With NAFTA and the International Court of Justice in the news, I’ve been reflecting on so-called globalization. (ASIDE: Regarding the latter story, there are so many different issues muddling the case that I’ll need to read the decision to decide what I think.) It strikes me that there’s really two different forms of globalization going on under one name.
One form seeks to make people more free, and is exemplified by free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, the WTO, and the failed Doha Round. When two people who happen to reside in separate countries wish to make a consensual exchange of goods, very often their governments interfere, either by demanding a cut (as with tariffs), or by prohibiting the exchange altogether (as with quotas). Free trade agreements make people more free by lessening governmental interference in their individual choices.
As implemented, these agreements sometimes work in peculiar and unfortunate ways. For example, when the WTO tries to convince a recalcitrant government to lift a tariff, its tool of coercion is to license another government to impose new tariffs. Thus, the WTO withdraws freedom from one set of people to try to gain it for another set. But, when the mechanism works, both sets end up free. On balance, the WTO seems to extend freedom much more than it curtails freedom.
In sharp contrast is the other form of globalization, which seeks to limit individual freedom by placing people under the authority of international organizations such as the UN or the EU. In the United States, we can already recognize that our governments usually are not especially concerned with individual freedoms, but at least there are mechanisms by which we can hold them to account. International organizations are much less accountable (or — as with the UN — not at all). Moreover, such organizations have already established a reputation for bizarre and capricious behavior (or worse).
This is something to keep in mind when we read about people who support and oppose “globalization.”
Internet Scofflaw 