Latest news with #Rodrik
Boston Globe
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Tenured professors at Harvard pledge 10 percent of pay to fight for ‘academic freedom'
Advertisement Harvard filed a lawsuit last week In the meantime, research has been halted, hiring freezes have been put in place in several departments, and enrollment of graduate students has been curtailed, the letter said. 'The financial costs will not be shared equally among our community,' the faculty wrote. 'Staff and students in many programs, in particular, are under greater threat than those of us with tenured positions.' Therefore, 83 tenured professors have pledged to commit 10 percent of their paychecks for a year, or less if warranted, 'to the university's financial resources while it legally contests these attacks,' the professors said. 'This signals our commitment as faculty members to use means at our disposal to protect the university and, especially, staff and students who do not have the same protections,' the tenured faculty wrote. Advertisement 'We view this initiative as only one of the various ways in which we can express solidarity around the university,' they added. Professor Dani Rodrik, who helped organize the faculty initiative, said he has learned from experience that it is important to take a stand when academic freedoms are at risk. 'I grew up in Turkey and have seen the disastrous consequences of the slide into authoritarianism and the steep price that universities have paid as a result of the regime's attacks on academic freedom,' Rodrik said in an email Wednesday. 'So, I consider it very important that leading universities like Harvard stand up and resist unlawful demands from the Trump administration,' said Rodrik, who teaches international political economy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. 'And it is important that senior faculty share in the financial sacrifice that will be necessary.' 'We have to put our money where our mouth is,' Rodrik added. Harvard leaders have alleged that the goals and actions of the Trump administration are 'to exert improper influence over the school as part of a sweeping crackdown on elite universities to squelch ideological dissent, a violation of schools' First Amendment rights.' f Tonya Alanez can be reached at
The Hindu
27-04-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
The ‘political trilemma' and the crisis in the West
Democracies in the western world are in crisis, marked by deepening polarisation, mistrust in democratic institutions and rising populism that is making those countries take an insular turn. Over two decades ago, economist Dani Rodrik put forward a proposition he termed the political trilemma of the world economy. Examining the state of economic integration in the western world, he claimed that countries face a difficult choice – over time, they could only have at the most two of the following: international economic integration (globalisation), the nation-state (sovereignty), and mass politics (popular democracy). Rodrik's paper, 'How Far Will International Economic Integration Go?' (2000), introduced this concept, arguing that despite the rhetoric of globalisation, international economic integration remains remarkably limited. Countries, adopting a protectionist stance, have erected barriers to free trade. National borders and the transaction costs significantly hamper international commerce, limiting the extent to which gains from globalisation could be realised. From theory to reality This idea, once an academic theory, is now playing out in real time across the world. And nowhere is its impact more visible than in the West where the contradictions resulted in consequences worse than what Rodrik might have envisioned. Let us examine the trilemma more closely. First, countries can embrace popular democracy and globalisation, but in order to do so, they have to cede elements of their national sovereignty. The European Union (EU) is the best example of this. Nations within the EU agreed to give up control over key policies — for instance, monetary policy, trade, migration — to be part of a larger economic and political bloc. While this has been an economic success, with a single market of 450 million people and Gross Domestic Product of $18.5 trillion representing about 15% of all global trade, it has also led to pockets of popular resentment from those who perceive that they have not had access to the same degree of economic opportunities, or from those who feel their way of life has come under threat from allowing free movement of people within the bloc. In turn, many people blame their governments for allowing EU regulations that are disadvantageous to them to prevail. This resentment has fuelled nationalist movements in Europe, from Brexit in the United Kingdom to now, the rampant rise of far-right parties across Europe — the backlash now is against both democracy and globalisation, accompanied by an antiquated and isolationist view of national sovereignty. The second and third choices The second choice that countries have is to pursue globalisation and national sovereignty while restricting the ability of 'mass politics' to influence economic choices. Rodrik suggests that in this context, governments take a technocratic turn, with economic policymaking controlled by independent central banks and autonomous regulatory authorities. Such institutions are insulated from the vagaries of popular politics and these countries run the risk of sacrificing popular democracy in the interest of pursuing economic integration. The engagement of international financial institutions in many developing countries around the world bear the hallmarks of this choice — these institutions have actively pushed governments to take steps aimed primarily at restoring the confidence of foreign investors and lenders at the expense of popular will. This writer would argue that this is also in effect, countries ceding sovereignty to 'global markets'. Over the last two years in Kenya for instance, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has had to face a severe backlash for having pushed extreme measures of fiscal discipline at the expense of public welfare and consumer sentiments in the domestic economy. While this in itself is up for debate, the widespread criticism of the IMF does indicate the consequences of this choice — it would seem to degrade both democracy and sovereignty, while not particularly delivering on the benefits from economic integration either. The third possibility in Rodrik's trilemma is the option he calls the 'Bretton Woods compromise', where countries choose to preserve democracy and sovereignty, while limiting globalisation. Many developing countries such as India seem to have chosen this path, using a mix of protectionism, restrictions on foreign investment, and domestic industrial policies in order to promote their domestic economies. China and the East Asian tigers grew by leaps and bounds by picking and choosing how they allowed globalisation to work in their countries. They invited foreign investment and encouraged export-oriented enterprises, but maintained a tight grip on political power. The consensus among the elites in these countries have come to support this model, as did the social contract between the state and their citizens. Also in order to keep a tight grip on domestic politics, the state has (such as in China) had to impose restrictions on foreign news sources — also limiting the extent to which they have allowed globalisation or economic integration to truly take root. For years now, this model has delivered an impressive rate of economic growth, but curtailing political dissent and restricting individual freedoms could come at a price. The crisis in the West today is a consequence of Rodrik's trilemma playing out. For years, western democracies tried to balance all three — democracy, sovereignty, and globalisation — believing that free trade and open markets, national self-determination and popular participation in democracy could co-exist and flourish concurrently. But this balance has been unattainable. A backlash Globalisation, while lifting overall living standards in the West, has created winners and losers. Manufacturing jobs have vanished in many parts of the United States, the U.K., and Europe as industries moved to cheaper locations, deepening economic insecurity among those that feel left behind. These grievances, of people such as workers in old industrial towns, and small businesses struggling against global competition, have been coalesced by populist political leaders such as Donald Trump, Geert Wilders and Viktor Orbán. Over the years, one has seen an erosion of trust in mainstream political parties and democratic institutions, and a backlash against globalisation. In response, these political leaders have offered more protectionism, immigration controls and withdrawal from areas such as climate change and international development that require global collective action. Rodrik's trilemma remains as relevant as ever — countries cannot have it all, and as argued above, the consequences have been far worse than Rodrik might have envisioned. The choice between furthering globalisation, asserting sovereignty and popular democracy is a stark one. But if countries fail to navigate the trade-offs, they stand to suffer from social unrest and a poorer future. The western world has to find a way out, where it can ensure that economic gains are more broad based, and democratic institutions are responsive to all. This requires much more than a simple turn towards populism or the reckless dismantling of government. Suvojit Chattopadhyay is an international development professional with experience working on governance reforms across Africa and South Asia
