Q#1 According to Rodrik, what is hyperglobalization and why should we stop pursuing it? Why does he believe that “Bretton Woods” style globalization was better?
According to Rodrik Hyper-globalization involves practice of economic freedom of nations all over the world. Hyper-globalization meant freedom of movement of products across borders, services, technology and capital (Rodrik, 2011, pp 129-130). Hyper-globalization was meant to enhance global incorporation economically that promotes the creation of the global marketplace or rather a world market that is united. Rodrik opposed promotion of hyper-globalization because he argued that democracy and hyper-globalization could not exist at the same time, reason being decision making will be difficult because democratic nations have the freedom to make their own economic decisions while hyper-globalization requires a unified decision when it comes to global economic issues.
Majority of nations globally follow their own interest, therefore, in case of an economic problem they will make decisions in favor of their nation. Nevertheless, hyper-globalization requires that nations should reach a unified agreement when making economic decisions. Furthermore, people used to recognize themselves with their nation, therefore; if hyper-globalization practiced, voting to come to a uniform consensus will be difficult. In addition, global democracy requires that countries to follow a uniform direction when making economic decisions this will be difficult because the global community made up of a variety of cultures different historical background and thoughts therefore, coming to a uniform agreement will be impossible when making global decisions.
Rodrik believed Bretton woods style of globalization was better because it allowed nation independence in decision-making but at the same time promoted economic integration and globalization, promoted trade and exchange of ideas and technological developments (Rodrik, 2011, p187). Bretton woods style of globalization supported democracy and countries allowed to make their own decisions with regard to their economic development but the style did not support exploitation of developed nations to other developing nations in terms of currency manipulation. The globalization style permitted friendly interaction economically between nations.
Q#2 Why does Rodrik generally prefer governance of globalization by nation-states rather than by global governance mechanisms?
Global governance involves problem-solving technique with an impact in more than one state or region. Global governance meant to make decisions and solve problems that affect the world at large. Rodrik preferred governance of globalization by nation-state than by global governance mechanisms (Rodrik, 2011, p 213). This is because in times of global crisis, many nations embark on making decisions that have a positive impact on their nation, even though the problem may be affecting the world at large.
Many nations believe they have independence with regard to globalization therefore; they do not have to make decisions putting into consideration another nation. In a world of free market economy, governance is necessary which ought to be nation-state governance because global governance will favor nations that are economic powerful to make decisions thus promoting economic growth in their countries in order to remain powerful, oppressing the still developing nations. Global governance style will remain to be a dream, because a majority of countries would still prefer to make decisions on their own even when faced with a global problem (Rodrik, 2011, p 210). This independence enhanced by the existence of democracy that allows countries to be independent.
A majority of nations supports the nation-state governance rather than global governance for fear of exploitation, Rodrik supported that nation-state governance will enhance achievement of economic goals more easily. According to Rodrik, nation-state governance with regard to globalization will make more countries support economic globalization, and when it comes to various issues countries will assist each other in solving the problem, but in an independent forum. Furthermore, global governance mechanism tends to assume the contributions of nations without economic powers thus hindering growth of global democracy (Rodrik, 2011, p 113)
Q#3 Explain the meaning of Rodrik’s “trilemma.”
According to Rodrik, trilemma means the impossible existence of democracy, national independence and global economic relations to function together. Trilemma stands for the dilemma that exists in global economic interaction in democratic and free nations (Rodrik, 2011, p187). This means that, for economic integration to exist abolishment of all transaction expenses incurred by traders and financiers across borders.
Existence of nation-state makes the abolishment of transaction cost to be impossible. The nation-state enhances the existence of independent risk, they establish trade barriers at the borders, and they deny the existence of global ruling and supervision. To counter the problems, he suggests that governments should promote global federalism, where there will be integration between democratic policies with global markets to promote better interaction, although this has proven to be a difficult rule to achieve (Rodrik, 2011, p 189). Moreover, countries can agree to maintain nation-state, but the nation-state should be alert to the requirements of the international economy. In that, the nation-state will put global economic relations first in comparison to local goals. Therefore, Rodrik’s trilemma advocates that for globalization to exist governments should surrender some democracy right and national sovereignty.
Q# 4 Describe the characteristics of “sane globalization” according to Rodrik.
According to Rodrik, sane globalization will promote global economic growth, and for this to successful world leaders ought to embrace the following characteristics; governance system should include markets, in that there should be structures to control markets as confirmed by the recent global financial crisis. Rodrik argues that the markets depend on court of laws legal guidance and financial regulators to have agreeable rules (Rodrik, 2011, p 312) Therefore, for people to invest in global markets there ought to be a market that has an agreeable system of governance, which does not permit exploitation of superpower states in global markets. Further, Rodrik support the existence of Pluralist prosperity where countries experiment different economic advancement and transformation. Therefore, international laws set to regulate the globe should allow countries freedom of experiment and growth. Nevertheless, governments must not violate rules that regaling the economic and global environment in his the trade fundamentals in the tropics (Rodrik, 2011, p 159)
Rodrik advocates that market systems should permit countries to defend their institutions and laws, in that when it comes to free trade countries should set their own trade rules to control international trade within their borders. In addition, nations have rights of protecting local institution form international exploitation. Nonetheless, some regulations should still apply globally to prevent exploitation, for instance the market system should forbid currency manipulation as is done by china to prevent a global economic crisis (Rodrik, 2011, p185). In addition, countries have no obligation to inflict their institutions on others, in this Rodrik argues that, sane globalization should not allow countries like the US to implant economic rules on other countries in a bid of transforming their economic rules.
Rodrik recommends that international economic plans create policies for managing relations among nation institutions. This involves setting rules that ensure countries are able to interact freely even in a world dominated by the existence of nation-state. The policies will assist in preventing exploitation and manipulation of economic, powerful nations on weak nations (Rodrik, 2011, 251-256).
References
Rodrik, D. (2011). The Globalization Paradox. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
