As Donald Trump assumes the US presidency, a group of 35 prominent international business leaders, led by Unilever CEO Paul Polman and me, is stepping forward to defend open markets, endorse the fight against climate change and demand a massive push against global inequality.
These are the core elements of what we believe is the only viable economic strategy for the US and the world.
Recent electoral outcomes, including Trump’s election, highlight the intensifying economic grievances of many households across the developed world.
In the 20 years before the 2008 financial crisis, unprecedented globalization raised incomes for just about everyone. The incomes of the poorest third of humanity rose by 40 to 70 percent, and those of the middle third increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent did even better — so much better, in fact, that the business elite is now facing a powerful backlash.
Yet the incomes of a crucial group — lower middle-income households — barely rose at all, and since 2008, this same group has borne the brunt of austerity. Unsurprisingly, its members feel “left behind” by globalization and are now demanding change.
Trump’s administration might be tempted to address this group’s problems in isolation, with inward-looking policies targeting specific industries, or by attempting to limit trade competition, but the problems facing these households are not isolated. Rather, they stem from the social and environmental limits now reached by the prevailing model of economic growth — and the version of globalization that this model has underpinned. Ignoring this reality and implementing narrow and nationalistic solutions would only make matters worse.
Socially, the relative hardship in the US Rust Belt, where support for Trump was integral to his victory, is an unintended consequence of a rapidly expanding global labor market that leaves workers almost everywhere vulnerable — even in emerging economies whose workers have seemed like the “winners” of globalization in recent decades.
Countries and regions competing to attract corporate investment make weak negotiators and weak defenders of high labor standards.
On the environmental front, the evidence is dire. Human activity has already pushed the planet beyond four of its nine physical safety boundaries, including those for climate change and loss of biosphere integrity. The rapidly rising costs of environmental damage are restricting economic growth, making the relaxation of environmental protections a false economy.
For example, damage to ecosystems and biodiversity caused by current practices in the food and agriculture sector alone could cost the equivalent of 18 percent of global economic output by 2050, up from around 3 percent in 2008.
In emerging markets, especially in Asia, rapid economic expansion has brought life-threatening smog and constant gridlock to cities unable to expand their infrastructure fast enough.
Tackling the world’s environmental and ecological problems, and improving the lot of those who have been left behind, will require public action, such as that which I oversaw in my roles at the World Bank, the UN and the British government, but it will also demand the participation of business.
In my own career, I have seen firsthand that the growth fueled by business competition in a globalizing world can do far more to combat poverty, hunger and disease than government-funded programs alone, but when that competition is not conducted responsibly, the opposite can happen — and, in many cases, it has.
In seizing the opportunities of globalization, businesses have often neglected the developed-world workers they leave behind, while subjecting developing-country workers to extraordinary deprivation. Moreover, individual businesses have often lobbied against and evaded environmental protections that are indisputably in our collective interest.
Today, I am encouraged to see that a fast-growing group of business leaders recognize that the greater freedoms and wealth they gain from globalization imply greater responsibility for labor and the environment. We expect our strategy to ensure continued globalization — in a revised form that is more sustainable and inclusive — to attract more such leaders to the cause.
The framework of our strategy is already in place, in the form of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were agreed upon by UN member states in 2015. Achieving these goals will mean decent pay, working conditions and safety nets for all participants in the global labor market, as well as safeguarding the environment.
The SDGs also promise to provide a level playing field for growth-boosting competition. Across the four major sectors we considered in detail, we saw high-return business opportunities arising from the strategy, fueling an increase in annual global GDP of at least US$12 trillion. Other changes we advocate — especially the creation of prices for resources that reflect their full social and environmental costs — will ensure that future economic growth protects both workers and the planet.
Securing these outcomes will not be easy, because it will require a new social contract among governments, businesses and civil society. To succeed, all parties must view themselves as collaborators in a win-win deal, rather than adversaries in a zero-sum game.
All the evidence indicates that only a more sustainable, open and inclusive world economy can support an environmentally secure, economically prosperous and socially just future for humanity.
As for the US, this strategy aligns with Trump’s own declared priorities. Not only does it offer the most promising solution to the economic grievances of his core supporters; it also entails a surge in infrastructure spending, much like the one Trump has already promised.
Instead of using fiscal stimulus in a vain effort to revive failed smokestack industries and old energy sources, Trump’s administration — and the world — should place its bets on a low-carbon future. Plenty of businesses surely would get on board.
Mark Malloch Brown, a former UN deputy secretary-general and UK Foreign Office minister of state for Africa, is chair of the Business and Sustainable Development Commission.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations