Podcast appearances and mentions of Richard Baldwin

What if trade policy wasn't really about trade at all? What if it was about revenge, power, and punishment, tariffs as tantrums and diplomacy as drama? You won't find the Grievance Doctrine in economics textbooks, but there is one book that explains what it is, what its policies are, and the way it is currently being implemented. Richard Baldwin of IMD Business School in Lausanne, the founder and the Editor-in-Chief of VoxEU is also the author of “The Great Trade Hack”. In it, he sets out the way the Grievance Doctrine has been weaponised by this US administration, how the rest of the world could respond, and what might happen next. Richard joins Tim Phillips to explain the thinking that guides policy one of the most extraordinary periods in the history of trade – and why the rest of world will do just fine without the US as an ally. Download The Great Trade Hack.

Donald Trump's tariffs are a twentieth century tool that simply won't work in the 21st century global trading system. That's the view of today's guest, Richard Baldwin, professor of international economics at the IMD Business School in Lausanne, Switzerland. Speaking to the FT's Martin Wolf, Baldwin explains how the shift towards global manufacturing supply chains since the 1990s, and the more recent explosion in digital services exports, mean that the impact of across-the-board import taxes such as the ones proposed by the new US administration will be counterproductive and much more limited than in the past. Nonetheless, should we still worry about the harm that Trump's policies may be doing to the global trading system, and how should other countries respond?Martin Wolf is chief economics commentator at the Financial Times. You can find his column hereSubscribe to The Economics Show on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This September, during the WTO Public Forum, we looked at the WTO's achievements since 1995, and what lies ahead for the world trading system. Discussions began with a plenary called “Re-globalization: Trade in a Geopoliticized World”, co-organized with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and it brought together five of the most respected voices in international economics, to reflect on how trade remains a source of opportunities, jobs, and peaceful development, and how it benefits billions of citizens all over the world.Watch the full session here.Speakers in this podcast:Richard Baldwin, moderatorNonresident Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) Ngozi Okonjo-IwealaDirector-General, World Trade OrganizationAnabel GonzálezVice President for Countries, Inter-American Development Bank Cecilia MalmströmNonresident Senior Fellow , Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) Mari PangestuDistinguished Visiting Fellow and former Indonesia's Minister of Trade, Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) Adam PosenPresident, Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) Xiaozhun YiFormer Deputy Director General, World Trade OrganizationHost: Javier GutiérrezCounsellor in External Relations, World Trade Organization

The Weekly Tradecast talks to Richard Baldwin – professor at IMD Business School and an expert on globalization – for his insights on the big economic shifts from manufacturing to services and what they mean for developing countries. Services have proven to be resilient to crises in recent years and are growing rapidly — offering opportunities to developing countries for growth in jobs, incomes, investment and trade. Tune in for more on these big shifts from Richard Baldwin, who the Financial Times calls "one of the most important thinkers in this era of global disruption".

Foundations of Amateur Radio The origin of our amateur bands It's hard to imagine today, but there was a time when there was no such thing as either the 80m or the 20m amateur band, let alone 2m or 70cm. Picture this. It's the roaring 20's, the 1920's that is. Among a Jazz Age burst of economic prosperity, modern technology, such as automobiles, moving pictures, social and cultural dynamism, the peak of Art Deco, we're also in the middle of a radio boom where the world is going crazy buying radios as fast as they can be constructed, there are hundreds of licensed broadcasters, the bands are getting crowded, radio amateurs have been banned from the lucrative radio spectrum above 200 meters, and can only play in the "useless short waves" using frequencies greater than 1,500 kHz. And play they did. On the 2nd May 1925 amateurs proved they could communicate with any part of the world at any time of the day or night when Ernest J. Simmonds G2OD and Charles Maclurcan A2CM made a daylight contact between Meadowlea, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, England, and Strathfield, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia on what we now call the 20m band. This contact occurred not once, but regularly, for several days, using 100 Watts. To give you a sense of just how big news of this feat was, on the second scheduled contact the Prime Minister of Australia, Stanley Bruce, sent a message to England's Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin: "On occasion of this achievement Australia sends greetings." If you recall, the IARU, the International Amateur Radio Union, was a fortnight old at this point. Less than a year later contact was made using voice. Between the banning of radio amateurs from frequencies below 1,500 kHz at the London International Radiotelegraph Conference in 1912 and the Washington International Radiotelegraph Conference in 1927 the world had irrevocably changed. In 1912 the discussion was almost all about ship to shore communication. By 1927, the world had tube transmitters, amplitude voice modulation, higher frequencies and what the 1993 IARU President, Richard Baldwin, W1RU calls, "literally an explosion in the use of the radio-frequency spectrum". In 1927 individual countries were beginning to control the use of spectrum, but there was no universal coordination, no international radio regulation and as we all know, radio waves don't stop at the border. Richard W1RU, writing in 1993 says: "In retrospect, the Washington conference of 1927 was a remarkable effort. It created the framework of international radio regulation that exists even today. It had to recognize and provide for a multitude of radio services, including the Amateur Service. It was at this conference that amateur radio was for the first time internationally recognized and defined. Bands of harmonically related frequencies were allocated to the various radio services, including the Amateur Service." While the IARU was two years old, it really hadn't represented amateur radio on the international stage, until now. The 1927 conference defined an "amateur" as a "duly authorised person interested in radio electric practice with a purely personal aim and without pecuniary interest." The harmonically related frequencies that were allocated to the Amateur Service are recognisable today. I'll use current band names to give you some context. 1,715 kHz to 2 MHz, or 160m, 3.5 to 4 MHz, or 80m, 7 to 7.3 MHz or 40m, 14 to 14.4 MHz or 20m, 28 to 30 MHz or 10m, and 56 to 60 MHz or 6m. Of those, the 20m and 80m bands were exclusive to amateurs. The 10m and 6m bands were shared with experimenters and the 160m and 80m bands were shared with fixed and mobile services. You'll notice the absence of bands we use today, the 2m and 70cm bands, 15m and the so-called WARC bands to name a few. The final ratified document goes into great detail about the requirements, the restrictions, how to deal with interference, how to allocate frequencies and numerous other provisions, many of which will look familiar, almost a hundred years later, if you've ever looked at the rules and regulations under which you operate as a licensed amateur today. There were various radio amateurs at the 1927 conference, but as Richard W1RU puts it: "much of the credit for the success of amateur radio at that conference has to go to two representatives of ARRL -- Hiram Percy Maxim, president of ARRL; and Kenneth B. Warner, Secretary and General Manager of ARRL." While Richard points to their roles in the ARRL, you might recall that Hiram was elected international president of the IARU and Kenneth its international secretary-treasurer. Whichever way you look at it, whichever organisation you credit, today we have amateur bands thanks to those efforts made nearly a century ago. I'm Onno VK6FLAB

Send a message to the showA few things to remember: John O'Keefe is dead. His family hasn't been able to properly mourn (nor has Karen Read) and this is a horrible place for a family to be.There are kids involved. John O'Keefe was the guardian and main caregiver to his niece and nephew that in no way asked for or deserved to be at the center of this nightmare. There is a lot of scrutiny surrounding the John O'Keefe murder trial.Karen Read is not a stupid woman. She's a member of the faculty at Bentley, in their Finance Dept  for the last 16 years. She works (or worked) for Fidelity Investments in Equity Research and was a Financial Analyst. There has been so much pre-trial publicity that it may be impossible for her to be looked at fairly. This case is simply bananas. The more I learn about it, the more questions I have, beginning with What the hell happened at 34 Fairview in Canton in the early hours of January 29, 2022?We know eastern Massachusetts was in the grips of a major snowstorm. Turns out, it was a blizzard. Boston got 23.5 inches of snow that Saturday at Logan Airport, making January 29, 2022 the second largest January storm every recorded in the city. The seventh biggest snowstorm of all time in Boston's recorded history.The temperature dropped to 21 degrees. This had to have hampered the investigation. There were the red solo cups, the grocery bag, that leaf blower - very Tarantino. I watched some of the testimony this week and I checked in with Dubs, the True Crime Bloodhound, to help me out with this week's big happenings. --- Justice for Beth Brodie | Event linkHer killer is seeking parole, hearing is Thurs May 16 at the Massachusetts Parole Offices in Natick. Write a letter. Stand with us. Visit JusticeforBethBrodie.com - Write the parole board and tell them No Parole for Richard Baldwin, W56202.Justice for Janet Downing. Her killer is seeking parole on Tues 6/25 Friday, May 17 is Children's Advocacy Day at the State House from 11am-1pm.Join us at Great Hall | Event Link Thanks to Dubs of True Crime Bloodhound | Substack | YouTubeSupport the Show.Follow Instagram | Facebook | Twitter X | TikTok | Threads | YouTube For show notes and source information, visit CrimeoftheTruestKind.comThis podcast has minimal profanity but from time to time you get an f-bomb.Become a patron: Patreon.com/crimeofthetruestkind Music included in episodes from Joe "onlyone" Kowalski - Joe Got A New Heart FundDug McCormack's Math Ghosts. and Shredding by Andrew King

Contact the showEpisode 63 is a walk through the frenzy that is called "The Canton Cover-up" by some, others see it as a national spectacle. Canton, the small town 15 miles south of the city of Boston, is no stranger to tragedy. Three and a half decades ago, sweet, trusting 14-year-old Shawn Ouillette was lured into the woods, beaten, and left for dead. His 14-year-old schoolmate and eventual killer said no one would miss him. He wanted to know what it was like. To kill. That was 1986. Shawn is still missed by all who love him. His killer, Rod Matthews, remains in prison.  Fast forward to present day. The events surrounding John O'Keefe's death have split this same small town in two. The case of a 46-year-old surrogate father to his sister's orphaned kids and 16-year veteran of the Boston Police Department is a shit show to no fault of his own. Lost, as is always the case, is the victim themselves. John O'Keefe was so beloved that a GoFundMe fundraising page set up for his niece and nephew after he died, had raised more than $245,000 within its first 24 hours. Karen Read, 44, who was John O'Keefe's longtime girlfriend, was arrested within days of his death and charged with drunkenly backing into him in her SUV in a snowstorm and leaving him to bleed out and freeze to death. Read has amassed a group of supporters in what some locals refer to as a "frame job" against her by a bunch of dirty townie cops, staties, FBI agents, and DAs. The cases I refer to in this episode include: Jeffrey Curley, Cambridge, Mass, he was 10 when he was taken by a neighbor with the promise of a bike, abused and killed in 1997, his murderers were put away by then-prosecutor, David Yannetti, who is now defending Read.Beth Brodie, Groveland, Mass, 1992, she was 15 when a boy who demanded her affection planned an attack with a bat and killed her in a neighbor's bedroom. Visit JusticeforBethBrodie.com - her killer is up for parole, the hearing is Thurs, May 16 in Natick. Write the parole board and tell them No Parole for Richard Baldwin, W56202 Molly Bish, Warren, Mass, 2000 - she was 16 when she disappeared from her lifeguard job at Comins Pond. Her remains were found 3 years later in nearby Palmer. The Bishes began Missing Children's Day to honor Molly and other missing kids. We meet on Fri, May 17 at Massachusetts State House in Boston. Thanks to Dubs of True Crime Bloodhound | Subtack | Support the Show.Follow Instagram | Facebook | Twitter X | TikTok | Threads | YouTube For show notes and source information, visit CrimeoftheTruestKind.comThis podcast has minimal profanity but from time to time you get an f-bomb.Become a patron: Patreon.com/crimeofthetruestkind Music included in episodes from Joe "onlyone" Kowalski - Joe Got A New Heart FundDug McCormack's Math Ghosts. and Shredding by Andrew King

On this episode of Trade Splaining, hosts Ardian Mollabeciri and Robert Skidmore are joined by Richard Baldwin, author and Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, Switzerland joins Trade Splaining once again to discuss how what advances in AI like ChatGPT mean for his past predictions on the future of work and international trade, his takeaways from Davos and more. Ardian and Rob also touch base on the state of export controls and green subsidies as well as the state of play at the WTO...and snow-shoe-ing TS producer Michelle Olguin Fluckliger is also back to give her thoughts on the vibe shift happening right under Boomers and Gen X's noses. Also big thanks as usual to Valentina Saponara for helping produce this episode!

What are Global Value Chains and why have they become important in global trade? What are the factors impending India's integration into GVCs? This week in Puliyabaazi, we try to understand policies for improving India's integration into global supply chains with economist and Visiting Professor at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) Dr. Saon Ray.  इस हफ्ते हमने बात की ICRIER की प्रोफ़ेसर शावन रे के साथ ये समझने की लिए कि आखिर ये Global Value Chains है क्या और भारत की इन में हिस्सेदारी कैसे बढ़ाई जाए? If you like our conversations, please like, subscribe and share them with others. For more: Global value chains and the missing links, book by Saon Ray and Smita Miglani https://amzn.eu/d/bNVQMTV Global supply chains: why they emerged, why they matter, and where they are going - a paper by Richard Baldwin Risks and Global Supply Chains: What We Know and What We Need to Know - paper by Richard Baldwin and Rebecca FreemanWrite to us at puliyabaazi@gmail.com Hosts: @saurabhchandra @pranaykotas @thescribblebee Puliyabaazi is on these platforms: Twitter: @puliyabaazi Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/puliyabaazi/Subscribe & listen to the podcast on iTunes, Google Podcasts, Castbox, AudioBoom, YouTube, Spotify or any other podcast app.Related episodes: सरकारी काबिलियत लोकनीति को कैसे प्रभावित करती है? Public Policy in India ft. Ajay Shahhttps://youtu.be/mvotEDOOdeA श्रम कानून में सुधार कैसे लाया जाए? Reforming India's Labour Laws ft. Bhuvana Anand https://youtu.be/WlSLs_DjcfY Jairam Ramesh on the 1991 Reforms, Narratives in Economic Policy Making, and more https://youtu.be/zplBxm9fWlASee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

India Policy Watch #1: Winning The Long GameInsights on current policy issues in India — RSJMany moons ago I sat down for lunch with someone who is often referred to in the media as a ‘doyen of the industry'. Among other things, I asked him the single most important advice he would give to anyone who is at the start of their career. I didn't have any burning desire to succeed in the corporate rat race. So, I wasn't looking for a life-changing insight. I asked it because custom demanded you ask such questions of doyens like him over a meal. Also, even back then I was aware that I should fill my pitaara with such stories because sometime in future I could use them to make myself appear interesting. Anyway, he squinted at me and with something that appeared close to conviction told me, “always defer gratification”. I nodded and pronged a moody forkful of Aglio e Olio. Instant gratification.Over the years I have come to appreciate that piece of advice. Running a successful business over the long term is all about how well you trade off short-term gains with doing what's right for long-term sustainability. The odds are stacked against you because most of your shareholders, the analysts and the media are measuring you on quarterly performance. You can put out a convincing long-term story that will deliver a big, deferred outcome but how can anyone be sure you're headed that way? Any short-term wobble can have people question you. It is tough to live a life of deferred gratification. I haven't followed it to any meaningful extent in my life. Nor do I think even the doyen has done so since that meeting. But having understood how difficult deferring gratification could be, I appreciate how important it is for long-term success in any field of human endeavour. And, of course, that includes public policy in case you are wondering why am I channelling my inner Deepak Chopra and inflicting random truisms on you. OPS versus NPSThis problem of grasping short-term gains while jeopardising the long-term has been running on my mind for the past few months as I see the spectre of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) returning as a key election promise in the manifestos of Congress and AAP in state elections. There are two issues that I have been thinking about. First, what drives a political party to make a bonfire of the future for a questionable short-term electoral gain? And I'm picking on the OPS issue and these two parties only to illustrate this point. Every party in India has done this in the past. The abandoning of the farm laws was an instance of this. So, the question is what prompts a political party to do this and, importantly, why does the average voter get seduced by this? The other question is what can be done to change the incentives of the parties to do this? In other words, how can we make sure political parties learn to defer gratification? But before I get into them, let me give you a short overview of what's happening with the demand for OPS and the problem with states returning to it while abandoning the New pension Scheme (NPS). The Congress governments in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have already gone back to OPS and it has promised the same in its manifesto in Himachal and Gujarat. Not to be outdone, AAP plans to return to OPS in Punjab and might make it a plank in Gujarat. Nothing catches the imagination of our politicians like a bad economic idea, so we now have the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, the RSS-affiliated trade union wing of the ruling BJP, demanding the same from the FM. As Business Standard reports:“National General Secretary of BMS, Ravindra Himte told IANS that during the meeting with Sitharaman, the organisation has urged the Finance Minister to restore the old pension system, increase the amount of minimum pension from Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 and to provide better health facilities to retired people under the Ayushman Bharat scheme.The BMS has also urged the Finance Minister to strengthen the social security scheme for workers and to take various other steps to protect the interests of the weaker section of the society.”For context, there are nine state elections scheduled for 2023. Pension of state government workers is a state subject. They can claim they have the mandate of the people to change this if they win using this as one of their key poll planks. Pension is a way to provide social security to workers following their retirement. A simple way to design a pension scheme is for an organisation to promise workers: upon retirement, we will continue paying, say 50 per cent, of your last drawn salary till you die. This is simple and intuitive. The worker has served the organisation for long and you reciprocate that loyalty by taking care of them after retirement. A few years of this scheme and you will soon have a reasonable request from the retired workers. The pension provided isn't keeping up with the inflation. The last drawn wage about a decade back is hardly worth anything now and a pension indexed to that is unfair to the worker. What do you do as a welfare-minded employer? You offer to index the wage to the revised pay scale that's prevalent now. So, the pension drawn by a worker is no longer 50 per cent of their wage when they were last working in the organisation. It is now 50 per cent of the wage of anyone doing the same job now to keep up with inflation. This is all good though a bit onerous. However, if you fast-forward this by a couple of decades, you will reach an uncomfortable scenario. The number of people who have retired from the organisation is now, say, equal to the number of people who are currently working. Those who have retired are drawing a pension that's 50 per cent of the existing pay scale. Simply put, if the total wages paid to working employees is Rs. 100, the pension paid to retired employees is Rs. 50. A third of the total wage bill is allocated to pension. Another decade and you might have two-thirds of the wage bill being taken up by pension. This is a problem in many ways. First, the working employee is continuing to take additional burden to pay for the ever-increasing number of retired employees. The incentive to be productive for the current employee keeps going down when they know the lion's share of any productivity gain will go to the retired pool. The organization continues to be weighed down by the pension bill. It finds it difficult to attract new talent because it cannot match market wage rates offered by newer companies that don't have such a pension bill. It also cannot invest in new products and innovations because the pension bill keeps rising. Unless the employer is the State, in which case, it can print money, increase its debt and keep paying for pension, there's really only one end state to this. The organization will go bankrupt because of its pension burden. This is not a hypothetical scenario. A whole generation of great American companies went down this path including the giant automakers of Detroit. The OPS that is being revived in many states in India is exactly this scheme. In 2004, the Union government introduced a New Pension Scheme (NPS) to avoid exactly this fate. The NPS model is quite simple. It is what is called a defined contribution model. The worker sets aside a small percentage of their salary every year towards a pension fund. The government matches that amount by making its own contribution from its coffers. This means there's an additional wage burden for the government during that year. This amount goes into a pension fund which is managed by professional fund houses regulated by the PFRDA. The fund houses have fairly rigid investment rules that prohibit them from investing in speculative assets. This ‘accumulation phase' continues till the employee retires. At the time of retirement, there's a nice little corpus that's built up. The employee can then take out, say 40 per cent of the corpus for their immediate need, the remaining amount moves into an annuity product where a fixed amount is paid out every year like a salary. Over the years the NPS scheme has been taken up by all Union government employees and gradually all state governments adopted it too. The professional fund houses that manage the NPS funds report annualised returns that have always been better than the Provident Fund (managed by the government) returns or even the best of mutual fund managers. And the first generation of retirees who use the NPS can vouch that the annuity they get has kept pace with inflation without having to wage-index their pension to the revised pay scale. This a beautiful solution that frees up the government from having a pension burden on its balance sheet after the retirement of the worker. No longer are current employees paying for the pension of the previous generation. In fact, we have often quoted the transition to NPS as one of the more successful public policy examples in India.Now, we want to undo it. There's really never been a clamour for OPS. But if you go around telling retired or near-to-retirement employees that we will give you a higher-paying pension scheme by taking you back to OPS, you might find some traction. Even if the numbers don't bear you out. Few voters will ask you how will you foot the bill. If the current and future employees don't see that eventually, they will be paying for this largesse, you might be able to convince every working employee that this will work better for them. I don't think we are there yet but I never bet against the popularity of a bad economic policy. They have tremendous seductive appeal. The Difficulty In Choosing Deferred GratificationThis is just another example where there are short-term pains in implementing a policy that will yield outsized long-term benefits. We could do that by implementing the NPS in 2004. Now, we are on the reverse. We want to implement a policy that might have short-term gains for a few but huge long-term costs for everyone. There are other similar policy questions in a democracy. How should we think about climate change? Should we take costly actions now by punishing polluting industries and impacting job creation while waiting for the benefits of these actions to pan out over decades? Or, how about increasing taxes today to rebuild roads and public infrastructure that will benefit society thirty years later? How should a political party think about these issues when their incentive is to win elections that happen every four or five years? Are democracies doomed to pick policies that are good in the short run but damaging in the long term because of this flaw?This intertemporal trade-off between maximizing societal welfare now and investing for the future is a vexing issue for political parties in a democracy. What I want to do is to understand the reasons for this trade-off being skewed in favour of short-term value maximisation and see if there's a way to engineer a choice architecture for the public that redresses it. I can think of four reasons why the skew exists.Firstly, there's the commitment problem among political parties. People are never convinced that a political party will stay the course on a particular policy. This is borne out of experience. Parties are less guided by economic ideology these days. The same set of politicians who might advocate a higher tax today and ask you to tighten your belts may change their tune tomorrow when they sense a change in the air. Also, politicians aren't permanent. There is turnover among them within a party itself. And the newer set might renege on previous commitments. So, for the citizens, paying short-term costs because you believe in the political commitment of a party now is fraught with risks.Secondly, forecasting is difficult. There's the fog of uncertainty and lack of adequate information to accurately predict these benefits. It is easier for a voter to use past performance as a guide to the future than predict it based on the impact of a new policy. The average voter anyway has only limited cognitive mind space for public policy. They might be able to think only about present outcomes with some clarity. This encourages politicians to think of policies that are typically myopic. Further, this information challenge means even if voters and the government say they care about the future, their actions will continue to be shortsighted. Separately, even those who are trained in public policy to think about the intertemporal trade-off can struggle to make accurate assumptions about the future. We live in a world that's more volatile and ambiguous than before. To predict the future and the societal context that will emerge then is a risky proposition. For the policymaker, it is optimal to maximise a more certain near-term than go out on a limb for the distant future. Thirdly, we have the old problem of concentrated benefits and diffused costs. It is natural for a smaller group for whom the benefits of a policy are concentrated to organise themselves and demand its implementation. The converse of this is also true. Any policy action where the short-term costs are to be borne by a small but organised group while the benefits will emerge over time for the wider society will get scuttled by this group. The repeal of the farm laws was an example of this. Even if the short-term pain and the long-term gains both accrue to this small group, they will oppose it. Because a better alternative for them is to redistribute the short-term pain to everyone while securing the long-term benefits for themselves. Or, to continue with the status quo.Finally, we have the problem of political parties that have either run out of ideas or who want to make a dent in new electoral terrain. To them getting a foothold through the aid of a myopic policy is worth the price. After all, they have many other policies that are better for society, which they might rationalise. Or, it is a question of survival and how does long-term matter if you will cease to exist then. This is what explains the actions of AAP and Congress on OPS. Is There A Way Out?So how does a policymaker counter these? I have a few suggestions, some of which might seem Machiavellian.First, there are ways to take the sting out of short-term costs. A deft policymaker can obfuscate some of the costs by making their calculations more complex (say, in the design of an auction or a tax) that is difficult for the voter to understand. The idea is to reduce the overt display of the cost to be paid in the short-term. The other option is to impose the short-term costs in a phased manner or in specific cohorts (‘grandfathering' certain beneficiaries for some time). There is a whole field of behavioural economics that can be used to nudge the voter towards a certain action like loss avoidance. The other way to do this is to diffuse the responsibility of who is imposing the short-term costs among many agents of the state including the government, independent regulators, corporates, local bodies or international treaties. This fragmentation of power and diffusion of the blame can make it easier to take difficult calls. They can take the sting out of the costs to be paid for future benefits. Second, there are ways in which the long-term gains can be crystallised into something more tangible in the present. There are ways in which some of the future payoffs can be advanced through well-choreographed pilots. This is particularly true for infrastructure investments where the example of a few recent successes can be talked up and few well-timed benefits early on in the investment process can convince the citizens of the long-term benefits. The other way to think about it is to play up the huge long-term consequences of not acting now with any small evidence in the present being used to project a terrible future. This is how climate change activists are playing the game today where any minor aberration in weather patterns anywhere in the world is used to proclaim ‘climate change is real'. You might disagree with them on principle but their approach to building public support is right. Third, we come to making political commitments sticky for the future so that voters are more willing to support taking short-term pain. The way to go about is to make any reversal of course difficult by making a policy difficult to dismantle. This can be achieved by placing exit barriers while implementing a policy that could include multiple players and steps whose consent would be needed to roll back a policy. They could have veto powers to stop such rollbacks. The more the institutional fragmentation, the higher the barrier to exit. Other means could be adopted too like making an amendment to the law or constitution or setting up a new independent authority to institutionalise a policy. By having such players whose incentives are aligned with long-term benefits promised in the policy, one can create a significant hurdle. The costs of reneging on a commitment go up significantly. Lastly, how do we counter the small but organised interests that might scuttle a policy because they don't want to take the short-term pain? In most cases, the problem here is how do we mobilise the larger group for whom the benefits are diffused and in the long-term to counter the smaller but highly motivated group? One of the ways to think about this is to choose a smaller subset from the larger group whose benefits (or costs in case the policy isn't chosen) might have greater salience for the group. For instance, talking about children and the future of our planet makes it easier to focus on the costs of not making climate change investments today. The ability to show with clarity that the redistribution of benefits of a policy that imposes costs on current beneficiaries and favours a future group is crucial in winning the battle of minds. The benefits are often spoken in abstract terms over a larger group than making it very specific for a focused smaller group. If that's done well, you get a countervailing force against the small, organised group that wants to retain the status quo.The intertemporal policy choice is crucial to ensure democracies don't lapse into the most shortsighted policy recommendations because that's what gets instant mass approval. The wise man who told me to ‘always defer gratification' gave me the best career advice. Unfortunately, he didn't tell me how to do it. I suspect he didn't know it too. Because it is tough.    For more on the Pension issue, check these editions:* Pension Tension in edition #174* Pension Troubles are Back in edition#162* A Framework a Week: Understanding Cognitive Maps in edition #62Thanks for reading Anticipating the Unintended! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.India Policy Watch #2: The Cats See Through the Monkey's TrickInsights on domestic policy issues— Pranay KotasthaneIn edition #131, I wrote that India's fiscal federalism resembles the monkey and the two cats fable. While states fight amongst each other to corner a higher share of the total money devolved to them, the Union government can go scot-free even as it appropriates nearly 60 per cent of the divisible pool resources, raises new cesses, and uses a part of these funds to run its own centrally sponsored schemes. This focus on horizontal devolution (the formula used for sharing resources between states) masks the far more serious problems of vertical devolution (how money is split between the Union government and all states as a whole).Given this starting point, one news item from the past week caught my attention. State Finance Ministers (FMs) in the pre-budget consultation meeting with the Union FM highlighted the problems with the vertical devolution regime. Their criticisms and suggestions can be summarised as follows:* Increase states' share in goods and services tax (GST) to 60 per cent from 50 per cent at present. * Merge cesses and surcharges with the existing taxes so that states are not deprived of their share, and* Rationalise the expenditure under centrally sponsored schemes. The Tamil Nadu FM said that "All states, irrespective of political parties, expressed a common theme -- states' fiscal autonomy is greatly constrained by the extent of centrally sponsored schemes, by the extent of changing ratios of funding of such schemes”.Let's focus on the first suggestion, which seems to be a reform pathway for India's fiscal federalism. What should we make of it? First up, a clarification. The 50 per cent share that the state FMs highlighted refers to the rate of taxation and not the share of total GST collections. If you check any bill, the GST is split equally into two halves — SGST (which remains with the states) and IGST (which goes into the total divisible pool to be split between Union and state governments). Since 42 per cent of IGST is again devolved to states using the Finance Commission formula for vertical devolution, states already get about 70 per cent of the total GST collections. If the proposed change were to be made, the states' share in GST will further rise to 76.8 per cent, according to former J&K Finance Minister Haseeb Drabu. Keeping this important clarification aside, the suggestion to increase the share of SGST by 10 per cent is excellent. As I have argued earlier, any fiscal reform that increases general purpose transfers to states increases their autonomy and allows them to decide their own priorities. In a country where the GSDP per capita of the richest state (Goa) is nearly ten times that of the poorest (Bihar), one-size-fits-all schemes run from Delhi can hardly be expected to be effective. However, the proposed reform in its current form will be dead on arrival. There's nothing in it that would motivate the Union government to change its stance, and nor are states promising anything at their end in return. With some conditionalities, this reform can be made to work in the overall interest of citizens.One, states should commit to sharing a fixed percentage of their increased SGST share with local governments. State governments cannot always play victims. They are simultaneously culpable in strangling the finances of local governments. An increase in the SGST share can act as a useful incentive mechanism to fix this crucial flaw in our fiscal federalism.Two, states should commit to a fixed increase in capital expenditure. The increased fiscal space can easily be frittered away by states. Three states switching back to the costly Old Pension System that burdens future generations is a case in point. Hence, an increase in the states' GST share should be made conditional on improving the quality of expenditure.Three, the increased SGST share should be accompanied by a sunsetting of centrally sponsored schemes. This will create fiscal space for the Union government to focus on higher-level functions: defence, trade, manufacturing competitiveness, higher education, and R&D. Admittedly, this change would be the toughest part of the bargain. The Union government runs so many centrally sponsored schemes precisely because it is politically beneficial for parties to portray that our day-to-day requirements are solved directly only by the largesse of the occupant of the 7, Lok Kalyan Marg. A move away from this low-level equilibrium would need immense political capital. To make this idea palatable, a move to the 60:40 sharing can be made optional. Only states that agree to the above three conditions can transition to the new regime. The rest can continue to be stuck with the older compromise. In sum, the proposed reform merits serious discussion. Advertisement: Here's an awesome opportunity for mid-career professionals who missed out on learning the liberal arts.Global Policy Watch: Myth-busting Reservations About Global Supply ChainsInsights on global issues relevant to India— Pranay KotasthaneGeopolitics is trumping geoeconomics the world over. The good old days when international trade was unapologetically perceived as a positive-sum game are past us. Countries are pursuing expensive industrial policies across sectors, by labelling everything from the display screen of your phone to the apps on it as “strategic”. In this worldview, one constant villain is Global Supply Chains (GSCs). The dominant narrative seems to be that shorter and more domestic GSCs are more reliable, and hence government intervention to snip these GSCs is desirable.But what does the evidence suggest? A few recent papers inject some sense into the ongoing debate. In this section, I will summarise key insights from them, and link out to more readings on GSCs.The one economist to read on GSCs is Richard Baldwin. His 2012 paper Global supply chains: why they emerged, why they matter, and where they are going covers the foundational concepts lucidly. It delivers one insight after another, busting many myths in the process. Sample this:“Globalisation is often viewed as driven by the gradual lowering of natural and man-made trade costs. This is a serious misunderstanding. Globalisation has been driven by advances in two very different types of ‘connective' technologies: transportation and transmission.” …In Balwin's view, the first unbundling of globalisation was made possible by steam and made profitable by scale economies and comparative-advantage-led separation. The second unbundling was made possible by information communication technologies and made profitable by wage differences. There's a lot more in the paper that I'm still processing. Do give it a read.Meanwhile, his latest paper with Rebecca Freeman investigates if the current structure of GSCs is too “risky”. They acknowledge that the recent challenges—COVID-19, climate change and geopolitical tussles—are of a global scale and will likely reshape GSCs. They add that all firms make a risk-reward trade-off. Recent events have already driven firms to invest more in building resilience. Thus, there are just two cases where a government intervention makes sense. First, when the social evaluation of this trade-off puts greater stress on the “risk” compared to the firm's evaluation of this trade-off, there's a case for market failure. The higher the gap between these two perceptions, the higher the likelihood of government intervention. From an Indian perspective, China's recent actions have widened this gap.Second, the complexity of GSCs might make firms (especially the smaller ones) underestimate the true risks involved. This lack of information can be another justification for government action in the form of mapping and making this information public. On the issue of which interventions might actually reshape GSCs, they suggest: Locational equilibriums are unlikely to shift unless firms perceive a permanent shock and governments commit to substantial, long-term production subsidies (as with agriculture), massive regulation (as in banking), or massive state-lead interventions (as in defense). Policies on essential medical supplies and semiconductors may well prove to be more durable and effective given their critical nature. Arguments that these sectors are part of today's national defense, broadly defined, are more credible, and thus more likely to endure long enough to reshape production structures. Going beyond government interventions, they identify a trend that's of importance to us in India. Given the improvements in industrial automation and AI, future manufacturing GVCs might become shorter. At the same time, future services GVCs might become longer and more widespread, given the multilateral agreements on services trade, which are far less protectionist than those in manufacturing trade. From an Indian perspective, these propositions mean that India (or any other country) is not likely to displace China in the manufacturing of goods which are not considered “strategic”. Instead, it is automation that's more likely to reduce other countries' dependence on China. On the other hand, India's opportunity lies in the services trade. Policies such as data localisation or restrictions on human capital movements will only dampen India's chances. Perhaps, the far more important lesson from the US export controls on China is not that the US might do something similar to India, but how difficult it is to displace a country of China's size once it's embedded itself in GVCs. India's strategy should therefore be to embed itself in services GVCs. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Podcast] DO NOT MISS this Puliyabaazi with Ajay Shah in Hindi/English on state capacity and public policy. While you are there, subscribe to our channel :). * [Report] The State of State Finances report by Saket Surya and Tushar Chakrabarty of PRS is useful reference material for anyone interested in contemporary Indian public policy.* [Twitter Thread] For a simple explanation of the central issue in India's fiscal federalism, read Pranay's thread. * [Explainer] This Trade Deficit-101 is worth your time. It asks: What is a trade deficit and how does it affect the economy? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Mr. America, Mr. Universe and Mr. World Boyer Coe and 2x Middleweight Mr. America champion Richard Baldwin offer their thoughts and memories of the great Bill Pearl who passed away on September 14th at the age of 91. At the end of the podcast, host John Hansen reads the article "The Bill Pearl Story" written by George Coates for the March, 1972 issue of IronMan Magazine. (Time Stamps below) Time Stamps: 4:00 - Writing Bodybuilding History 8:25 - Beginning of interview with Boyer Coe and Richard Baldwin 9:22 - When Boyer Coe found out about Bill Pearl 12:21 - Richard talks about meeting Bill Pearl 14:10 - What Bill Pearl will be remembered for 17:10 - When Bill Pearl guest posed in 1971 19:52 - Bill Pearl's posing 22:30 - Bodybuilding isn't just about size 24:40 - Sergio Oliva in 1966 28:30 - Harold Poole in the Mr. America contest 31:00 - Arthur Jones and Bill Pearl 36:00 - The integrity of the NABBA Mr. Universe 38:54 - Winning the Mr. America and Mr. Universe the same year 41:55 - When Bill Pearl guest posed at the 1978 Mr. America 44:25 - Bill Pearl's strongman act 45:52 - Bill's older brother Harold 49:00 - The champions who Bill trained 52:00 - Richard's messages from Bill toward the end 54:43 - Boyer's tattoo 57:20 - John Hansen reads the article "The Bill Pearl Story" written by George Coates from the March, 1972 issue of IronMan Magazine. Links: John's Online Coaching Become a Patreon Donor Bodybuilding Legends website John's YouTube Channel Muscle Maturity Podcast John Hansen Fitness website  

While the world's multimillionaires and billionaires (and multibillionaires) ponder inflation and supply shortages in the Swiss Alps, they might get a better view from the dusty landscape of Midland, Texas. Residents of the oil town have lived through inflation around 10% or higher for six months. Even worse, the forces driving up prices there may take months or even years to unwind. Bloomberg reporter Katia Dmitrieva takes listeners to that West Texas boom-and-bust community, home to the highest inflation rate among roughly 400 metropolitan areas tracked by Moody's Analytics. While there, she meets an excavation company owner who's run out of heavy-duty pickup trucks and bulldozers because of supply-chain shortages. Nurses are in such short supply that a local health-care company is paying $280 an hour to get them on contract. And the line of cars waiting at the West Texas Food Bank is longer than it's been since the worst days of the ongoing pandemic. Back in Davos, host Stephanie Flanders chats about deglobalization with economist Richard Baldwin, a professor at Geneva's Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. He's skeptical that trade actually is fragmenting, arguing that China is the "OPEC of industrial inputs" and that "you can't shut off OPEC." Finally, Flanders talks global commerce at the World Economic Forum with the head of the World Trade Organization and the European Union trade commissioner, as well as officials with the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry and US-based logistics firm Flexport. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of Coogee Voice Dr Marjorie O'Neill is joined by Richard Baldwin from Randwick Football Association. On today's show we learn about this all-inclusive community focused club, including their Purple Hearts!

