calls for “social justice.” Punctuating this cloud of annoyance are jarring uses of obscure economics-speak without any clarification, such as “a corner solution” and “economists’ beloved Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium.” And framing it all are constant preening references to “my [other] book, so-and-so,” used as a shortcut to avoid actually demonstrating a point.
Moreover, all the writing in this book has an odd characteristic; it may come from Rodrik being excellently educated in English, but only as a second language (he’s from Turkey). That characteristic is that every paragraph seems very clear—but at the end of it, or of a series of paragraphs, the reader is basically unsure what was actually said. I can’t figure out why. Maybe there is little substance. Maybe there aren’t enough thesis statements buttressed by reasoning. But you can read page after page and you get a feeling like cotton candy—you think there should be something there, and it felt like there was something there, but it melted away leaving no trace (and without leaving a sweet taste). It is most disturbing.
Weird errors abound, as well. It is not true that American unemployment checks come from the federal government. “Civil rights” is not the same thing as “the rule of law”—in fact, Rodrik’s lengthy discussion trying to show how some “electoral democracies” are not really democracies, because they are “illiberal,” may take the cake for the most confused discussion of core political concepts I have ever seen offered by a major author. “Culture shock” does not mean “situations where our expectations about people’s behavior turn out to be so wrong that we find ourselves jolted by the experience.” Every so often, to be fair, there is something interesting, such as a solid attempt to resurrect mercantilism, properly defined and updated, as a counterpoint to classical liberalism (although this is somewhat undercut by a total failure to understand that government regulation of, and government support for, business are not the same thing). But mostly, as I say, it is just a mess.
Ultimately, what this leaves us with is mushy analysis and prescriptions that are vague bromides or simply incoherent. The topics here are much better covered in Clyde Prestowitz’s "The Betrayal of American Prosperity" (in fact, it was Prestowitz’s review of this book that caused me to buy and read it), or Richard Baldwin’s "The Great Convergence." Or even in Robert Gordon’s "The Rise and Fall of American Growth," if the topic is relative amounts and impacts of innovation over time. And as far as political structure, Francis Fukuyama offers a coherent neoliberal perspective and analysis, something utterly lacking here. If you read those books, then read this book, you will go backward, so just read those books.
Why that is so is given away in the Preface. The reader’s heart drops when Dani Rodrik informs us this is not a fresh book, but merely a compilation of “my monthly syndicated columns, as well as a few other short and lengthier pieces, [of which] I have done only a light edit of the original text.” In other words, this is simply a mélange of rewarmed offerings done earlier on a deadline, not tied together in any meaningful way, other than that the theme is “economics.” It is not the “visionary framework” promised by the dust cover; rather, it is what is known as a “money grab.” I should have stopped reading there. But I did not. I suffered that you may avoid suffering.
Holistically, Rodrik’s project seems to be to rescue globalization from its excesses. That is, he is a neoliberal in good standing, no doubt chummy with George Soros and Pankaj Mishra, but he is afraid that the evil populists are given ammunition by economists and politicians who over-promise what globalization has to offer, and then under-deliver the social goods to their constituents. Not for Rodrik, therefore, fantasies about emerging global governance or the demise of the nation-state. Instead, he preaches that the nation-state has to be run by clear-eyed politicians who will save us from the populist beasts. In this project, though, he has to walk a tightrope, since he can’t afford to be seen as an ally of the beasts—but he agrees with some of their points, such as that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was probably a bad idea, and that perhaps we should note that some people are made worse off by globalization.
To the end of rescuing globalization, from its excesses and its enemies, Rodrik offers twelve chapters, each just copied from his earlier work. Concepts and phrases frequently overlap and are repeated, so it is hard to tease out a set of principles, much less a “visionary framework.” But if you poke at the pile enough, several basic points, all simplistic and unoriginal, pop out their heads. First, economics is hard and non-specific, and economists too often express pithy certainties to the media which they do not really believe in their unqualified form. Second, gains from free trade are unevenly distributed, within any given country, and between countries as well. Third, developing countries that are not yet developed may have trouble developing to First World standards, due to structural limitations in the global economy. Fourth, although each country should choose its own path, developing countries will pay no cost at all if they immediately implement a full-scale social justice regime as they develop, and in fact all developing countries are morally obligated to do so. Fifth, democracy, but only approved forms of it, is just awesome, and an economic tonic like none other.
Surrounding these points, like a mist of stinging insects, are tiresome obeisances to the imperative need for more “liberalism” for everyone in the world (meaning, of course, policies dictated by the Left that aggressively implement emancipation and individual autonomy are the only ones allowed), demands for more action against global warming, claims how unspecified “green technologies” and “green industry” are needed to save both the world and its economies, demands for how we must have increased global re-distribution to achieve “social legitimacy,” and innumerable vague calls for “social justice.” Punctuating this cloud of annoyance are jarring uses of obscure economics-speak without any clarification, such as “a corner solution” and “economists’ beloved Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium.” And framing it all are constant preening references to “my [other] book, so-and-so,” used as a shortcut to avoid actually demonstrating a point.
Moreover, all the writing in this book has an odd characteristic; it may come from Rodrik being excellently educated in English, but only as a second language (he’s from Turkey). That characteristic is that every paragraph seems very clear—but at the end of it, or of a series of paragraphs, the reader is basically unsure what was actually said. I can’t figure out why. Maybe there is little substance. Maybe there aren’t enough thesis statements buttressed by reasoning. But you can read page after page and you get a feeling like cotton candy—you think there should be something there, and it felt like there was something there, but it melted away leaving no trace (and without leaving a sweet taste). It is most disturbing.
Weird errors abound, as well. It is not true that American unemployment checks come from the federal government. “Civil rights” is not the same thing as “the rule of law”—in fact, Rodrik’s lengthy discussion trying to show how some “electoral democracies” are not really democracies, because they are “illiberal,” may take the cake for the most confused discussion of core political concepts I have ever seen offered by a major author. “Culture shock” does not mean “situations where our expectations about people’s behavior turn out to be so wrong that we find ourselves jolted by the experience.” Every so often, to be fair, there is something interesting, such as a solid attempt to resurrect mercantilism, properly defined and updated, as a counterpoint to classical liberalism (although this is somewhat undercut by a total failure to understand that government regulation of, and government support for, business are not the same thing). But mostly, as I say, it is just a mess.
Ultimately, what this leaves us with is mushy analysis and prescriptions that are vague bromides or simply incoherent. The topics here are much better covered in Clyde Prestowitz’s "The Betrayal of American Prosperity" (in fact, it was Prestowitz’s review of this book that caused me to buy and read it), or Richard Baldwin’s "The Great Convergence." Or even in Robert Gordon’s "The Rise and Fall of American Growth," if the topic is relative amounts and impacts of innovation over time. And as far as political structure, Francis Fukuyama offers a coherent neoliberal perspective and analysis, something utterly lacking here. If you read those books, then read this book, you will go backward, so just read those books.
