The leaders of the world's great industrial powers do not always share common views on economic policy issues these days. But on one subject they are certainly agreed: there has rarely been a time when the art of governance was more demanding and the choices of policy more circumscribed.
W. Michael Blumenthal is Secretary of the Treasury of the United States.
The leaders of the world's great industrial powers do not always share common views on economic policy issues these days. But on one subject they are certainly agreed: there has rarely been a time when the art of governance was more demanding and the choices of policy more circumscribed.
In the field of international economic policy, the going seems especially hard. Accordingly, it helps to go back to fundamentals: to ask what the nature of the underlying problem may be; to redefine the main goals; and to lay out broadly the directions toward these goals.
II
Practically all countries, whether industrialized or developing, capitalist or socialist, have been caught up in a common set of forces that are shaping and complicating their international economic policies.
First and foremost is the fact that the rate of global economic growth has been slowing down. Some see that slowdown as a long-term process which began in the 1960s and continued into the 1970s. Others attribute the slowdown to the vast changes in the world's energy situation that surfaced in the early 1970s, when prices rose by 400 percent and a portion of the world's savings was abruptly diverted to the world's oil-exporting countries.
Whatever the causes, the result has been that most governments have had a much harder time finding the resources to provide some of the things that their people have been demanding. Everywhere, governments are being asked to deliver a lengthening list of so-called public goods, including health services, educational opportunities, clean air, and police protection. And everywhere, they are being asked to reduce the risks to which their people are exposed, including the risks of disaster, unemployment and old age...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
The financial position is almost irretrievable: the country has lost its way. In the worst of the war I could always see how to do it. Today's problems are elusive and intangible, and it would be a bold man who could look forward to certain success. --Winston Churchill, on returning as Prime Minister in 1951.
The logic of free trade does not apply to currency convertibility, as the Asian currency crisis should have made clear.
The world economic order born after World War II, to a large extent fashioned by the United States, was based on two fundamental principles-in monetary terms, the principle of fixed parities and the dollar standard (although the dollar was convertible into gold at the request of the central banks); in commercial terms, the principle of non-discrimination and free trade. Practically speaking, the United States was assuming the role played by Britain during its period of greatness. This lasted until August 15, 1971, when President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the dollar. Over the years, we witnessed the fantastic growth and development of the defeated nations, Germany and Japan, and the emergence of the European Community-developments encouraged by the United States. The stupendous economic expansion of the capitalist West is, without a doubt, the most remarkable feature of this postwar period. The even greater expansion of trade (particularly intra-European) appears in this respect to be both a cause and an effect.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.