Economics for a Crowded Planet

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet. Penguin Press, 2008.

Jeffrey Sachs' 2005 book, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for our Time, was a bold attempt to convince the world that the Millennium Development Goals could be achieved in our lifetimes. Very ambitious, I wrote in my review. Well this book takes ambition to the next level.

The goals of this new initiative are worthy of an author with the title Director of the Earth Institute (at Columbia University). Sachs challenges us collectively to embrace the goals of economic development (and poverty elimination), environmental sustainability (with adequate water provision for all) and population control. The idea is that these three sets of goals are interrelated and that you cannot really achieve any one of them unless you address all three.

The book is very interesting but I admit that I like the last chapter ("The Power of One") best because it is, well, inspiring. Sachs concludes the book by making the case for taking up the challenge of development, environment and population even though the problems seem impossibly large. He quotes one of my favorite scholars, Albert O. Hirschman to the effect that all new ideas, good and bad, are generally met with three criticisms: futility, perversity and jeopardy. The problem can't be solved (futility), if you try you might make it worse (perversity) and wasting your effort here diverts attention from other areas where progress might be made (jeopardy).

Sachs cites a number of examples of problems where substantial progress has in fact been made despite the inevitable reaction that Hirschman cited. For better or worse this last chapter really does give you a feeling that something can be done, even if we might disagree about what that something is. Probably should be required reading for Peace Corps Volunteers.

The Battle for the 21st Century

Robert J. Shapiro, Futurecast: How superpowers, populations and globalization will change the way you live and work. St. Matrin's Press, 2008.

Lester Thurow's best-selling book -- Head to Head: the coming economic battle among Japan, Europe and America -- hit the bookstores with a splash 15 years ago. Everyone wanted to know what would happen in the emerging post-Soviet world and the economist and MIT dean was ready to tell them.

Thurow forecast a world where a triad of nations would battle to write "the rules for the 21st Century." The winner would be Europe, Thurow concluded after ticking off all the usual suspects (Russia? No. China? No. America? No. Japan? Not a chance.)

Was Thurow correct? Well he was right about Japan, I guess, but was he right about the U.S. and China? Too soon to tell, I think, given that the 21st Century is still in its first decade and a lot has changed since the early 1990s. Perhaps it is time to revisit the question.

Robert J. Shapiro takes up this challenge in Futurecast. He builds his analysis around three strong forces that will shape domestic and international relations: demography (aging populations), globalization (rising competition, shifting production and consumption patterns, increasing interdependence) and the collapse of the old Soviet empire and the rise of a new geopolitical order. What countries can best adapt to this new environment, Shapiro asks? China and the U.S., he answers, but for different reasons. The critical relationship of the future is therefore the Sino-American one.

Europe and Japan will be increasingly marginalized from a geopolitical perspective in part because they will have trouble dealing with the dual challenges of demography and globalization. Other big potential players are also considered (India? Russia?) but they have problems of their own. Ireland and Korea present models of how countries can successfully develop as niche players in the global markets.

I liked Thurow's book in the 1990s because it raised a lot of interesting questions and taught me and my students a good deal about economic problems and social change around the world. I like this book for the same reason. I like it even more, in fact, because of the detailed analysis that I find here -- he goes well beyond the usual stylized facts.

That's not to say that Shapiro is necessarily right. Economic consultants are often cautioned not to make predictions that can be proven wrong before you can get to the airport. Shapiro has violated this rule by making big time forecasts in indelible ink. He might wish that he could revise what he writes here about inflation, growth and interest rates in light of the current oil crisis, food crisis and mortgage financial crisis.

Close reading, however, shows that he hedged his optimism about globalization pretty carefully and doesn't need to grab the next cab to the airport just yet. It will be interesting to see how a thoughtful and optimistic book like this is received in this presidential election year. (Note: Shapiro has been an economic advisor to Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.)

A Splendid Exchange

William J. Bernstein, A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008.

I thought Findlay and O'Rourke were ambitious for writing a history of international trade over the last 1000 years (see below), but William J. Bernstein goes them one better: a history of trade from Sumer (3000 BC) to Seattle (the 1999 WTO protests). The books couldn't be more different in style and yet they have many important similarities.

First, however, a disclaimer. I am predisposed to like William Bernstein's books. His daughter was a student of mine a few years ago and I was introduced to his work through her. Bernstein holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry and an M.D. in neurology and he treats everything he studies as like brain surgery -- his research is thorough and critical and his insights are often stunning. These days he writes about finance and economic history. You can read about his work at his website, efficientfrontier.com.

Bernstein knows how to tell a story, which makes this book very readable, and he has chosen his stories very well to capture the many forces, political, economic, intellectual and technological, that drove trade forward, held it back throughout its violent history. Violent? Yes, one thing that Bernstein's book shares with Findlay and O'Rourke is the strong sense that trade relations were often associated with violence and deadly force. Wealth and power are potent motivations and many lives have been sacrificed to achieve them. This will come as news to students brought up on Thomas Friedman and his theory of trade as an element of the Golden Arches theory of conflict prevention.

I found almost every part of this book utterly fascinating. Students in my International Economics and IPE Theory classes should read this book if only for Chapter 13 "Collapse," which tells the story of trade in the 20th century through the theories of Wolfgang Stopler, Paul Samuelson and Ronald Rogowski.

The books ends appropriately with analysis of the current trade debate. Bernstein notes that trade is inevitably disruptive, with losers as well as winners, in rich countries as well as poor ones. Economists may take comfort in the fact trade is positive sum -- the winners gain more than the losers lose -- but that is cold comfort for those who bear the burden. Government policies that promote increased trade but decreased social spending are doubly dangerous, therefore, since the losers may lash out against trade if their social safety net fails. It is not necessarily an accident that many of the most open economies have the strongest nets to catch those who fall.

A good lesson to keep in mind as the 2008 presidential campaign moves to the next level.