logo
Uncertainty, protectionism, and resilience

Uncertainty, protectionism, and resilience

In the wake of the pandemic, and the fast-unfolding of the climate change crisis has basically brought into focus the cracks in the supply chains globally. Such cracks have been created at the back of neoliberal policy, which made a comeback over the last four decades or so. Previously, similar policies were being practiced before the Bretton Woods system, and the New Deal policies, as so-called 'sound economics'. Under both 'sound economics' and neoliberal policies, division of labour, and comparative advantage have been practiced by the powerful countries to unduly gain the advantage of trade in their favour.
In doing so, they have made the world firstly divided into the 'first world', and the rest, not to mention the particular coming into being of the 'third world', which was non-existent before the era of colonization, since countries in terms of per capita income were not significantly different from each other as such. To maintain this order after colonization, neoliberal policies were introduced, although after some delay caused by New Deal policies. Hence, policies were sugar-coated in a way that efficiency was increasing in global trade, while lack of regulation of markets under neoliberal policies meant rising inequalities, since higher living standards were only for the rich few. That stoked uncertainty over the years, especially under largely free movement of capital that played havoc with any long-term planning for increasing resilience, as it mostly worked on the principle of short-term profit signals.
Moreover, lack of any deep domestic industrial base, including import substituting industry in developing countries in particular, meant that increasing frequency of financial crises – which was a rarity before the perpetuation of the neoliberal-minded globalization, and domestic policy, which favoured largely unregulated capital – and the existential threat of climate change crisis, and the associated 'Pandemicene' phenomenon lay bare the fragility of global supply chains in a world of polycrisis and highly sub-optimal preparedness of countries during these times, as was highlighted amply during the Covid pandemic.
From agricultural commodities to medical equipment to vaccines, the neoliberal model of globalization came down crashing, especially as the application of 'disaster capitalism' saw price gouging. Hence, neoliberalism has increased uncertainty, both on account of lack of market creation that had a lot more profit fairness, and one that internalized the need for creating resilience, and not just mainly follow profit signals.
In addition, practice of ultra-nationalism, for instance, as evidenced from deep practice of 'vaccine nationalism', has exposed the underlying fragile nature of globalization that propounded division of labour, and comparative advantage as the most important principle to be upheld. Hence, practice of neoliberal policies as a miscalculation at best – although economic history of the last few centuries glaringly brings out intentional practice of these so called 'sound economics' policies to make a few countries, and some vested groups within countries rich while the rest were pushed to sub-optimal economic development – has continued to perpetuate uncertainty.
While it is important as a sufficient condition to shift domestic policy focus away from Neoliberalism, it is necessary to create some reasonable level of protectionism by countries to bring down uncertainty, especially in these times of polycrisis, and also to safeguard against the lopsided practice of globalization that makes it difficult for the 'third world' to decrease the distance between countries in terms of per capita income on one hand, and also to create much-needed greater sustainable macroeconomic stability, and economic growth, by reducing the impact of external shocks.
Hence, the recent drastic steps of US President Donald Trump with regard to increasing tariffs could have been taken in terms of nuanced, and much more focused policy, which were more in line with the tariff enhancement related policies of the Biden administration. Barring the pace and scope of application of greater tariffs to build local industry this, in turn, highlights a virtual across-the-board consensus in US political parties – that is both on the left, and right – for the need to have more protectionist policies.
An April 10, 'The Boston Globe' published article 'Tariffs are dumb… right?' pointed out in this regard the following: 'One of the most important developments in American politics over the last decade – easy to forget amid all the outrage over Trump's trade war – is the bipartisan turn to protectionism.The last president, Democrat Joe Biden, made substantial use of tariffs. And while he wasn't out to remake the global economic order – his levies were far more targeted than what we're seeing now – he did share Trump's desire to revive American industry.It's a desire that animates much of Washington. And it would be a mistake to discount its staying power.'
Moreover, the same article rightly pointed out a much-needed case in favour of practice of carefully planned, well-targeted protectionism, which should all the more be a reference point of the developing countries, given the colonizers, the developed world of today, has already drawn a lot of advantage in terms of economic development by protectionism on steroids, and lopsidedness by mainly unilaterally adopting protectionism for themselves, and principles of so-called 'sound economics' for the colonizers. There is a need to bring in sensible level of protectionism, one that allows creating a much more sustainable environment for domestic production, labour conditions, and reaping the advantages of trade for everyone globally.
The article highlighted in this regard: 'Tariffs may look ill-advised today. But they could very well be with us tomorrow.The question is: Can they be deployed intelligently – or are they always a bad idea?…First, you levy tariffs on imports from the Americans and the Brits in a bid to carve out a domestic market for your own burgeoning automakers and steel mills. Then you subsidize these up-and-coming firms in the hope of turning them into genuine competitors on the world stage.To American policy makers, this sort of meddling in the free market long felt unfair — artificial support, they said, for foreign competitors aiming to grab some of our global market share.But in recent years, they've started to see a place for industrial policy right here in the United States. …The pandemic demonstrated how fragile global supply chains can be. And with climate change upon us, large-scale disruptions will only be more frequent. Building up some industrial muscle is an important hedge against instability.'
Also, there is a lot more hue and cry being raised at the negative consequences of tariffs on trade volumes and economic growth, which are not well-founded, as it is important to correct the basis for trade and growth, by putting them on more resilient, and equality creating tendencies for the world, especially in a world of polycrisis. This, in turn, will lower the level of uncertainty, which apart from addressing economic issues in both developing and developed world, will also help check the rising tendency of 'economic migrants' in developed countries, and not by whipping up Xenophobia by ultra-nationalist parties in developed countries, which leads to hate mongering, and also wrongly mainstreams fringe political parties, lowering, in turn, the overall level of democracy.
Yet, all the above seems to have been missed by multilateral institution like International Monetary Fund (IMF), when in its most recent April edition of its flagship report 'World Economic Outlook' (WEO), its economic counsellor, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas in the foreword to the Report – although same message overall flows throughout the Report –apparently does not see on one hand the positive role a focused level of protectionism can play in reducing uncertainty and in enhancing resilience in countries, and, on the other hand, that the neoliberal-minded economic context has been unravelled by sub-optimal outcomes it has produced in creating frequent boom-bust cycles in developing countries in particular, and justified disgruntlement of labour almost everywhere, more specifically.
Also missed is the likely positive impact of focused practice of protectionism in reducing inequality, both within and among countries, and the further advantageous consequence it can have in reducing economic migration, and Xenophobia, and in overall strengthening democracy. Sadly, the thought process of the economic counsellor is something which is in line with the thinking of the multilateral institutions in general, including the IMF, not to mention the 'Chicago boys'-styled policymakers in many countries, who also uphold the same thinking.
In this regard, the economic counsellor indicated in the foreword to the Report that 'Shortly after the January 2025 WEO Update, the United States announced multiple waves of tariffs on major trading partners and critical sectors, culminating on April 2 with a set of nearly universal tariffs. While many of the scheduled tariff increases are on hold for now, the combination of measures and countermeasures has hiked US and global tariff rates to centennial highs. However, the context for such increases is very different. Unlike in the previous century, the global economy is now characterized by a high degree of economic and financial integration, with supply chains and financial flows crisscrossing the world, whose potential unwinding could constitute a major source of economic upheaval.The common denominator, however, is that tariffs are a negative supply shock for the economy imposing them, as resources are reallocated toward the production of noncompetitive goods, with a resulting loss of aggregate productivity, lower activity, and higher production costs and prices. Moreover, in the medium term, by reducing competition, tariffs increase the market power of domestic producers, decrease incentives to innovate, and create multiple opportunities for rent seeking. For trading partners, tariffs constitute mostly a negative external demand shock, driving foreign customers away from their products, even if some countries could benefit from the rerouting of trade flows. These effects are magnified in the presence of modern complex global supply chains. Most traded goods are intermediate inputs that traverse countries multiple times before their transformation into final products. Sectoral disruptions could propagate up and down the global input-output network in ways with potentially large multiplier effects, just as we saw during the pandemic.'
Hence, it can be seen that the thinking above is virtually reflective of that of an ostrich mentality – head in the sand, as for instance can be seen through the poor and rigid contextualization, and very limited understanding of protectionism, not to mention lack of internalization of an otherwise increasingly negative fallout of neoliberal policies during the last few decades, especially in the wake of Global Financial Crisis 2007-08, and the Covid pandemic.
This is because instead of increasing competition, upholding principles of comparative advantage, division of labour, efficiency, and market fundamentalism have virtually out-competed developing countries, and not allowed them to close the gap of economic development with developed countries, and has kept supply chains fragile, suffering also from sub-optimal allocation efficiencies; for instance, more investments went into face creams and the likes, instead of needed investments going into making vaccines during the last two decades before the pandemic, during which time coronavirus reappeared a number of times as an epidemic.
Also, frequent balance of payments issues – at the back of mainly developing countries suffering from an environment of increasing external shocks due to practice of neoliberal economics that upheld market fundamentalism, and unwarranted extent of neoliberal-minded globalization – have been witnessed by developing countries, which has also contributed to significantly increasing global debt, along with greater economic migration from developing countries to developed countries in search of better working conditions. All this has increased uncertainty and diminished resilience, not to mention stoking ultra-nationalism in developed countries in particular.
Also, what good is the rule-based system of world trade when it is not creating a balanced environment, since the underlying rules are sub-optimal to start with, favouring supply chains for instance, which are very fragile in the shape of highly spread out production process globally, is not much mindful of working conditions, and is not ready for a world of polycrisis, especially given such crises include existential threats of climate change, and related 'Pandemicene' phenomenon.
Moreover, it needs to be understood by developed countries and multilateral institutions that relying on developing countries to continue to produce labour-intensive intermediaries for developed countries primarily – to overall achieve so-called efficiency but at the cost of paying labour cheaply, and in getting production for low-level labour working conditions, especially as the existential threat of climate change crisis continues to unfold rather quickly in a dramatic sense in terms of more frequency and greater intensity of climate disasters – is increasingly becoming unreliable. This is because, developing countries having a low share in overall global trade, and being stuck with neoliberal policies – under the influence of 'Chicago boys'-styled domestic policymakers, and brow-beating multilateral institutions through their loan/programme conditionalities – their economies are becoming all the more vulnerable, given their low level of economic institutional quality traditionally, overall low level of climate financing, and neoliberal-minded global trade policy.
Also, this has further lowered the overall working conditions of labour, and which has become one of the main reasons behind increase in 'economic migrants' in developed countries, as more and more of the labour force heads for developed countries for better working conditions. While they bridge the gaps in the labour force of developed countries, where domestic labour is mostly into service sectors, this nonetheless creates disgruntlement among domestic labour, which generally are crowded out in the face of more efficient migrating labour.
There is no fault of the migrating labour, but rather it has to do with the neoliberal institutional design, being perpetuated by the already rich and powerful that have oriented domestic, and global economy only for greater profits. In that sense, shifting away from neoliberal policies, including bringing back reasonable level of protectionism is needed for reducing uncertainty, for instance by creating greater manufacturing at home that absorbs local labour in both developed and developing countries and, in turn, also helps create greater resilience in the face of external shocks, especially in a world of polycrisis.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Dollar dips after jobs-fueled rally
Dollar dips after jobs-fueled rally

Business Recorder

time3 hours ago

  • Business Recorder

Dollar dips after jobs-fueled rally

NEW YORK: The US dollar slipped against most major currencies on Monday, as optimism over a better-than-expected US employment report was offset by caution ahead of pivotal US-China trade talks set to take place later in the day. Top officials from both countries were in London for a meeting to address disagreements around a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva, which had briefly cooled tensions between the world's two largest economies. The talks come at a crucial time for both sides, with China grappling with deflation and trade uncertainty dampening sentiment among US businesses and consumers, prompting investors to reassess the dollar's safe-haven status. Data showed China's export growth slowed to a three-month low in May as US tariffs slammed shipments, while factory-gate deflation saw its worst level in two years. Customs data showed that China's exports to the US plunged 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, the sharpest drop since February 2020, when the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic upended global trade. The dollar was down about 0.2% against the Japanese currency at 144.635 yen in late morning trading after two consecutive weeks of gains. Japan is considering buying back some super-long government bonds issued in the past at low interest rates, two sources with direct knowledge of the plan said on Monday, underscoring its focus on reining in any abrupt rises in bond yields. The euro, meanwhile, was up slightly against the greenback at $1.1404, as markets continued to price in the European Central Bank's monetary policy outlook issued last week, in which it indicated it may be close to ending its easing cycle. Sterling also rose versus the greenback, adding 0.3% to $1.3558. 'The dollar is struggling to find clear direction following last week's data points and the situation is looking more like the second half of the year the Fed will need to get dovish and help the financial environment,' said Juan Perez, director of trading at Monex USA in Washington. 'Ultimately, if the US is going to be struggling, there is no clear reason to have any long-term faith in the dollar.' Elsewhere, China's offshore yuan was last at 7.18 per dollar, little changed on the day. 'How the (US-China) trade talks go definitely is going to be critical for overall sentiment,' said Kit Juckes, chief FX strategist at Societe Generale. He said Asia-Pacific currencies including the Japanese yen and Australian and New Zealand dollars would likely see the biggest reaction to headlines from the talks. New Zealand's dollar rose 0.5% to US$0.6045, while the Australian dollar was last up 0.3% at US$0.6515 in light volumes as markets were closed for a public holiday. Also on the trade front was a report that said Japan's chief trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa is planning a sixth round of talks in Washington. An inflation report out of the US for May will be in the spotlight later in the week as investors and Federal Reserve policymakers look for evidence on the damage trade restrictive policies have had on the economy. Fed officials have signalled that they are in no rush to cut interest rates and signs of economic resilience will likely cement their stance. Interest rate futures indicate that investors are anticipating the central bank may cut borrowing costs by 25 basis points, with the earliest move expected in October this year, according to data compiled by LSEG. 'May is the first month where the impact of Trump's 10% universal tariff on imports ex-USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) is expected to show. The Fed will want a few months of inflation data in order to judge the tariff impact and most importantly, its persistence,' analysts at ANZ Bank said.

US and China hold trade talks in London to ease tensions
US and China hold trade talks in London to ease tensions

Express Tribune

time10 hours ago

  • Express Tribune

US and China hold trade talks in London to ease tensions

London talks follow first public call between Trump and Xi since his return to the White House, held just days earlier. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Top US and Chinese officials were meeting in London on Monday to try and defuse a high-stakes trade dispute that has widened from tariffs to restrictions over rare earths, threatening a global supply chain shock and slower economic growth. On the first of likely two days of talks, officials from the two superpowers were meeting at the ornate Lancaster House to try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing. Since then the US has accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday that the US team wanted a handshake from China on rare earths after Donald Trump said Xi Jinping had agreed to resume shipments in a rare call between the two presidents last week. "The purpose of the meeting today is to make sure that they're serious, but to literally get handshakes," Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told CNBC in an interview. He said the U.S. would expect export controls to be eased and rare earths released in volume immediately afterwards. The talks come at a crucial time for both economies, which are showing signs of strain from Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January. Customs data showed that China's exports to the US plunged 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, the sharpest drop since February 2020, when the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic upended global trade. In the US, business and household confidence has taken a pummelling, while first-quarter gross domestic product contracted due to a record surge in imports as Americans front-loaded purchases to beat anticipated price increases. But for now, the impact on inflation has been muted, and the jobs market has remained fairly resilient, though economists expect cracks to become more apparent over the summer. Attending the talks in London will be US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng. The inclusion of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the US, is one indication of how central rare earths have become. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, a crucial component in electric vehicle motors. Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other. Positive collection The second round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Xi spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary. But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," setting the stage for Monday's meeting in the British capital. The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the US of rare earths minerals and magnets, and Reuters reported that China has granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures" that the U.S. wanted the two sides to build on the progress made in Geneva in the hope they could move towards more comprehensive trade talks. The preliminary deal in Geneva sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. But Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, said while a temporary truce was possible, there was little prospect for the bilateral relationship to become constructive given broader decoupling trends and continued US pressure on other countries to take China out of their supply chains. "Everyone around Trump is still hawkish and so a breakthrough US-China trade deal is unlikely, especially in the context of other deals that are further along and prioritized," he said in an analyst note.

Tens of thousands rally in Spain for PM Sanchez to resign over corruption
Tens of thousands rally in Spain for PM Sanchez to resign over corruption

Express Tribune

timea day ago

  • Express Tribune

Tens of thousands rally in Spain for PM Sanchez to resign over corruption

People take part in a demonstration organised by the main opposition conservative People's Party against the Socialist government of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez under the motto 'Democracy or Mafia' in Madrid, Spain on June 8, 2025. PHOTO: DW Listen to article Tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered in central Madrid on Sunday in a rally organised by Spain's conservative opposition, accusing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and his Socialist-led government of corruption and demanding early elections. Protesters waving Spanish flags and chanting 'Pedro Sánchez, resign!' filled Plaza de España, responding to a call from the Popular Party (PP). The rally follows leaked audio recordings that allegedly implicate a former Socialist Party member, Leire Díez, in efforts to discredit police investigations into corruption claims involving Sánchez's wife, brother, and former minister José Luis Ábalos. Díez has denied the allegations, insisting she was conducting research for a book and was not acting on behalf of the government. She has since resigned from the Socialist Workers' Party. Speaking at the rally, PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo accused Sánchez's administration of 'mafia practices' and declared: 'This government has stained everything – politics, state institutions, the separation of powers.' The PP claimed over 100,000 people attended the demonstration under the slogan 'Mafia or Democracy', though officials from the central government put the turnout between 45,000 and 50,000. The Sánchez government has been rocked by several corruption-related controversies in recent months, most notably the so-called 'Koldo Case' – an alleged scheme involving inflated COVID-era public contracts for medical supplies. The case centres on Koldo García Izaguirre, a former adviser to Sánchez's then-transport minister Ábalos. García is accused of using political connections to steer contracts towards favoured companies in exchange for large commissions. In April 2024, Sánchez briefly considered resigning after a Madrid court opened an investigation into his wife, Begoña Gómez, on suspicion of influence peddling and business corruption. The accusations stemmed from a complaint by right-wing group Manos Limpias (Clean Hands), which claims Gómez used her position to benefit certain companies. Sánchez has strongly denied any wrongdoing by himself or his inner circle, describing the investigations and leaks as part of a coordinated right-wing smear campaign aimed at destabilising his administration. But with public anger growing and political pressure mounting, the PP is hoping to capitalise on the unrest. Despite the controversies, Spain's next general election is not due until 2027, though recent polls suggest the PP has a slight edge over Sánchez's Socialist Party. 'The expiry date on this government passed a long time ago,' protester Blanca Requejo, 46, told AFP. 'It's getting tiring.' Sánchez came to power in 2018 after ousting former PP Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in a no-confidence vote triggered by a separate corruption scandal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store