December 20, 2017
Don't think I appreciated this as much I should have. I'd read many of Rodrik's arguments before -- both in his and others' columns on PS -- and many of the nuances were lost on me, mainly because I'm not particularly knowledgable in trade economics.
Things I liked:
- Rodrik's trilemma: democracy, national sovereignty and globalisation are incompatible
- Reinforced the idea that trade doesn't distribute benefits equally - free trade will necessarily have some losers, and this will have implications on the politics of that country
- The difficulties of global governance on economic issues. I like his framework of what kinds of problems need some form of international coordination and what problems don't
- The idea that there isn't a single one-size-fits all institutional framework for all countries e.g., antitrust, central banking, market regulation etc.
- The idea that economists abstract complex ideas with numerous caveats into lossy, simplified versions that hide many of the frailties of the original idea. Coming from b-school, where 90 second soundbytes are the norms, this was a helpful defence of "it depends"
Things I liked:
- Rodrik's trilemma: democracy, national sovereignty and globalisation are incompatible
- Reinforced the idea that trade doesn't distribute benefits equally - free trade will necessarily have some losers, and this will have implications on the politics of that country
- The difficulties of global governance on economic issues. I like his framework of what kinds of problems need some form of international coordination and what problems don't
- The idea that there isn't a single one-size-fits all institutional framework for all countries e.g., antitrust, central banking, market regulation etc.
- The idea that economists abstract complex ideas with numerous caveats into lossy, simplified versions that hide many of the frailties of the original idea. Coming from b-school, where 90 second soundbytes are the norms, this was a helpful defence of "it depends"
March 30, 2018
Rodriks most interesting insights were the following, by topic...
On trade agreements:
Free trades greatest cheerleaders often talk with both sides of their mouthes. They quip that gains accrue from specialized imports (comparative advantage), and that exports are good because they create jobs (mercantilism). In reality, comparative advantage and mercantilist goals are contradictory. Free trade cannot at once create jobs and be mutually beneficial. In effect, trade does not belong in the realm of the "global commons" like, say, climate change; it is zero sum.
On global governance:
That competition amongst states experimenting in policy and regulatory spaces has been the most robust historical driver of prosperity (think competing city states in Ancient Greece or nation states in Europe during the enlightenment, scientific and industrial revolutions). In effect, supranational harmonization of too many institutions (ie regulation covering labor markets, corporate governance, antitrust, social protection and finance) under the banner of open markets, will cost the future the experimentation and government responsiveness that has been so important historically.
On redistribution:
The notion that trade redistributes income is true but trivial. Pretty much everything that happens in a market economy redistributes income somehow. Plenty of things like skill-biased innovation, and minimum wage laws, have vastly greater effects on income distribution.
On Donald Trump:
He has correctly identified the malaise with trade and has capitalized on it. But he has greatly exaggerated the real world significance of the fairness concern and seems determined to fix a surgical problem with a sledgehammer.
On trade agreements:
Free trades greatest cheerleaders often talk with both sides of their mouthes. They quip that gains accrue from specialized imports (comparative advantage), and that exports are good because they create jobs (mercantilism). In reality, comparative advantage and mercantilist goals are contradictory. Free trade cannot at once create jobs and be mutually beneficial. In effect, trade does not belong in the realm of the "global commons" like, say, climate change; it is zero sum.
On global governance:
That competition amongst states experimenting in policy and regulatory spaces has been the most robust historical driver of prosperity (think competing city states in Ancient Greece or nation states in Europe during the enlightenment, scientific and industrial revolutions). In effect, supranational harmonization of too many institutions (ie regulation covering labor markets, corporate governance, antitrust, social protection and finance) under the banner of open markets, will cost the future the experimentation and government responsiveness that has been so important historically.
On redistribution:
The notion that trade redistributes income is true but trivial. Pretty much everything that happens in a market economy redistributes income somehow. Plenty of things like skill-biased innovation, and minimum wage laws, have vastly greater effects on income distribution.
On Donald Trump:
He has correctly identified the malaise with trade and has capitalized on it. But he has greatly exaggerated the real world significance of the fairness concern and seems determined to fix a surgical problem with a sledgehammer.
March 4, 2018
This book serves as a good introduction/overview to The Globalisation Paradox and Economics Rules, adding Rodrik’s views on recent developments (Trump, Brexit, right-wing extremism in EU). For those who’ve followed Rodrik’s body of work, the book isn’t a breath-taking discovery but more of a nice summary and reminder of the critical ideas Rodrik has proposed. A quick run through of the stellar arguments - Institutions don’t map uniquely to economic outcomes; hyper-globalisation impinges on domestic needs and policy space; there is evidence on premature deindustrialisation in developing countries (where can broad-based economic growth now come from?); imposing capital controls is not a cardinal sin and in certain situations, supports macroeconomic stability; conception of self-interest is malleable and doesn’t map uniquely to policy choices and countries can legitimately raise duties in response to social dumping which undercut domestic social contracts. The final call is to support bold and innovative policy-making, experimentation in institutional design and place globalisation as a means to an end (shared prosperity) and not the end itself.
December 12, 2020
I really enjoyed eading about alternatives to the hyperglobalisation ideaology that our current Australian government sprouts.
Apart from the fact that hyper anything will never work, hyperglobalisation has produced a race to the bottom for workers' pay with the result of right wing extremism and populist parties winning out of the anger that this has produced. The left has been left (pun not intended) struggling to find some sort of relevance whereas the populists have managed to get voters in democracies to vote against their own interests.
What Roderik explains is a way forward that takes a measured and very sesnible approach that will produce benefits to most and a common good across developing and developed countries.
Apart from the fact that hyper anything will never work, hyperglobalisation has produced a race to the bottom for workers' pay with the result of right wing extremism and populist parties winning out of the anger that this has produced. The left has been left (pun not intended) struggling to find some sort of relevance whereas the populists have managed to get voters in democracies to vote against their own interests.
What Roderik explains is a way forward that takes a measured and very sesnible approach that will produce benefits to most and a common good across developing and developed countries.
February 24, 2019
Jeden z mojich obľúbených ekonómov. Kniha ok, ak chcete intro do kritickejšieho zmýšlania o globlalizácii a obchode. Je to súbor publikovaných textov inde, takže nemá to nejaký veľký celistvý príbeh, čo je kúsok škoda.
April 15, 2025
Okay so I maybe didn’t fully appreciate his arguments. I liked a lot of it but it also seemed like a cop out sometimes like with just ideals but not real solutions. Very smart guy though
March 9, 2018
This is not a book. Is a collection of op-eds force into a book. Very disappointing as Rodrik could have written something much more coherent with a central message on how to assess the trade-offs behind trade.
