Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 410+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 33000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at €11,99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for €1.09
Then just €11,99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
IT
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Italy version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Leggi ovunque Read anywhere
Modalità di pagamento Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
A Pocketmags si ottiene
Fatturazione sicura
Ultime offerte
Web & App Reader
Regali
Loyalty Points
37 MIN READ TIME

TRADE RESTRICTIONS WILL NOT ACHIEVE ETHICAL GLOBALIZATION

I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS on Dani Rodrik’s scheme to combat the dark side of “social dumping.” His idea is, according to Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman, “indicative of the commitments of many of the members of EfIP: a willingness to subordinate textbook economic efficiency to other values, such as democratic rule and egalitarian relationships among citizens.” Rodrik contends that, to ensure U.S. workers compete on a level playing field without being undercut by practices that would be illegal here, we could restrict trade with countries that violate minimum labor or environmental standards. He proposes public hearings to debate and determine what constitutes unfair trade. These protections, Rodrik argues, would allow us to maintain high standards while at the same time making U.S. businesses more competitive, thus safeguarding jobs. This scheme is unlikely to succeed on some of its central aims. It probably would not protect U.S. jobs, and it would likely hurt the world’s poorest countries.

Regarding U.S. jobs, since the end of World War II, governments have made it easier and easier to trade goods and to locate production in any country. Technological development has also made it easier for businesses to replace workers with machines. It is this combination of free trade and automation that has led to steep U.S. job losses in manufacturing.

READ MORE
Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Boston Review - Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue
Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
€11,99
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Boston Review subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription
Only € 6,25 per issue
SAVE
48%
€24,99

View Issues

About Boston Review

Economics After Neoliberalism offers a powerful case for a new brand of economics—one focused on power and inequality and aimed at a more inclusive society. Three prominent economists—Suresh Naidu, Dani Rodrik, and Gabriel Zucman—lead off with a vision “for economic policy that stands as a genuine alternative to market fundamentalism.” Expanding on “the state of creative ferment” they describe, Boston Review has commissioned responses to their essay from economists, philosophers, political scientists, and policymakers across the political spectrum as well as new essays that challenge the current shape of markets and suggest more democratic alternatives. Lenore Palladino explores the misguided logic of shareholder primacy and points to more equitable approaches to corporate governance—such as employee ownership funds. Amy Kapczynski examines how the courts have developed a new, anti-democratic First Amendment that protects corporate speech at the expense of regulation designed to protect public health and safety. And Robert Manduca explores the importance of public discussion about economics by revisiting Chester Bowles's remarkable book, Tomorrow Without Fear, which explained Keynesian ideas to the public after World War II.

Other Articles in this Issue


Boston Review
This publication was made possible by a generous grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
NEAR THE END of Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Milton
FORUM
We live in an age of astonishing inequality. Income
FORUM RESPONSES
FOR NON-ECONOMISTS on the left, “Economics After Neoliberalism”
A DEFINING FEATURE of Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman’s essay
SINCE COMPLAINTS about the domination of market fundamentalism
LIKE NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN, I celebrate the advantages
AFTER NEARLY FOUR YEARS of working as chief economic
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS on Dani Rodrik’s scheme to combat
STRONG, INDEPENDENT LABOR MOVEMENTS have always been
(Eric Beinhocker, W. Brian Arthur, Robert Axtell, Jenna Bednar, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, David Colander, Molly Crockett, J. Doyne Farmer, Ricardo Hausmann, Cars Hommes, Alan Kirman, Scott Page, and David Sloan Wilson)
“ECONOMICS AFTER NEOLIBERALISM” describes an economics
ECONOMICS STANDS DEEPLY COMMITTED to quantification
NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN are on the cutting edge of
THE RESPONSES IN THIS FORUM are too insightful to engage
ESSAYS
“LET’S BRING OUR EDITORIAL MICROSCOPE into focus on
HOW DO WE TALK about economics? Robert Manduca’s essay
IN 1962 MILTON FRIEDMAN- the economist who, more than
WE NEED METAPHORS to make sense of reality. But we
THE FIRST AMENDMENT has long been celebrated as the
Samuel Bowles is Arthur Spiegel Research Professor