세계화는 개발도상국뿐 아니라 미국과 같은 선진국들에서도 국가는 부유해지되 국민들은 가난해지는 결과를 가져오고 있다. 세계화가 모든 사람의 삶의 수준을 높여줄 것이라는 주장은 공허한 것이다. 미국이 추구하는 세계화로 선진국의 많은 사람들의 삶의 수준이 악화된 사실은 잘 알려지지 않고 있다. 경제성장이 꾸준히 지속되는데도 이처럼 삶의 수준이 악화되는 것은 세계화가 미숙련노동자들의 임금을 떨어뜨리는 압력으로 작용하기 때문이다.
전 세계적으로 시장에 완전한 정보가 제공된다면 기술 수준이 같은 노동자들은 모두 똑같은 임금을 받아야 할 것이다. 그러나 완전한 정보가 제공될 수도 없고 자본의 이동이 비교적 자유로운 것과 달리 노동력의 이동은 자유롭게 이뤄지지 않고 있다. 따라서 자연히 아웃소싱이 이뤄지게 되고 임금은 하락 압력을 받게 된다. 실제로 지난 5년 동안 미국의 실질임금은 꾸준히 떨어졌다.
게다가 ‘월마트화’라는 현상까지 광범위하게 일어나고 있다. 월마트는 미국 같은 선진국 노동자들에게 값싼 제품을 제공하지만 동시에 기업들에는 경쟁력을 유지하기 위해 생산비를 절감해야 한다는 압력을 가져온다. 또 각 국가들에 경쟁력 유지를 위해 세금을 삭감하고 복지 수준을 낮춰야 하는 부담을 증가시키고 있다.
그 결과 높은 기술력을 갖춘 일부 계층만 삶의 수준이 높아질 뿐 연금과 의료 혜택이 감소하고 임금이 하락하는 중산층의 삶은 고달프게 된다. 미국 사회는 점점 상류층과 하류층만 존재하고 중산층은 사라지는 양극화 사회로 변하고 있다.
개도국들은 또 불균형적인 자유무역협정으로 고통 받고 있다. 북미 자유무역협정(NAFTA) 체결 후 첫 10년 간 미국과 멕시코의 소득 불균형은 10% 이상 확대됐다. 멕시코의 가난한 농부들은 많은 보조금을 받은 미국 농산품과 경쟁하다 농토를 잃고 도시 근로자로 전락하고 있다. 공정한 협정이 되려면 멕시코가 보조금에 관세를 부과할 수 있어야만 한다.
세계화는 적절하게 운용된다면 물론 모든 이에게 도움이 될 수도 있다. 그러나 이를 위해서는 승자가 자신들의 몫을 패자와 함께 나누어야만 한다.
최근 벤 버냉키 연방준비제도이사회(FRB) 의장도 미국의 사회복지 감소와 세계화에 따른 양극화 심화에 대해 우려를 표명했다. 그는 이를 해소하기 위한 정책이 마련되지 않으면 보호주의가 다시 대두될 수 있다고 경고했다.
나 역시 이러한 버냉키 의장의 의견에 전적으로 동의한다. 세계화가 성공을 거두기 위해서는 교육과 연구개발에 집중 투자하는 동시에 사회안전망을 확충하는 스칸디나비아식 모델을 채택해야 한다. 그리고 스칸디나비아 국가들처럼 누진세율을 높여야 한다. 사회안전망이 확충돼야 실패의 부담에 대한 걱정 없이 사람들이 자유롭게 창업에 나서게 되고, 혁신적인 훈련을 받은 사람들이 많아야 창업도 늘어나는 것이다. 이런 것이 결국 국가 경쟁력을 키우게 된다.
남미 국가들과 달리 한국과 중국, 싱가포르, 대만 등 동아시아 국가들이 세계화로 이득을 보고 있는 것도 선진국들과의 지식 및 기술 격차를 인식하고 단기적인 투기자금의 유입을 차단하고 기술 이전을 전제로 한 해외 직접투자를 유치하는 한편 교육에 대규모 투자를 집중한 데 따른 것이다. 동아시아 국가들의 높은 저축률이 이러한 집중투자를 가능하게 했다.
