New Complications in Commercial Policy
S, anonymous
IT MAY be that the multi-colored globes that stand in schoolrooms are still found. Out of established habit statesmen may still make declarations in terms of the whole collection or community of nations. It is possible that the inter-governmental machinery at Geneva, called the League of Nations, can repair its broken lines and dramatically bring back into the circle of consultation the important countries now missing. But for the passing day, at least, in all the realms of actuality which make up contemporary history, the world is becoming increasingly divided. A system and conception of general relationship and common rule that in the economic and financial sphere came into existence before the Great War, and in the political sphere was striving to be born after the war, is speedily being lost in a scheme of relationships more segmented than has existed in the experience of living man.
The system to which the nations seem to be turning as the depression completes its fifth year has two outstanding tendencies:
First, international commercial and financial affairs are being increasingly subjected to and made dependent upon the will of governments. The exchange of goods and the payment therefor, the operation of international private finance and the fate of investors in foreign securities, are becoming increasingly tangled in and directed by government action and arrangements between governments.
Second, governments are dealing with each other (and thereby controlling the dealings of their citizens with each other) less and less in accord with the terms of a generally impartial relationship, and more and more in accordance with the terms of infinitely varied and specialized bilateral agreements. Contracts, treaties, and traditions of international law, providing for equality or identity of treatment, are being discarded. By pairs, as in some involved dance in which no one seems to know the music or to be certain of his partner, each country seems driven by necessity to move...
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
Although few U.S. politicians will admit it, antidumping policy has strayed far from its original purpose of guarding against predatory foreign firms. It is now little more than an excuse for a few powerful industries to shield themselves from competition -- at great cost to both American consumers and American business.
Increasing aid and market access for poor countries makes sense but will not do that much good. Wealthy nations should also push other measures that could be far more rewarding, such as giving the poor more control over economic policy, financing new development-friendly technologies, and opening labor markets.
Not everyone is a winner in the global economy. Unemployment is high in Europe and inequality is rising in the United States as growth proves disappointing and foreign competition drives wages down. While economists debate causes and officials fret over inflation, protectionism threatens world trade. Postwar policymakers, learning from the upheaval of the 1930s, struck a deal with workers. Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks would foster global commerce, and the International Monetary Fund and domestic public policy would make sure that everyone gained. Stagflation in the 1970s undermined this social contract. Policymakers today must abandon their fiscal stringency, or more unpleasant leaders may rise.

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