,
16 tweets,
10 min read
Read on Twitter
My paper “How Should We Think About Winners and Losers? Three Narratives and Their Implications for the Redesign of Int Econ Agts” is now on SSRN. I argue that the Trump, Establishment and Critical narratives each have irreducible normative elements /1 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf… 
I argue that the Trump narrative is structured around a "jobs-as-property" metaphor, according to which US workers are entitled to their jobs in a way that is akin to a property right; this rings true for workers who feel that their jobs are bound up with identity and status. /2
The "jobs-as-property" metaphor also assimilates jobs to physical objects that can be "stolen" and "shipped away", as illustrated by this screenshot from Narravo's documentary. This aspect of the Trump narrative suggest a simple solution: the jobs must be "brought back". /3
A second normative element of the Trump narrative is that only some jobs (steel, coal, cars) are valuable. Trump often ridicules the idea that workers in these industries should adjust by moving to higher value-added jobs (thanks to @ddale8 for his excellent reporting on this) /4
The Trump narrative is also (surprise!) deeply gendered: Trump virtually never mentions the textile industry, which is just as blue collar as steel and coal, but primarily employs women (h/t @JAHillmanGULaw). @MESandbu's concept of "factory worker machismo" captures this well /5
A third normative element is the notion that the processes by which foreign workers gain jobs at US workers' expense are inherently illegitimate: foreign countries are cheating or the rules are unfair, but even lower wages are not a legitimate form of comparative advantage. /6
The Establishment narrative takes issue with virtually every aspect of the Trump narrative, but has its own normative components, e.g. the fungibility assumption, which treats "real income" gains on the consumption side as fungible with income effects on the production side. /7
The Establishment conceptualizes jobs as value-creating activities between which workers should move in line with the shifting international division of labor. On this view, nobody is entitled to their jobs; it is legitimate, even natural, that people be required to adjust. /8
The Critical narrative argues that the Establishment narrative's focus on domestic adjustment misses a large part of the story: the impact of int econ agreements on the relationship between different factors of production - capital and labour - on a transnational scale. /9
Proponents of the Critical narrative (such as @rodrikdani) highlight aspects of modern int econ agreements - extensive investment and IP protections - that make them into "asset protection agreements" (@DanCiuriak's term) rather than free trade agreements. /10
The Critical narrative draws attention to the way in which int econ agreements increase the bargaining power of capital vis-a-vis labor, while providing "no effective tools to raise wages". The @AFLCIO points to the decline in the labor share of income in all NAFTA parties. /11
While the Critical narrative may seem similar to the Trump narratives, there are crucial differences. The Trump narrative pits workers against each other, whereas the Critical narrative asks how workers collectively can appropriate a greater share of the benefits of trade. /12
The Critical narrative also argues that the mobility of capital facilitated by int econ agreements makes it harder for states to tax capital, thereby increasing the burden of taxation on labor. /13
The paper maps the three narratives onto @BrankoMilan's elephant curve to show how they offer competing explanations for trends in global income growth (I got the idea from @AntheaERoberts: ejiltalk.org/being-charged-…) /14
The paper also analyzes the competing prescriptions for the redesign of international economic agreement offered by the three narratives, but this thread is already too long... /15
I am grateful to @w_alschner, @harlangcohen, @paulmer, @Tim_L_Meyer, @SaraSeck, @AntheaERoberts, @gregorycshaffer, @t_streinz and many more for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper and would love to hear reactions from others.
