With the enactment last year of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the US fully joined the rest of the world’s advanced economies in combating climate change. The IRA authorizes a major increase in spending to support renewable energy, research and development, and other priorities, and if estimates about its effects are anywhere near correct, the impact on the climate will be significant.
True, the design of the law is not ideal. Any economist could have drafted a bill that would deliver much more bang for the buck.
However, US politics is messy and success must be measured against what is possible, rather than some lofty ideal. Despite the IRA’s imperfections, it is far better than nothing. Climate change was never going to wait for the US to get its political house in order.
Illustration: Yusha
Together with last year’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act — which aims to support investment, domestic manufacturing, and innovation in semiconductors and a range of other cutting-edge technologies — the IRA has pointed the US in the right direction. It moves beyond finance to focus on the real economy, where it should help to reinvigorate lagging sectors.
Those who focus solely on the IRA’s imperfections are doing us all a disservice. By refusing to put the issue in perspective, they are aiding and abetting the vested interests that would prefer for us to remain dependent on fossil fuels.
Chief among the naysayers are defenders of neoliberalism and unfettered markets. We can thank that ideology for the past 40 years of weak growth, rising inequality and inaction against the climate crisis. Its proponents have always argued vehemently against industrial policies like the IRA, even after new developments in economic theory explained why such policies have been necessary to promote innovation and technological change.
It was partly owing to industrial policies, after all, that the East Asian economies achieved their economic “miracle” in the second half of the 20th century. Moreover, the US itself has long benefited from such policies — though these were typically hidden in the US Department of Defense, which helped develop the internet and even the first browser. Likewise, the US’ world-leading pharmaceutical sector rests on a foundation of government-funded basic research.
US President Joe Biden’s administration should be commended for its open rejection of two core neoliberal assumptions. As Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently put it, these assumptions are “that markets always allocate capital productively and efficiently,” and that “the type of growth [does] not matter.” Once one recognizes how flawed such premises are, putting industrial policy on the agenda becomes a no-brainer.
However, many of the biggest issues today are global and thus will require international cooperation. Even if the US and the EU achieve net zero emissions by 2050, that alone will not solve the problem of climate change. The rest of the world also must do the same.
Unfortunately, recent policymaking in advanced economies has not been conducive to fostering global cooperation. Consider the vaccine nationalism that we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, when rich Western countries hoarded both vaccines and the intellectual property (IP) for making them, favoring pharmaceutical companies’ profits over the needs of billions of people in developing countries and emerging markets. Then came Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which led to soaring energy and food prices in Sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, with virtually no help from the West.
Worse, the US raised interest rates, which strengthened the US dollar against other currencies and exacerbated debt crises across the developing world. Again, the West offered little real help — only words. Though the G20 had previously agreed on a framework to suspend debt servicing by the world’s poorest countries temporarily, debt restructuring is what was really needed.
Against this backdrop, the IRA and the CHIPS Act may well reinforce the idea that the developing world is subject to a double standard — that the rule of law applies only to the poor and weak, whereas the rich and powerful can do as they please.
For decades, developing countries have chafed against global rules that prevented them from subsidizing their nascent industries, on the grounds that to do so would tilt the playing field.
However, they always knew there was no level playing field. The West had all the knowledge and IP, and it did not hesitate to hoard as much of it as possible.
Now, the US is being much more open about tilting the field and Europe is poised to do the same. Though the Biden administration claims to remain committed to the WTO “and the shared values upon which it is based: fair competition, openness, transparency, and the rule of law,” such talk rings hollow. The US still has not allowed new judges to be appointed to the WTO’s dispute-settlement body, thus ensuring that it cannot take action against violations of international-trade rules.
To be sure, the WTO has plenty of problems; I have called attention to many over the years.
However, it was the US that did the most to shape the current rules during the heyday of neoliberalism. What does it mean when the country that wrote the rules turns its back on them when it becomes convenient to do so? What kind of a “rule of law” is that? If developing countries and emerging markets had ignored IP rules in a similarly flagrant way, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved during the pandemic.
However, they did not cross that line, because they had learned to fear the consequences.
By adopting industrial policies, the US and Europe are openly acknowledging that the rules need to be rewritten, but that will take time. To ensure that low and middle-income countries do not grow increasingly (and justifiably) embittered in the meantime, Western governments should create a technology fund to help others match their spending at home. That would at least level the playing field somewhat, and it would foster the kind of global solidarity that we will need to address the climate crisis and other global challenges.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is university professor at Columbia University and a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS