The world is flat - or is it? Is Leamer right about Friedman?

Thomas Friedman's book, "The World Is Flat" is a best-seller - Wikipedia summary here. Friedman's related website is here - I think the photograph of the author is interesting, for those who like to read faces.

Last year, Edward Leamer reviewed Friedman somewhat snippily here. Gosh, I wish people could be more succinct. As Byron wrote of Coleridge, "I wish he would explain his explanation". Still, I guess Leamer has to fly the flag for critical scholarship.

The issue is important: does globalization threaten America's standard of living? Free traders say no. But have a look at Figure 6 on page 33 of Leamer, showing global income distribution in 1980, when US per capita GDP was 4 times the world average. That's quite some inequality, and if they were two very different levels of water in the same canal, opening the lock between them would see wealth gush from A to B.

So as barriers to trade are coming down, why hasn't this happened? Leamer says (p.34), "Much of the difference in GDP per capita among countries comes from the greater amounts of physical and human capital in the West, which advantages aren’t going to go away any time soon."

I'm not so sanguine. As regards human capital, I think the East is very keen indeed to increase its investment in education and training, and isn't hampered by notions of equality of outcome for its students. As to industrial capital, we are watching a vast sucking-in of resources, right down to our iron manhole covers, by China and other emerging economies; but also (particularly in China) we see a rapid and determined acquisition of slowly-accrued Western intellectual capital.

I think the catch-up process would be even faster in China if their industries observed patent and copyright more scrupulously, so they weren't almost wiping out each other's profit margins in their domestic market; and financial capital will accumulate far more rapidly when Chinese manufacturers get to keep more of the foreign buyer's price, instead of losing most of the profit to shippers, distributors, marketers and advertisers. If I were Chinese, I'd be looking at those areas for the training of my bright young people; and I bet they are.

Figure 7 on page 35 compares global income distribution in 1980 and 2000. The rich have done fine, the middle earners have made almost no progress, the poor are gradually rising. But when you think about it, maybe the middle is progressing: Western industrial workers are losing their jobs and looking for work in less well-paid service industries, while new industrial jobs are being created abroad. James Kynge ("China Shakes The World") says he sees heavy industry taking over on the Chinese coast, and labour-intensive light industry being forced inland. The move from low-skilled to higher-skilled labour in China is certainly a progression, matched by downward movement in the West. I wonder what the higher end of the graph will look like in another 20 years, when the Chinese have their own armies of industrial tycoons, company VPs, economics professors, investment analysts and marketing experts? I bet they're quite content to watch their coolie-work go to even poorer countries, as long as it doesn't happen too soon in the game.

Leamer admits (p.46): "The real bottom line: we do not know the breadth and intensity of global contestability of US jobs, and until we do, we will not have a real handle on the impact of global competition on the US workforce."

Why is he relaxed? See page 48:

"Finally, I want to comment on what I think is the big issue. It isn’t globalization or a flat world; it’s technology and the post- industrial labor markets.

The US is in the midst of a radical transformation from industrial to post-industrial society. Some of this transition is associated with the movement of mundane manufacturing jobs to low-wage foreign locations, but much of it comes from the dramatic changes in technology in the intellectual services sectors. The policy response to the globalization force is pretty straightforward: we need to make the educational and infrastructure investments that are needed to keep the high-paying non-contestable creative jobs here at home and let the rest of the world knock themselves silly competing for the footloose mundane contestable jobs."

Well, I don't think the rest of the world is quite as silly as that. I don't think Western education systems are geared to excellence, as once they were; so for that reason, as well as IPR enforcement issues, I don't think we can bank on using our intellectual property to sustain our global income differential. I don't think multinational businesses have, or feel they can afford, nationalistic sentiment. And whenever I read statements that start "we need to do x", I get the feeling that x isn't going to happen. Individuals will still make their stellar way, but I can't envision the West as a whole reclining in comfort in a "post-industrial" society.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Is modernisation good for India?

I am grateful to a respondent to my earlier post, "Have we overlooked India?" and I think the exchange is relevant to India's future generally. The visitor says:

I am wondering where we are heading in so called modern era. Example in textile machinery, one airjet can replace 100 handlooms, this means 100 peolple are displaced by a single machine. I am from Handloom city of Panipat (India). Earlier a person with 20 handlooms was happy and feeded his family well. Now even 50 looms are not enough because of the increased cost of living in so called modern era and people are getting trapped in vicious cycle of high cost, loans and increasing capacity.

My reply:

Yes, I am sure that this is extremely difficult and in fact English weavers suffered the same way nearly 200 years ago, which is why some of them turned to wrecking the machines that were harming their trade. But it didn't succeed in halting the changes. On the other hand, people in Britain are now materially much better off, so in the long run industrialisation is to everyone's advantage.

I suppose that the best thing that can be done is for government to support people who have been affected by modernisation, and help them to re-train in new areas of work. If you look at the post after the one you commented on, I give a link to Cafe Hayek. That writer points out that if saris can be made more cheaply, then sari-buyers will have more money left over to buy other things, so there will be demand for items that they could not have afforded before.

I think you cannot stop change happening, but governments can help manage the transition and far-sighted individuals can take advantage of new business opportunities.