Covid-19 demonstrated that modern global supply chains do not guarantee food in supermarkets or PPE in hospitals. Richard Baldwin tells Tim Phillips how risky these supply chains really are, and what we could do to shore them up.

Federico Vergari"Fuoriclasse"Salone del Libro di Torino“Fuoriclasse”Il nuovo podcast del Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino per raccontare lo sport attraverso storie, libri e cronacaDa giovedì 1 luglio 2021 il primo episodio in occasione dei campionati Europei di calcioDisponibile su SalTo+ e sulle principali piattaforme di streaming gratuitewww.salonelibro.it - SalTo+30 giugno 2021. Raccontare lo sport di ieri e di oggi e la sua epica, costellata di storie uniche ed esemplari, personaggi avvincenti – vincenti o perdenti che siano –, e valori condivisi, come la lealtà, la resistenza e la perseveranza. Narrare lo sport attraverso le sfide di donne e uomini capaci di risultati impensabili o di cadute eclatanti e con l'attenzione rivolta alla cronaca del tempo, alla letteratura e al cinema che hanno fatto da sfondo o accompagnato tanti momenti sportivi nel corso del tempo. Rileggere eventi agonistici del passato per meglio interpretare pezzi di storia del nostro Paese e del mondo. Con il nuovo podcast dal titolo “Fuoriclasse” il Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino si apre alla narrazione sportiva: a partire dal 1 luglio 2021 una serie di episodi, rilasciati una volta al mese, presenteranno ciascuno due storie di personaggi sportivi “fuoriclasse” (perché fuori dal comune, irregolari, precursori che hanno scritto pagine di storia), oppure due momenti storici differenti, che si intrecciano, raccontati attraverso due voci, quelle di Marco Pautasso del Salone del Libro e di Federico Vergari, giornalista, scrittore e consulente del Salone del Libro.“Fuoriclasse” intende così approfondire la narrazione sportiva, dal calcio all'atletica, dal tennis al ciclismo e così via, e anticipare una novità della prossima edizione del Salone Internazionale del Libro dal 10 al 14 ottobre 2021: la presenza di uno spazio dedicato allo sport, ai linguaggi con cui viene raccontato e alla sua editoria, che sappia valorizzare una tendenza sempre più centrale nel mercato editoriale.Il primo episodio di “Fuoriclasse” in uscita il 1 luglio alle ore 18 è in concomitanza con gli Europei di Calcio, inaugurati a Roma, omaggio a una competizione internazionale che scalda i cuori di tifosi e non solo. Si concentra sugli Europei del 1968 (fino ad oggi l'unico vinto) e del 1980, svoltisi in Italia. Il calcio si fa subito pretesto per raccontare anche altro: usi, costumi e clima sociale di una nazione in perenne mutamento, con l'aiuto di audio delle cronache dei notiziari, canzoni che furono le hit del momento, saggi e testi sugli Azzurri. Ospite del primo episodio Chiara Alessi, una delle massime esperte di storia del design in Italia, che spiegherà la genesi del logo degli Europei del 1980. Numerosi i riferimenti bibliografici presenti: Storia del calcio in Italia di Antonio Ghirelli (Mondadori); Storia critica del calcio italiano di Gianni Brera (Bompiani); The best di George Best (Baldini+Castoldi); Il '68. Volumi primo e secondo di AA.VV. (L'Espresso); Azzurri. Storie della nazionale e identità italiana di Paolo Colombo e Gioachino Lanotte (Utet); Tante care cose della stessa Chiara Alessi (Longanesi). I giochi olimpici e le protagoniste femminili saranno al centro del secondo episodio del podcast “Fuoriclasse”, come omaggio ai Giochi della XXXII Olimpiade Tokyo 2020. L'episodio presenterà la storia della prima e dell'ultima Medaglia d'oro femminile italiana alle Olimpiadi: l'ostacolista e velocista Ondina Valla (1936) e la tiratrice a volo Diana Bacosi (2016), per un viaggio di ottant'anni nella storia dello sport femminile.Spiegano Marco Pautasso e Federico Vergari:«Il linguaggio sportivo è cambiato ed è facile fare un rapido confronto. Un evento che ricordiamo in molti è la telecronaca della finale di Coppa del Mondo di Spagna ‘82 di Nando Martellini. Un altro evento è la più recente finale del 2006 con la telecronaca di Fabio Caressa. Oggi la prima telecronaca annoierebbe, per quanto Italia - Germania del 1982 sia stata più entusiasmante (e ben giocata) di Italia-Francia del 2006. È cambiato qualcosa? La risposta è sì, perché è cambiato il racconto. Lo sport è (anche) un linguaggio e come tale è in continua evoluzione. L'obiettivo di “Fuoriclasse” è quello di fotografare questo cambiamento. Nell'epoca dello storytelling applicato a qualsiasi cosa, politica compresa, non si può pensare a un evento sportivo senza un adeguato racconto. Che avvenga per radio, in video, su un sito, con un libro o su un quotidiano è ormai un dato di fatto che la qualità della narrazione influirà sensibilmente sulla costruzione di un preciso ricordo sportivo. L'epica sportiva non manca ultimamente. Ci sono trasmissioni TV, case editrici e riviste che fanno dello sport una questione prima letteraria e poi sportiva. Parlare di sport significa prima di tutto parlare di uomini e donne. Ogni uomo e ogni donna si portano dietro una sua loro storia. Ognuno con la sua storia, ognuno con la voglia di spostare i limiti un po' più in là.»Per rimanere aggiornati sui podcast successivi: www.salonelibro.it - SalTo+.“Fuoriclasse” è l'ultimo podcast ideato dal Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino, dopo “Vita Nova”, che raccoglie gli interventi audio di ospiti dell'edizione speciale online a dicembre del Salone Internazionale del Libro di Torino (come Alberto Angela, Richard Baldwin, Letizia Battaglia, Mathias Énard, Emma Dante, Fumettibrutti, Paolo Giordano, Vittorio Sgarbi, Eva Cantarella, Markarīs) e “Il Salone presenta Albert Camus”, che approfondisce le opere dello scrittore attraverso interventi di scrittori, scrittrici, traduttrici e intellettuali (Alessandro Piperno, Yasmina Melaouah, Annalena Benini, Leila El Houssi, Evelina Santangelo, Goffredo Fofi).IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

In November of 1992, the murder of 15-year-old Beth Brodie devastated the small town of Groveland, Mass (where I spent my childhood). Her killer was a 16 -year-old boy she knew from school who'd developed a violent obsession with her. For this premeditated and gruesome murder, he was sentenced as an adult to life in prison. That’s only part of her story.  I talk to Beth's brother Sean Aylward to get a first-hand account of Beth's story, about the case, what it’s like for a family of a murdered loved one and how they fight to keep attention on Beth and not about the person who took her life.  How to support the Brodie family:JusticeforBeth.orgJustice For Beth Brodie on Facebook Crime of the Truest KindOnline: crimeofthetruestkind.com (and source links)Follow Instagram | Facebook | Twitter Listen everywhere you get podcasts crimeofthetruestkind.buzzsprout.comListen + Subscribe + Rate + ReviewMusic by Joe "onlyone" Kowalski and Andrew King appears in this episode. Thank you for listening!Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/truestkind)

In this episode, we follow up on the Amiga talk in the previous episode with broader and more philosophical perspectives looking at the world at the levels of technology, politics, education and consciousness. The discussion focuses on where the world is heading and ideas for a better future world. We cite the works of Brooks Adams, Richard Baldwin, G.I. Gurdjieff, Alan Kay, Laibach, Thomas Malory, Douglas Rushkoff, John Ruskin, Doug Stanhope, Ken Wilber and Robert Anton Wilson, among others. We also discuss Ro Khanna, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders and make special mention of Wil Wheaton in a short section on the science-fiction connections of the Amiga to Star Trek: The Next Generation and NASA.

In our 42nd weekly episode of the first series of The Horse & Hound Podcast, currently supported by NAF, British list one dressage judge Richard Baldwin talks to H&H dressage editor Polly Bryan, where he talks about what judges are really looking for, among other topics. Moving on to the week's top news stories, our news editor Eleanor Jones and news writer Becky Murray join Pippa to discuss the latest updates on the latest cancellations due to EHV-1 and new research into strangles. We also welcome back supergroom to Carl Hester and Charlotte Dujardin, Alan Davies, who shares his tips for pulling and plaiting a horse's mane. We hope you will find it useful.

Part 2 of our interview with Richard Baldwin, author of "The Globotics Upheaval: Globalisation, Robotics and the Future of Work" and Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, Switzerland.In this special bonus episode, we continue our discussion on how AI and globalization are reshaping the nature of trade and labor markets, how countries should prepare and what we as workers can do about it. 

Richard Baldwin, author and Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, Switzerland joins Trade Splaining to discuss how AI and globalization are reshaping the nature of trade and labor markets, why COVID means this is happening much faster than we may think and what we can do about it. In this episode we discuss:Kick off 2021 with the biggest news stories of the monthBrexitCan trade agreements do more for workers?The EU and China Make a (investment) DealData, Big Tech and Possible RegulationHow Globotics and COVID are accelerating labor and trade trendsLatest in local swiss expat news (hint: Trees)

Alors que le télétravail se voit prolongé bien au-delà du 11 mai, une note du Groupe d'études géopolitiques, un groupe de réflexion indépendant formé à l'École normale supérieure de Paris, s'inquiète d'une possible délocalisation des tâches effectuées ainsi. L'économiste Richard Baldwin évoque même l'émergence de futurs "télémigrants". C'est à dire des free-lances compétents, notamment issus des pays du Sud, "dorénavant capables de rentrer en compétition avec les salariés qualifiés", comme le précise Cyprien Batut, doctorant à l'école d'Économie de Paris, cité par "Le Monde". "Hors-série Lenglet & Co : crise du coronavirus", un podcast quotidien présenté par François Lenglet et Catherine Mangin, qui vous donne les clés pour tout comprendre des évolutions et révolutions provoquées par la crise du coronavirus en France, en Europe et dans le monde.

The Waffle House chain of U.S. restaurants, with most of its locations in the nation’s south, is famous for staying open during hurricanes and other severe weather. Now it’s facing what could be a tougher challenge: luring customers who are wary of spending time there because of the coronavirus. It’s all happening in Georgia, whose Republican governor made waves with his decision to let many businesses and restaurants reopen sooner than most people expected—and earlier than medical experts consider advisable. Stephanie Flanders talks with Atlanta-based Bloomberg reporter Michael Sasso about the situation on the ground. We’ll hear excerpts from his interview with a Waffle House spokeswoman, too. Flanders also speaks with returning guest Richard Baldwin, an economist at the Graduate Institute in Geneva and co-editor of a new eBook addressing Covid-19 and trade policy. Baldwin discusses how trade restrictions are exacerbating the damage done by the pandemic—such as making it more difficult to get masks.

Ve své knize popsali ekonomická opatření přední světoví ekonomové Richard Baldwin a Beatrice Wederová. Přečetl a z anglického vydání přeložil Ondřej Houska.

Jak mohou vypadat ekonomická opatření v době pandemie koronaviru? To ve své knize popsali přední světoví ekonomové Richard Baldwin a Beatrice Wederová. Ukázky z knihy připravil Ondřej Houska.

How big are Covid-19's economic consequences? That's the theme of a new VoxEU book with contributions from many of the world's most experienced policymakers with expertise in this area. Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Richard Baldwin, the book's editors, give Tim Phillips the (mostly) bad news. Download the book (https://voxeu.org/article/economics-time-covid-19-new-ebook) : it's free.

E010: Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Dr. Christine McDaniel explains why traditional trade statistics have not kept up with changes in how trade actually happens—and how this can distort our understanding of trade. She describes how two trends—trade in value added and trade in services—lead to misinterpretations of our trade data and discusses how our approach may need to change. She also walks through the unintended consequences of U.S. trade remedy regulations and describes her number one recommendation for changing U.S. trade law. Opinions expressed on Trade Matters are solely those of the guest or host and not the Yeutter Institute or the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Show Notes: The Downstream Costs of Trade Remedy Regulations by Christine McDaniel and Veronique de Rugy The Great Convergence by Richard Baldwin

Episode 207: Evidence?  Kevin Moore joined the program to talk about his documentary, after listening to an interview with Jo-ann Richards Kevin had reached out and wanted to share more information about the other side of the case. Kevin fully believes Jo-ann is not being genuine about the Mark Richards story. In what turned out to be a highly explosive interview, it was a good reminder that there are always two sides to the story. On July 6, 1982, Richard Alexander Baldwin, 36 were murdered at the hands of Mark Richards and teenager Crossan David Hoover. Richard Baldwin was Beaten with a baseball bat and Stabbed with knife and screwdriver In Marin County, California. Mark and Crossan were arrested three days later. The Story made headline news throughout July 1982 and with the convictions of Mark and Crossen Hoover in 1984. In both separate trials, they were found guilty of murder. Mark Richards was sentenced to life without parole for the murder of his friend Richard Baldwin. Crossan Hoover was sentenced to twenty-six years with the possibility of parole. Throughout this period, the crime made headlines as a bizarre tale of an Arthurian kingdom called Pendragon began to emerge. Another teenager present in Mr. Baldwin's house, who helped dispose of the body, was Andrew Campbell. Campbell later turned and gave the state's evidence against both Mark Richards and Crossan Hoover resulting in immunity from prosecution. The victim of this horrendous murder was Richard A. Baldwin. Baldwin was the owner of a vintage-auto restoration shop, The Classic Car, on 36B Front Street in San Rafael. At the time of the murder, Richards, Hoover, and Andrew were remodeling Baldwin's home. Hoover stated Richards and he lured their victim, Mr. Baldwin, to the auto shop on the pretext of looking at his inventory of classic cars. After the murder, Richards purchased a boat used to dump the body of Mr. Richard Baldwin into San Pablo Bay with the help of Crossan Hoover and Andrew Campbell. Baldwin's body did not stay anchored to the bottom. The body was discovered by the skipper of “The Little Sampson,” floating at the mouth of the San Pablo Bay at 5 pm, July 13th, 1982. Mr. Richard Baldwin's body was then transported to the Solano County Morgue. *After the break* Luke Prophet & Lee Austin joined the program, both started off in a collision but near the end, things seemed to get straightened up. 

Episode 207: Evidence?  Kevin Moore joined the program to talk about his documentary, after listening to an interview with Jo-ann Richards Kevin had reached out and wanted to share more information about the other side of the case. Kevin fully believes Jo-ann is not being genuine about the Mark Richards story. In what turned out to be a highly explosive interview, it was a good reminder that there are always two sides to the story. On July 6, 1982, Richard Alexander Baldwin, 36 were murdered at the hands of Mark Richards and teenager Crossan David Hoover. Richard Baldwin was Beaten with a baseball bat and Stabbed with knife and screwdriver In Marin County, California. Mark and Crossan were arrested three days later. The Story made headline news throughout July 1982 and with the convictions of Mark and Crossen Hoover in 1984. In both separate trials, they were found guilty of murder. Mark Richards was sentenced to life without parole for the murder of his friend Richard Baldwin. Crossan Hoover was sentenced to twenty-six years with the possibility of parole. Throughout this period, the crime made headlines as a bizarre tale of an Arthurian kingdom called Pendragon began to emerge. Another teenager present in Mr. Baldwin’s house, who helped dispose of the body, was Andrew Campbell. Campbell later turned and gave the state’s evidence against both Mark Richards and Crossan Hoover resulting in immunity from prosecution. The victim of this horrendous murder was Richard A. Baldwin. Baldwin was the owner of a vintage-auto restoration shop, The Classic Car, on 36B Front Street in San Rafael. At the time of the murder, Richards, Hoover, and Andrew were remodeling Baldwin’s home. Hoover stated Richards and he lured their victim, Mr. Baldwin, to the auto shop on the pretext of looking at his inventory of classic cars. After the murder, Richards purchased a boat used to dump the body of Mr. Richard Baldwin into San Pablo Bay with the help of Crossan Hoover and Andrew Campbell. Baldwin’s body did not stay anchored to the bottom. The body was discovered by the skipper of “The Little Sampson,” floating at the mouth of the San Pablo Bay at 5 pm, July 13th, 1982. Mr. Richard Baldwin’s body was then transported to the Solano County Morgue. *After the break* Luke Prophet & Lee Austin joined the program, both started off in a collision but near the end, things seemed to get straightened up. 

The mass commercialisation of artificial intelligence, machine learning technologies and automation, combined with outsourcing to lower income countries is about to cause massive upheavals and hundreds of millions of job losses in developed economies, according to my guest this episode of Rules Based Audio, economist and globalisation expert Professor Richard Baldwin. He warns that the next phase of globalisation is different, because of the speed and scale of the likely changes, and the expected impact on the middle classes in rich countries. Professionals who thought their jobs were safe are now directly in the firing line. There’s likely to be earth-shaking political consequences. It sounds pretty grim for the developed economies, but Professor Baldwin says he’s an optimist about where this will get us to in the future – if we can survive the socio-political earthquakes in the meanwhile. Richard Baldwin is a professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva; and the author of several books on globalisation, trade and European integration. In this episode of Rules Based Audio, we discuss his latest book, 'The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics and the Future of Work'.

