What if global powerhouse institutions, which people love to hate in a knee-jerk way, actually did their jobs pretty well during the Great Recession? That’s the premise of The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression (Oxford University Press, 2014), a counterintuitive book from Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, as well as a prolific tweeter and frequent contributor to The Washington Post.
While trying not to sound too Pollyannaish, Drezner makes the case that the G-20, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the Bank for International Settlements, and other such groups helped to lessen the blow to the global economy inflicted by the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression. They accomplished this by coordinating policy, rewriting rules, and ensuring that trade remained strong even as markets tanked throughout the developed world. “Compared to similar crises of this magnitude in the past, the world economy did not suffer as big of an economic hit, and growth resumed more quickly than expected,” Drezner writes in the opening chapter.
(Lorenzo Gritti)Specifically, he argues that global institutions reacted quickly and staved off a worse financial crisis by implementing new banking regulations, known as Basel III, to ensure that banks kept more cash on hand. The IMF helped to nudge negotiations between capital importers and exporters to keep trade going. The G-20 supplanted the G-8 as the primary economic forum, allowing more countries to participate in key international decisions. And the WTO, IMF, and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development jumped in and did a good job of monitoring economic trends.
These achievements, Drezner concludes, trump any breakdowns in global governance in the last few years, such as disagreements over fiscal austerity or the failed Doha trade talks (international negotiations that stalled when richer countries disagreed with developing ones, primarily over agricultural subsidies). “Looking for perfection in global governance is the enemy of finding the good,” Drezner maintains, giving himself some wiggle room in his analysis of how well the system worked.
That key caveat allows Drezner to draw his contrarian conclusion that the global governance system functioned postcrisis; it also lends the book less of a controversial sweep than his thesis first implies. It’s a bit like giving props to Congress in 2013 when lawmakers managed to pass a bill at the last minute to stave off massive tax hikes and spending cuts. The bar is so low for cooperative policy-making now, internationally or domestically, that any movement is cause for celebration. “The question is not whether global governance has been flawless, but whether it has been good enough in supplying the necessary policies and public goods,” Drezner says.
Within these narrow parameters, Drezner offers a thoughtful and contemporary analysis of global governing systems and their underlying politics. The book isn’t exactly a beach read, but it still contains important takeaways for D.C. policymakers in today’s hypercritical, hyper-partisan climate. Drezner wants readers to question the conventional wisdom that nothing works globally or otherwise. This “powerful bias” toward negativity, as Drezner calls it, can blind people to moments of international success, such as the one that followed the Great Recession. And a permanent sense of pessimism can feed into a false sense of nostalgia for the good old days. Drezner’s point? Those golden days never truly existed, nor will they in the future — so why not celebrate the smaller victories and moments of cooperation?
What We're Following See More »
A coalition of mothers whose children lost their lives in high profile cases across the country, known as the Mothers Of The Movement, were greeted with deafening chants of "Black Lives Matter" before telling their stories. The mothers of Sandra Bland, Jordan Davis, and Trayvon Martin spoke for the group, soliciting both tears and applause from the crowd. "Hillary Clinton has the compassion and understanding to comfort a grieving mother," said Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin. "And that's why, in the memory of our children, we are imploring you — all of you — to vote this election day."
With the South Dakota delegation announcing its delegate count, Hillary Rodham Clinton is officially the Democratic nominee for president, surpassing the 2383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Clinton is expected to speak at the convention on Thursday night and officially accept the nomination.
About 5,500, according to official estimates. "The Monday figures marked a large increase from the protests at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where even the largest protests only drew a couple of hundred demonstrators. But it’s a far cry from the 35,000 to 50,000 that Philadelphia city officials initially expected."
Only a day after FiveThirtyEight's Now Cast gave Donald Trump a 57% chance of winning, the New York Times' Upshot fires back with its own analysis that shows Hillary Clinton with a 68% chance to be the next president. Its model "calculates win probabilities for each state," which incorporate recent polls plus "a state's past election results and national polling." Notably, all of the battleground states that "vote like the country as a whole" either lean toward Clinton or are toss-ups. None lean toward Trump.
On the second ballot, the Indiana Republican Party's Central Committee tapped Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb as their nominee to succeed Gov. Mike Pence this fall. "Holcomb was a top aide to former Gov. Mitch Daniels and Sen. Dan Coats and a former chairman of the state Republican Party."