Rodrik: The Globalization Paradox
Part I: Rodrik: The Globalization Paradox (80 points)
Briefly state a key argument in the book (34 words.)
The world is facing a globalization trilemma¹ (democracy, national sovereignty, and hyper-globalization) and since we cannot pursue all three at the same time, we have to give up one to benefit from other two.
Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the argument: (204 words)
I agree with the author that hyper-globalization, political democracy and national sovereignty form an impossible triangle and its difficult for all them to co-exist. If a country pursues its national identity and promotes free trade, they will eventually have to give up on democracy because they have to conform their national policies based on the international norms that support and favor free trade. Similarly, if we want to pursue free trade and democracy, they’ll have to give up on national sovereignty to have policies based on global consensus, which is far from reality to run nation states.
Consequently, one can also argue that we do not have to go all in with these three principles to acheive max benefit. You can have a strong sovereign nation that has embraced globalization to the extent it benefits its people and nation on the whole. E.g. how India and China have maintained their sovereign status, cherry picked aspects of globalization principles that work for them like open markets with strong regulations.² This kind of cherry picking helps them maintain democracy, sovereignty and also allows them to grow at a faster rate like 6-7% while developed countries like US are struggling to grow over 1%.³
1- Chapter 9, Page 200