,
12 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
At the OECD, listening to @rodrikdani’s lecture on globalization, populism and inclusion 
Political trilemna EU version: populists win because they are the only ones who say the truth about the trilemna. Furthermore, they have clear priorities on the solution: give up the EU
Demand and (dual) supply for populism according to @rodrikdani
@rodrikdani argues for a thinner but more sustainable globalization. Greater policy space in global rules (why can’t I help to think about eu fiscal rules?)
A pillar of greater policy space is reducing inequality. The other is accepting country-specific growth strategies
How to reintegrate domestic economies: address inequality, public investment in infrastructure and skills, regional convergence, employment targets
The conclusion is that domestic policies should be a priority. Not just any populism is harmful, just the autocratic nativist one. Pursuing domestic policies not necessarily against insertion in the global economy (to be honest unclear how)
Questions: what about global public goods governance, (climate change, finance, etc) within this framework?
Answer: climate change stands out as one issue on which global solution is the only viable one. Global commons.
For the other issues e.g global finance, deem powering the state is feasible (a case for capital controls)
On taxing multinationals (my question) @rodrikdani also argues national solution exists. Taxing sales for example. Fair point. But what about monopolists/monopolists transferring the tax forward (consumers) or backward (value chain), which would be easier in segmented markets?
Interesting reply to another question: “we should tolerate left-wing populists taking on large corporations, even if we disagree with the specifics of their proposals, because they get the issue of power right”
