Dani Rodrik has an article at Project Syndicate called Globalisation and the Beautiful Game. I confess to struggling to understand Rodrik's precise position on international trade, feeling that he acts as an exemplary critic but a somewhat vague adviser. I don't think he gives his intellectual opponents an honest reading, and revels in being contrary. I also confess to being unsure of how the economic effects of globalisation can be seen through the lens of professional football, and whether it simply gives rise to armchair punditry. So I read his article with interest.
My main criticism is that Rodrik seems to suffer from his own complaint:
instead of sticking to what they are good at--analyzing
trade-offs--economists typically engage in amateur normative political
theorizing about what is good for society.
There is a robust, enduring and (relatively) straightforward theoretical framework that demonstrates the positive-sum gains of comparative advantage, and thus an economic rationale for unilateral international trade. I am routinely frustrated by the fragmentary, anecdotal, conspiracy-led, rhetoric-laced specific cases that mask as a critique. Thus the anti-globalisation crowd seem wedded to complex theory to support their stories, even though the more complicated the economic theory, the lower our confidence in it should be. Rodrik is a prime example of an economist who over-complicates theory (formalism being a convenient way to do this), but in this article he also seems to fall victim to casual empiricism. After a lengthy list of the benefits of greater globalisation (better quality football, higher wages to skilled footballers), he attempts to undermine these unambiguous advances with the costs:
- Many fear that the quality of national teams is harmed by the availability of foreign players
- Many blame the country’s [England's] failure to qualify for this summer’s European
championship on the preponderance of foreign players in English club
teams
- There is also a broader backlash under way. Sepp Blatter, the
president of FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, has been pushing a
plan to limit to five the number of foreign players that club teams
would be allowed to have on the field
Is that really the best we can do? Are there no greater costs that this ramshackle list of blind assertions and scare-mongering? Where's the evidence to say that national teams are harmed by foreign players? Who are blaming these foreigners for England's ineptitude? The irony is that England were relatively successful under Eriksson (a Swede). We were woeful under his predecessor (Keegan, an Englishman) and his successor (McClaren, an Englishman). And since when did anyone believe that sharing an opinion with Sepp Blatter was a good thing?!
Rodrik takes as given that the quality of the Yaoundé domestic league has fallen as a result of globalisation, and I'd like to see evidence. Since jobs and skills aren't fixed, for every player that leaves their domestic league to follow the money to England, Spain or Italy, the incentive to become a professional footballer, and for domestic clubs to improve their scouting and coaching improves dramatically. This might rest on an assumption of a sufficient rule of law that contracts are written and enforced, but even if this doesn't exist, it increases the benefit from legal reform.
Ultimately the only 'losers' from globalisation are, as Rodrik says, those who value their national team. If all players benefit through globalisation, and all club supporters, then to find losers you must implicitly accept the validity of their preferences. The logic of economics supersedes arbitrary political boundaries - the fact that nationalists lose out through economic liberalism is obvious. Rather than take preferences as given, political economist should explicitly deal with normative judgments; *if* your aim is X then policy A is the most appropriate. *If* you desire Y, then go for policy B. There's nothing more amateur and normative than attempting to provide unambiguous, pseudo-positive answers. The debate should be a normative clash between nationalists and European liberals, and economists should be honest enough to explain how the logic of globalisation supports the latter, not the former.
And finally, notice that by it's nature football is a zero-sum game. By definition any change to the sport will leave some sides better off and some worse off. I was hoping Rodrik would shed light on both his own insights, and also the issue at hand. Sadly, my conclusion is that it's a false analogy, with little implication. Maybe you can do better.
Recent Comments