한편 중국은 급속한 경제성장으로 국민들이 과거에 비해 훨씬 부유해졌지만 이에 따른 빈부 격차 확대로 고민하고 있다. 중국 공산당은 빈부격차가 커지는 것을 막기 위해 조화로운 사회 건설을 최우선 목표로 정했을 정도이다.
반면 남미 국가들은 낮은 저축률로 교육과 연구개발에 투자할 재원이 부족했고, 결국 투기적인 단기 해외투자에 의존하다 경제 불안을 자초하게 됐다. 이러한 남미 국가들의 사례는 세계화의 실패작이라 할 수 있다.
TMSI·정리=유세진 객원편집위원
GLOBALIZATION IS CREATING RICH COUNTRIES WITH POOR PEOPLE
Joseph Stiglitz
Despite the promise that a well-managed globalization would make everyone better off, the unheralded side of globalization American-style is that it is making many in the advanced industrial countries worse off. This is even so when economic growth increases because globalization has put intense downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled and the less skilled of the labor force.
The dynamic behind this can be easily seen if we assumed perfect information in markets globally. That would mean everyone at the same skill level would have the same wage. As it is, with imperfect information, and with the free flow of capital but not labor as illustrated in outsourcing, we can see wages being pushed down. For the past five years, real wages in the U.S. have fallen.
In addition to this, there is the added factor of what some call "Walmartization." To be sure, Wal-Mart brings cheaper products to workers in countries like the U.S., but it epitomizes the conservative model that says a company must cut costs to remain competitive, or a country must cut taxes and the welfare state in order to be globally competitive.
The resulting society is one in which the winners of globalization -- those with capital and at the high-skill end -- are better off, but the middle class is being squeezed as pensions and health care are stripped and wages depressed. American society is being hollowed out so there is only a top and a bottom.
In developing countries, unbalanced free trade agreements have also made things worse for many. During the first 10 years of the NAFTA agreement, for example, the income disparity between Americans and Mexicans actually grew by more than 10 percent. Poor Mexican farmers now have to compete in their own country with highly subsidized American corn, often driving them off the land, into cities or up to the U.S., even if it is true that corn has become cheaper for urban residents.
A fair agreement would let Mexico "countervail" with its own tariffs to even out the impact of U.S. subsidies, or for the U.S. to eliminate sugar tariffs and the like.
Overall, developed countries impose tariffs on developing countries that are on average four times higher than against other developed ones. Rich countries have cost poor countries three times more in trade restrictions than they give in total development aid.
Globalization does hold out great promise if it is managed properly. But it will only work if the winners share with the losers.
Gardels: This line of thinking was once considered radical, but now even the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that the decline of social benefits in the U.S. and the inequality resulting from globalization is becoming too vast to last. He fears a backlash of protectionism will be the result unless there are compensatory social policies.
Stiglitz: He is absolutely right. On this we are on the same page. We now have the World Trade Organization and a set of international trade rules that might help mitigate a backlash. It happened before, in the interwar years between the First and Second World Wars -- before which global trade was greater than it is now. So it could happen again now if we continue with unfettered globalization.
Gardels: What set of policies in the advanced countries can make globalization work?
Stiglitz: The prescription for making globalization work is what is generally called "the Scandinavian model." That means high levels of investment in education, research and technology plus a strong safety net. That of course also entails, as in the Scandinavian countries, a highly progressive income tax.
Far from making these countries less competitive, it has made them more so. Though it may seem a contradiction to conservative ideologues who think cutting taxes is the answer to everything, the fact is that people are more willing to take entrepreneurial risks if they can count on a safety net and if they have the training to be innovative.
In Sweden, the social democrats who fashioned this policy have just been turned out of office. But we should not read that as a some kind of rupture in the social consensus. The new, more conservative government will only be about fine-tuning the model.
Gardels: Why has East Asia been so successful at taking advantage of globalization while Latin America, for example, has not?
Stiglitz: The East Asians -- first Japan and later countries like Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea and now China -- understood that their gap with the advanced world was in knowledge and technology. So they encouraged direct foreign investment, insisting that technology transfer come along with it, and invested massively in education and infrastructure, largely through their own national savings, which are the highest in the world.
China, especially, has embraced globalization on its own terms. It was slow to open up its markets for imports and even today does not allow the entry of speculative, short-term capital flows that so easily lead to boom and bust cycles in emerging economies.
But on top of this, China, like the others, has not relied on trickle-down wealth to lift up those at the bottom, but has sought to raising the poorest through government intervention. In the past decade and a half, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of absolute poverty there.
Now that a wealth gap is emerging because of sustained, rapid growth, the Communist Party has put the new policy of "harmony" at the top of its agenda, aiming to stop the gap from growing too large.
Latin America has been, in the main, a mirror image of East Asia. It lacks domestic savings. It hasn''t the fiscal wherewithal for the necessary investments in education and research or to pay for a safety net. It allowed in short-term speculative capital, which fled at the first sign of trouble, sending a country like Argentina, with an A+ rating from the IMF, into default and calamity.
Though Chile is an exception, growth in Latin America as a result has been in spurts and reversals. By and large it has been weak and unsustainable -- except in the export of raw materials to China.
Gardels: You have often criticized the "democratic deficit" at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. At the recent Singapore meeting, Brazil, China, South Korea and Mexico were given a greater voice on the governing board. Is that meaningful?
Stiglitz: Clearly, the IMF had lost all political legitimacy. Its pressures and prescriptions made the Asian crisis much worse and led to disaster in places like Argentina. Is this a step forward? Hopefully. But it remains to be seen.
For the moment, I tend to fall on the side of the skeptics who feel that bringing these top-end emerging economies on board is meant to quell the pressure for fundamental reform. The United States still, unconscionably, retains its veto power. And the World Bank can still only be headed by an American. When those aspects are reformed, then maybe it will make a real difference.
Joseph Stiglitz
Despite the promise that a well-managed globalization would make everyone better off, the unheralded side of globalization American-style is that it is making many in the advanced industrial countries worse off. This is even so when economic growth increases because globalization has put intense downward pressure on the wages of the unskilled and the less skilled of the labor force.
The dynamic behind this can be easily seen if we assumed perfect information in markets globally. That would mean everyone at the same skill level would have the same wage. As it is, with imperfect information, and with the free flow of capital but not labor as illustrated in outsourcing, we can see wages being pushed down. For the past five years, real wages in the U.S. have fallen.
In addition to this, there is the added factor of what some call "Walmartization." To be sure, Wal-Mart brings cheaper products to workers in countries like the U.S., but it epitomizes the conservative model that says a company must cut costs to remain competitive, or a country must cut taxes and the welfare state in order to be globally competitive.
The resulting society is one in which the winners of globalization -- those with capital and at the high-skill end -- are better off, but the middle class is being squeezed as pensions and health care are stripped and wages depressed. American society is being hollowed out so there is only a top and a bottom.
In developing countries, unbalanced free trade agreements have also made things worse for many. During the first 10 years of the NAFTA agreement, for example, the income disparity between Americans and Mexicans actually grew by more than 10 percent. Poor Mexican farmers now have to compete in their own country with highly subsidized American corn, often driving them off the land, into cities or up to the U.S., even if it is true that corn has become cheaper for urban residents.
A fair agreement would let Mexico "countervail" with its own tariffs to even out the impact of U.S. subsidies, or for the U.S. to eliminate sugar tariffs and the like.
Overall, developed countries impose tariffs on developing countries that are on average four times higher than against other developed ones. Rich countries have cost poor countries three times more in trade restrictions than they give in total development aid.
Globalization does hold out great promise if it is managed properly. But it will only work if the winners share with the losers.
Gardels: This line of thinking was once considered radical, but now even the U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that the decline of social benefits in the U.S. and the inequality resulting from globalization is becoming too vast to last. He fears a backlash of protectionism will be the result unless there are compensatory social policies.
Stiglitz: He is absolutely right. On this we are on the same page. We now have the World Trade Organization and a set of international trade rules that might help mitigate a backlash. It happened before, in the interwar years between the First and Second World Wars -- before which global trade was greater than it is now. So it could happen again now if we continue with unfettered globalization.
Gardels: What set of policies in the advanced countries can make globalization work?
Stiglitz: The prescription for making globalization work is what is generally called "the Scandinavian model." That means high levels of investment in education, research and technology plus a strong safety net. That of course also entails, as in the Scandinavian countries, a highly progressive income tax.
Far from making these countries less competitive, it has made them more so. Though it may seem a contradiction to conservative ideologues who think cutting taxes is the answer to everything, the fact is that people are more willing to take entrepreneurial risks if they can count on a safety net and if they have the training to be innovative.
In Sweden, the social democrats who fashioned this policy have just been turned out of office. But we should not read that as a some kind of rupture in the social consensus. The new, more conservative government will only be about fine-tuning the model.
Gardels: Why has East Asia been so successful at taking advantage of globalization while Latin America, for example, has not?
Stiglitz: The East Asians -- first Japan and later countries like Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea and now China -- understood that their gap with the advanced world was in knowledge and technology. So they encouraged direct foreign investment, insisting that technology transfer come along with it, and invested massively in education and infrastructure, largely through their own national savings, which are the highest in the world.
China, especially, has embraced globalization on its own terms. It was slow to open up its markets for imports and even today does not allow the entry of speculative, short-term capital flows that so easily lead to boom and bust cycles in emerging economies.
But on top of this, China, like the others, has not relied on trickle-down wealth to lift up those at the bottom, but has sought to raising the poorest through government intervention. In the past decade and a half, hundreds of millions have been lifted out of absolute poverty there.
Now that a wealth gap is emerging because of sustained, rapid growth, the Communist Party has put the new policy of "harmony" at the top of its agenda, aiming to stop the gap from growing too large.
Latin America has been, in the main, a mirror image of East Asia. It lacks domestic savings. It hasn''t the fiscal wherewithal for the necessary investments in education and research or to pay for a safety net. It allowed in short-term speculative capital, which fled at the first sign of trouble, sending a country like Argentina, with an A+ rating from the IMF, into default and calamity.
Though Chile is an exception, growth in Latin America as a result has been in spurts and reversals. By and large it has been weak and unsustainable -- except in the export of raw materials to China.
Gardels: You have often criticized the "democratic deficit" at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. At the recent Singapore meeting, Brazil, China, South Korea and Mexico were given a greater voice on the governing board. Is that meaningful?
Stiglitz: Clearly, the IMF had lost all political legitimacy. Its pressures and prescriptions made the Asian crisis much worse and led to disaster in places like Argentina. Is this a step forward? Hopefully. But it remains to be seen.
For the moment, I tend to fall on the side of the skeptics who feel that bringing these top-end emerging economies on board is meant to quell the pressure for fundamental reform. The United States still, unconscionably, retains its veto power. And the World Bank can still only be headed by an American. When those aspects are reformed, then maybe it will make a real difference.
* epitomize …을 집약적으로 보이다, …을 요약하다
* hollow 속이 비게 하다, 도려내다
* mitigate 누그러뜨리다, 완화하다
* backlash 반동, 반발, 반격
* unfettered 속박 받지 않는, 자유로운
* wherewithal 자금, 수단, 돈
[ⓒ 세계일보 & Segye.com, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]
![[설왕설래] ‘트바로티’의 추락](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2024/05/16/128/20240516520168.jpg
)
![[기자가만난세상] 돌변한 그때 그 사람들](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2020/01/10/128/20200110512256.jpg
)
![[세계와우리] 디지털 연결성 보호 위한 해저협력](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2024/04/11/128/20240411533676.jpg
)
![[조경란의얇은소설] 제 말 좀 들어주세요](http://img.segye.com/content/image/2021/10/29/128/20211029514141.jpg
)
