というNBER論文(原題は「Economic History and Contemporary Challenges to Globalization」)をオックスフォード大のKevin Hjortshøj O'Rourkeが上げているungated版)。

The paper surveys three economic history literatures that can speak to contemporary challenges to globalization: the literature on the anti-globalization backlash of the nineteenth century, focused largely on trade and migration; the literature on the Great Depression, focused largely on capital flows, the gold standard, and protectionism; and the literature on trade and warfare.


The world has not yet experienced extensive deglobalization, but it could in the future, with dangerous geopolitical consequences. What should policy makers do?
Fortunately, the lessons of the Great Depression influenced macroeconomic policy after 2008, but they are not the only relevant lessons of history. The political upsets of 2016 occurred in the US and the UK, where post-crisis macroeconomic management was far superior to that in the Eurozone, and where recoveries came correspondingly sooner. This suggests that longer-run forces, linked to trade and migration, may be having a greater impact on voting than the post-2008 macroeconomic and financial crisis. Is it a coincidence that the upsets of 2016 occurred in countries where the twenty-first century equivalent of Huberman's labor compact has been eroded the most? My reading of history suggests that if governments push anything too far, including markets in general, and globalization in particular, a reaction is to be expected. Rather than promoting ever-closer integration in an already highly globalized world, maybe advocates of openness should declare victory and focus on how to protect individuals and regions from the risks that markets, both domestic and international, inevitably give rise to.
幸いなことに大恐慌の教訓が2008年以降のマクロ経済政策に影響を及ぼしたが、それだけが歴史の重要な教訓ではない。2016年の政治混乱は米英で起きたが、両国の危機後のマクロ経済運営はユーロ圏より遥かに優れていて、そのために回復も早かった。このことは、貿易と移民に関連する長期的な趨勢が、2008年以降のマクロ経済・金融危機よりも大きな影響を投票に及ぼした可能性を示している。21世紀のヒューバーマンの労働コンパクトに相当するものが最も損なわれた国々で2016年の混乱が起きたのは偶然だろうか? 私の歴史の理解が示すところによれば、市場一般、特にグローバリゼーションについて政府が何かを進め過ぎれば、反動が起きることを予期すべきである。国の開放を唱える人々は、既にかなりの程度グローバル化された世界をますます緊密に統合することを促進するよりは、勝利を宣言して、国内外の市場が必然的にもたらすリスクから個人と地域を守ることに力点を置くべきではないだろうか。



In a series of articles and a subsequent book (Huberman 2012), Huberman describes the gradual introduction, during the late nineteenth century, of labor market regulations and social insurance programs designed to protect workers. In some cases, notably Belgium, workers’ support for trade liberalization was conditional on the introduction of this “labor compact”. Importantly, the labor compact was more advanced in countries more open to trade: there was no sign of globalization leading to a race to the bottom during this period.


There is a final contribution that economic historians, like all historians, can bring to present-day debates about the political upsets of 2016, the causes of populism more generally, and the potential implications – some of which are very worrying – for the international order. As economists, we are trained to look for patterns and to seek general explanations for entire classes of phenomena rather than specific explanations for individual historical events. But as historians we are trained to recognize the uniqueness of individual events and acknowledge the roles played in them by context, contingency, and the choices made by individual actors. This is the creative tension that lies at the heart of our discipline and makes it so fascinating. And the perspective of the historian is important today, since it reminds us that we and our leaders enjoy free will, which we can exercise for better or for worse. Nothing is inevitable. In dangerous times that is a useful thought to bear in mind.