The Myth Of America's Decline: Leading The World Economy Into The 1990s
This study is a major effort to show that the failures and weaknesses of the international economic and political order are not primarily the result of the decline of American power. Nau draws on his governmental experience to show how important ideas and purpose are in shaping events. He surveys the creation and breakdown of the Bretton Woods economic world, and the spread around the world of moderate domestic economic policy and democracy. In the end, he makes a good case for the view that, in the present state of affairs, the United States "has an unparalleled opportunity . . . and indeed a special responsibility to continue to set the political tone for the world community."
Related
The 1930s deserve their bad reputation. Unemployment, misery, for many people hunger and, for more, the lack of hope, went with all the other ills of the Great Depression. Then Hitler came to power and fascism around the world grew stronger. The invasions of China by Japan and Ethiopia by Italy, and the Franco rebellion in Spain that soon came to be seen as a kind of global civil war--all showed the way the world was going. Driven by economic pressures, the policies of democratic countries became more narrowly nationalistic; bilateral and preferential trade agreements increased and France, Britain and Holland did what they could to assert privileged positions in their colonies. Although the Soviet Union was hardly a worker's paradise, the very fact that it offered an alternative to collapsed capitalism stirred people's interest and the Kremlin had new cards to play with. The worried democracies, meanwhile, did little to check the rising strength of fascism and were led to make one concession after another. If the times had any redeeming feature, it was that they made people think.
By the end of the decade U.S. trade and investment flows across the Pacific will be double transatlantic levels. President Clinton should use the November summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to galvanize American economic efforts in the Far East and to ease trade tensions.
The view that nations compete against each other like big corporations has become pervasive among Western elites, many of whom are in the Clinton administration. As a practical matter, however, the doctrine of "competitiveness" is flatly wrong. The world's leading nations are not, to any important degree, in economic competition with each other. Nor can their major economic woes be attributed to "losing" on world markets. This is particularly true in the case of the United States. Yet Clinton's theorists of competitiveness, from Laura D. Andrea Tyson to Robert Reich to Ira Magaziner, make seemingly sophisticated arguments, most of which are supported by careless arithmetic and sloppy research. Competitiveness is a seductive idea, promising easy answers to complex problems. But the result of this obsession is misallocated resources, trade frictions and bad domestic economic policies.
