http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/fed-cant-serve-two-masters/#utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoHomepageHeadlines+%28Cato+Headlines%29
While I was always taught that the Phillips curve is a woeful fantasy that has brought about significantly bad policy. It does beg the question, if stimulus isn't effectively increasing employment, and monetary policy CAN'T increase employment...what is the US to do about its most significant of economic woes?
I will develop this thought a bit more in the future, but consider this. Jobs are created when people engage the demand for products and services. Production expands, business start up and jobs are created...currently, there is insufficient domestic demand to support US production enough to increase jobs. Perhaps, then, one of the most globally linked economies in the world needs to focus on encouraging development elsewhere enough so that global demand bouys up policy.
By this I mean a foreign policy that is concerned about developing other countries...rather than fighting currency wars with them.
Showing posts with label fiscal policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fiscal policy. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Transnationalization....is that even a word?
"The times they are a-changing" - Bob Dylan
Sure they are Bob, but how? That's the much more intriguing question. And lest we get too philosophical, I'll cut to the chase and say that what I'm talking about is this little thing we call globalization.
Contemporary debates globalization theories are essentially divided into three categories. 1. The sceptics who say that globalization is not a new phenomenon but just more trade with new technology. 2. the globalists who say that states are becoming less important and governance is being transferred to supranational powers such as the UN. and 3. the transformationalists who believe that transnational spheres of influence are changing state government without usurping it.
Ok, enough with the theory lesson, if you want to learn more (with a clear bias towards the transformationalist perspective) check out Jan Aart Sholte's book "Globalization: A Critical Introduction".
The point of all that is to suggest that theories of "transnationalism" seem to be reaching unprescedented levels of importance in how the political process and governance seems to be occuring. Transnationalism involves a concept of political, civil, social and economic space that is not tied to territory. For more information on this concept (which is not new by any means) check out Keohane and Nye's 1972 paper "Transnational Relations and World Politics: and introduction" (International Organization volume 25, issue 3). Transnationalism occurs because of technology like the internet which allows communication and networking across countries and continents and permits a global identity and functionality to exist. Thus, international organizations are thought to not only be empowered by states but rather have some degree of autonomy and power in and of themselves.
Ok...long introduction, short thought in the end.
Coming out of the global recession, words like "austerity" have become rampant in discourse. Currently, there has been some considerable debate on austerity measures and whether the US is ready to reduce its stimulus spending and cut back or whether to wait until stability is achieved. However, while its easy to see this as a product of American discourse, the role of transnationalism in the debate is becoming clearer and clearer. Austerity policies are becoming increasingly expected of all states around the world. What has traditionally been see as a product of western thinking has now moved into the realm of transnational thinking. Clearly the west is reconsidering the wisdom of such policies while continued pressures from IOs like the IMF force these debates in academic discourse and increasingly globalized forums such as the G20 (which have indicated the desire to reduce deficite spending globally and also, hesitation in doing so too soon).
What does this have to do with globalization theory? Concepts from above such as austerity are imposing guidelines along which political debate is occurring in states. I believe that politicization and ideology haven't died but are now debating issues dictated from transnational space. The problem is, many of these transnational sources of ideas and "knowledge" are not ideologically or politically neutral. Nor are they responsible or elected. As a result, ideas and guidelines handed down from the transnational realm to the national realm represent a type of global autocracy. While the US can afford consider and reconsider policy options, weaker states are much more at their mercy(take Greece or Ireland for example, let alone LDCs which are so completely dependant on funding from these transnational organizations).
There may be reason to believe that this is not all bad. But it certainly raises concerns, especially (as Krugman points out in an article today on the NYtimes website; see below) when this "transnational knowledge" is not clearly as beneficial as it claims to be.
Thoughts?
Krugman criticizes austerity
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/does-fiscal-austerity-reassure-markets/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
The Austerity debate worldwide
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22384/fiscal_austerity_debate.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fallreports%3Fco%3DC028102
More on Transnationalism
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/fr/analyse/fiche-analyse-37.html
Sure they are Bob, but how? That's the much more intriguing question. And lest we get too philosophical, I'll cut to the chase and say that what I'm talking about is this little thing we call globalization.
Contemporary debates globalization theories are essentially divided into three categories. 1. The sceptics who say that globalization is not a new phenomenon but just more trade with new technology. 2. the globalists who say that states are becoming less important and governance is being transferred to supranational powers such as the UN. and 3. the transformationalists who believe that transnational spheres of influence are changing state government without usurping it.
Ok, enough with the theory lesson, if you want to learn more (with a clear bias towards the transformationalist perspective) check out Jan Aart Sholte's book "Globalization: A Critical Introduction".
The point of all that is to suggest that theories of "transnationalism" seem to be reaching unprescedented levels of importance in how the political process and governance seems to be occuring. Transnationalism involves a concept of political, civil, social and economic space that is not tied to territory. For more information on this concept (which is not new by any means) check out Keohane and Nye's 1972 paper "Transnational Relations and World Politics: and introduction" (International Organization volume 25, issue 3). Transnationalism occurs because of technology like the internet which allows communication and networking across countries and continents and permits a global identity and functionality to exist. Thus, international organizations are thought to not only be empowered by states but rather have some degree of autonomy and power in and of themselves.
Ok...long introduction, short thought in the end.
Coming out of the global recession, words like "austerity" have become rampant in discourse. Currently, there has been some considerable debate on austerity measures and whether the US is ready to reduce its stimulus spending and cut back or whether to wait until stability is achieved. However, while its easy to see this as a product of American discourse, the role of transnationalism in the debate is becoming clearer and clearer. Austerity policies are becoming increasingly expected of all states around the world. What has traditionally been see as a product of western thinking has now moved into the realm of transnational thinking. Clearly the west is reconsidering the wisdom of such policies while continued pressures from IOs like the IMF force these debates in academic discourse and increasingly globalized forums such as the G20 (which have indicated the desire to reduce deficite spending globally and also, hesitation in doing so too soon).
What does this have to do with globalization theory? Concepts from above such as austerity are imposing guidelines along which political debate is occurring in states. I believe that politicization and ideology haven't died but are now debating issues dictated from transnational space. The problem is, many of these transnational sources of ideas and "knowledge" are not ideologically or politically neutral. Nor are they responsible or elected. As a result, ideas and guidelines handed down from the transnational realm to the national realm represent a type of global autocracy. While the US can afford consider and reconsider policy options, weaker states are much more at their mercy(take Greece or Ireland for example, let alone LDCs which are so completely dependant on funding from these transnational organizations).
There may be reason to believe that this is not all bad. But it certainly raises concerns, especially (as Krugman points out in an article today on the NYtimes website; see below) when this "transnational knowledge" is not clearly as beneficial as it claims to be.
Thoughts?
Krugman criticizes austerity
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/does-fiscal-austerity-reassure-markets/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman
The Austerity debate worldwide
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22384/fiscal_austerity_debate.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fallreports%3Fco%3DC028102
More on Transnationalism
http://www.institut-gouvernance.org/fr/analyse/fiche-analyse-37.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
