Am kommenden Sonntag (11. Dezember 2022) ist das zentrale Thema im Podcast der Stand der Globalisierung und was die richtige Reaktion der deutschen Wirtschaftspolitik mit Blick auf die sich abzeichnenden Umbrüche sein sollte. Zur Einstimmung ein Beitrag aus der FINANCIAL TIMES (FT), der eine, wie ich finde, gute Beschreibung des Szenarios darstellt:
Zunächst zur Frage, wie lange es dauert, bis sich von der Globalisierung negativ betroffene Regionen – also jene, die Arbeitsplätze an China und andere verloren haben – davon wieder erholen. Anekdotisch wird ein Politiker zitiert, der von bis zu fünf Generationen gesprochen haben soll: „Three to five generations. That’s a century in the lives of the communities and the people in question. Is it any wonder, then, that the average American worker, just as those in many rich countries, has begun to question globalisation? Or that nationalism and populism are on the rise? As Harvard professor Dani Rodrik, one of the few mainstream economists to challenge the received wisdom of his profession in recent years, argued in 2011: ‚Democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three, but never have all three simultaneously and in full.‘“ – bto: Ich denke da kann man nur zustimmen, wenn man Souveränität vollumfänglich definiert.
Und nun zum Zukunftsszenario:
- „1. Globalisation isn’t dead — it’s just different: (…) we are entering a new era of localisation. That doesn’t mean that all things global will fade. Quite the contrary — business, policymakers and society as a whole need a bit more focus on the local to ensure continued buy-in for globalisation. Ideas and information will still flow across borders, as the world economy becomes ever more digital. Capital too, will be mobile, although it’s unlikely to be quite as unfettered as it has been in the past. There will be more limits on what financial institutions in liberal democracies can do to fund autocratic governments or degrade the economic wellbeing of citizens in their own home countries, as there should be. There will also be a rethink of trade rules, labour rights, and how to figure both the costs, as well as the benefits, of economic growth into the data that policymakers use to shape our world.“ – bto: Das klingt in der Theorie gut, in der Praxis zweifle ich an der Kompetenz der genannten Politiker. Gerade bei anderen Zielen und der Frage nach den Rechten werden wir erleben, wie die Pragmatiker gegen die Ideologen gewinnen, denke ich.
- „2. All economics will be local: (…) After decades of a ‚winner take all‘ trend, in which the majority of prosperity has been located in a handful of cities and companies, look for business and policymakers to be more focused on ensuring that wealth and place are re-moored. This will come with costs — such as inflation. The old ‚efficiency‘ models, which assumed that people, goods and capital would move seamlessly to wherever they were needed, were cheap. Creating more opportunity at home, while still remaining connected to the global economy, will require building more resilient models — that involves better education, infrastructure, higher local wages, and less focus on the short-term bottom line. Efficiency was cheap. Resiliency will cost more.“ – bto: Das ist unzweifelhaft. Die Problematik liegt in der Frage, wer diese Investitionen vornimmt. Denken wir an Deutschland, sehen wir einen Staat, der gerade in dieser Hinsicht versagt.
- „3. It’s the politics, stupid: (…) If we are to solve the world’s biggest problems — from climate change to wealth disparity — then we have to start thinking outside the black box of conventional economics, and look at the world in a more realistic and holistic way, tapping into other disciplines such as neuroscience, anthropology, biology, law and business. Consider, for example, the common economic assumption that it doesn’t matter where jobs are located, as long as they are created, because people will simply move to them. But as Harvard academic Gordon Hanson, one of the figures within this movement to reimagine free-market capitalism, puts it: ‚When workers without a college degree lose their jobs, few choose to move elsewhere, even when local market conditions are poor.‘ One reason for that is that they depend on the family and community ties of place to buffer them in difficult times. Hanson and his colleagues are building new, highly localised models of how economic growth happens in different areas.“ – bto: Das ist redundant mit Punkt 2, wo es darum geht, mehr in Bildung zu investieren, was aber eben mühsam ist. Für alle Beteiligten.
- „4. The age of ‘dual circulation’: (…) That’s the official Chinese state language for the fact that production and consumption will be clustered far more closely everywhere in the future. China announced several years ago that it wanted its own supply chains to be more local, for any number of reasons, including the fragilities associated with far-flung production lines. Those have been in evidence for some time now within western multinationals. (…) What’s more, the global trading system itself can be easily gamed by mercantilist nations and state-run autocracies, resulting in deep political divides at home and abroad. Today’s fractious politics are leading to more regionalisation in the most strategic sectors, such as semiconductors, electric vehicles, agriculture and rare-earth minerals. Beyond this, there are other shifts that have also made it less cost-efficient to outsource globally in some areas. Wages have gone up in Asia. Energy is more expensive. Companies care more about their emissions output.“ – bto: Das leuchtet ein. Die FT zitiert dann meine Ex-Kollegen, die vorrechnen, dass das nur zu geringen Kostensteigerungen führen wird. Mag sein. Meine Frage ist eher die nach den Voraussetzungen an menschlicher Kapazität mit Blick auf Menge und Qualität.
- „5. Think citizens, not consumers: (…) Politicians are pushing business to think about their impact on entire communities, not just consumers. And customers want to know whether the companies they buy from are good local and global stakeholders. (…) That means that values, enforced by laws, will begin to matter more. While Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, held that in order for free markets to function properly, participants needed to have a shared moral framework, the global economy today is made up of a huge number of nations with extremely different values and political systems tied together in deals that were more often than not crafted and approved by global technocrats rather than elected officials.“ – bto: Hier also genau das, was unsere Regierung immer fordert. Ich verstehe den Punkt, denke aber, dass wir hier Gefahr laufen, einem Irrglauben anzuhängen. Wir können nicht aufhören, mit einem Großteil der Menschheit zu handeln. Die anderen Nationen – allen voran die USA – sind da deutlich flexibler.
- „6. Own your own networks: (…) From financial networks, to production networks, to social networks, the companies and countries that own their own or work with allies to own them will do best. Vertical integration among corporations, for example, is once again gathering steam, as leaders look to buffer supply-chain disruptions, cut transport costs, and reduce geopolitical risk. Currency decoupling, too, is moving forward, as the weaponisation of the dollar following the Ukraine war has added fuel to China’s desire to become independent of the dollar-based system. Indeed, decentralised technologies of all kinds are growing in popularity. Localised production of wind and solar power will replace fossil-fuel energy systems. Blockchain and other decentralised ways of moving and sharing data, although still imperfect, will advance and spread.“ – bto: Das dürfte sich als sein sehr, sehr teures Unterfangen erweisen, welches zudem noch dazu führen wird, dass es technologische Fortschritte gibt, an denen nicht alle teilhaben. Letzteres trifft gerade Nationen, die nicht in ihre technologische Kompetenz investieren. Deutschland fällt mir da ein.