Latest news with #Stiglitz
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Business
- Bangkok Post
Resetting development finance
At the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development this week in Seville, delegates are calling for urgent action to fix a system that has stopped working. Prior to the third such gathering a decade ago, in Ethiopia, we had witnessed unprecedented advances towards reducing poverty, increasing school enrolment, and providing clean water worldwide. Today, however, progress is not only slowing but potentially stagnating -- or, worse, reversing. Global growth this year is expected to slow to its lowest rate (outside of a crisis) since 2008. The outlook is especially problematic for developing countries that are already growing well below historical averages, and for those 35 countries, mostly in Africa, that are already in or at high risk of debt distress. One out of every three countries now spends more repaying creditors than on health or education. As debt payments crowd out money needed for development, these countries' futures are being jeopardised. Meanwhile, the global gap between the richest and the poorest continues to grow, with Oxfam estimating that the new wealth of the top 1% surged by more than US$33.9 trillion since 2015 -- enough to end poverty 22 times over. The situation won't change unless there are greater flows of finance to developing countries. Moreover, quality matters as much as the quantity: There has been far too much finance of the kind that leads to financial distress, and far too little of the kind that promotes sustained growth. We believe that finance for development is too important not to involve every stakeholder. As the late Pope Francis emphasised, doing so is a moral obligation. That is the message of the Vatican's new Jubilee Report on debt, reflecting the work of a global commission of experts -- which one of us (Stiglitz) chaired. But fixing development finance is also a matter of self-interest for most advanced economies. After all, poverty and inequality give rise to social tension, diseases, and conflicts, with spillovers that do not respect national boundaries. Moreover, a lack of finance in developing countries implies a lack of investment in climate-change mitigation, a global public good that is necessary for everyone's future prosperity. With the world so divided, and so afflicted by the exercise of raw power and by short-term thinking, the Seville conference should be seen as an opportunity to renew multilateralism for the common good. But it will need to be more than just an exercise in speech-making about the hope of a better future. Such rhetoric must be translated into tangible progress, and there are some signs that this could happen. The outcome document, the "Compromiso de Sevilla", forged at the United Nations in New York, gives us confidence that this gathering will lay the foundation for a new debt and financial architecture. Specifically, Spain has launched the Sevilla Platform for Action, providing a comprehensive framework for coalitions of the willing to advance ambitious, but feasible, initiatives that will drive material progress in addressing challenges related to sustainable development. For example, we should see the launch of a Global Hub for Debt Swaps to generate more fiscal space for investment in sustainable growth; a Debt Pause Clause Alliance, to ease pressure on vulnerable countries' budgets when they are squeezed by extraordinary events; a broad push to re-channel International Monetary Fund special drawing rights (SDRs) -- the IMF's global reserve asset, held mostly by wealthy countries -- towards more effective uses; steps to strengthen the voices of debtor countries through a borrower-country platform; and the start of an intergovernmental process on debt restructuring at the UN, following principles that were already agreed by an overwhelming majority of member states a decade ago. These steps represent just the start. In time, the Seville conference could be remembered not as a landing zone, but as a launchpad for further action. But for that to happen, we must continue to push for more ambitious, yet feasible, solutions. For example, creating a Jubilee Fund with $100 billion (3.25 trillion baht) worth of untapped SDRs for debt buybacks would provide the most vulnerable countries with resources that they desperately need to promote sustainable growth. Equally, one can imagine broader frameworks for debt-for-nature and debt-for-development swaps, as well as new and fairer green trade and investment agreements that enhance domestic resources and facilitate developing countries' participation in the global effort to address climate change. Seville represents an opportunity to look at finance and send a message of commitment to multilateralism. We remain optimistic, because we believe in the power of pragmatism. By focusing on workable solutions that go beyond the text of whatever agreement emerges, we can finally put development back on track. ©2025 Project Syndicate 1995–2025
The Intercept
15-04-2025
- Business
- The Intercept
Nobel Winner Joseph Stiglitz Denounces Columbia's Apparent Capitulation to Trump
Support Us © THE INTERCEPT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz at a campus protest, on April 14, 2025, in New York City. Photo: Meghnad Bose Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of Columbia University's most renowned professors, denounced the institution where he has taught for more than two decades over its recent capitulations to the Trump administration. After Donald Trump withdrew some $400 million in federal funding from the university and issued a list of demands, Columbia entered negotiations that concluded with the school caving to pressure from the White House. Among other concessions, the school made concessions about faculty appointments and placing the Middle East studies department under review. 'I worry that our university may have capitulated to some of the demands coming out of the Trump administration,' Stiglitz told The Intercept on Monday. 'Academic freedom means that we have the right to criticize any government, anywhere, the American government or the government of any other country. We have to do it with decorum, conviction, and research, but the notion of academic freedom means that we have to maintain those rights.' Stiglitz reserved his harshest rhetoric for the attempts to deport current and recent Columbia students, including the arrests of Mahmoud Khalil on March 8 and Mohsen Mahdawi earlier Monday in Vermont. 'What is clear is that it appears that there's a pattern of intimidation,' he said, 'a pattern where they're trying to discourage people to protest, and a pattern that they're particularly going after Palestinians.' Speaking to The Intercept about the apparent struggle between protecting the university's academic independence versus the attempts to regain the $400 million in revoked federal funding, Stiglitz said, 'Obviously, the university cannot continue without money, but what is most important is academic freedom. If we lose our academic freedom, we have lost everything. And so at this moment, we have to decide what our priority is. To me, our priority is academic freedom and the defense of our community.' Stiglitz, 82, was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 and was a lead author of the 1995 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. At Columbia, Stiglitz was named a university professor, the school's highest academic honor. Read our complete coverage What follows is a transcript from The Intercept's exclusive interview with Stiglitz, conducted in two parts at Columbia's campus. Joseph Stiglitz: So, I'm Joe Stiglitz, university professor. I teach at the Department of Economics in the Business School, and School of International and Public Affairs. I won the Nobel Prize in 2001. I've spent my life studying what makes for good societies, for good economies — and democracy is essential. An essential part of democracies is free media and strong universities. Strong universities are important because they provide the critique, to evaluate what governments are doing, to ascertain when there's an encroachment on democracies, to criticize it when they are doing things that are against the interests of people, when there are conflicts of interest. That's why anti-democratic forces always begin the attack on the media and on universities. And that's what's been happening in America today. Professors have been given the right of tenure. There's a reason for this tenure. It's about academic freedom, that we have the freedom to assess what is going on, to talk about it, talk out. But with that right comes obligations. And so, it is our obligation to talk about what is going on, how the attacks on science, on our students, are undermining not only Columbia University and universities throughout our country, but are undermining our democracy and our standing in the international community, and threaten the future of our democracy and of our economy. Meghnad Bose: Professor Stiglitz, could you answer the question, who is the university? Because a lot of questions are being raised as to how the university will respond if there's a consent decree that's demanded. Who is the university, according to you? JS: The university is a community. It is a community of students, scholars, researchers, where we have shared governance. Obviously, the ultimate responsibility is with the trustees, but the trustees have a fiduciary responsibility, and that fiduciary responsibility is not just about money. Obviously, the university cannot continue without money, but most important, most important is academic freedom. If we lose our academic freedom, we have lost everything. And so at this moment, we have to decide what our priority is. To me, our priority is academic freedom and the defense of our community. MB: Do you believe the university has capitulated to the Trump administration's demands? JS: I worry that our university may have capitulated to some of the demands coming out of the Trump administration. Academic freedom means that we have the right to criticize any government, anywhere, the American government or the government of any other country. We have to do it with decorum and conviction, research, but the notion of academic freedom means that we have to maintain those rights. MB: Professor, do you want to talk a little bit about these arrests and attempted deportations of Columbia students that have happened—first with Mahmoud Khalil on March 8, and the latest with Mohsen Mahdawi, who was arrested today, just minutes before we speak right now. 'There's a pattern of intimidation, a pattern where they're trying to discourage people to protest.' JS: I don't want to speak about each of the individual cases. What is clear is that it appears that there's a pattern of intimidation, a pattern where they're trying to discourage people to protest, and a pattern they're going after particularly Palestinians. Obviously, anybody concerned about democratic rights has to be concerned about this kind of intimidation. The most disturbing to me were some cases where people have been detained, sometimes with people without clear identity. And you realize then at that moment, that could have been you. These individuals' rights were abrogated. But if that had been me, my rights would have been abrogated. MB: Now, all of this is happening as part of the Trump administration's supposed fight against antisemitism on college and university campuses, but as part of the demands that the Trump administration laid out was the demand that the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department at Columbia be placed into academic receivership, essentially that the control of the department be placed outside the department, outside the faculty of the department, for a minimum of five years. Columbia, while not exactly agreeing word by word to that, effectively agreed to it by announcing that it would appoint a senior vice provost whose job primarily, first of all, would be to ensure 'fairness' and 'balance' in Middle Eastern studies. Do you see the federal government demanding this of a private university, and one department of a private university, without even substantiation as to why it's doing so as an impingement on academic freedom? JS: Very much so. It is a very big impingement. The withdrawal of funds from science without any due process, without proof of the allegations, with disproportionate responses to the allegations even were they proved, is clearly a violation. MB: Which allegations are you talking about? JS: Whatever the allegations that they put forward for discontinuing the science grant[s]. The question is, the law is fairly clear — that there are supposed to be hearings, there are supposed to be proportionate responses to violations. This is violating every one of them. MB: My final question is, do you feel satisfied with the way that the university administration has responded to the Trump administration over this past month and a half? 'Of all the institutions who have worked the hardest to undo discrimination have been our universities.' JS: I worry a lot that the concession on turning over oversight to a set of departments is a violation, a fundamental violation of academic freedom. I worry that what is being called antisemitism goes beyond what reasonable people would call antisemitism. All of us are concerned about antisemitism, just like we're concerned about xenophobia, discrimination against African Americans, discrimination in every form. But of all the institutions in our society that have worked hardest to deal with discrimination which is pervasive in our society against all, [in] many, many forms — but of all the institutions who have worked the hardest to undo discrimination have been our universities. And among the universities that has had a long history of fighting antisemitism has been Columbia University. So the charges do not ring through. MB: Thank you so much, professor. Join The Conversation
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nobel-winning economist warns Trump policies risk causing stagflation
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz flagged major concerns for the economy under President Trump, claiming fluctuating policies put the nation at risk of stagflation. 'It risks the worst of all possible worlds: a kind of stagflation,' Stiglitz, who served as chair of former President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, told The Guardian. He said shifting tariffs will cause corporations to question where to set up shop and base their factories amid an uncertain future. 'If you're a corporate in the U.S. or in Europe, do you think you have a global market, or do you have just a European market? Where do you locate your factories?' he asked. Stiglitz noted the U.S. has become a 'scary place to invest' due to the unexpected abandonment of government contracts and trade agreements, including the US-Mexico-Canada economic deal brokered by Trump during his first administration. Within his first month back in office, the president signed off on 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico but then delayed their implementation following the countries' willingness to enforce his suggested border security strategies. He also approved a study on proposed reciprocal tariffs on countries he claims have placed unfair policies on the U.S. Stiglitz and others, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have said the commander in chief is making the wrong move. 'Almost all economists agree that the tariffs will increase prices. How much it will increase prices is a little bit affected by the magnitude of the appreciation of the exchange rate, but all economists think that the extent of the appreciation of the exchange rate won't be anywhere near enough to compensate for the tariffs,' Stiglitz told The Guardian. 'I could certainly see a scenario where we get to stagflation — we get inflation, and a weak economy. I cannot see a really robust economy, because I just see the global economy suffering so much from the uncertainty that Trump poses.' Despite criticism, Trump said short term pain is worth the benefit of restructured trade policies. 'This will be the Golden Age of America!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!). But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid. We are a country that is now being run with common sense — and the results will be spectacular!!!' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18-02-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Nobel-winning economist warns Trump policies risk causing stagflation
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz flagged major concerns for the economy under President Trump, claiming fluctuating policies put the nation at risk of stagflation. 'It risks the worst of all possible worlds: a kind of stagflation,' Stiglitz, who served as chair of former President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, told The Guardian. He said shifting tariffs will cause corporations to question where to set up shop and base their factories amid an uncertain future. 'If you're a corporate in the US or in Europe, do you think you have a global market, or do you have just a European market? Where do you locate your factories?' he asked. Stiglitz noted the U.S. has become a 'scary place to invest' due to the unexpected abandonment of government contracts and trade agreements, including the US-Mexico-Canada economic deal brokered by Trump during his first administration. Within his first month in office, the president signed off on 25 percent tariffs on Canada, 25 percent tariffs on Mexico but then delayed the action following their willingness to enforce his suggested border security strategies. He also approved a study on proposed reciprocal tariffs on countries he claims have placed unfair policies on the U.S. Stiglitz and others, including Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have said the commander-in-chief is making the wrong move. 'Almost all economists agree that the tariffs will increase prices. How much it will increase prices is a little bit affected by the magnitude of the appreciation of the exchange rate, but all economists think that the extent of the appreciation of the exchange rate won't be anywhere near enough to compensate for the tariffs,' he told The Guardian. 'I could certainly see a scenario where we get to stagflation – we get inflation, and a weak economy. I cannot see a really robust economy, because I just see the global economy suffering so much from the uncertainty that Trump poses.' Despite criticism, Trump said short term pain is worth the benefit of restructured trade policies. 'This will be the Golden Age of America!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!). But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid. We are a country that is now being run with common sense — and the results will be spectacular!!!'
Yahoo
18-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nobel Economist Warns How Donald Trump's Policies Could Spectacularly Crash
Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz called out President Donald Trump's economic policies, warning they risk causing stagflation — otherwise known as high inflation, rising unemployment and stagnant economic growth. In an interview published by The Guardian on Monday, Stiglitz also argued the United States is becoming 'a scary place to invest' because of Trump's mission to slash public spending, which is shredding established contracts with the government and prompting fears of the risks of doing business in America. Trump earlier this month announced a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% on those from China. The tariffs on Canada and Mexico were almost immediately paused but could still be reimposed in March. Last week, Trump unveiled reciprocal tariffs on other countries globally, with each nation's levy to be decided on an individual basis. 'Almost all economists agree that the tariffs will increase prices,' said Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University and former World Bank chief economist who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001. 'I could certainly see a scenario where we get to stagflation –- we get inflation, and a weak economy,' he added. 'I cannot see a really robust economy, because I just see the global economy suffering so much from the uncertainty that Trump poses.' Paul Krugman, the winner of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize, expressed similar fears over Trump's plan 'to raise tariffs but cut taxes on high income' last month. A 'lot of people' who voted for Trump last year 'are going to get brutally scammed,' he warned. Last week, the annual inflation rate was reported to have risen by 3% in the three months since Trump's election win over Democratic rival Kamala Harris. Trump repeatedly during his 2024 campaign promised that he would bring down prices on the first day of his administration. Wall Street Journal Warns Trump Over Potential 'Historic Mistake' Trump's Daytona 500 Spectacle Fuels Accusations Of Double Standards 1 Of Trump's Most Infamous Photos Is Now Hanging Outside The Oval Office
