The IMF Christine Lagarde would it become anti-globalization? Long, the subject is taboo: that globalization does not please everyone, it tends to increase inequality in rich countries, everyone sensed. But it was a lesser evil. Cons weighed in the balance somewhat, compared to the prowess of China, India or Brazil and the hundreds of millions of people out of poverty through free trade. "Globalization" as the Anglo-Americans, was an apotheosis for the IMF. Its original mission, and still relevant, is to eliminate protectionism and the specter of the Depression of the 1930s. Light of Sirius, all was well in the brave new world.
This good report is no longer appropriate. The IMF recognizes that since the "Great Recession" of 2008-2009, more than 200 million people are unemployed worldwide. A record.And three-quarters of the 30 million unemployed appeared in the "advanced" countries. However, the phenomenon looks durable.
The World Economic Outlook, which forecasts 2011-2012 were published last week, a special chapter devoted to "labor markets in advanced economies" and their structural changes. That is to take stock of two decades of globalization flawless. "Technological change and trade are as old as civilization," warns the Fund. But this time it's different. Strange coincidence, the revolution in information technology broke out when China, India and the countries of the former Soviet empire have joined the global market, which they were previously excluded.Overnight, shortly after 1990, the global employment has almost doubled to $ 3 billion.
The new communication technologies, including container transport, helped to internationalize production lines. One of the most eloquent symbol is provided by Apple's products are designed in California and assembled in China by Foxconn. Apple includes only about fifty thousand employees, researchers and managers, while the second largest global market capitalization, after Exxon. Less glamorous, Foxconn is working a million people.
25% of the United States would be "relocated"
These are the United States as a whole that work on this model, specializing in highly paid office jobs and relocating industrial production. The international division of labor has been entirely satisfactory in the first place."Until a decade ago, the effects of globalization on the distribution of wealth and jobs were safe," according to Professor Michael Spence, the IMF quotes extensively from the work instant credit report. The Nobel Prize in Economics notes that from 1990 to 2008, the U.S. managed to create 27 million jobs, keeping unemployment low. But 98% of these positions were offered by the sector working exclusively for the U.S. domestic market, including 10 million from government agencies and health. In contrast, industries whose products are exportable, "tradable", as the term of Michael Spence, did not increase their employment, except in highly skilled occupations. The biggest loser is the middle class, who was employed by the industry.According to Professor Alan Blinder, former number two of the Fed, 25% of all jobs in the United States would be "relocated".
This reconfiguration of the labor market was not prejudicial as the United States grew at a rate of 2.5% per annum. It became unbearable to the crisis, while the construction, public agencies and service companies hire less and less, even at low wages. The IMF notes that all the old industrialized countries are housed in the same boat. For his part, Michael Spence said the exception of Germany, "which has clearly failed to protect his employment in export industries when they were threatened." He noted also that the de-industrialization resulting in collective impoverishment.According to his calculations, the value added per employee increased from 72,000 to 80,000 dollars between 1990 and 2008 across the Atlantic in non-exporters, while it jumped from 79,000 to 120,000 dollars in industries working for the world market.
Globalization is certainly not a zero sum game in which emerging economies prosper at the expense of old nations. But within each country, certain social groups benefit while others suffer. IMF sees not only a factor of inequality, but also a drag on overall growth: by venting industries, which have much higher potential productivity service activities, the United States and Europe condemned to decline. Not wishing to embark on a highly political terrain, the IMF experts take shelter behind the recommendations of Professor Spence.They are twofold: win back lost industrial jobs by the middle class while practicing a specific social redistribution in favor of the victims of globalization clearly identified.
ALSO READ:
"The use of priority the IMF
"The IMF is concerned about the divisions between the countries