I admit that the articles I have been discussing of late have illuminated only the problems of globalization and offered few if any solutions. However, in Dani Rodrik’s “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” he highlights some obstacles and solutions regarding the newly globalized world.

His first points of contentions are the obvious ones. First, “reduced barriers” to business and trade have, in recent years, served to accentuate “the asymmetry between groups that can cross international borders and those that cannot”. According to Rodrik, the migration is less of a choice and more about demand. Though the highly demanded specialized professionals and businessmen might have freedom of mobility, thee unskilled laborer does not. This is not necessarily because of less need for the underskilled wage laborer, but rather that this type of worker can be easily substituted. He points out that such “elasticity” in demand for unskilled employees has several consequences for the common people of the world.

• Workers now have to pay a larger share of the cost of improvements in work conditions and benefits.
• They have to incur greater instability in earnings and hours worked in response to shocks to labor demand or labor productivity
• Their bargaining power erodes, so they receive lower wages and benefits whenever bargaining is an element in setting the terms of employment.

Second, nations with very different values and societal norms are being forced to trade with one another and compete on a global scale for the same goods. For example, under the rules of the World Trade Organizations, the U.S. would have to trade and compete with a country that might use child labor, or support terrorism

Third and finally, global trade has made it increasingly difficult for governments to provide “social insurance” for its people. The welfare state is in a very dangerous position right now. Since things like social security and welfare run countercyclically to free market practices they are often demonized as helping those unwilling to help themselves. The danger we as a society face then is the fact that if globalization continues to weaken the governments ability to provide financial and social aid to the less fortunate, people may begin to be displeased with the free market system, leading to a “resurgence in protectionism”.

But unlike other authors, who often state the predicaments associated with globalization and leave it up to the rest of the world to untangle, Rodrik makes several suggestions for how to remedy some of Globalization’s side effects. He says that, first, there must be a balance “between openness and domestic needs”, that the need for free markets should not take precedent over social cohesion. Indeed, it aught to be the right of every state to use tariffs in a responsible manner in order to protect the values of the taxing society. On this point I agree slightly. Tariffs can be a useful tool, no doubt, but they can also be an easily abused power. I believe it is still important for the WTO to continue to set limits on the use of tariffs.

Second, he says not to neglect social insurance. According to Rodrik, social insurance has acted as a peacekeeper in the last half century and giving it up for the sake of free market rhetoric would be a catastrophic and politically suicidal idea. Though his proposal of cutting the amount of money flowing into social security programs and siphoning it elsewhere may be a difficult act to play out unscathed (politicians have yet to truly tamper with social security).

Thirdly, “do not use competitiveness as an excuse for domestic reform”. Such rhetoric taints any form of political and social change that might have otherwise been quite useful. Why would people want to change their lives or domestic conditions to be more on the level with foreign countries? “The lessons for policymakers is, do not sell reforms that are good for the economy and citizenry as reforms that are dictated by international economic integration.” On this point I totally agree. Speaking as a U.S. citizen, it does not serve politicians well to try to explain their policies by telling us that if we don’t play the game the way the other “big boys” do, we’ll get left behind. If anything it would make me not want play the game at all.

In general, this author and I have similar points of view. The idea that free market economics parallels a decline in the quality and sovereignty of a nation must be viewed as absurd, lest it come true. The idea that we as a people have the power to direct the course of Globalization, now that makes sense.