January 29, 2018
Straight Talk o Trade, es un libro que pone en el centro de la discusión la importancia del Estado-Nación en los debates sobre la economía global. Rodrik nos dice que para que la economía global funcione tenemos que hacer primero que la economía de los países funcione, que debemos tomar medidas primero para hacerla más democrática antes que pensar siempre en hacerla más eficiente.
Rodrik apunta que quizá un poco menos globalización, algo más parecido a lo que teníamos durante Bretton Woods probablemente funcionaria mejor para todos, reconciliar los intereses nacionales con los globales. Siguiendo este argumento Rodrik encuentra lamentable que muchos economistas cuando discuten en la opinión publica sobre asuntos como el comercio, los flujos de capitales o la inversión pública lo hagan simplificando y con más consideraciones ideológicas que pragmatismo. Decir a la sociedad siempre que se pueda que el comercio solo produce ganancias, que los flujos de capital siempre son positivos, etc. daña a la profesión porque hace que se pierda la confianza en los expertos, ignorar los efectos distributivos, a los que ganan y los que pierden les da más herramientas a los demagogos.
Rodrik por lo tanto hace un llamado a que repensemos a la profesión y que lo hagamos siendo más amigables a las otras ciencias sociales, pensando más en los contextos locales y menos en soluciones universales que en la economía simplemente no existen. Rodrik quiere que evitamos que la gente pierda toda confianza en los economistas y la economía y tomen la ruta de "Luke Skywalker" y declaren que "es tiempo de que los economistas terminen". Es un libro que nos invita a rescatar la profesión.
Rodrik apunta que quizá un poco menos globalización, algo más parecido a lo que teníamos durante Bretton Woods probablemente funcionaria mejor para todos, reconciliar los intereses nacionales con los globales. Siguiendo este argumento Rodrik encuentra lamentable que muchos economistas cuando discuten en la opinión publica sobre asuntos como el comercio, los flujos de capitales o la inversión pública lo hagan simplificando y con más consideraciones ideológicas que pragmatismo. Decir a la sociedad siempre que se pueda que el comercio solo produce ganancias, que los flujos de capital siempre son positivos, etc. daña a la profesión porque hace que se pierda la confianza en los expertos, ignorar los efectos distributivos, a los que ganan y los que pierden les da más herramientas a los demagogos.
Rodrik por lo tanto hace un llamado a que repensemos a la profesión y que lo hagamos siendo más amigables a las otras ciencias sociales, pensando más en los contextos locales y menos en soluciones universales que en la economía simplemente no existen. Rodrik quiere que evitamos que la gente pierda toda confianza en los economistas y la economía y tomen la ruta de "Luke Skywalker" y declaren que "es tiempo de que los economistas terminen". Es un libro que nos invita a rescatar la profesión.
November 14, 2025
Tackling Globalisation, the Nation-State and Economists?
The economist Dani Rodrik is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, with much of his research focusing on globalisation and economic growth. His book Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy follows many other publications on globalisation, global governance and economic development. Straight Talk on Trade as Rodrik outlines, ‘is an attempt to set the record straight on Trade’ as well as several areas he feels economists could have offered more balance in discuss and promotion. The book itself is a collection of Rodrik’s non-technical work on globalisation, democracy and the profession of economics.
We can highlight three key themes or pillars that make up Rodrik’s discussions throughout the book. The first is Rodrik’s critique of ‘Hyperglobalisation’ and its impact on both democracy and the nation-state. Rodrik’s main argument throughout this critique and subsequent discussion is focused on the nation-state, that the nation-state should be at the centre of market regulation and decision making. He posits that hyperglobalisation has led to a global imbalance through rapid economic integration and sluggish development of robust global governance frameworks. It’s this imbalance that has created or contributed to many of the troubles faced by nations today from political instability to stagnating growth.
The second pillar is Rodrik’s critique of his own profession, first by castigating economists for overselling globalisation and focusing on the benefits of trade and greater interconnectivity and downplaying the negative impacts such as job loses, Rodrik contends that in doing so economists have lost their credibility with the public. He goes on to discuss the detrimental impact of economists targeting and attacking other academics works, focusing on the fact that whilst academic review and scrutinization is welcomed and needed, rather that disparaging contrasting models, and pushing for singular consensus on the ‘correct models’, economists should instead champion diversity within the field and divert energies to picking which framework applies when, and that diversity of ideas will allow the field to better understand the issues of today.
The third is Rodrik’s policy innovations and ideas that can be implemented to reform globalisation to enhance both domestic and global inequality or how can progressives develop winning agendas. Rodrik first sets out ideas that he says ‘wont work’ from compensation for the losers of globalisation, to more global governance, each point is dissected and rejected. Instead Rodrik advocates for a ‘Global Governance Light’ that focuses on what Rodrik calls ‘procedural requirements over policy harmonisation.’ The book goes on to outline the ‘New Rules for a Global Economy’ which hypothesis the designing of new guiding principles for global economic governance derived from Rodkin’s earlier 2011 writings.
The structure of the book as a collection of previous writings edited together I believe works in the books favour, whilst it creates a breadth rather than depth of discussion leading limitations of balance and examples. The format does link quite uniquely to the title ‘Ideas for a Sane World Economy’. The book is a collection of ideas and discussions that feed into one another and give the reader a broad insight into Rodrik’s thinking on the matter and an introduction into the debates of globalisation. The non-technical approach allows readers to delve into the topic with relative ease and come to their own determination of Rodrik’s ideas through further reading from the notes to add further depth.
Rodrik creates a clear pathway for the reader in his critique of hyperglobalisation. Utilising a multi-disciplinary approach Rodrik’s explanation of the deterioration of the nation-states social contract caused by sluggish and comparatively ineffective global governance structures (when compared with the development of economic integration global governance development is woefully inadequate) ultimately puts the onus on domestic governments. As citizens have no other place to direct their discontent. This ultimately creates opportunity for populist political parties to take advantage of the discontent and utilise an anti-trade sentiment (along with other rhetoric) to garner considerable support.
Rodrik contends that economists have by-in-large acted as ‘cheerleaders’ for globalisation. He focuses on the idea that they have oversold its benefits by focusing on the overall gains from trade while minimising the distributional consequences (that its whilst a country may get richer, specific groups such as low-skilled workers are worse off). This critique being very similar to the many critiques we now hear of politicians who promote the benefits of a project or manifesto pledge and quietly ignore the flaws or overarching negative impacts. But perhaps the critique and ultimately the blame is misplaced, whilst economists do promote the benefits of globalisation, economic teachings including that of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem (I’ll admit a very technical term for a non-technical book) do highlight that trade liberalisation does lead to unequal income distribution. It is politicians who choose to implement these policies and who choose to be ‘cheerleaders’ failing to be honest with the electorate that they believed that the benefits outweighed the costs. Perhaps rather that castigating economists as cheerleaders a more beneficial approach would have been to discuss why economists fail to show balance or call-out the misinterpretations of globalisations on a bigger scale.
