Financial Statecraft: The Role of Financial Markets in American Foreign Policy
Steil and Litan note an increasing tendency by the United States to try to influence international capital flows in order to further its foreign policy goals -- whether to punish errant countries, inhibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, slow the financing of terrorism, or prevent the laundering of drug money. The authors call this "financial statecraft" and provide a trenchant critical analysis of these efforts, which often turn out to involve symbolic politics at its worst: they have no impact on the stated objective, because the scope and operation of financial markets are now worldwide; they harm U.S. economic interests; and in some cases, they harm the alleged beneficiaries (refugees in the Sudan, for example). But the authors also argue that in certain respects the United States has engaged in too little financial statecraft. They attribute the financial crises of emerging markets during the past decade largely to the existence of separate national currencies and make a spirited case for "dollarization" -- the adoption of the U.S. dollar, or perhaps the euro, as a replacement for national currencies by many developing countries. The United States, they argue, should facilitate that policy by sharing with such adopters the modest financial gains, called seigniorage, that arise from issuing a currency widely used by the public.
Related
With the U.S. economy soaring, few care that immigration to the United States is at its highest absolute levels. But what happens when the economy falls back to earth? High-tech immigrant workers are already competing with Americans for jobs, while unskilled immigrant laborers are becoming a permanent underclass. High immigration is creating imbalances in education, income distribution, employment, and welfare demands -- as well as tensions between immigrants and citizens and among the federal, state, and local governments. An economic slump will mean crisis. Congress and the White House need to cut back now.
Will Russia be run by democrats or oligarchs? The signs are worrying. The West would rather not dwell on the extent to which Russia's market is dominated by robber barons and permeated by crime and corruption. Russia's democracy is weak, with unfair election campaigns, a compromised media, and few checks on the presidency. The West cannot afford to let Russia descend into chaos, which might mean losing control of Russia's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but its two-faced NATO expansion policy hurts the democrats' chances.
The growing economic disputes between the USA and Japan could develop into a serious political conflict. The 'Japan problem' is rooted in two fictions (1) that the Japanese state has central organs of government which bear ultimate responsibility for economic and political decision-making, whereas the Japanese system is a collection of different hierarchies without a centre (2) that Japan has a free-market capitalist economy, whereas it is actually a 'capitalist development state', characterized by a partnership between central bureaucrats and entrepreneurs. Fixed trade commitments could be part of the solution.
