Sunday , December 8 2019
Home / EconLog Library / Globalism in 60 seconds

Globalism in 60 seconds

Summary:
Dalibor Rohac had an excellent 60 seconds video blog on why he is a globalist. The word is somehow at the center of the debate, as President Trump, on the UN stage, said that the future belongs to patriots and not globalists. Dalibor has a nuanced view of international organizations, by which I mean that, though he sees their shortcomings and faults, he at the very same time appreciates the role they played in shaping our world, their importance not so much for “free trade” as an ideal but for the kind of (relative) free(r) trade we enjoy today, their impact in containing some of the expansionist tendencies of nation-states. It is difficult to convey such view in 60 seconds, but Dalibor somehow succeeded in doing so. The only criticism I venture to make is that he

Topics:
Alberto Mingardi considers the following as important: , , , , ,

This could be interesting, too:

Scott Sumner writes Don’t expect too much from sanctions

David Henderson writes Highlights from “The Case for Free Trade”

David Henderson writes How Much do the Chinese Fail to Comply with WTO?

Scott Sumner writes Bill Gates and Ohio auto parts factory workers

Dalibor Rohac had an excellent 60 seconds video blog on why he is a globalist. The word is somehow at the center of the debate, as President Trump, on the UN stage, said that the future belongs to patriots and not globalists.

Dalibor has a nuanced view of international organizations, by which I mean that, though he sees their shortcomings and faults, he at the very same time appreciates the role they played in shaping our world, their importance not so much for “free trade” as an ideal but for the kind of (relative) free(r) trade we enjoy today, their impact in containing some of the expansionist tendencies of nation-states. It is difficult to convey such view in 60 seconds, but Dalibor somehow succeeded in doing so. The only criticism I venture to make is that he tried to put too much in such a short time, including some comments on the nation-state being a rather recent political institution, which got lost, I fear, on most.

Some comments on the YouTube page are quite disheartening. I wonder how much is due to the way in which critics use the word ‘globalist’: that is, the not so hidden implication that favoring free trade and (some) institutional cooperation implies a lack of attachment to local communities and institutions. Does it, necessarily? My impression is that the contrary may be true. The nation-state has crowded out loyalty to lower scale institutions, from the family to municipalities, et cetera. Perhaps a strong commitment to free trade can go well with political localism, as economic integration may make smaller (in size) states more likely to succeed, by making the idea of the national government as a trade block obsolete. But I suppose this is less relevant than issues related to identity: for some people attachment to their neighbor implies despising others, joining an “us” means hating a “them”. Some sort of “globalist localism” would, on the other hand, require a nuanced view of identity, bringing together both a universal (human) and a local (Milanese, Newyorker, Bratislavan…) dimension.

Alberto Mingardi
Mingardi, one of the rising stars of European libertarianism, is the founder and Director General of the Italian free-market think tank, Instituto Bruno Leoni. His areas of interest include the history of economic thought and antitrust and healthcare systems. He is particularly well known for popularizing the work of past scholars under-appreciated by today’s libertarians. Currently an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, Mingardi has also worked with the Heritage Foundation, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Acton Institute, and the Centre for a New Europe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *