Globalization and Its Discontents has ratings and reviews. Renowned economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz had a ringside seat for. The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is University. “Globalisation in is different from globalisation in ,” argues Nobel prize -winning economist Joseph E Stiglitz in Globalization and its.
|Published (Last):||7 July 2011|
|PDF File Size:||6.66 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The goal now should be to move forward in a way that does not destroy entire societies so that a few rich people can get richer. More from John Williamson. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened. According to Stiglitz, IMF interventions all followed a similar free market itss. What a shame that this was not the way the transition was managed in Eurasia as well as the Far East.
But Stiglitz clearly believes that returning the IMF to something closer to its original mission is going to require reforms in its governance rather than dsicontents internal debate within the organization as it exists at the moment.
I liked this book but from the title I expected something different.
Not coincidentally, Stiglitz believes that promoting local and international democracy is fundamental to reforming global economic policy. It’s the least natural justice would require. To ask other gy questions about Globalization and Its Discontentsplease sign up. The main downer was the somewhat bash IMF tone, globaisation Stiglitz gets somewhat repetitive towards the last couple of chapters.
On the other hand, the collective critique is more coherent and wide-ranging than has been developed before, and all the more so because he does not pretend that abolishing the Fund would be a sensible response. Globalization is not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons. Much of the substance is in fact rather reassuring to those of us who have regarded ourselves as mainstream and basically pro-globalization, but his critique of the IMF demands serious consideration.
Globalization is not a new movement, it is the as old as civilization.
Things are a little better in Europe — but only a little better. Receive our Sunday newsletter. East Asian countries such as Thailand, Korea and Malaysia had high saving rates which had allowed them to self-finance their incredible growth untilbudget surpluses and low inflation. There is money to bail out banks but not to pay for improved education and health services, let alone to bail out workers who are thrown out of their jobs as a result of the IMF’s macroeconomic mismanagement.
Globalization and Its Discontents
The wrong way is to follow the dictates of the Washington Consensus, discontennts is also variously referred to as market fundamentalism or neoliberalism. With loans defaulted and entire nations thrown into economic and social chaos, the IMF rushed bailouts directed mainly to foreign creditors. But he offers only assertions, not evidence, itss IMF economists are more prone to this malady than others, or that they fail to out-grow their silly training once they find themselves on the job. Equally problematic is that the IMF has little, or, according to Stiglitz, no room for discussion and debate.
Paperbackpages. Lists with This Book. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Without government oversight, they reach decisions without public debate and resolve trade disputes involving “uncompetitive” or “onerous” environmental, labor, and capital laws in secret tribunals—without appeal to a nation’s courts. Global justice is within reach, if we just continue to demand it. On the contrary, he says quite explicitly that if the Fund did not exist we would have to invent it, because the world needs an organization to help countries respond to macroeconomic crises.
What made this obligation for the East Asia countries to accept the Washington consensus if they wished to receive the IMF money bail-outs extra ironic was the fact that, according to Stiglitz, the IMF was partly responsible for the crises. Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph E. The book draws on Stiglitz’s personal experience as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton from and chief economist at the World Bank from None of the Zedillo Report suggestions got as far as the Monterrey Consensus, if only because their squelching was the price that the United States demanded as the condition for President Bush to go to Monterrey.
Stiglitz explains that globalization could be either success or failure, depending on its management. IMF doesn’t deserve this benefit of doubt, this book is testament to that. Stiglitz makes a powerful case for the costs that a policy of high interest rates can impose on the domestic economy, especially in countries like those in East Asia where the corporate sector was heavily dependent on bank loans, so that high interest rates can easily lead to bankruptcy thereby creating more assets available for foreign buyers at firesale prices.
Stiglitz probably didn’t make many friends inside the International Monetary Fund IMF when this book was published in One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated for these policies is that people are better off. No economist nowadays believes that there are long-run output gains to be had by running a higher inflation rate; Stiglitz’s concern is that insisting on reducing inflation quickly when it is already reasonably low will have an output cost that is incommensurate with any benefit.
He spends a lot of time explaining that he opposed these disastrous policies and tried unsuccessfully to get people to listen to his warnings. When gloablisation a certain development route, compare apples with apples.
You seem to believe that when investors are no longer willing to hold a government’s debt, all that needs to be done is to increase the supply and it will sell like hot cakes.
Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited | W. W. Norton & Company
And while it is important for banks to hold adequate capital to deter opportunistic behavior, it was foolish to force them jospeh restore a capital adequacy standard quickly in the midst of a crisis, since that could be done only by calling in loans and further intensifying the recession.
So let me appeal instead to my credentials as a former student of Fritz Machlup to assert that there should at least be a measure of consistency in the way that terms are used.
To support his accusations Stiglitz roams around the globe from one crisis to another pointing out the faults in the blind, ideological, one-size-fits-all prescriptions the IMF doled out to country after country in the past 25 years. Perhaps that creditor should have done better due-diligence and taken less risk?
Stiglitz thinks that this rapid privatization was a bad idea, and that basic economic and financial infrastructure and institutions should have been put in place first E. When critics spoke of gradualism, they created the impression that they wanted to decontrol prices one at a time, like things came off the ration in postwar Britain, which made absolutely no sense in a context where nothing except a couple of spices could be readily bought in the supermarkets.
The fact is that no one in was putting this set of ideas on the table.