Posts Tagged ‘laissez-faire’
“The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation”*…
Industrial policy is on the rise around the world, as nations (and sometimes regions) create laws and policies that prioritize domestic competitiveness and economic benefit over free trade, using tools like investment, regulation, and tariffs. Increasingly these policies are being animated not only by economic, but also security concerns. (See, e.g., here and here.)
The traditional worry about policies like these is that they create barriers (thus tensions) between countries… which, at a time when the world desperately needs collaborative responses to global challenges like climate change, could be deeply problematic. But Nathan Gardels argues that industrial policy might be precisely what we need to set the stage for meaningful cooperation…
The remarkable story future historians will tell about the late 20th and early 21st century is how inviting a Communist Party-state to enter a global economy built on the capitalist principles of free trade and markets ended up transforming the neoliberal West into a bastion of protectionism and state-directed industrial policy of the same kind now condemned as unfairly advantaging China’s rise.
They will also note the further irony that the logic of opening to China in the 1970s — and of China’s opening to the West — had a national security premise of checkmating the Soviet Union. Half a century on, the Middle Kingdom is more closely aligned with Russia than in the later stages of the Cold War, primarily as a way to do the opposite: checkmate America’s continuing dominance of the very world order that enabled its rapid ascent.
Adding more complexity to this reversal of history are the related global challenges that have arisen in both East and West: decarbonization of fossil-fuel dependency to mitigate climate change while coping with the disruptions of the digital revolution and the advent of artificial intelligence.
These threads of deglobalization, climate and technological revolution have all converged in the competitive assertion of “industrial strategies” in which nation-building is integrally bound up with international security concerns. China is driven by the fear of not catching up, the United States by alarm at losing the upper hand and Europe by the angst of falling behind both and losing its strategic autonomy.
China’s industrial strategy is called “dual circulation,” essentially a policy of self-reliance and resilience in the face of newfound Western hostility. It is aimed at bolstering domestic consumption and production, including conquering the latest AI technologies with its own resources, while off-loading manufacturing overproduction abroad and expanding trading ties in the global South.
The U.S. strategy, as crafted by President Joe Biden, encompasses a broad array of protective tariffs and subsidies. The CHIPs Act and related policies seek to foster homegrown microchip production while denying frontier technologies to China and restructuring supply chains to friendly nations. The Inflation Reduction Act promotes extensive new investment in the green energy transition. Incongruously, at the same time, a tariff of 100% has been imposed on the import of Chinese electric vehicles. Further tariffs on component inputs, such as batteries sourced in China, are already on track.
Following the U.S, the European Union is also set to raise its own stiff tariff hikes on Chinese EVs as it pursues a European Green Deal to transition to renewables on its own terms. Europe also seeks to blunt the impact of the “buy American” restrictions of the IRA so that fleeing capital looking to exploit the subsidized U.S. market does not hollow out its own green industries before they can be firmly established.
Earlier this month, the former European central banker and one-time Italian prime minister, Mario Draghi, has gone the next step and plotted out a detailed, long-term “industrial strategy” to close the gap with the U.S. and China, which he calls “an existential challenge” to the European way of life.
“If Europe cannot become more productive,” Draghi writes in his report, “we will be forced to choose. We will not be able to become, at once, a leader in new technologies, a beacon of climate responsibility and an independent player on the world stage. We will not be able to finance our social model. We will have to scale back some, if not all, of our ambitions.”…
[Gardels unpacks both European and Australian industrial policy..]
… For all these divergent industrial strategies to succeed in the end depends largely on whether sustained nation-building investment outstrips the duration of protective measures that ought to be only a temporary respite from asymmetrical conditions while they are rebalanced.
To the extent these decoupled initiatives do succeed, they will, paradoxically, come to be regarded not as the antithesis of global cooperation, but as the precondition for it. Only when the power centers of China, the U.S. and Europe are assuredly in control of their own destiny will they be secure enough to open up and cooperate on the global issues that impact them all equally…
The case that divergent “industrial strategies” in the U.S., China, and Europe can create the security to open up: “The Precondition for Global Cooperation,” from @NoemaMag.
* Bertrand Russell
###
As we reconfigure, we might spare a thought for a man who provided an important part the foundation on which opponents of industrial policy base their arguments: Pierre Le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert (or as he is more commonly known, simply Boisguilbert); he died on this date in 1714. A French Enlightenment law-maker and economist, he was the first of the great continental liberals– a proponent of laissez-faire and minimalist government and an early opponent of mercantilist “Colbertisme.” He is considered one of the fathers of the notion of an economic market.
“He got his fat dreams, he got his slaves / He got his profits, he owns our cage”*…
Plan, profile and layout of the slave ship The Séraphique Marie
For a generation, the relationship between slavery and capitalism has preoccupied historians. The publication of several major pieces of scholarship on the matter has won attention from the media. Scholars demonstrate that the Industrial Revolution, centred on the mass production of cotton textiles in the factories of England and New England, depended on raw cotton grown by slaves on plantations in the American South. Capitalists often touted the superiority of the industrial economies and their supposedly ‘free labour’. ‘Free labour’ means the system in which workers are not enslaved but free to contract with any manufacturer they chose, free to sell their labour. It means that there is a labour market, not a slave market.
But because ‘free labour’ was working with and dependent on raw materials produced by slaves, the simple distinction between an industrial economy of free labour on the one hand and a slave-based plantation system on the other falls apart. So too does the boundary between the southern ‘slave states’ and northern ‘free states’ in America. While the South grew rich from plantation agriculture that depended on slave labour, New England also grew rich off the slave trade, investing in the shipping and maritime insurance that made the transport of slaves from Africa to the United States possible and profitable. The sale of enslaved Africans brought together agriculture and industry, north and south, forming a global commercial network from which the modern world emerged.
It is only in the past few decades that scholars have come to grips with how slavery and capitalism intertwined. But for the 18th-century French thinkers who laid the foundations of laissez-faire capitalism, it made perfect sense to associate the slave trade with free enterprise. Their writings, which inspired the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations (1776), aimed to convince the French monarchy to deregulate key businesses such as the sale of grain and trade with Asia. Only a few specialists read them today. Yet these pamphlets, letters and manuscripts clearly proclaim a powerful message: the birth of modern capitalism depended not only on the labour of enslaved people and the profits of the slave trade, but also on the example of slavery as a deregulated global enterprise…
[Adam] Smith became far more influential than his teacher. As his own version of laissez-faire ideas came to seem like common sense in the following century, the pioneering Gournay Circle was largely forgotten. Their sense that the slave trade was a prime example of free trade in action disappeared. Yet the writings of Gournay and Morellet reveal that modern capitalism is entangled with slavery in multiple, profound ways. Slave labour supplied the cotton, sugar and other vital commodities. The profits from the sale of slaves created fortunes on both sides of the Atlantic. And, in a disturbing paradox, the founding fathers of laissez-faire saw the slave trade as a showcase of liberty.
The chilling tale of a “secret ingredient” in capitalism-as-we-know-it and of the 18th-century thinkers behind the laissez-faire economics that power it: “Slavery as Free Trade.”
* Richie Havens, “Fate”
###
As we face history, we might recall that it was on this date in 1789 that partisans of the Third Estate, impatient for social and legal reforms (and economic relief) in France, attacked and took control of the Bastille. A fortress in Paris, the Bastille was a medieval armory and political prison; while it held only 8 inmates at the time, it resonated with the crowd as a symbol of the monarchy’s abuse of power. Its fall ignited the French Revolution. This date is now observed annually as France’s National Day.
See the estimable Robert Darnton’s “What Was Revolutionary about the French Revolution?”
Storming of The Bastile, Jean-Pierre Houël
You must be logged in to post a comment.