Straight Talk on Trade provides provocative and refreshing take on globalisation and the wider debates on the global economic order. Whilst it some may read it and highlight that it doesn’t provide clear and definitive answers to the current ailments of hyperglobalisation, populism and inequality, it’s not intended to, rather as Rodrik himself outlines it attempts to offer ideas for a way forward and provide an honest assessment and narrative for the world economy. In this I believe the books succeeds, discussions wide-ranging topics of the role of the nation-state, economic integration the way forward for developing states, forcing difficult conversations that tend to be hushed or brushed aside.
The economist Dani Rodrik is the Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University, with much of his research focusing on globalisation and economic growth. His book Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy follows many other publications on globalisation, global governance and economic development. Straight Talk on Trade as Rodrik outlines, ‘is an attempt to set the record straight on Trade’ as well as several areas he feels economists could have offered more balance in discuss and promotion. The book itself is a collection of Rodrik’s non-technical work on globalisation, democracy and the profession of economics.
We can highlight three key themes or pillars that make up Rodrik’s discussions throughout the book. The first is Rodrik’s critique of ‘Hyperglobalisation’ and its impact on both democracy and the nation-state. Rodrik’s main argument throughout this critique and subsequent discussion is focused on the nation-state, that the nation-state should be at the centre of market regulation and decision making. He posits that hyperglobalisation has led to a global imbalance through rapid economic integration and sluggish development of robust global governance frameworks. It’s this imbalance that has created or contributed to many of the troubles faced by nations today from political instability to stagnating growth.
The second pillar is Rodrik’s critique of his own profession, first by castigating economists for overselling globalisation and focusing on the benefits of trade and greater interconnectivity and downplaying the negative impacts such as job loses, Rodrik contends that in doing so economists have lost their credibility with the public. He goes on to discuss the detrimental impact of economists targeting and attacking other academics works, focusing on the fact that whilst academic review and scrutinization is welcomed and needed, rather that disparaging contrasting models, and pushing for singular consensus on the ‘correct models’, economists should instead champion diversity within the field and divert energies to picking which framework applies when, and that diversity of ideas will allow the field to better understand the issues of today.
The third is Rodrik’s policy innovations and ideas that can be implemented to reform globalisation to enhance both domestic and global inequality or how can progressives develop winning agendas. Rodrik first sets out ideas that he says ‘wont work’ from compensation for the losers of globalisation, to more global governance, each point is dissected and rejected. Instead Rodrik advocates for a ‘Global Governance Light’ that focuses on what Rodrik calls ‘procedural requirements over policy harmonisation.’ The book goes on to outline the ‘New Rules for a Global Economy’ which hypothesis the designing of new guiding principles for global economic governance derived from Rodkin’s earlier 2011 writings.
The structure of the book as a collection of previous writings edited together I believe works in the books favour, whilst it creates a breadth rather than depth of discussion leading limitations of balance and examples. The format does link quite uniquely to the title ‘Ideas for a Sane World Economy’. The book is a collection of ideas and discussions that feed into one another and give the reader a broad insight into Rodrik’s thinking on the matter and an introduction into the debates of globalisation. The non-technical approach allows readers to delve into the topic with relative ease and come to their own determination of Rodrik’s ideas through further reading from the notes to add further depth.
Rodrik creates a clear pathway for the reader in his critique of hyperglobalisation. Utilising a multi-disciplinary approach Rodrik’s explanation of the deterioration of the nation-states social contract caused by sluggish and comparatively ineffective global governance structures (when compared with the development of economic integration global governance development is woefully inadequate) ultimately puts the onus on domestic governments. As citizens have no other place to direct their discontent. This ultimately creates opportunity for populist political parties to take advantage of the discontent and utilise an anti-trade sentiment (along with other rhetoric) to garner considerable support.
Rodrik contends that economists have by-in-large acted as ‘cheerleaders’ for globalisation. He focuses on the idea that they have oversold its benefits by focusing on the overall gains from trade while minimising the distributional consequences (that its whilst a country may get richer, specific groups such as low-skilled workers are worse off). This critique being very similar to the many critiques we now hear of politicians who promote the benefits of a project or manifesto pledge and quietly ignore the flaws or overarching negative impacts. But perhaps the critique and ultimately the blame is misplaced, whilst economists do promote the benefits of globalisation, economic teachings including that of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem (I’ll admit a very technical term for a non-technical book) do highlight that trade liberalisation does lead to unequal income distribution. It is politicians who choose to implement these policies and who choose to be ‘cheerleaders’ failing to be honest with the electorate that they believed that the benefits outweighed the costs. Perhaps rather that castigating economists as cheerleaders a more beneficial approach would have been to discuss why economists fail to show balance or call-out the misinterpretations of globalisations on a bigger scale.
Straight Talk on Trade provides provocative and refreshing take on globalisation and the wider debates on the global economic order. Whilst it some may read it and highlight that it doesn’t provide clear and definitive answers to the current ailments of hyperglobalisation, populism and inequality, it’s not intended to, rather as Rodrik himself outlines it attempts to offer ideas for a way forward and provide an honest assessment and narrative for the world economy. In this I believe the books succeeds, discussions wide-ranging topics of the role of the nation-state, economic integration the way forward for developing states, forcing difficult conversations that tend to be hushed or brushed aside.
February 19, 2018
This is one of those books where they took a bunch of columns and tied them together to try to make a coherent whole. In terms of those kinds of books, this is pretty well done. Rodrik is a smart and thoughtful economist just on the edge of being too heterodox for the academy. One big quote that he keeps going back to is the idea that there are no definite in economic science. I think he puts is that there is only true answer to any economic question: "It depends".
April 30, 2018
It is a great book but it repeats a lot from previous ones. I would say that this is like a summary of the arguments that professor Rodrik has been doing against “free” trade, globalization and the orthodox economic approach through the years.
August 7, 2018
Dani Rodrik, who wrote the outstanding "Globalization Paradox" back in 2011, has basically written the same book again while removing some of the best ideas and making the style really dry. Reading this feels like doing homework for a very boring class
May 4, 2020
This is the kind of book that I need to get paid to read! Here's my review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/0...
May 1, 2018
Amid the current climate when trade has become contentious again, this book has the potential to inform the public about the true nature of the ongoing debates since much represented in the media has been noise. Unfortunately, it felt short of my expectations in this aspect. Despite its title, the author spends the majority of time covering a number of different issues, making the book broad but not deep enough. The lack of a coherent argument and a central theme also makes it hard for readers take away important messages. Anyway, I will summarize what I think are his main points, which essentially mirror his previous book, The Global Paradox, and other articles.
