The looming global recession has brought government intervention that saves failing companies to the forefront of economic policy. In a speech just prior to the recent G-20 summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned US president-elect Barack Obama against bailing out the US’ struggling Big Three automakers, arguing that global competition had made their decline irreversible. A bailout, then, would simply delay the inevitable at a huge cost to taxpayers.
Such advice is always tough to sell — all the more so in the face of the worst economic outlook in 70 years. After all, according to conventional wisdom, global competition moves jobs to low-cost countries and puts downward pressure on wages everywhere else. As globalization intensifies and accelerates economic change, it affects the lives of ordinary citizens like never before, stoking popular fear. Little wonder, then, that French President Nicolas Sarkozy succumbed to the allure of protectionism during last year’s election campaign, as did both presidential candidates in the US.
But protectionism need not be the only alternative to fear of global competition. In the Scandinavian countries, as in the US, foreign competition has intensified sharply over the past decade. China and India gained considerable economic power, and close neighbors in previously isolated communist states were rapidly integrated in the European economy.
However, surveys by Pew Research show that in Sweden, 85 percent of the population agree that trade is good for their country, compared with only 59 percent of Americans. Among Swedish industrial workers, the figure is 75 percent in favor. How can that be?
By designing educational and social protection policies that strengthen the individual, Scandinavian politicians have sought to promote change rather than prevent it. The positive public opinion in Sweden is not a symptom of brainwashing but a rational response to people’s experience during the last decade.
As competition intensified and production started moving to the Baltic States and Eastern Europe, Sweden’s policy response was to upgrade the skills of the workforce. As a result, from 1997 to last year, Swedish exports nearly doubled and industrial production grew by 36 percent, with manufacturing companies achieving record-high productivity growth.
Indeed, while annual US output per hour grew by 6.2 percent during this period, Swedish productivity rose by 8 percent. Sweden accumulated a current-account surplus of 53 percent of GDP, in contrast to the US’ 48 percent-of-GDP deficit. Employment rose by 11 percent and blue-collar worker wages increased by 24 percent, fueling a more than 30 percent surge in private consumption.
In short, even as globalization progressed, Swedish wage earners enjoyed a substantial improvement in living standards. While some jobs moved abroad, the net effect remained greatly positive.
The secret behind Sweden’s successful development, and hence people’s attitudes, is how the costs of change were distributed. Official policy aims to reduce the cost of globalization for individuals, but never for companies. Entrepreneurs need to face competition in order to develop, whereas individuals who are laid off may have difficulties getting back into productive work.
As trade minister of Sweden for most of this period, I never hindered or postponed import competition. In the EU, Sweden voted against almost all anti-dumping and other protectionist proposals. This never met any criticism from my voters, because educational policy and the social safety net were designed to lower workers’ risk aversion.
Broad educational policies equip an increasing share of Sweden’s population with basic education, thereby enhancing their employability. Higher education is free of charge and accessible in all parts of the country. But reaching one cohort per year is too little to meet demands in a fast-changing economy. Therefore, on top of this, large resources are spent on modernizing the skills of those already in the workforce.
Social protection also has a broad, general nature. In the Scandinavian countries, as opposed to, say, Germany and the US, the government, not individual companies, are responsible for most social benefits. That way, economically irrational lock-in effects, whereby workers simply cannot afford to change jobs, are avoided.
Furthermore, benefits are generous enough to ensure that short periods of unemployment don’t force workers to sell their homes — or even their cars. The system protects not only the unemployed, who can continue to pay their mortgages and interest, but also indirectly the banks, because their loans to households are repaid even in times of recession. And, instead of solving all sorts of economically induced private problems, retrenched workers can concentrate on finding new and more future-oriented jobs.
No doubt, these policies are expensive. But they pay for themselves by producing growth and revenue. As the past decade shows, they have served the Scandinavian countries well during a period of extreme internationalization. Instead of giving in to conventional wisdom, we have exploited the possibilities that globalization and technological change offer.
Could the Scandinavian model work for others?
At the very least, the Scandinavian example shows that politicians have more than one option to choose from when considering how to handle globalization. Intense foreign competition and rapid technological change does not have to be a race to the bottom.
On the contrary, it can be compatible with rapidly rising real income and more and better jobs.
Leif Pagrotsky, a Swedish member of parliament and vice chairman of Riksbank, the Swedish central bank, was a member of the Swedish Cabinet for 10 years, mainly as minister for industry and trade.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS