1992 was a year of confusion and drift in the management of the international economy. The numbers for growth, income and employment were bad and public perception turned sour. Uncertain of its standing in the world, the United States provided little leadership in trade or finance. Europe and Japan, preoccupied with their own economic and political problems, were unable to fill the gap. By the fall, a paradox was plain to see: the United States conducted a domestically oriented presidential campaign while evidence mounted that only the United States was in a position to lead internationally for the next decade or longer. As 1993 started there was hope for better days based on U.S. economic recovery and President Clinton's instincts to be an internationalist and a free trader.
Alan Murray is the Washington Deputy Bureau Chief of The Wall Street Journal
Perception of Decline Troubles America
"WHO AM I? Why am I here?" So went Vice Admiral James Stockdale's surprisingly existential outburst in his slightly more than fifteen minutes of fame as a vice presidential candidate. But the comment could just as easily have issued from the entire nation, which was suffering last year from a collective identity crisis. With the Cold War over, the United States had become unsure of its place in the world. And its two major industrialized partners, Europe and Japan, were both suffering from a loss of purpose as well. The result was a year of confusion and drift in the management of the international economy.
The numbers were bad enough. Economic growth in the industrialized countries crept ahead at a sluggish 1.5 percent pace in 1992-not enough to keep unemployment from rising. The jobless rate in the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development averaged 7.9 percent over the year and was projected to creep up to 8.2 percent in 1993.
But the debilitating problem was less one of production than of psychology. In the United States, in particular, the mood was extraordinarily sour, as Americans developed a gloomy foreboding, not seen since World War II, that their nation was caught up in an inexorable process of economic decline and that their children's generation would not live as well as they had.
Polls early in the year by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News found that 66 percent of voters felt that the United States was "in a state of decline," Most said they feared the next generation of Americans would not live as well as the current one. And 72 percent rated Japan as a stronger economic power than the United States. But the most stunning measure of America's pessimism came when respondents were asked to rank America's relative economic power: only 17 percent of voters still believed the United States was the world's leading economic power, and an astounding 43 percent believed it was not even in the top tier.1
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Related
California is the most populous state in the United States. Its gross economic product is seventh in the world, well ahead of China or Canada. Given its massive size and the fact that the export-driven sector is the only part of its economy that shows any potential for long-term growth, California is increasingly adopting its own foreign policy. In turn international economic trends are having strong regional effects from San Diego to San Francisco. At the center of this new interdependence lies the North American Free Trade Agreement and the pivotal bilateral tie between Mexico and California.
Our Money, Our Debt, Our Problem
Brad Setser and Nouriel Roubini
The talk today is of the "changing world economy." I wish to argue that the world economy is not "changing"; it has already changed--in its foundations and in its structure--and in all probability the change is irreversible.