1. The global trilemma, i.e., we can only have two of the following: integrated economic markets (or hyperglobalization), national sovereignty, and mass politics. Professor Rodrik argues that the only feasible and desirable is the Bretton Woods system thats allow for the nation-state and democracy. Global governance is only necessary to refrain countries from pursuing "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies, but in reality, the costs of domestic policies are primarily born within the countries. This is basically what his previous book is about (I think). Another argument for this arrangement is that a compensation system is infeasible (I'm not convinced), and thus we need to reduce economic integration and its inequality deepening effect.
2. Trade: while economists are all enthusiasts of free trade, the public hardly share their view. The reason lies in the fact that trade models, one after another, show trade increases total welfare, and even though it also create winners and losers, there exist transferring systems that can distribute the gains among losers and winners. The second part is what we have failed to achieve. There is no existing adequate transfer of the gains, inequality deepens and political instability ensues. Yet, inequality and disruption of the labor markets are not new to use. Technological advance has been carrying the same effect. Why don't we oppose to it like we do to free trade? The answer lies in fairness. Whereas technology favors the more skilled and innovative, trade sometimes favors those who take advantages of dismal working conditions in low-income countries to drive down costs. Manufacturing workers in the US may feel that they are facing unfair competition from Chinese factories, as the labor standards there are much lower. This point leads to his argument for "social dumping" to be included in trade laws, beside the usual antidumping practiced by many advanced countries.
3. Future for developing countries: the traditional growth path has been moving from agriculture to "easy" manufacturing to more sophisticated manufacturing to services, meanwhile providing education to the mass and improve institutions. Manufacturing is the key step as it provides (1) productivity dynamics (2) tradable goods and thus infinite world demand and (3) absorption of low skilled labor. The difficulty facing developing nations is premature deindustrialization. Technology and globalization leaves few low-income countries with the chance to become manufacturing miracles like South Korea or Taiwan, and the low skilled labor force move back to low productivity sector (as seen in Mexico). Those countries perhaps have to rely on the other two key growth fundamentals beside manufacturing: acquisition of skill and education by the workforce and (2) improvement of institution and governance. One example is India, but its growth rate is slower (hopefully more sustainable) than those relying on industrialization.
4. As an economics PhD student studying trade, I may appreciate his divergence in the middle of the book more than other readers. He spends a few chapters discussing what economists do and what he think they should do. Unlike natural sciences, economics do not produce universal laws. Indeed, each model works for a specific context under a set of conditions. As Kenynes puts it, "economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant." Sometimes we mistake a model for "the model", and consider contradicting evidence as "puzzles". I wholeheartedly agree with his point that economists should be more open about the ambiguity and context-specific of most results in economics and strive to maintain a healthy diversity of frameworks.
1. The global trilemma, i.e., we can only have two of the following: integrated economic markets (or hyperglobalization), national sovereignty, and mass politics. Professor Rodrik argues that the only feasible and desirable is the Bretton Woods system thats allow for the nation-state and democracy. Global governance is only necessary to refrain countries from pursuing "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies, but in reality, the costs of domestic policies are primarily born within the countries. This is basically what his previous book is about (I think). Another argument for this arrangement is that a compensation system is infeasible (I'm not convinced), and thus we need to reduce economic integration and its inequality deepening effect.
2. Trade: while economists are all enthusiasts of free trade, the public hardly share their view. The reason lies in the fact that trade models, one after another, show trade increases total welfare, and even though it also create winners and losers, there exist transferring systems that can distribute the gains among losers and winners. The second part is what we have failed to achieve. There is no existing adequate transfer of the gains, inequality deepens and political instability ensues. Yet, inequality and disruption of the labor markets are not new to use. Technological advance has been carrying the same effect. Why don't we oppose to it like we do to free trade? The answer lies in fairness. Whereas technology favors the more skilled and innovative, trade sometimes favors those who take advantages of dismal working conditions in low-income countries to drive down costs. Manufacturing workers in the US may feel that they are facing unfair competition from Chinese factories, as the labor standards there are much lower. This point leads to his argument for "social dumping" to be included in trade laws, beside the usual antidumping practiced by many advanced countries.
3. Future for developing countries: the traditional growth path has been moving from agriculture to "easy" manufacturing to more sophisticated manufacturing to services, meanwhile providing education to the mass and improve institutions. Manufacturing is the key step as it provides (1) productivity dynamics (2) tradable goods and thus infinite world demand and (3) absorption of low skilled labor. The difficulty facing developing nations is premature deindustrialization. Technology and globalization leaves few low-income countries with the chance to become manufacturing miracles like South Korea or Taiwan, and the low skilled labor force move back to low productivity sector (as seen in Mexico). Those countries perhaps have to rely on the other two key growth fundamentals beside manufacturing: acquisition of skill and education by the workforce and (2) improvement of institution and governance. One example is India, but its growth rate is slower (hopefully more sustainable) than those relying on industrialization.
4. As an economics PhD student studying trade, I may appreciate his divergence in the middle of the book more than other readers. He spends a few chapters discussing what economists do and what he think they should do. Unlike natural sciences, economics do not produce universal laws. Indeed, each model works for a specific context under a set of conditions. As Kenynes puts it, "economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant." Sometimes we mistake a model for "the model", and consider contradicting evidence as "puzzles". I wholeheartedly agree with his point that economists should be more open about the ambiguity and context-specific of most results in economics and strive to maintain a healthy diversity of frameworks.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 10, 2018
Note: though I don't disagree with most of the material in this book, I strongly disagree with much of its framing, so take that for what it's worth in reading this review. I didn't finish the book because I found it to be frustrating on several accounts.
I bought this book on the strength of Rodrik's four-part interview on the Trade Talks podcast. That interview, and the fact that "Trade" is included in the title of this book, suggested the book would mostly be about trade policy. Instead, it's a broad overview of various issues in political economy and doesn't discuss trade policy or agreements much at all.
I think the book's broad scope is its first weakness, as it leaves room for few new insights or ideas, and in parts simply re-hashes Rodrik's past books. Many of the studies discussed by Rodrik will be farmiliar to anyone with a cursory knowledge of new and controversial economic research. For example, the Autor paper on the China shock has been referenced many times at this point and isn't a novel way to make the point that trade has distributional impacts. There isn't very much new in this book, though I found Rodrik's analysis of the role industrialization plays in building democracy interesting.
The book's next weakness is that it doesn't cite the arguments it is refuting, and so ends up feeling like a long straw man. Rodrik often attacks ideas that haven't been fashionable in policy circles for over 10 years. I work in policy and have yet to meet someone with an unyielding faith in globalization or market forces. The idea that the nation state isn't dead, that government is necessary for prosperity and played a role in the development of the Asian tigers, that trade has distributional impacts, that economists are bad at value judgements and sometimes frame their ideas without reference to assumptions are all old hat at this point and have been picked over since the post-financial crisis literature became a thing in 2008. Given that Rodrik doesn't often assign these ideas to anyone in particular, but rather to "economists," "elites," or "policy makers", offers him easy fodder that isn't that nuanced.
This brings us to the final weakness in the book, which is general inconsistency in the argument. Rodrik spends the early portion of the book defending the nation state and the idea that different groups of nationals will have different preferences. Fair enough. Rodrik then seemingly ignores this insight for the rest of the book and advances his own preferences, like the idea that rising inequality is bad and that elites have too much power over government. Rodrik takes these normative ideas as a given, and even suggests the reason the wider set of voters in democracies don't accept them is because elites have tricked them into caring about culture war issues instead. Rodrik never considers that reason policy makers haven't been able to address rising inequality is because voters don't have a preference for addressing it. Perhaps people are more compelled by cultural issues than issues of inequality. The continuing unpopularity of policies that would increase taxes to provide more social services, and the inability of left-wing parties that nominally support these policies to get elected is pretty strong evidence of this fact.
Ultimately this book isn't particularly novel, isn't especially rigorous, and presents an inconsistent argument. It's probably a useful introduction to some ideas of political economy, but given its intended audience appears to be economists, it isn't nearly compelling enough to influence their role in the policy-making process. You can skip it.
I bought this book on the strength of Rodrik's four-part interview on the Trade Talks podcast. That interview, and the fact that "Trade" is included in the title of this book, suggested the book would mostly be about trade policy. Instead, it's a broad overview of various issues in political economy and doesn't discuss trade policy or agreements much at all.
I think the book's broad scope is its first weakness, as it leaves room for few new insights or ideas, and in parts simply re-hashes Rodrik's past books. Many of the studies discussed by Rodrik will be farmiliar to anyone with a cursory knowledge of new and controversial economic research. For example, the Autor paper on the China shock has been referenced many times at this point and isn't a novel way to make the point that trade has distributional impacts. There isn't very much new in this book, though I found Rodrik's analysis of the role industrialization plays in building democracy interesting.
The book's next weakness is that it doesn't cite the arguments it is refuting, and so ends up feeling like a long straw man. Rodrik often attacks ideas that haven't been fashionable in policy circles for over 10 years. I work in policy and have yet to meet someone with an unyielding faith in globalization or market forces. The idea that the nation state isn't dead, that government is necessary for prosperity and played a role in the development of the Asian tigers, that trade has distributional impacts, that economists are bad at value judgements and sometimes frame their ideas without reference to assumptions are all old hat at this point and have been picked over since the post-financial crisis literature became a thing in 2008. Given that Rodrik doesn't often assign these ideas to anyone in particular, but rather to "economists," "elites," or "policy makers", offers him easy fodder that isn't that nuanced.
This brings us to the final weakness in the book, which is general inconsistency in the argument. Rodrik spends the early portion of the book defending the nation state and the idea that different groups of nationals will have different preferences. Fair enough. Rodrik then seemingly ignores this insight for the rest of the book and advances his own preferences, like the idea that rising inequality is bad and that elites have too much power over government. Rodrik takes these normative ideas as a given, and even suggests the reason the wider set of voters in democracies don't accept them is because elites have tricked them into caring about culture war issues instead. Rodrik never considers that reason policy makers haven't been able to address rising inequality is because voters don't have a preference for addressing it. Perhaps people are more compelled by cultural issues than issues of inequality. The continuing unpopularity of policies that would increase taxes to provide more social services, and the inability of left-wing parties that nominally support these policies to get elected is pretty strong evidence of this fact.
Ultimately this book isn't particularly novel, isn't especially rigorous, and presents an inconsistent argument. It's probably a useful introduction to some ideas of political economy, but given its intended audience appears to be economists, it isn't nearly compelling enough to influence their role in the policy-making process. You can skip it.
February 12, 2023
Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy by Dani Rodrik is a collection of reflections on a series of ongoing debates within the economic discipline with regard to trade and the relationship of the discipline with the political arena. I find a lot of Rodrik's commentary refreshing. He links the populist backlash against globalization and broader regional integration to economic integration outpacing political integration. He is a pretty strong critic of the notion that free trade is everywhere and anywhere an ultimate good, and takes issue with the orthodoxy within his own field. He has been criticized for creating openings for the barbarians to come in and make the discipline safe for politicians, but that speaks more to the motivating bias of the Economists who wish to maintain a global consensus on trade than any aspersion on Rodrik himself. He is critical of Milton Friedman because while he may be generally right, one should be careful about pursuing his thoughts to an extreme. Likewise, he is also critical of Acemoglu and Robinson for treating domestic politics as a largely endogenous process. You need to understand the flow of domestic politics, their incentive structures, and how ideas factor into it in order to create domestic policy that is best able to change affairs on the ground.
Rodrik's call is for a more moderate form of globalization. He rejects the notion of a global economic governance structure, and he is skeptical that mere compensation will work to right the ship of trade. Rather, he calls for greater recognition of the role that government played in shaping the rise of international industries and finding the best way to appeal to politics to ensure that trade is not creating net harm. As he said in one telling passage, trade does not create new jobs inherently. Rather, it redistributes economic resources. Depending on how that redistribution takes place, jobs will be moved around and people can be harmed. The only way trade policy can make jobs deliberately is by adopting policies that destroy or diminish jobs elsewhere. A turn to mercantilism may well bring jobs back to the United States, but only at the cost of damaging the economies of other countries. Responsible free trade can neither engage in beggar thy neighbor policies, nor can it long survive beggaring thy self. A balance needs to be struck.
Overall, this is a pretty refreshing read. It is a little uneven though, and I imagine there are a couple of ready rejoinders to the text lurking elsewhere in the literature.
Rodrik's call is for a more moderate form of globalization. He rejects the notion of a global economic governance structure, and he is skeptical that mere compensation will work to right the ship of trade. Rather, he calls for greater recognition of the role that government played in shaping the rise of international industries and finding the best way to appeal to politics to ensure that trade is not creating net harm. As he said in one telling passage, trade does not create new jobs inherently. Rather, it redistributes economic resources. Depending on how that redistribution takes place, jobs will be moved around and people can be harmed. The only way trade policy can make jobs deliberately is by adopting policies that destroy or diminish jobs elsewhere. A turn to mercantilism may well bring jobs back to the United States, but only at the cost of damaging the economies of other countries. Responsible free trade can neither engage in beggar thy neighbor policies, nor can it long survive beggaring thy self. A balance needs to be struck.
Overall, this is a pretty refreshing read. It is a little uneven though, and I imagine there are a couple of ready rejoinders to the text lurking elsewhere in the literature.
January 13, 2019
I found this book to be very clear and enlightening on the topic of free trade/globalization.
First of all, Dani writes extreme lucid about the challenges facing us as a result of the global trade regime, which is by no means completely free.
I think his strongest point is that the country that is always put forward as the success story of free trade (China) actually has a very strong government element that pursues an active industrial policy by sponsoring companies and subsidizing exports. One of the strongest examples was the famous 'pencil speech' by Milton Friedman, where he talks about the wonders of the free market in producing this pencil, by gathering the forces of the free market. The author poignantly notes that in fact the biggest pencil producer (China) has become so mainly due to its strong interventionist policies and state subsidies.
The author also clearly states that FTAs and Global trade policy do not benefit all, and shows the element of dishonesty in the public message coming from politicians and business leaders.
A minor flaw: in the end he talks about the failure of the 'left' to capitalize on the financial crisis to gain political support. He then goes on to say that right wing parties "aim to divide people". I found that very shorthanded and partisan. In the end we must also accept the importance of 'right wing' policies to balance out the idealist social engineering of the more leftist forces.
Other than that, a good introduction into global trade and it's associated impact on nation societies.
First of all, Dani writes extreme lucid about the challenges facing us as a result of the global trade regime, which is by no means completely free.
I think his strongest point is that the country that is always put forward as the success story of free trade (China) actually has a very strong government element that pursues an active industrial policy by sponsoring companies and subsidizing exports. One of the strongest examples was the famous 'pencil speech' by Milton Friedman, where he talks about the wonders of the free market in producing this pencil, by gathering the forces of the free market. The author poignantly notes that in fact the biggest pencil producer (China) has become so mainly due to its strong interventionist policies and state subsidies.
The author also clearly states that FTAs and Global trade policy do not benefit all, and shows the element of dishonesty in the public message coming from politicians and business leaders.
A minor flaw: in the end he talks about the failure of the 'left' to capitalize on the financial crisis to gain political support. He then goes on to say that right wing parties "aim to divide people". I found that very shorthanded and partisan. In the end we must also accept the importance of 'right wing' policies to balance out the idealist social engineering of the more leftist forces.
Other than that, a good introduction into global trade and it's associated impact on nation societies.
November 8, 2022
Straight Talk on Trade (2017) draws on several of Rodrik’s previous works, including books The Globalization Paradox (2010), Economics Rules (2015), and Rodrik’s columns and journal articles. The scope is broad, covering international trade, development policies, and political ideology. Most content came from Rodrik’s Project Syndicate column, explaining the emotive style of prose.1 The book references Citigroup, PWC, the Economist, and McKinsey (pg. 80-2, 240), suggesting that the business community was a target audience. It reads like a collection of disjointed journalistic articles, and lacks a strong conclusion, instead suggesting that “bolder, bigger ideas” are needed (pg. 274). Nonetheless, a myriad of ideas are proposed, many of which have potential for further study.
Whilst Straight Talk on Trade is thought provoking, it is not easy to read. Each of the original articles in the book was once presented as a stand-alone text in a different context, and when joined into one text they lack fluidity. The case studies are brief and lack key details that would be useful to the reader and strengthen Rodrik’s arguments. However, a broad set of ideas are brought together. The book does not form strong conclusions. Instead, it can inspire reflection and suggest future research avenues.
Whilst Straight Talk on Trade is thought provoking, it is not easy to read. Each of the original articles in the book was once presented as a stand-alone text in a different context, and when joined into one text they lack fluidity. The case studies are brief and lack key details that would be useful to the reader and strengthen Rodrik’s arguments. However, a broad set of ideas are brought together. The book does not form strong conclusions. Instead, it can inspire reflection and suggest future research avenues.
March 9, 2024
Chapters 5-8 provide a good overview on economics as science vs. economic policy and potential discrepancies between them that are often not brought up by economists, e.g. role of assumptions and ideas in policymaking and research. Refreshing to read similar arguments that are usually brought up by scholars of critical political economy rather than economists. Found some interesting parallels to critical realist thinking of e.g. Bob Jessop in this book.
In general, I'm not a great fan of books that are compiled together from separate essays. It often leads to a random collection of only loosely related narratives, something that was also the shortcoming of Straight Talk on Trade.
If I were to recommend one book by Rodrik, it would rather be The Globalization Paradox. However, If you're keen to know in more detail why he doesn't rely on global governance as the way to regulate markets, you may want to check chapters 2 & 9.
In general, I'm not a great fan of books that are compiled together from separate essays. It often leads to a random collection of only loosely related narratives, something that was also the shortcoming of Straight Talk on Trade.
If I were to recommend one book by Rodrik, it would rather be The Globalization Paradox. However, If you're keen to know in more detail why he doesn't rely on global governance as the way to regulate markets, you may want to check chapters 2 & 9.
April 8, 2018
President Trump should read this. Trade is more nuanced than Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. In general the gains from trade have benefited the world. However, there are some losers and dislocations. This book discusses the details of trade beyond the eonomist's espoused "trade is good". Rodrik explains why globalization and free trade can go to far. He shows that the damages not only for developing nations but also for developed regions. At the same time, he argues that nationalism and protectionism are not the answers. The damage and perceived damages from trade has lead to Brexit and the election of Trump. The illiberal fallout from trade is worse than the trade damage. However, countries need to do a better job of helping displaced workers. He wrote another book called "The Globalization Paradox" that I highly recommend .
February 7, 2021
It's a fine book, the arguments are fine and the structure is fine. I sympathize with a lot of the arguments Dani Rodrik makes here. The problem is that he strays too much into politics and current affairs. He is worried that only the right is picking up the protectionist line and not the left. But really most of the political talk about Greece, Germany, and France just seems to miss the point. He should have spent half the book trying to explain why protectionism might be good but he barely spends like 5 pages, and not even making a forceful case, instead, it's full of caveats and soft treading. Rodrik is too much of a news politics junkie, so he can't help himself. Worse yet, though he is right on everything he says, it comes across in a rather dry way. His rhetorical arsenal needs to expand for his books to convince more people.
June 19, 2023
I'm not sure what to make of this book. If you know Rodrik's views, this book won't tell you much that is new, though it is a good kind of summary of his more coontroversial opinions peppered with some drive-by examples. If you are a complete newcomer to matters of trade and economics, this book is likely not for you, as many of the points will be a little obscure.
But if you are somewhere in the middle-- broadly familiar with the issues of trade and the way economics and economists work but don't know Rodrik well, the book does make plenty of good and thought-provoking points, and it's a quick and easy read, not dense by any means.
Still, I remember his "Economics Rules" much more favorably, and it might be just as well to google his posts on his blog or Project Syndicate and that'll probably get you most of what's in the book.
