And yet what a journey he's had! From being the EU trade commissioner to the de facto prime minister of the UK during the dying days of Brown's ill-fated time as PM, Mandelson can never be accused of being dull. I also find it remarkable that while Blair and Brown's underlings have subsequently bashed them to the high heavens, you don't see Mandy's acolytes doing the same. Perhaps the erstwhile Prince of Darkness commands loyalty through his actions.
Now, a few weeks ago Peter Mandelson came out swinging in his sort-of-retirement years against giving up on globalization in the pages of the FT. As you would expect, I was generally in agreement with what he had to say. Now, though, he's fleshed out more details in arguing that managing the social consequences via the third way has given way to the older question of defining the scope of globalization. In The Globalist, he begins by describing the age of high neoliberalism:
The two serious attempts to govern globalization in the first two-thirds of the 20th century — negatively through isolationistic, autarkic policies during the 1930s, and more positively through the Bretton Woods system between 1945 and the early 1970s — were both accounted to be failures. So we embarked on a third attempt — not to govern globalization as such, but to actively expand its reach.With the benefit of hindsight, Lord Mandy is backtracking and looks to salvage the more acceptable elements of contemporary globalization. All the while, better representation is necessary to improve the image of globalization:
The attempt at creating true governance structures was restricted chiefly to managing the social and economic consequences rather than trying to define and impose the desirable scope of globalization itself. To some extent this approach was intellectually underwritten by the IMF, World Bank and OECD, and in many — but not by any means all — of the economics departments and business schools of Western universities. In the Anglo-Saxon world, it simply became the conventional wisdom.
Looking back, we can see that this approach did neither us, nor globalization itself, any favors. First, it was intellectually abstract and inflexible. In political terms, it often ignored the basic fact that preserving the conditions of open trade and open global markets is possible in a democracy only if we make those conditions sufficiently tolerable and beneficial that people do not vote to end them. Second, it oversold globalization, and ultimately made it harder to make a pragmatic case for openness.
It is not enough to pretend that globalization is simply irreversible and has to be tolerated. The reversals of the 1930s show that the direction of globalization can be changed by political and economic choices over which we have no shortage of control — if we choose to take them.
In the increasingly multipolar world in which we live, it is arguable that no single world view will emerge to define the way we manage globalization. But while the end of a world in which the West dictated the terms of globalization is not necessarily a tragedy, a world without a shared set of principles for managing globalization would be. I am not naïve about the prospects for global governance, but I would argue for new rules accepted by developing and developed countries alike, because "no rules" is not a sustainable option.It's good stuff from Peter Mandelson, who is honest enough to admit where policy shortcomings lay. For more, see a recent Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) publication that Mandelson helped in preparing about globalization.
