Saturday, May 21, 2016

Noted

Since I just linked to this in a Crooked Timber thread, I might as well also link it here, though I've not read it thoroughly yet (it's a review of B. Milanovic's Global Inequality):
here.
Posted by at

4 comments:

Peter T said...

I've followed Milanovic's blog, but not read the book. The interesting question, to my mind, is whether globalisation will continue. Sure the tech will be there, but the political underpinnings that allow China to flood the US with cheap socks are not set in stone. My thinking is that a large part of the gains to the 1% are due to expanded reach without corresponding expanded political control, and I don't see political control catching up, but I also don't see the continued expansion of global reach without political/environmental backlash.

May 23, 2016 at 11:16 PM
LFC said...

don't see the continued expansion of global reach without political/environmental backlash.

same here. question will be what form. there are indications of an answer but don't think we know for sure yet.

(a 'telegraphic' response as have to be offline for most of rest of a.m.)

May 24, 2016 at 7:06 AM
Peter T said...

I argue that most (not all) environmental problems can only be addressed off-market and through local control. Both undermine globalisation. So I expect globalisation to break down as environmental issues really bite.

May 24, 2016 at 8:59 PM
LFC said...

I guess you mean a particular form of globalization -- oriented around corporate priorities, market-driven, etc. There are other ways the word 'globalization' has been used. I really haven't looked much at the academic globalization literature in a long time. (I had to do so, at least in a limited way, in grad school but, as I say, that's a long time ago now.)

Anyway, taking your definition of 'globalization', have you thought about what its breakdown might look like?

May 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)