But if you are somewhere in the middle-- broadly familiar with the issues of trade and the way economics and economists work but don't know Rodrik well, the book does make plenty of good and thought-provoking points, and it's a quick and easy read, not dense by any means.
Still, I remember his "Economics Rules" much more favorably, and it might be just as well to google his posts on his blog or Project Syndicate and that'll probably get you most of what's in the book.
August 22, 2019
Rodrick scrive un pro-memoria per le sinistre (incluso quelle che si riconoscono nel PD e negli altri gruppi), quando dice: " Una differenza cruciale tra la destra e la sinistra è che la prima prospera quando riesce a rendere ancor più marcate le divisioni in una società - "noi" contro "loro" -, mentre la sinistra, quando lavora bene, riesce a superare tali divisioni grazie a riforme che fanno da ponte. Da qui nasce il paradosso per cui le prime ondate di riforme promosse dalla sinistra - keynesismo, socialdemocrazia e Stato sociale - hanno salvato il capitalismo da se stesso rendendosi di fatto superflue. Se non sapremo trovare un'altra risposta di questo genere, lasceremo il campo aperto a populisti e gruppi di estrema destra che guadagneranno ulteriore terreno e, come hanno sempre fatto, condurranno il mondo verso divisioni ancora più profonde e conflitti sempre più frequenti.
September 22, 2019
I wasn't able to finish this before I had to return it to the library, however, I really enjoyed what I did read. Weighing the competing needs of increasing economic growth through globalization and democracy through greater public participation is not easy. Public backlash against globalization increases with the inevitable growth of inequality and can lead to what we see today in populisms rise. Rodrik tries to walk the line in his support of both globalization and the fickle democratic process. Hopefully one day I'll be able to finish the book and discover if he was successful in his argument.
September 3, 2025
Dani看似在批评过度全球化，但是实际上仍然是在WC不可避免的失败之后作为美国主流经济学家在为全球经济找一个新的轨道。整本书最漂亮的概念可以说是premature deindustrialization，发展中国家再也不能简单复刻东亚奇迹，因为制造业变得越来越技术导向，全球产业链越来越偏向北方。这无疑对于发展研究本身是一个重要的新概念。如果说中国有“未富先老”的问题的话，现在的发展中国家则面临“未富先去工业化”的严重问题。他认为pilitical backwardness是一个很重要的问题，也就是非西方社会并不具备自由主义的基础，因此很难在这种基础上生发出liberal democracy的果实，这个看法的前提是这就是最好的institution。即使是这样的话，他根本没有为发展中国家提出可行的发展路径，看似有理的论述背后仍是新自由主义的优越性和对真正全球南方发展困境的选择性无视。
制造业本身就是最适合发展中国家的领域，因为在一个领域的深耕很容易将领域通向更高的领域。制造业很强的交易属性，在自由贸易的前提下拥有无限的国际市场，也可以创造大量的就业机会。
他认为贸易保护仍代表某种单纯商业性的公平性考量，他呼吁在anti-dumping的同时也应该要anti-social dumping。但是法理上的有说服力并不能意味着劳工也会认同这种anti-social dumping。金砖国家将基建作为政策倾向是否真的是上世纪五十年代的发展观？发展中国家是否真的不需要基建？发展中国家真的想要劳工权益还是真的发展呢？这仍然是绕不开的问题。
制造业本身就是最适合发展中国家的领域，因为在一个领域的深耕很容易将领域通向更高的领域。制造业很强的交易属性，在自由贸易的前提下拥有无限的国际市场，也可以创造大量的就业机会。
他认为贸易保护仍代表某种单纯商业性的公平性考量，他呼吁在anti-dumping的同时也应该要anti-social dumping。但是法理上的有说服力并不能意味着劳工也会认同这种anti-social dumping。金砖国家将基建作为政策倾向是否真的是上世纪五十年代的发展观？发展中国家是否真的不需要基建？发展中国家真的想要劳工权益还是真的发展呢？这仍然是绕不开的问题。
July 13, 2018
First 50 pages of the book deserves at least 4 stars where Rodrik lays out his ideas about trade. Then, he starts delving into discussions on economic theory where he repeats his previous books. The rest of the book contains various ideas about almost anything. The organization of the book is sloppy, I don't think he spent too much time thinking about the policy suggestions he makes. The book entirely misses the discussions about globalism in the western world.
The only reason I gave 3 stars instead of 1 is because of the first couple chapters where he formulates his ideas about trade.
The only reason I gave 3 stars instead of 1 is because of the first couple chapters where he formulates his ideas about trade.
May 25, 2020
In my opinion, this book could use more numbers/graphs/case studies to back it up. As is, (in my opinion) it is hard to understand the scope and significance of the author's arguments.
Admittedly, I read the book out-of-order, since I was reading it for a class. But I thought it was kind of all over the place and at times seemed to express (slightly) inconsistent sentiments.
Some IPE books/articles are very clear about what they are talking about, the scope of their argument, and what we should do about it. This book isn't one of them.
Admittedly, I read the book out-of-order, since I was reading it for a class. But I thought it was kind of all over the place and at times seemed to express (slightly) inconsistent sentiments.
Some IPE books/articles are very clear about what they are talking about, the scope of their argument, and what we should do about it. This book isn't one of them.
June 24, 2021
Anorher strong work by Rodrik continuing his theme that there needs to be a new balance struck between globalization and the integrity of nation states.
He's persuasive on the economic points, advocating for trade regimes that allow more space for countries to pursue particular social objectives even at the cost of free market purity. His observations about the prospects of so called developing nations are also compelling, if something sobering.
He is perhaps less persuasive when he ventures into political theory, and the final sections appear a bit undercooked and rushed.
He's persuasive on the economic points, advocating for trade regimes that allow more space for countries to pursue particular social objectives even at the cost of free market purity. His observations about the prospects of so called developing nations are also compelling, if something sobering.
He is perhaps less persuasive when he ventures into political theory, and the final sections appear a bit undercooked and rushed.
Read
March 24, 2023• For my personal understanding of the subject, as a student of international economics- 4 stars
• As a book, 3 stars. It was somewhat disconnected and quite repetitive, and understandably so because the book is based off from Rodrik's Project Syndicate columns. Rodrik is an important voice in economics that manages to straddle both mainstream economics and heterodox ideas. As a result his works acts as a bridge between multiple approaches of doing economics. Despite the organisational limitations of this book, it is still a succint and easy to read primer on the Big Questions concerning the global (political) economy.
• As a book, 3 stars. It was somewhat disconnected and quite repetitive, and understandably so because the book is based off from Rodrik's Project Syndicate columns. Rodrik is an important voice in economics that manages to straddle both mainstream economics and heterodox ideas. As a result his works acts as a bridge between multiple approaches of doing economics. Despite the organisational limitations of this book, it is still a succint and easy to read primer on the Big Questions concerning the global (political) economy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews