In addition to his academic scholarship, in recent years Professor Slaughter has written many general-interest items for the business and policy communities. This general-interest outreach has included several other activities as well. He has spoken to many audiences in the business and policy communities and has testified before both chambers of the U.S. Congress. His work and ideas have been widely featured in business media such as Business Week, The Economist, Financial Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, The Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. He has been interviewed on many TV and radio programs such as CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight and NPR's Marketplace. |
|
- "Let's Have a Real Debate on Globalization," The Wall Street Journal op-ed, September 26, 2007, Page A21.
Tonight America's eyes will turn to my hometown of Hanover for the next debate among the Democratic presidential candidates. Given the central role New Hampshire plays in presidential politics, this location makes sense. But I am hoping the conversation is not too local. In particular, I would love to hear a question put to all the candidates about two other places: one 665 driving miles from Hanover—Detroit—and the other about 7,500 miles away—China.
- "Faculty Opinion: A New Deal for Globalization," Tuck Today opinion column, Fall 2007.
In March, I returned to Tuck from Washington, D.C., where since the fall of 2005 I had been serving as a member on the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) in the Executive Office of the President. In this Senate-confirmed position, I held the international portfolio, advising policy makers-the president, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson [D'68], Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and others- on issues including international trade and investment, currencies, and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Since my return, the most common question I have gotten is, "So, how was it?" I am of two minds about it.
- "A New Deal for Globalization," with Kenneth F. Scheve, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, pp. 34-47.
Advocates of engagement with the world economy are now warning of a protectionist drift in public policy. Evidence of this drift abounds. Global engagement has generated, and has the potential to continue generating, very large gains for the United States overall and for the rest of the world as well. So what explains the protectionist drift? It is commonly blamed on narrow industry concerns, or a failure to explain globalization's benefits, or the war on terrorism. These explanations miss a more basic point: U.S. policy is becoming more protectionist because the American public is becoming more protectionist, and this shift in attitudes is a result of stagnant or falling incomes for the large majority of Americans. Public support for engagement with the world economy is strongly linked to labor-market performance, and for most workers labor-market performance has recently been poor. When individuals ask, "Is globalization good for me?", increasing numbers are answering, "no." Because the protectionist drift reflects the legitimate concerns of a now large majority of Americans, the policy debate needs fresh thinking. Truly expanding the political support for open borders requires a New Deal for globalization.
- "Happy Birthday, ITA," The Wall Street Journal op-ed, July 17, 2007, p. A17.
There was an American industry that during the generation from 1960 to around 1980 ran rising trade surpluses with the rest of the world. In this industry we imported a rising amount from the rest of the world, but we exported even more to the rest of the world. A very different generation dawned around 1980. Exports continued to grow but imports began to explode. By the late 1980s this industry had fallen back to about trade balance, and thereafter it began to run ever-rising trade deficits. By the year 2000 this trade deficit had reached around $50 billion; today it is in the neighborhood of $60 billion. This is the history of which U.S. industry?
- "Succeeding in the Global Economy: A New Policy Agenda for the American Worker," with Grant D. Aldonas and Robert Z. Lawrence, The Financial Services Forum policy research report, June 2007.
Political pressure for a more protectionist tilt to U.S. economic policy has risen significantly in the past year. This protectionist drift reflects a public increasingly skeptical about whether globalization benefits them. Today many American workers feel anxious—about change, and about weak or nonexistent income growth. These concerns are real, widespread, and legitimate. The goal of this report is to discuss the economic forces driving this policy drift away from global engagement, and then to offer a set of innovative policies for both the government and private sector aimed at arresting this drift. We focus our proposals on fostering for the United States an open economy that attracts globally engaged companies whose nexus of productivity-enhancing activities yield high-quality, good-paying jobs. Our policy proposals draw on what are commonly considered domestic economic policy tools, rather than the tools of trade policy that are the focus of much of the current political debate, because globalization has largely erased distinction between domestic and international economic policy. We propose a menu of policy innovations designed to better facilitate adjustment by workers, communities, and firms, and to ensure that American workers benefit more broadly from our participation in a global economy.
- "Yuan Worries," The Wall Street Journal op-ed, May 22, 2007, p. A15.
Fact 1: China runs a large and growing trade surplus with the United States. In 2006, the goods-trade surplus exceeded $232 billion. This was an increase from 2005 of $31 billion, an amount larger than the entire deficit just 12 years ago. Fact 2: China focuses its monetary policy on fixing the exchange value of its currency, the yuan, relative to the U.S. dollar. Many policymakers and pundits connect these two facts by asserting that an unfairly low value of the dollar-yuan peg is causing the massive bilateral trade imbalance. These misgivings about the dollar-yuan peg are misplaced.
- "Insourcing Jobs: Making the Global Economy Work for America," Organization for International Investment research report, October 2004.
Today there is a rising outcry against the global engagement of the American economy and forces such as outsourcing. What has been almost entirely absent from this discussion about outsourcing is the converse dimension of globalization. This process is called "insourcing," i.e., the expansion into the United States by foreign-headquartered multinational firms. This report tells the story of how in recent decades the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies have deepened their engagement in the U.S. economy. While this report tells the story of the important contributions of insourcing companies, it also carries a note of caution. There has never been a guarantee that the world's best companies would invest in the United States. This is even more true today, with the new and dynamic engagement of countries like China and India into the world economy. Looking ahead, the United States must increase its efforts to ensure that it remains an attractive place for global companies to invest.
- "The Life-Cycle of a Minority Owned Business: Implications for the American Economy," with Andrew B. Bernard, Minority Business Development Agency white paper, 2004.
The United States today faces unprecedented demographic changes, the net result of which will be dramatic changes in the size and racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. labor force. In future decades the U.S. labor force will grow much more slowly than in the past, and any growth that is realized will be accounted for entirely by minorities-whose growth, in turn, will be accounted for largely by immigrants. The success or failure of minority-owned businesses will increasingly drive the success or failure of the overall U.S. economy. We propose an agenda for new research, in which minority business owners and managers must be made full partners.
- "Technology, Investment, and Trade: The Public Opinion Disconnect," Emergency Committee for American Trade research report, 2002.
This study examines the relationship between trade and investment and the growth in the production and use of information and communication technology (ICT) products. The incentives for companies to produce and/or use ICT technologies depend crucially on the ability of these companies to integrate these technologies into their trade and investment activities worldwide. Trade and investment play a critical role in fostering the growth of and the demand for ICT in ways that support increased productivity and economic growth. Despite the preponderance of evidence that the production and use of ICT products are intricately linked with trade and investment, there is a wide gulf separating American public opinions about ICT products on the one hand and trade and investment on the other. This split in attitudes is unwarranted. Those interested in the continued production and use of ICT products need to be interested in the continued liberalization of trade and investment policies.
-
"Global Investment, American Returns," Emergency Committee for American Trade research report, 1998.
By raising U.S. worker productivity, American companies with global operations help raise the U.S. standard of living. Because the foreign and U.S. activities of these companies tend to complement each other, the ability of these companies to help raise U.S. living standards depends crucially on their ability to undertake foreign direct investment (FDI) abroad. By examining both comprehensive U.S. government statistics and a number of individual-company case studies, the key message is that investments abroad by American-headquartered multinational firms often yield American returns.
|
|
