Growth, Prosperity and the Middle Class: Saving Globalization from Populism
The next big technological innovation is at hand, but the U.S. does not have the ready capital, entrepreneurial energy, and workforce to make it into an economic motor as we did the internet twenty-five years ago. The economic zone that does – it can still be us, but the EU, China, or India will step in if we don’t – will ride the resulting wave of innovation and wealth to the forefront of the global economy.
The opening of global markets since 1945 facilitated sustained economic growth in the U.S. and across the world. Technological innovation, driven by global competition, has fueled remarkable increases in labor productivity, enabling the U.S. to remain competitive in advanced manufacturing even as we pioneered a digital revolution that fostered new business models and new products.
At the same time, the global market has been more beneficial to some parts of society than others. Employment in parts of the manufacturing value chain has fallen as workers with lower levels of training have been squeezed out, mainly by automation but also by foreign competition.
Many of these people feel cheated and helpless, legitimate feelings contributing to the populist movements. This dynamic weakens our global leadership on trade and security, in turn undermining our prosperity. There is a need for creative thought leadership on how policy can and should respond.
It is clear that not every country’s market is as open to trade as ours. We haven’t done this out of altruism, but because we recognize that the resulting competition makes us more competitive and innovative. Still, to ensure that our workers benefit, we have pursued free trade agreements that created level playing fields in parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia. An exception is China, where trade barriers persist. Manufacturing jobs have been traded for inexpensive Chinese goods, boosting corporate profits and increasing middle-class purchasing power but allowing household incomes at the low end to erode.
As we address the concerns of displaced workers in our countries and focus on prying open the Chinese market, we should keep in mind that innovation and structural change are the mainsprings of a market economy. It is neither possible nor desirable to claw back lower-skilled manufacturing jobs that have left our countries, or to focus policy on preserving existing industries.
On the contrary, history suggests that embracing the next big innovation tends to work out well. The very markets we relied on to manage the adjustment to trade and innovation put us in a strong position, but those markets have been weakened since the financial crisis of 2008/9. We believe an effective strategy to compete and thrive in the coming century will be built around three core principles:
- Reaffirm the benefits of freer trade. Boost productivity by removing unnecessary costs from our supply chains. Deliver on the promise of open markets by strengthening enforcement of rules of origin so that inputs contribute to our manufacturing base. Use WTO disciplines more aggressively to help our Chinese friends see the value of playing by the rules.
- Strengthen labor markets. We should encourage employee retraining and facilitate geographic mobility, in particular with portable, widely-recognized skills certifications. Our education and training institutions are insufficiently attuned to the long-term needs of employers, and we all need to see learning as a lifelong pursuit. We need to develop a flexible approach to immigration that complements and strengthens our workforce.
- Strengthen capital markets. Sustained net borrowing by the government and negative real interest rates are crowding out private investment and stifling innovation. Regulation has squeezed small local banks out of the market and raised the cost of doing business to the point that smaller firms are unable to grow and thrive, depriving the economy of a major source of innovation and job creation.
The problems we currently face are not because we have too much faith in the market, but because some of our principal competitors have too little. In addition, our own countries’ government has assumed too much initiative and accumulated too much debt, weakening our market’s ability to overcome the structural adjustment challenge. By clinging to yesterday’s industries and technologies, we are preventing the industries and technologies of tomorrow from taking root in the U.S.
Matt Rooney joined the Bush Center in June 2015 from a career as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State. At postings in Washington and abroad, Matt focused on advocating market-driven solutions to economic policy challenges in both industrialized and developing countries, and on protecting the interests of U.S. companies abroad.
In Washington, Matt was on loan to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to create a high-level private sector advisory body for the Summits of the Americas, working closely with the U.S. private sector and with companies and business associations from throughout the Americas to negotiate an agenda to promote economic integration in the region for presentation to the leaders of the Americas. Previously, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for relations with Canada and Mexico and for regional economic policy. Prior to this, as Director of the Office of Economic Policy, he led interagency and international negotiations in 2008 that produced the Secretary’s Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas initiative, designed to engage with our Free Trade Agreement partners on strategies for ensuring that the benefits of globalization are broadly shared in our societies.
Abroad, Matt was Consul General in Munich, a Consulate General providing a full range of Consular and export promotion services, supporting a permanent presence of 30,000 U.S. forces in two major base complexes, and performing political and economic analysis in support of U.S. diplomatic objectives in Germany. As Counselor for Economic and Commercial Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador, he laid the groundwork for free trade negotiations between the United States and the five countries of Central America, and promoted market-based reforms for electrical power. Prior to this, Matt served in various posts in Germany, Gabon and Côte d’Ivoire.
Matt studied Economics, German and French at the University of Texas at Austin and received his Master’s Degree in International Management at the University of Texas at Dallas. With his wife Dianna, Matt has two young adult sons.Full Bio
If You Like Guacamole, You Have a Stake in NAFTA
Economic Growth Director Matthew Rooney reflects on a panel discussion held at the Bush Center Monday which addressed NAFTA, borders, and security.
The U.S.-Mexico Sugar Deal Signals Good Intentions
U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Mexican Minister of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal announced a preliminary agreement to avoid escalating a sugar trade war. Mexico will alter the composition of its sugar exports to the United States, agreeing to send more raw sugar and less refined sugar under its current quota limit. U.S.-Mexico trade relations have been known to sour at various times over the terms of U.S. imports of Mexican sugar. Last fall, the U.S. sugar industry urged the Commerce Department to renegotiate the terms of a 2014 trade agreement that sets prices and quota for U.S. imports of Mexican sugar. They claimed Mexico was not respecting the terms of the agreement. The Department subsequently issued a finding that Mexico was subsidizing its sugar imports, allowing exporters to dump product into the United States at prices below market value. To avoid the application of additional duties, Mexico agreed to cancel some export permits and enter talks with the Comme
President Bush and Prime Minister Harper Discuss the Future of Globalization
The George W. Bush Institute and the Canadian American Business Council hosted a roundtable conversation focused on the future of globalization with President Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and business executives from across the U.S. and Canada. Both leaders agreed that globalization is inevitable, but our policy choices do shape it into what we want it to be.