Tuesday, October 18, 2011

information, book, economist

Are economists diplomats? And vice-versa? Is an economic relationship inherently a diplomatic one?

Saskia Sassen, in her book "Losing Control," posits that "economic globalization has reconfigured the intersection of territoriality and sovereignty." With regard to the nation-state's authorities and responsibilities as we have known them in modern times, Sassen recalls a specific situation ("global economic security issue") in Mexico for which the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury was made point-person in lieu of the Secretary of State who would have traditionally been asked to handle the issue. Does this example signal a change in diplomacy from foreign policy to global economy at the level of nation-state governance?

In addition, in "The Undercover Economist," Tim Harford's description of the economist might be read in support of the economist as diplomat. He writes: "That is what economists mean when we say a situation 'could be better.' If we can point to a change that could make at least one person better off, and nobody worse off, we say that the current situation in inefficient, or, in everyday language, that it could be better."

No comments:

Post a Comment