Wei Shangjin
The uneven impact of open trade has been criticized by the opponents of globalization.Although trade liberalization can make the entire economic cake, not everyone can divide a larger piece, and because of the competition from foreign manufacturing products, many people may have a much smaller share than before.These concerns help to explain why many American blue -collar workers voted in the 2016 US presidential election to support Trump and why French farmers and workers often participate in anti -globalization demonstrations.
However, we should not exaggerate this importance.In fact, in many society, there are three other inherent anti -globalized prejudices. They often lead to deviations in public policies and make employers and workers fail to benefit.
First of all, although there are often more winners from globalization than losers, and even before the government launches the re -distribution plan, many winners mistakenly believe that they are losers because they do not recognize the major indirect benefits brought by globalization.
Take Chinese goods imported from the United States as an example.Many people often point out that the general situation or regional general situation of the most direct competition with China's imports of products is poor, because these imported products have replaced US employment positions.But as my colleagues and I emphasized in the recent papers, between 2000 and 2014, the US industry with relatively many intermediate products (such as computers and other electronic devices, furniture and laboratory jackets) was used.Employment growth is often faster, and the actual salary increase is greater.However, global opponents often ignore these discoveries.
In addition, only a small number of American manufacturing positions are replaced by imported products in China, and the larger service industry (and many manufacturing industries) in the United States has benefited from the cheap investment in China.There are only less than one -fifth of the United States from the manufacturing industry, and the service industry accounts for about three -quarters of employment. This is the case for all states and almost all American cities in the United States.
Therefore, we estimate that if the overall impact of Sino -US trade is considered, the actual salary of three -quarters of American workers will increase; and if only the impact of direct competition is only concerned, the actual salary of most workers seems to have declined.In other words, even before the employment of the employer is re -assigned to workers, most of the labor forces in the United States have benefited from trade with China and have achieved positive results in the total income of workers.
However, although most Americans can understand the direct impact of China's imports on employment and wages, they have not recognized its active influence.This is not surprising.When an American company lays off a layoffal, the personnel manager may say: Sorry, we must let you leave, but you should blame us to import from China.Trump and many American media have also repeatedly strengthened this concept.But our analysis shows that the employment expansion of the United States is also closely related to trade with China.
On the other hand, when a US company hires new employees (their salary is usually higher than what they get in the sunset industry), its boss is unlikely to say: Congratulations, you should thank you in Chinese imported products for getting you for getting it for getting it for getting it for getting it for getting it for getting it for getting you get it for getting it for getting it for getting you get it for getting you get it for getting it for getting you to get it for getting you get it for getting it for getting you to get it for getting you get it for getting you get it for getting you get it for getting you get it for getting it.New jobs.On the contrary, they are more likely to say: you get a rice bowl because I am a great entrepreneur.This asymmetric feeling produces an inherent anti -global prejudice.
The second source of this prejudice is the asymmetry of public discussion.Science and technology, education and globalization have contributed to the reshuffle of the job market and its impact on individuals.However, politicians and media in the United States have found that blaming social dilemma on foreign companies or governments is often more convenient than scientific and technological progress, failure of the public education system, poor parenting, and personal shortcomings.After all, teachers and parents voted, and technology companies were donated to political parties for campaign activities.In contrast, foreigners can neither vote nor donations.
Finally, the asymmetric interests of the poor policy also encouraged anti -global prejudice.The companies and individuals that have made a profit from the trade barriers have a strong motivation to organize themselves to lobby these measures.In contrast, most people who have suffered losses because of protectionism or have not spent enough time and energy to understand the problem, or there is no enough resources to lobby to develop better public policies.
The sources of these three prejudices show that society can easily take anti -globalization measures that harm most people.In fact, most countries have an open economy, and it is not difficult to find out that these obstacles often harm the well -being of citizens.
In all fairness, society must better allocate the benefits of globalization and new technology.But they must make a difference in the other two areas.
High -quality research and news will help citizens better understand the indirect and direct impact of open trade.In addition, a better education system and greater personal efforts will be able to improve their skills and strengthen the ability of workers to seize the opportunities brought by scientific and technological progress and globalization.
Globalization controversy often has the color of nationalism, self -interest, and lack of economic understanding, which has led to wrong public policies.Correction of negative prejudices in the discussion can bring more wise policies.
The author is the former chief economist of Asian Development Bank and is now a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University.
English Title: Anti-Globalization Bias and Public Policy
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2019
