Notizen
Test
Inhalt der Notizen (1)
Seite 1
Keynes:
Multiplication
of networks and
activities
Expansion
and stretching of social
relations
Intensification and acceleration of
social
exchanges and activities
All of this
occurring at the material
level but also
at the level of human
consciousness
Steger:
“Globalization
refers to the expansion
and
intensification of social relations
and
consciousness across world-time
and
world-space”
TPP:
Comparative
advantage:
Somebody has a
comparative advantage at
producing
something if they can produce it at a
lower cost
than anyone else.
What it
costs someone to produce something is the
opportunity
cost—the value of what is given up.
The magic of
comparative advantage is that everyone has a
comparative
advantage at producing something. The upshot
is quite
extraordinary: Everyone stands to gain from trade.
Even those who
are disadvantaged at every task still have
something
valuable to offer. Those who have natural or
learned
absolute advantages can do even better for
themselves by
focusing on those skills and buying other
goods and
services from those who produce them at
comparatively
low cost.
Challenges:
“This creates
a challenge for free-trade advocates: when within a group a change in economic
circumstances creates winners and losers, it is problematic to find a
non-controversial criterion that allows us to say that the aggregate effect,
i.e. the effect on the group as a whole, is good or bad.”
(Robert
Driskill, “Deconstructing the Argument for Free Trade,” Economics and Philosphy,
2012)
Answers
The losers are
compensated
Kaldor-Hicks
compensation criterion
“this
criterion is satisfied for some change in economic circumstances when the gains
to the winners are sufficiently large that there exists a compensation scheme
from winners to losers that if carried out without use of any resources would
make no one worse off and at least some people better off.”
(Robert
Driskill, “Deconstructing the Argument for Free Trade,” Economics and
Philosphy, 2012)
Kaldor Hicks:
Why is the
Kaldor-Hicks criterion appealing?
It address a
problem: the veto power of the losers
What are the
limitations of the Kaldor-Hicks criterion
Is it
feasible? How can it be implemented? Would a compensation scheme undermine
people's incentives to compete, trade, innovate?
“In this
sense, trade can make everyone better off. But will trade make everyone better
off? Probably not. In practice, compensation for the losers from international
trade is rare.”
More Answers:
The markets
will take care of it… (in the long run…)
i.e.
resources will be re-allocated to more efficient use
E.G.: Apple
and manufacturing.
Accountability:
In a liberal
democracy, accountability rests on the notion
that, in the
public realm, rulers respond to the citizenry
for their
actions (Maloy 2014; Przeworski, Stokes, and
Manin 1999;
Schumpeter 1976).
Government
Constraint:
“Greater
exposure to the world
economy
reduces electoral
accountability
in the world's
democracies”
(Hellwig-Samuels, p.
288)
Authoritarians:
(Donald Trump)
“Authoritarians
prioritize social order and
hierarchies,
which bring a sense of control to a
chaotic world.
Challenges to that order — diversity,
influx of
outsiders, breakdown of the old order —
are
experienced as personally threatening because
they risk upending
the status quo order they equate
with basic
security.”
Democracy:
Voice:
“In developing
countries, (…)
democratization
enfranchises
particularly
low-skilled and unskilled
labor in the
rural and urban informal
sectors”
(Milner and Mukherjee, p.
167)
Benefits:
Free trade
benefits the abundant
factor of
production and harms the
scarce factor
of production
Stopler
Samuelsson:
The intuition,
from the point of view
of a developed
economy that exports
capital
intensive goods
a) Tariffs
go down; b) domestic firms face
competition
from cheaper imports; c) imports
are cheaper
because they are produced by
cheap foreign
labor; d) importing-competing
firms go bust;
e) export-competing firms do
well; f)
export-competing firms are capitalintensive;
g) thus, there
will be shortage of
capital and
abundance of labor
The intuition,
from the point of view
of a
developing economy that exports
labor
intensive goods
Low
skilled/unskilled workers stand to benefit
Pols 365 Reading Notes:
Democratic and Economic Globalisation: Helen Milner and
Bumba Mukherjee
1.
Dem. Has a positive effect on trade and capital
account liberalisation.
2.
Neither trade or CAL affect demo.
3.
Trade reforms engender a skill premium in demos
across the dev. World.
4.
Dist. Consequences of trade and financial
liberalisation are costly and pol. Salient.
The China Shock: Learning from labour market adjustment to
large changes in trade: David Autor, Dorn and Gordon Hanson.
1.
1990s economists found that trade did not have
adverse effects in dist. In advance countries for any sector. The decline in
man. Levels from 39% in 1944 to 8.5% in 2015 was nothing new.
2.
The coda in the year 2000:
·
Trade had not been a cont. to declining man.
Employment or wage inequality in dev. Countries.
·
Workers employed in import spec. regions could
easily relocate if displace.
·
Law of one price for skill meant that trade
impacts would be felt by the low skill worker, not by the trade exposed worker.
3.
BUT China: resdist/benign aspect of trade not
stood up.
4.
Trade had benefits (i.e. the rise) but also
dist. Costs and agdj. Costs.
5.
The Rise: China manufacturing exports 2.3% 1991,
18.8% in 2013.
6.
Consequences for US: adjustment costs: overall
employment has fallen, employment gains haven’t materialised. Distribution
costs: reduction in earnings for lower wage employees, ability to exit job has
lessened.
7.
Labours have to be able to relocate if gains are
to be made.
When did globalisation begin? Kevin O’Rourke and Jeffery G.
Williamson:
1.
This reading uses the term globalisation to mean
market integration.
2.
The criteria for globalisation to influence the
economy are: trade creating forces must influence domestic prices. And those
price changes must induce a resource shuffle which in turn means that trade
influences all other aspects of life.
3.
This did not start until the 19th
century, with examples coming from the North South divide in the USA, and the
land owner’s vs labourers in the UK.
Voting in Open Economies: Timothy Hellwig and David Samuels.
1.
No evidence to suggest that openness facilitates
voter responsibility. Voters in open economies are less likely to judge
candidates based on their understanding of economies, and that globalisation
reduces voter’s likeliness to connect economic performance and incumbent
performance. – Austria in the 2002 election vs the 1979 election.
2.
The perceptions of trade and trade constraints
play a part in economic voting in open economies.
3.
Politicians play an instrumental role in shaping
the globalisation/accountability connection – globalisation can encourage
governments to shirk from responsibility. Economy becomes a scape goat.
Perceptions of Competence:
Giacomo Chiozza and Luigi Manzetti:
1.
Under globalisation, governments have reduced
competency, and leaders are evaluated by other standards.
2.
In 2012 voters were more worried about their
countries direction, as well as the future status of the economy. However, a
negative view of the economy did not necessarily result in a negative view of
the leader as long as the overall direction of the country was good.
3.
As countries become more interdependent in terms
of trade and finance, factors that affect the way voter’s decisions will
reflect global as well as local conditions.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- 300 Politics Notiz am Test, erstellt von clare mckone am 14/08/2016.
- Erstellt von
- clare mckone · Aug 2016
- Aktualisiert
- 15 Aug 2016
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung