# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is not to deny the many positive contributions of the U.S. to the world, and a great many around the world hope such contributions will continue. But current trends, if allowed to continue, will diminish such contributions. The world has been shown that the U.S. has a tendency to elect leaders who have little understanding of the wider world, who threaten to overturn the international system in the name of American interests and yet who believe they have the right to intervene in the affairs of others.

In the rush to condemn Trump, many commentators forgot President George W. Bush's two terms. Those eight years were marked by the rise of the neoconservative movement, disastrous and illegal wars, global financial disaster and an arrogant neglect of global views and opinions. Bush's and Trump's victories at the polls were through a legitimate democratic process. There were no coups, no refusals to concede by the loser. Power was transferred peacefully. But just because the process was respected does not mean that the process is not flawed. Nor does it mean that the process meets the democratic ideals and expectations of the majority of Americans.

Democracy does not have to be American-style democracy.

To ignore what these elections mean for the rest of the world and to sweep under the rug the high cost paid by millions of people due to American folly is to display ignorance and arrogance. The belief that a democracy will self-correct is little comfort to those who have been hurt.

With that in mind, here are five lessons that rising countries should learn from America's flaws. This is part of a long overdue inquiry into the American model, which many around the world - not just Western nations - have until now viewed as the apex of political and economic development. Many aspects of this dominant ideology now appear to be crumbling, even as Washington continues to export it to the rest of the world. Similar problems are found in many countries, even non-Western rising powers like China and India. But as the world's most powerful country, America can inflict major harm on non-Americans, and the rest of the world should avoid repeating its errors.

1. Democracy alone is not a path to strong leaders or policies.

Other countries should learn that, while democracy may be the best form of government despite its shortcomings, it does not have to be American-style democracy. And neither is democracy enough to ensure good governance.

Climate change is an example of how American democracy fails to lead to better outcomes. Many around the world, including most Americans, agree it is one of the most critical problems facing the world. But the American system has selected a president who will likely do very little or nothing at all to implement the Paris Agreement, and who will likely roll back the progress made by his predecessor. It's not just Trump: Bush's administration also questioned the science behind climate change and refused to take any significant action toward resolving it.

Instead of looking to America's money-drenched politics, democracies in the developing world should emulate Britain's legal restraints and Germany's cultural restraints on spending.

Moreover, a democracy like America's that is drenched in vast sums of money cannot be good for a nation's political health. Trump did not spend as much money as Hillary Clinton did, but his millions fueled his takeover of the Republican Party. Similarly, Clinton perpetuated the deep and mutually beneficial ties between the Democratic Party, big business and Wall Street, which came back to haunt her during the campaign.

2. Don't create a military-industrial complex.

Private companies that deal in weapons, military technology and mercenary contractors is a built-in lobby for aggression. Remember the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the U.S. president from 1953 to 1961 and a former general: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Both the U.S. and the world have paid the price for Washington's overuse of force. Despite efforts to justify foreign interventions as humanitarian missions or attempts to spread democracy, it has become clear that American interventionism has been a disaster. Washington's justifications do not convince the global majority, who have had a long experience with lies along the lines of, "We are here to help you." The world needs to stand firm against illegitimate coalitions of the international community led by the U.S. to serve narrow interests.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Dwight D. Eisenhower

America's Middle Eastern wars have diverted time and resources away from America's domestic problems, and many Americans are tired of it. Trump seized on popular distaste for foreign nation-building in his campaign. The world should hope putting a stop to it is one promise he intends to keep. However, his wish to renounce the nuclear deal with Iran, another foreign policy priority, is not encouraging. The other parties to the deal, especially the Europeans, will need to reject such threats.

Clearly, keeping the defense industry in state hands (as China and Russia do), as opposed to private ones, will not prevent countries from acting aggressively or beefing up their armed forces. But it would remove an additional incentive to use force driven by vested interests. Given the danger and damage involved in warfare, why add private profit to the mix? China and India will inevitably see their military power increase, so they should ensure that questions of war and peace are decided by genuine geopolitical concerns, not private profit.

3. Technology isn't a panacea to meeting development goals and driving economic growth.

Developing countries in particular should be skeptical about American tech companies selling utopian solutions to an array of challenges. These tools are some of the most powerful in human history, yet they are developed by an elite with a narrow perspective on the world.

Too often the negative effects of technology are waved away as the 'price of progress.'

The lesson for rising countries is that technological progress is not an end in itself. Too often the negative effects of technology are waved away as the "price of progress." Worse, concerns about the effects of jobs lost to mechanization and technology or about the massive consumerism fostered by online shopping phenomena like Black Friday or Singles' Day ― with all the associated externalities conveniently ignored - are painted as backward thinking. Rising countries should treat technology skeptically and ask themselves which technologies truly encourage a better living standard.

4. Avoid exceptionalism.

For those outside the U.S., and for those who live in societies with much longer histories, this rhetoric is annoying at best and dangerous at worst. It convinces Washington of its own innate correctness and discourages careful consideration of warnings to the contrary even from its own allies. It has led to a collective national amnesia for the many poor decisions the U.S. has made, both domestically and internationally. Exceptionalism has prevented America from fully understanding, acknowledging and coming to terms with the slaughter of Native Americans, for example, and the continuing impact of past injustice on the lives of African-Americans and the deeply entrenched racism that still exists at the heart of the American judicial system.

The lesson for rising powers is that they should view their economic and political rise with humility.

Exceptionalism is quite different from pride in one's country. In America, exceptionalism has tied love of country to economic and geopolitical preeminence. It feeds a belief that America is special, with the ordained responsibility to manage the world. But as America's global role recedes, this association may end up being harmful. Both Trump and Clinton tried to trade on "exceptionalism." Trump ran on recovering America's former greatness, a scary proposition to those both inside and outside the U.S. who view its past with trepidation.

The lesson for rising powers is that they should view their economic and political rise with humility. The hope is that China, as the up-and-coming power in Asia, avoids its own version of exceptionalism. China should be humble in how it understands its success and not feed narratives about its own superiority over other nations. The same can be said of India as it gains economic prominence: 150 years of domination by the British should not provide cover for denial of its own ailments, like the caste system, or current issues, like the continued failure to provide necessary basic services to its citizens.

5. Don't unthinkingly replace a labor-intensive rural sector with industrial agriculture and low-cost, low-wage manufacturing or service jobs.

In the U.S., rural communities have hollowed out as the young and skilled move to cities to find economic opportunities. The spread of industrial-scale agriculture has degraded the environment, and this now includes countries such as China and many in Southeast Asia. It has led to an abundance of processed junk food, which has a negative impact on health.

Throughout the Western world, rural decline has encouraged many voters to believe they are being left behind or forgotten. This has encouraged them to strike back against the cities, as happened with the Brexit referendum, the rise of European far-right populism and the election of Trump.

The rise of industrial agriculture and the transformation of rural communities is not unique to America; China's recent development has been fueled by hundreds of millions of people moving to the cities. But if rural people in developing countries feel they are being left behind, they too will act to upend the system. That is something China, India and other large countries in the developing world should be extremely careful about.

As China, India, Indonesia and others continue to grow and develop, we must all hope that they keep the flaws of the American system in mind. The U.S., like any story of development, provides some positive lessons for the rest of the world. But we should not ignore American mistakes and weaknesses that have come to the fore in the last 20 years and must not be replicated elsewhere. We should know better.

BEFORE YOU GO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Rising Nations Can Learn From the Folly That Led to Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is not to deny the many positive contributions of the U.S. to the world, and a great many around the world hope such contributions will continue. But current trends, if allowed to continue, will diminish such contributions. The world has been shown that the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A baffling, error-filled attempt to rewrite Mexican-American history doesn't meet state public education requirements in Texas and is unlikely to get adopted by the school system.

The Texas State Board of Education rejected the book, Mexican American Heritage , in a 14-0 preliminary vote on Wednesday. The text awaits a final determination on Friday, but without a single champion on the Republican-dominated SBOE, it seems unlikely to pass.

"This marks a new chapter," Tony Diaz, a Mexican-American studies professor and ethnic studies advocate, wrote in a message to The Huffington Post, "where leaders, community, educators, writers, activists, parents and students unite to deliver the American Dream through education."

The textbook submission had alarmed educators and activists who'd pressed the SBOE for years to adopt ethnic studies more widely in the state's majority-Hispanic school system, arguing that such curricula had been shown to improve engagement with students of color.

In a 2014 decision, the SBOE declined to institutionalize Mexican-American studies as a college-level elective. The board said, however, that local districts were welcome to institute such classes on their own, and invited a call for supplemental textbooks.

The only publisher to take them up was an outfit called Momentum Instruction, LLC ― a company that had only existed for a few months at that point, and had only the Mexican-American studies text to its name. Momentum Instruction was registered to Cynthia Dunbar, a right-wing former member of the Texas SBOE.

Scholars who looked at the text were left aghast. The cover photo, taken from Flickr, featured a bare-chested indigenous man in full-colored headdress ― a bizarre choice to represent people who generally wear shirts. The writers, Jaime Riddle and Valarie Angle, had no expertise in the subject and were unknown to academics in the field.

Scholars of Mexican-American history and cultural studies identified 141 errors in the shoddily produced book . Perhaps most glaringly, the authors claimed that the Chicano movement "opposed Western civilization and wanted to destroy this society."

The writers reviewed the text after the scholars' independent report ― and submitted a new version that contained hundreds of fresh errors , the scholars said.

"This is incompetence upon incompetence," Dan Quinn, a spokesman for the education watchdog group Texas Freedom Network, told HuffPost.

Neither of the writers appeared at a Tuesday hearing to defend their work or explain its shortcomings.

At the hearing, Dunbar insisted that the authors had corrected the textbook's errors, even as board members and scholars pointed out that hundreds of unaddressed problems remain. When pressed by the board for more information about the writers' qualifications, Dunbar had little to say.

"I know of them, I have their bios," she said. "I know they are curriculum development specialists... There has never been a requirement of any publishing that I'm aware of in the entirety of this board to have to document the credentials of those authors."

Board member Erika Beltran, of Fort Worth, wasn't buying it.

"We expect that to be a no-brainer," Beltran told Dunbar. "There's no question that we would want experts writing textbooks... I think it's irresponsible of you as a publisher to not know who your authors are or whether they're qualified to do it. But it's OK, because you submitted a textbook that will be rejected because it's full of factual errors."

Another board member, Thomas Ratliff, spoke about one of the textbook's stranger claims ― namely, that "communism causes natural disasters."

"The response was 'this is not a verified factual error,'" Ratliff said, reading from a report. "The term itself 'natural disaster' means caused by nature, not caused by man. This is one of 44 pages of factual errors that you don't agree is a factual error."

Dunbar then falsely contended that maybe the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe could be considered a natural disaster. (It was actually caused by humans.)

Dozens of scholars, teachers and education activists offered testimony during Tuesday's hearing about the harmful effects the textbook would have if adopted across a majority-minority school system.

Celina Moreno, an attorney with the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, said her organization has received a steady stream of reports about school bullying against Hispanic students in the wake of Donald Trump 's election last week.

"If we want to combat this type of hate and ignorance, we must not spread ignorant propaganda in our textbooks," Moreno told the board, according to prepared remarks. "Adopting a text that so clearly paints a picture of the Latino community as a threat is the exact wrong direction this state must go in. We must have books based on facts and scholarship, not caricatures."

Educators are independently compiling materials to teach Mexican-American studies in schools that are implementing such classes. The board voted Tuesday to renew the call for ethnic studies textbook submissions.

BEFORE YOU GO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas Educators Reject Bizarrely Inaccurate Rewrite Of Mexican-American History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A baffling, error-filled attempt to rewrite Mexican-American history doesn't meet state public education requirements in Texas and is unlikely to get adopted by the school system. The Texas State Board of Education rejected the book, Mexican American Heritage , in a 14-0 preliminary vote on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IT IS not clear precisely how Donald Trump will govern, the extent to which he will carry out some of his scarier promises on trade and immigration, and who will be his economics top brass at the Treasury and in the White House. But a decent first guess is that President Trump will be bad for the world economy in aggregate; and a second is that his actions are likely to do more harm, in the short term at least, to economies outside America.

When America has in the past stepped aside from its role at the centre of the global economic system, the damage has spread well beyond its borders. In 1971, when Richard Nixon ended the post-war system of fixed exchange-rates that had America at its centre, his Treasury secretary, John Connally, told European leaders, "The dollar is our currency, but your problem." This election result, to paraphrase Connally, belongs to America but is potentially a bigger economic problem for everyone else.

The scale and nature of that problem depend on the interplay of the two main elements of Mr Trump's economic populism. The first is action to boost aggregate demand. Mr Trump favours tax cuts and extra public spending on infrastructure. The second element is trade protectionism. He has pledged to slap tariffs on Chinese imports and to renegotiate the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada. To the extent that he leans more on the first element and less on the second, the immediate damage to America's economy will be limited. But even in that event, the net effect of a Trump presidency on economies outside America is still likely to be harmful.

To understand why, go back to the subject of Connally's gibe: the dollar. As it became clear that Mr Trump would win the election, the greenback fell against rich-country currencies, such as the euro, yen, Swiss franc and pound, as investors sought a haven from policy uncertainty in America. An index of its value against major currencies dropped by 2% in early trading on November 9th. Within hours it had regained almost all the lost ground, as investors pieced together a positive story for the dollar, based on the prospects of a boost to demand in America's economy and an inflow of capital from abroad.

Bringing it all back home

A deal between Mr Trump and Congress to cut corporate taxes, goes the logic, would spur flush American companies to repatriate retained profits held offshore. It would also allow them to increase capital spending in America, because they would have more ready cash; and consequent profits would be taxed more lightly. The larger budget deficits entailed by tax reform, along with more public spending on infrastructure, would underpin yields on long-term Treasury bonds. Indeed, after falling in the initial aftermath of Mr Trump's victory, yields on 10- and 30-year Treasuries are on the rise again (see chart). Add the potential for higher inflation from the stimulus and the likelier use of some protectionist tariffs, plus a Federal Reserve with a more hawkish tilt, as Mr Trump's appointees alter the complexion of its interest-rate-setting committee, and you have the makings of a renewed dollar rally.

A fiscal stimulus coupled with an investment splurge in the world's largest economy should, all else equal, also be good for global aggregate demand. And if this kind of "reflation populism" improves the near-term prospects for America's economy, it may dissuade Mr Trump from resorting to full-strength "anti-trade populism". Well, perhaps. But given his leanings, it is easy to imagine him resorting to soft protectionism that keeps much of the additional demand within America's borders. He might for instance lean on companies to favour domestic suppliers, or attach local-content conditions to publicly funded infrastructure projects. What is more, the repatriation of profits by American firms would draw resources away from their subsidiaries abroad.

In 1971 the world feared dollar weakness. These days, dollar strength tends to have a tightening effect on global financial conditions. The waxing and waning of the dollar is strongly linked to the ups and downs of the credit cycle. When the dollar is weak and American interest rates are low, companies outside America are keen to borrow dollars. Often big firms, flush with such cheap loans, will further extend credit in local currencies to smaller ones. But when the dollar goes up, the cycle goes into reverse, as corporate borrowers outside America scramble to pay down their dollar debts. That causes a more general tightening of credit.

Mexico has the most to lose from Mr Trump's presidency, should he keep his campaign promises. So the peso plummeted in the wake of the result. But Mexico, along with Chile, Turkey, the Philippines and Russia, also has a large burden of dollar debts, which are becoming more expensive in local currency. Mr Trump's protectionist bent may make it hard for emerging markets to trade their way out of trouble. Only a few are likely to be unharmed by his victory (see box on next page).

Where does a Trump victory leave China, the world's second-largest economy? China accounts for roughly a half of America's net trade-deficit, so in Mr Trump's zero-sum reckoning, it has a lot to lose should America launch an all-out trade war. In fact, the resulting disruption to global supply-chains would badly hurt American firms, and higher prices on imported goods would squeeze American consumers, especially poorer households, which spend proportionately more on them.

Yet there are risks to China's economy too, from even a milder form of Trumpian populism. The dollar's weakness over the spring and summer helped stem the outflow of capital from China that had threatened to unmoor the yuan and so unsettled global financial markets at the turn of the year. A sustained dollar rally would thus mean a severe headache for China's policymakers, as it would revive the pressure on its capital account. They might then face an unpalatable choice: let the yuan sink against the dollar or keep domestic monetary policy tighter to support it.

China is safe from the biggest indirect effect of Mr Trump's victory: the boost it gives other populist politicians. Europe is far more vulnerable. Britain's vote in June to leave the European Union was one early ballot-box reflection of anti-establishment sentiment. Since then, insurgent political parties in France, Germany, Italy and elsewhere have called for referendums on membership. Such parties typically favour trade barriers and limits on immigration, and are gaining in popularity.

The euro area's economy has been faring better in recent years, but the single currency remains fragile. The kind of cross-border risk-sharing needed to put the euro on a sound footing is at odds with the rising tides of nationalism and populism. An immediate hurdle is Italy's referendum on constitutional reform on December 4th. A defeat would weaken Matteo Renzi, the reformist prime minister, and embolden the populist Five Star Movement, which favours ditching the euro. Around 14% of the euro area's goods exports go to America, quite a bit less than China's 18%. But America accounts for about 40% of the currency zone's recent export growth, according to economists at HSBC, a bank. So American protectionism is arguably a bigger threat to Europe than to China.

The whole world has much to fear from Mr Trump's threats to tear up trade agreements and impose punitive tariffs on imports. And even if he refrains from starting a trade war, the loose-tongued, fact-lite style he cultivated during the campaign could wreak serious damage when he is president. His hyperbolic threats now carry the weight of the American presidency. His victory was enough to chill some financial markets; what he might do with it could spark full-scale panic. Even short of that, like the Brexit vote, it marks an alarming step away from a liberal, open economic order towards more isolationism and less prosperity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IT IS not clear precisely how Donald Trump will govern, the extent to which he will carry out some of his scarier promises on trade and immigration, and who will be his economics top brass at the Treasury and in the White House.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #6 (October 18, 2016) - The Downside of Authoritarian Development 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #6 (October 18, 2016) - The Downside of Authoritarian Development 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IT WAS meant to have been a time for celebration. When on October 5th the Ethiopian government unveiled the country's new $3.4 billion railway line connecting the capital, Addis Ababa, to Djibouti, on the Red Sea, it was intended to be a shiny advertisement for the government's ambitious strategy for development and infrastructure: state-led, Chinese-backed, with a large dollop of public cash. But instead foreign dignitaries found themselves in a country on edge.

Just three days earlier, a stampede at a religious festival in Bishoftu, a town south of the capital, had resulted in at least 52 deaths. Mass protests followed. Opposition leaders blamed the fatalities on federal security forces that arrived to police anti-government demonstrations accompanying the event. Some called the incident a "massacre", claiming far higher numbers of dead than officials admitted. Unrest billowed across the country.
Get our daily newsletter
On October 8th, a week after the tragedy at Bishoftu, the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) announced a six-month state of emergency, the first of its kind since the former rebel movement seized power in 1991. The trigger was not clear: violent clashes between police and armed gangs, and attacks on foreign-owned companies, had been flaring across the country for several days (and have occurred sporadically for months) but seemed to have plateaued by the weekend. On October 4th an American woman was killed while travelling outside the capital. Protesters have blockaded several roads leading in and out.

One factor in the government's decision was a spate of attacks on holiday lodges at Lake Langano, and on Turkish textile factories in Sebeta, both in the restive Oromia region south of the capital, on October 5th. The attackers were well-organised and armed, some of them reportedly mounted on motorbikes. These acts, officials suggest, were the final straw.

The government is rattled by the prospect of capital flight. An American-owned flower farm recently pulled out, and it fears others may follow. After almost a week of silence, the state-of-emergency law was a belated attempt to reassure foreign investors, who have hitherto been impressed by the economy's rapid growth, that the government has security under control.

A calm of sorts now prevails. On October 10th parliament, which since last year's elections has been entirely populated by members of the EPRDF and its allies, heard details of the decree, which it is expected to formally approve. The bill provides for sweeping powers of arrest and a draconian ban on free assembly and expression. The prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, was confident enough to attend to diplomatic pleasantries. Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, arrived in the capital the following day to talk about refugee flows from the region. Mobile internet access, which the government blocked in order to disrupt the protests, flickers occasionally and feebly back to life. The hustle and bustle of Addis Ababa continue as before, though an uneasy silence has settled across towns like Bahir Dar in the Amhara region where strikes have emptied the streets for weeks. In Addis Ababa, at least, a mood of resignation has taken hold. Better dictatorship than civil war, residents shrug.

Still, the future is troubling. Over 500 people have been killed since last November, and tens of thousands have been detained. What began nearly a year ago as an isolated incidence of popular mobilisation among the Oromo people, who make up at least a third of the population and opposed a since-shelved plan to expand Addis Ababa into their farmland, has spread. It is now a nationwide revolt against the authoritarianism of the EPRDF and the perceived favouritism shown to a capital whose breakneck development appears to be leaving the rest of the country behind.

The young are frustrated. They feel that growth has yet to bring the broader prosperity promised by the government in return for their political obedience. Thanks in large part to foreign aid, expansive public spending supported by Chinese loans and an uptick (from a very low base) in foreign investment, Ethiopia was Africa's fastest growing economy in 2015-a remarkable feat for a still largely agrarian country. But the expectations of an increasingly educated population have grown even faster. Despite big strides, a third of Ethiopians, who now number nearly 100m, still live on less than $1.90 a day.

The Oromos are not the only ones with grievances. Many others have been driven off their land to make way for commercial farms and factories. And the Amharans, who have historically been Ethiopia's dominant ethnic group, resent the leadership of the much smaller Tigrayan group (who make up around 6% of the population) at the heart of the ruling EPRDF. The comparative quiescence of Addis Ababa's citizens has further fuelled resentment. Angry farmers in parts of the country have been choking the movement of goods towards the city. The opposition calls for political prisoners (who are reckoned to number in the thousands) to be freed, but the government is in no mood to oblige. However, on October 10th the president promised to introduce some form of proportional representation in elections, which would allow all groups a share of power.

Tinkering is unlikely to be enough. The EPRDF has weathered storms before. Civil strife after disputed elections in 2005 resulted in at least 193 deaths and many thousands of arrests. This time Ethiopians are calling just as fiercely for regime change, and not just reform. Ethiopia, until recently a darling of Western donors and security hawks alike, is edging closer to the brink.
Correction (October 13th): The original version of this article said that parliament had rubber-stamped the state-of-emergency law; it had not. This has been corrected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IT WAS meant to have been a time for celebration. When on October 5th the Ethiopian government unveiled the country's new $3.4 billion railway line connecting the capital, Addis Ababa, to Djibouti, on the Red Sea, it was intended to be a shiny advertisement for the government's ambitious strategy for development and infrastructure: state-led, Chinese-backed, with a large dollop of public cash.

# data[].attributes.body
This article expresses the "magic of globalization." It explains that the countries who flourished with the increase of trade and investment across national borders actually did so by engaging globally in a selective, strategic manner. This article begs for the recovery of globalization from the populists and everyone who supports them. It describes that we must reassess the balance between national autonomy and economic globalization.
This ties into the idea of comparative institutionalism in that each country must match its social organization with the needs of the global economy in order to develop. This has been seen in China, Japan, England, Portugal; and anywhere else that has specialized in something that has a demand in global economies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Chinese student once described his country's globalization strategy to me. China, he said, opened a window to the world economy, but placed a screen on it. The country got the fresh air it needed - nearly 700 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty since the early 1980s - but kept mosquitoes out.

China benefited from the flourishing of trade and investment across national borders. For many, this was the magic of globalization.

But it's not the whole story. Look closely at the economies that converged with richer counterparts - Japan, South Korea, China - and you see that each engaged globally in a selective, strategic manner. China pushed exports, but it also placed barriers on imports to protect employment in state enterprises and required foreign investors to transfer know-how to domestic companies.

Other countries that relied on globalization as their growth engine but failed to put in place a domestic strategy became disillusioned. For example, few countries tried as hard as Mexico to integrate with the world economy, through Nafta and liberal trade and financial policies. Yet the country's economic growth in recent decades has been sluggish, even by the modest standards of Latin America.

The bigger worry today is that unmanaged globalization is undermining democracy. Democratic politics remain tethered to nation-states, while institutions that make the rules for global markets are either weak or seem too distant, especially to middle- and lower-class voters.

Globalization has deepened the economic and cultural divisions between those who can take advantage of the global economy and those who don't have the resources and skills to do so. Nativist politicians like Donald J. Trump have channeled the resulting discontent as hostility to outsiders: Mexican or Polish immigrants, Chinese exporters, minorities.

We need to rescue globalization not just from populists, but also from its cheerleaders. Globalization evangelists have done great damage to their cause not just by underplaying the real fears and concerns on which the Trumps of this world thrive, but by overlooking the benefits of a more moderate form of globalization.

We must reassess the balance between national autonomy and economic globalization. Simply put, we have pushed economic globalization too far - toward an impractical version that we might call "hyperglobalization."

The transition to hyperglobalization is associated with two events in particular: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's decision in 1989 to remove all restrictions on cross-border financial flows, and the establishment in 1995, after almost a decade of negotiations, of the World Trade Organization, with wide-ranging implications for domestic health and safety rules, subsidies and industrial policies.

The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social goals. Societies were asked to subject domestic economies to the whims of global financial markets; sign investment treaties that created special rights for foreign companies; and reduce corporate and top income taxes to attract footloose corporations.

Some simple principles would reorient us in the right direction. First, there is no single way to prosperity. Countries make their own choices about the institutions that suit them best. Some, like Britain, may tolerate, say, greater inequality and financial instability in return for higher growth and more financial innovation. They will opt for lower taxes on capital and more freewheeling financial systems. Others, like Continental European nations, will go for greater equity and financial conservatism. International firms will complain that differences in rules and regulations raise the costs of doing business across borders, but their claims must be traded off against the benefits of diversity.

Second, countries have the right to protect their institutional arrangements and safeguard the integrity of their regulations. Financial regulations or labor protections can be circumvented and undermined by moving operations to foreign countries with considerably lower standards. Countries should be able to prevent such "regulatory arbitrage" by placing restrictions on cross-border transactions - just as they can keep out toys or agricultural products that do not meet domestic health standards.

For example, imports from countries that are gross violators of labor rights, such as Pakistan or Vietnam, may face restrictions when those imports demonstrably threaten to damage labor standards at home. Otherwise, national institutional diversity would be meaningless. Emphasizing the primacy of norms and social bargains embedded in our domestic regulations would ensure that global commerce was not used to override them. It would also shield us from misguided protectionism in the great majority of cases where trade poses no danger.

Third, the purpose of international economic negotiations should be to increase domestic policy autonomy, while being mindful of the possible harm to trade partners. The world's trade regime is driven by a mercantilist logic: You lower your barriers in return for my lowering mine. But lack of openness is no longer the binding constraint on the world economy; lack of democratic legitimacy is.

It is time to embrace a different logic, emphasizing the value of policy autonomy. Poor and rich countries alike need greater space for pursuing their objectives. The former need to restructure their economies and promote new industries, and the latter must address domestic concerns over inequality and distributive justice. Both objectives require placing some sand in the cogs of globalization. For example, developing nations may be allowed to subsidize some industries in return for rich nations being allowed to use tariffs against countries "dumping" goods produced under substandard labor or environmental standards.

Fourth, global governance should focus on enhancing democracy, not globalization. Global governance cannot overcome major problems like inequality, social exclusion or low growth, but it can help by devising norms that improve domestic policy making, like requirements on transparency, public deliberation, broad representation, accountability and use of scientific or economic evidence in domestic proceedings. To some extent, the World Trade Organization already advocates these disciplines. They deserve greater priority over trade liberalization and regulatory harmonization.

And finally, nondemocratic countries like Russia, China and Saudi Arabia - where the rule of law is routinely flouted and civil liberties are not protected - should not be able to count on the same rights and privileges in the international system as democracies can. When a nation is not democratic, we can no longer presume that its institutional arrangements reflect the preferences of its citizens. Therefore it lacks a prima facie argument for shielding its market rules from international scrutiny. It would be appropriate for democracies to consider less permissive rules for them - for example, by requiring a higher burden of proof from non-democracies when they file a trade complaint against democracies.

When I present these ideas to globalization advocates, they say the consequence would be a dangerous slide toward protectionism. But today the risks on the other side are greater, namely that the social strains of hyperglobalization will drive a populist backlash that undermines both globalization and democracy. Basing globalization on defensible democratic principles is its best defense.

Globalization, within limits, has been good economics. Globalization, within limits, can be good for our democracies, too.

Dani Rodrik, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, is the author of "Economic Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science" and "The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Put Globalization to Work for Democracies. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Put Globalization to Work for Democracies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Chinese student once described his country's globalization strategy to me. China, he said, opened a window to the world economy, but placed a screen on it. The country got the fresh air it needed - nearly 700 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty since the early 1980s - but kept mosquitoes out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 (October 9, 2016) - World Leaders Rethink the Global Economy 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 (October 9, 2016) - World Leaders Rethink the Global Economy 

# data[].attributes.body
At the annual global financial convocation, the issues of secular stagnation and inadequate economic growth were put into question. This article explains that due to the recent world events and the rising popularity of figures like Trump, Bernie, Putin, and Mao that the world is heading into what the Washington Post calls a "renaissance of populist authoritarianism."
They explain that weak economies promote angry politics which leads to uncertainty and loss of confidence in public officials. This in turn worsens the economy even further. This unfortunately is reminiscent of the Nazi era and the paranoia of the Cold War.
The article suggests that the focus of international economic cooperation should shift from opportunities to make more money to better outcomes for labor and that the next leaders of the world have a responsibility to restore confidence in the global economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the world's finance ministers and central-bank governors came together in Washington last week for their annual global financial convocation, the mood was somber. The specter of secular stagnation and inadequate economic growth on the one hand, and ascendant populism and global disintegration on the other, has caused widespread apprehension. Unlike in 2008 (when the post-Lehman Brothers crisis was a preoccupation) or 2011 and 2012 (when the possibility of the collapse of the euro system concentrated minds), there was no imminent crisis. Instead, the pervasive concern was that traditional ideas and leaders are losing their grip and the global economy is entering unexplored and dangerous territory.

The International Monetary Fund's growth forecast released just before the meeting was once again revised downward. While recession does not impend in any major region, growth is expected at rates dangerously close to stall speed. Worse is the spreading realization that the central banks have little fuel left in their tanks. Recessions come intermittently and unpredictably. Containing them generally requires 5 percentage points of rate cuts. Nowhere in the industrial world do central banks have anything like this kind of room, even allowing for the effects of unconventional policies such as quantitative easing. Market expectations suggest that it is unlikely they will gain much room for years.

After seven years of consistent over-optimism about economic prospects, there is a growing awareness that growth challenges are not so much a matter of the lingering effects of the crisis as they are of structural changes in the global economy that contributed to the crisis and the problems in its aftermath. There is increasing reason to doubt that the industrial world can simultaneously enjoy interest rates that support savers, financial stability and adequate growth. Saving has become overabundant, new investment insufficient and stagnation secular rather than transient.

It can hardly come as a great surprise that when economic growth falls short year after year, and when its beneficiaries are a small subset of the population, electorates turn surly. Looking back at the political traumas of 1968, when people were in the streets in many countries, it's clear that there was something going on beyond specific issues like Vietnam in the United States. In the same way - with Brexit, the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the strength of right-wing nationalists in Europe, Vladimir Putin's strength in Russia, and the return of Mao worship in China - it's hard to escape the conclusion that the world is seeing a renaissance of populist authoritarianism.

These developments are mutually reinforcing. Weak economics promote angry politics which raise uncertainty, leading to still weaker economics starting the cycle again. Publics have lost confidence both in the competence of economic leaders and in their commitment to serving broad national interests, rather than the interests of a global elite. A number of longtime economic leaders in the public and private sector seem to be making their way through the grief cycle - starting with denial, moving to rage, then to bargaining and ultimately to acceptance of new realities.

It is not tenable to ignore public sentiment. Nor, as 60 years of populist policy cycles in Latin America demonstrate, is economic nationalism in its strong form a viable economic strategy. Rather, the challenge for the international community and leaders of individual nations is to find a path in which international cooperation is supported and enhanced, but instead of being focused on matters of concern to moralists and global elites is focused on the priorities of a broad middle class.

Concretely, this means rejecting austerity economics in favor of investment economics. At a time when markets are saying that inadequate rather than excessive inflation will be the problem over the next generation, central bankers need to embrace spurring demand as a primary objective and to cooperate with governments.

Enhancing infrastructure investment in the public and private sector should be an immediate priority for fiscal policy. Domestically, this means recognizing that such a course has budget benefits, as the economy expands and deferred maintenance liabilities are reduced, as well as budget costs. Globally, it means recognizing that enhanced tools for infrastructure finance offer the prospect of more investment demand and better returns to middle-class savers.

And the focus of international economic cooperation more generally needs to shift from opportunities for capital to better outcomes for labor. The achievement of this objective will require substantially enhanced cooperation to address what might be thought of as the dark side of capital mobility - money laundering, regulatory arbitrage and tax avoidance and evasion.

These are a few ideas. The general point should be clear. Few things will be as important to the success of the next president as the restoration of confidence in the global economy.

Read more on this topic:

The Post's View: A risk of Great Recession Redux?

Robert J. Samuelson: The snooze economy

The Post's View: A President Trump could destroy the world economy

Sebastian Mallaby: The dirty little secret of central banking

Robert J. Samuelson: The old Fed is dead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The global economy has entered unexplored, dangerous territory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the world's finance ministers and central-bank governors came together in Washington last week for their annual global financial convocation, the mood was somber. The specter of secular stagnation and inadequate economic growth on the one hand, and ascendant populism and global disintegration on the other, has caused widespread apprehension.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 (October 12, 2016) - Building More Walls Than Ever Before

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 (October 12, 2016) - Building More Walls Than Ever Before

# data[].attributes.body
This article in the Washington Post is the first installment of a series that examines the divisions between countries and peoples. This episode looks at the raising of barriers. It describes that the world now has more border barriers than ever before in modern history. And this also marks an increase in wariness of globalization.
This "barrier-building" is being driven out of fear and anxiety of religious extremists in some parts and competition for jobs in others.
This is another haunting reminder that globalism is at a tipping point where it can greatly improve our global economy or take a sharp turn toward a world full of barriers where globalism is forcefully reversed back to a closed, flat economy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4 (October 13, 2016) - Virtual Reality Used by Nonprofits 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4 (October 13, 2016) - Virtual Reality Used by Nonprofits 

# data[].attributes.body
This article explores how nonprofit organizations are using new virtual reality technology to tackle real-world issues.
They are using these devices to evoke genuine empathy for their mission, whether it be medical research, global education or humanitarian relief.
This is reminiscent of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals that has a very hopeful perspective to the fight in ending world hunger. I believe that in using new technology to enhance awareness of these issues, the probability of accomplishing these goals increases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You meander around the supermarket loading a basket with goods - breakfast tea, sugar, milk. Along the way, though, you become befuddled. You struggle to recall the items on the shopping list. When you arrive at check out, you discover several items in the basket that you do not recall picking up. Then it comes time to pay the cashier and you can't seem to count out the proper sum.

This virtual reality experience, played out using an Android smartphone, is the work of medical research nonprofit Alzheimer's Research UK. The organization's primary mission is to raise money for research into dementia and other memory-related illness, but it also seeks to raise awareness and empathy for a disease that its leaders say the public still poorly understands.

"They only think about memory problems. The reality of dementia is much bigger than that," said Tim Parry, director of communications and brand. Thus, Alzheimer's Research UK wanted to "put someone in the shoes of someone living with the condition."

As an increasing number of cause-driven organizations have done, the nonprofit group turned to virtual reality. Those experimenting with the technology say it is more accessible than ever before, and offers the best medium to date for evoking genuine empathy for their mission, whether it be medical research, global education or humanitarian relief.

The initial promise of virtual reality technology centered largely around entertainment, adding a new dimension to movies or video games and creating a diversion from the everyday. But projects launched by news outlets and nongovernmental organizations in recent years have demonstrated the technology's potential to tell real-life stories in more compelling ways. Now, nonprofit organizations are taking that a step further and using virtual reality to build awareness and solicit donations.

Oculus, the Facebook-owned maker of virtual reality headsets, debuted a "VR for Good" program this year that paired 10 nonprofits with filmmakers and provided the teams with funding to create virtual reality experiences that are expected to premier at the Sundance Film Festival in January. The head of the program, Lauren Burmaster, said virtual reality has the potential to combat fatigue among donors who feel disconnected from the results of their money.

"A lot of times people want to see where their money is going but you can't offer them that," Burmaster said. "That's the first thing we're really seeing - nonprofits using this technology to bring their donors to the work that's happening."

The education nonprofit Pencils of Promise garnered buzz last year when it transported a room of its wealthiest donors from a Wall Street gala to a school house in rural Ghana. The organization not only manufactured a 16-foot-wide replica classroom for donors to walk through, but also outfitted them with virtual reality goggles that showed a two-minute video that placed their mind in the classroom as well.

The organization raised more than $2 million that night, and the video has reached 8 million people since then.

"If you see anyone try our VR piece for the first time, immediately their jaw drops," said Natalie Ebel, the director of marketing. Usually those who open their wallets to Pencils of Promise have never been to the developing countries where the organization does its work. Virtual reality creates an "empathetic connection and presence" more effectively than photos or video, she said.

But virtual reality is not without its barriers and limitations. While the cost of production has come down considerably, the technology required is still more sophisticated and expensive than that needed to shoot regular film or still photography. Production time also tends to be longer, meaning projects need more time and money to deliver.

Not all experiences also allow the viewer to be fully immersed. In the Alzheimer's Research UK project, for example, the character has a female voice and British accent, which makes it impossible for all viewers to fully connect. The supermarket and other characters were also computer animated, creating another separation between real-world viewers and the artificial scenario unfolding before them. The project had other videos set in real places.

But taking the viewer to a real place and engaging with real people also has its challenges. Amnesty International UK launched its "Fear of the Sky" project as sentiments toward Syrian refugees in Europe were turning sour. The project places viewers on the bombed-out streets of Aleppo as a civilian activist explains the dangers faced by those for whom this is their actual reality.

The project required Amnesty International UK to train and coordinate with activists already on the ground, many of whom took real risks to capture the images necessary to make the project possible.

"There were some difficulties because of the relentless bombing," said crisis response manager Kristyan Benedict. "It took maybe six or seven times longer than it was meant to in the project plan."

Still, organizations believe the result may justify the challenges.

"To actually feel that you're inside Aleppo and ... the sense of abandonment and isolation and fear of not knowing when the next barrel bomb is going to drop on you," Benedict said. "The general consensus was shock."

"VR is certainly something that's adding itself to the menu [of tools] that different campaigners can use to tell a story," he said.
Read more from The Washington Post's Innovations section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
virtual reality; vr; vr for good; vr for charities; nonprofit vr; nonprofit virtual reality; virtual reality charity; pencils of promise; pencils of promise virtual reality; alzheimer's research uk; alzheimer's; alzheimer's research; alzheimers research; alzheimers; syria; syrian refugees; amnesty international uk; amnesty international; fear of the sky;

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How nonprofits use virtual reality to tackle real-world issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You meander around the supermarket loading a basket with goods - breakfast tea, sugar, milk. Along the way, though, you become befuddled. You struggle to recall the items on the shopping list. When you arrive at check out, you discover several items in the basket that you do not recall picking up.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1 (October 4, 2016) – Anti-globalists vs Everyone Else

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1 (October 4, 2016) – Anti-globalists vs Everyone Else

# data[].attributes.body
This article ties in the opposing ideas of open or closed economies. It mentions Trump's stance as an anti-globalist by expressing his opinions that unfair competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens to get rid of NAFTA and the TPP, as well as start a trade war with China. There have also been protests in Germany against trade deals between the EU and the US. This is reminiscent to the Commanding Heights video we saw on the opposing perspectives of Keynes and Hayek. The article describes a "pervasive anxiety" about open economies and about the insufficient help for those who lose from it. The article suggests that it is far better to improve globalization rather than reverse it or be against it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
IN SEPTEMBER 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing. John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently on the merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made in The Economist, a fledgling newspaper. Mr Bright told his audience that when canvassing, he had explained "how stonemasons, shoemakers, carpenters and every kind of artisan suffered if the trade of the country was restricted." His speech in Liverpool was roundly cheered.

It is hard to imagine, 173 years later, a leading Western politician being lauded for a defence of free trade. Neither candidate in America's presidential election is a champion. Donald Trump, incoherent on so many fronts, is clear in this area: unfair competition from foreigners has destroyed jobs at home. He threatens to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and start a trade war with China. To her discredit, Hillary Clinton now denounces the TPP, a pact she helped negotiate. In Germany, one of the world's biggest exporters, tens of thousands took to the streets earlier this month to march against a proposed trade deal between the European Union and the United States (see article).
Get our daily newsletter
The backlash against trade is just one symptom of a pervasive anxiety about the effects of open economies. Britain's Brexit vote reflected concerns about the impact of unfettered migration on public services, jobs and culture. Big businesses are slammed for using foreign boltholes to dodge taxes. Such critiques contain some truth: more must be done to help those who lose out from openness. But there is a world of difference between improving globalisation and reversing it. The idea that globalisation is a scam that benefits only corporations and the rich could scarcely be more wrong.

The real pro-poor policy

Exhibit A is the vast improvement in global living standards in the decades after the second world war, which was underpinned by an explosion in world trade. Exports of goods rose from 8% of world GDP in 1950 to almost 20% a half-century later. Export-led growth and foreign investment have dragged hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, and transformed economies from Ireland to South Korea.

Plainly, Western voters are not much comforted by this extraordinary transformation in the fortunes of emerging markets. But at home, too, the overall benefits of free trade are unarguable. Exporting firms are more productive and pay higher wages than those that serve only the domestic market. Half of America's exports go to countries with which it has a free-trade deal, even though their economies account for less than a tenth of global GDP.

Protectionism, by contrast, hurts consumers and does little for workers. The worst-off benefit far more from trade than the rich. A study of 40 countries found that the richest consumers would lose 28% of their purchasing power if cross-border trade ended; but those in the bottom tenth would lose 63%. The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were "saved".

Openness delivers other benefits. Migrants improve not just their own lives but the economies of host countries: European immigrants who arrived in Britain since 2000 have been net contributors to the exchequer, adding more than £20 billion ($34 billion) to the public finances between 2001 and 2011. Foreign direct investment delivers competition, technology, management know-how and jobs, which is why China's overly cautious moves to encourage FDI disappoint (see article).

What have you done for me lately?

None of this is to deny that globalisation has its flaws. Since the 1840s advocates of free trade have known that, though the great majority benefit, some lose out. Too little has been done to help these people. Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones. With hindsight, politicians in Britain were too blithe about the pressures that migration from new EU member states in eastern Europe brought to bear on public services. And although there are no street protests about the speed and fickleness in the tides of short-term capital, its ebb and flow across borders have often proved damaging, not least in the euro zone's debt-ridden countries.

As our special report this week argues, more must be done to tackle these downsides. America spends a paltry 0.1% of its GDP, one-sixth of the rich-country average, on policies to retrain workers and help them find new jobs. In this context, it is lamentable that neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton offers policies to help those whose jobs have been affected by trade or cheaper technology. On migration, it makes sense to follow the example of Denmark and link local-government revenues to the number of incomers, so that strains on schools, hospitals and housing can be eased. Many see the rules that bind signatories to trade pacts as an affront to democracy. But there are ways that shared rules can enhance national autonomy. Harmonising norms on how multinational firms are taxed would give countries greater command over their public finances. A co-ordinated approach to curbing volatile capital flows would restore mastery over national monetary policy.

These are the sensible responses to the peddlers of protectionism and nativism. The worst answer would be for countries to turn their backs on globalisation. The case for openness remains much the same as it did when this newspaper was founded to support the repeal of the Corn Laws. There are more-and more varied-opportunities in open economies than in closed ones. And, in general, greater opportunity makes people better off. Since the 1840s, free-traders have believed that closed economies favour the powerful and hurt the labouring classes. They were right then. They are right now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IN SEPTEMBER 1843 the Liverpool Mercury reported on a large free-trade rally in the city. The Royal Amphitheatre was overflowing. John Bright, a newly elected MP, spoke eloquently on the merits of abolishing duties on imported food, echoing arguments made in The Economist, a fledgling newspaper.