International trade expert and former presidential advisor, Richard Baldwin, discusses his latest book, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work. He argues that the speed and sweep of economic and social changes resulting from global connectivity and AI could provoke widespread dissatisfaction. These factors are already influencing white-collar, middle-class employment. Work that can be automated or done remotely offers employers huge potential savings. Jobs that require onsite collaboration and interpersonal skills look less vulnerable.

Around the world, people’s work and workplaces are being transformed by globalisation and the rise of automation, robotics, and AI. That transformation brings significant challenges to policymakers, and to people who see their lives and livelihoods transformed, often in negative ways. So how can we make sure this dramatic transformation benefits humankind?On this week’s special episode of Policy Forum Pod, we hear from Richard Baldwin about his book The Globotics Upheaval: Robotics, Globalisation and the Future of Work and how policymakers can ensure society benefits from this transformation. We also talk to Professor Sharon Bessell about being listed as one the Australian Financial Review’s 100 Women of Influence 2019 and hear about her research on poverty.Pod presenter Martyn Pearce also discusses some of your comments and suggestions, and looks at a sudden surge in demand for Policy Forum Pod mugs.Richard Baldwin is Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute, Geneva. He advises governments and international organisations around the world and is the author of numerous books and articles on international trade, globalisation, regionalism, and European integration.Sharon Bessell is a Professor at Crawford School of Public Policy, where she is co-leader of the ANU Individual Deprivation Measure (IDM) team. The IDM is a new, gender-sensitive and multidimensional measure of poverty.Martyn Pearce is a presenter for Policy Forum Pod and the Editor of Policy Forum.Julia Ahrens is a presenter on Policy Forum Pod.Show notes | The following were referred to in this episode:Sharon Bessell named as one of Australian Financial Review’s 100 Women of Influence 2019The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work (Richard Baldwin)Quentin Grafton wins Austarlian Laureate2019 Human Development and Capability Association Conference The Capability ApproachPlanetary Health PlatformIndividual Deprivation Measure Podcast: Language barriersPolicy Forum Pod is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The last wave of globalisation delivered enormous economic benefits. But the massive social disruption and displacement fell disproportionately on less-skilled workers, helping to spawn the current populist revolt. The next wave of globalisation, however, might prove different, as emerging technologies combine with global economic forces to create a whole new set of opportunities and challenges. Richard Baldwin, one of the world's leading globalisation experts, argues that the inhuman speed of this transformation threatens to overwhelm our capacity to adapt. Digital technology is allowing talented foreigners to telecommute into our workplaces and compete for service and professional jobs. Instant machine translation is melting language barriers, so the ranks of these "tele-migrants" will soon include almost every educated person in the world. The combination of globalisation and rising automation means the next wave of disruption could risk a globotics upheaval that threatens the very foundations of the liberal welfare state. Professor Baldwin gave a talk on his new book, 'The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work.' You can purchase copies of 'The Globotics Upheaval' from Booktopia, Amazon AU and Hachette Australia.

By 2030, up to 800 million global workers may lose their jobs to automation. Technological advancement in an ever-globalized economy is changing both service-sector and professional jobs at a staggering pace. How can governments help workers remain vital to the global economy? Richard Baldwin, author of the new book, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work, is in conversation with WorldAffairs co-host Markos Kounalakis. We want to hear from you! Please take part in a quick survey to tell us how we can improve our podcast: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PWZ7KMW

Fortnite may be the biggest video-game phenomenon with more than 200 million registered players. It's also a good place to start if you want to understand globalization -- and the new directions the global economy is taking today.    In the premiere episode of Stephanomics, hosted by Bloomberg Economics head Stephanie Flanders, reporter Shawn Donnan explains how Fortnite has not only bypassed the U.S.-China trade war, but is also a key example of what's happening in the new digital economy. Then Stephanie talks with economist Richard Baldwin about how technology is crossing borders and changing the labor market.

By 2030, up to 800 million global workers may lose their jobs to automation. Technological advancement in an ever-globalized economy is changing both service-sector and professional jobs at a staggering pace. How can governments help workers remain vital to the global economy? Richard Baldwin, author of the new book, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics, and the Future of Work, is in conversation with WorldAffairs co-host Markos Kounalakis. We want to hear from you! Please take part in a quick survey to tell us how we can improve our podcast: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PWZ7KMW

Richard Baldwin joins Keynes and Bown to discuss the past and future of globalization, new technologies, and social upheaval.

Richard Baldwin joins Keynes and Bown to discuss the past and future of globalization, new technologies, and social upheaval.

Richard Baldwin joins Keynes and Bown to discuss the past and future of globalization, new technologies, and social upheaval.

We're kicking off the year with a great conversation about some of today's biggest international issues and with a fantastic guest, Professor Richard Baldwin. We begin with a discussion about the history of globalization and how it's ebbed and flowed over time. We also talk mercantilism, Trump's trade policy, the rapid growth of China, and Richard's globalization theory, the Great Convergence. Richard and I also talk about the state of Brexit and what's likely to happen economically in Britain's near future. Get full show notes and more information here: https://bit.ly/2s5tbX2

Click here to buy: https://adbl.co/2Qtw7Lr Automation and robotics are changing our lives quickly - everyone knows that. But digital disruption goes much further. In The Globotics Upheaval, Richard Baldwin, one of the world's leading globalisation experts, explains that exponential growth in computing, transmission and storage capacities is also creating a new form of "virtual" globalisation that could undermine the foundations of middle-class prosperity in the West. When technology enables talented people from around the world to be a virtual presence in any given office, the hundreds of millions of people who have hitherto been protected by their skills will no longer be quite so secure. What measures will people and governments take in response to such a tectonic shift? Looking back at previous industrial revolutions, and using these modern technological developments as a lens through which to view the future, Richard Baldwin will examine these issues and more, issues which, sooner or later, will be important to each and every one of us. (p) Orion Publishing Group 2019

The buzz: “Artificial Intelligence, deep learning, machine learning?—?whatever you're doing if you don't understand it?—?learn it. Because otherwise you're going to be a dinosaur within 3 years” (Mark Cuban). No longer just for “cool” early adopters, AI, ML, and IoT are moving into the core of business systems, potentially shaping the new economy. What would you do if an ML-educated AI CEO took the reins of your company? The experts speak. Owen Pettiford, BackOffice Associates: “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?” (The Scarecrow). Carsten Nitschke, SAP: “Sacred Cows Make The Best Burgers” (R. Kriegel & D. Brandt). Frank Diana, TCS: “We have a duty to think hard about what may be so as to better prepare society for the changes that may come” (Richard Baldwin). Gray Scott, Futurist: “Prediction is not just one of the things your brain does. It is...the foundation of intelligence” (Jeff Hawkins). Join us for The Bots Are Coming: Ready to Meet Your AI CEO?

The buzz: “Artificial Intelligence, deep learning, machine learning?—?whatever you're doing if you don't understand it?—?learn it. Because otherwise you're going to be a dinosaur within 3 years” (Mark Cuban). No longer just for “cool” early adopters, AI, ML, and IoT are moving into the core of business systems, potentially shaping the new economy. What would you do if an ML-educated AI CEO took the reins of your company? The experts speak. Owen Pettiford, BackOffice Associates: “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?” (The Scarecrow). Carsten Nitschke, SAP: “Sacred Cows Make The Best Burgers” (R. Kriegel & D. Brandt). Frank Diana, TCS: “We have a duty to think hard about what may be so as to better prepare society for the changes that may come” (Richard Baldwin). Gray Scott, Futurist: “Prediction is not just one of the things your brain does. It is...the foundation of intelligence” (Jeff Hawkins). Join us for The Bots Are Coming: Ready to Meet Your AI CEO?

Champion Bodybuilder Richard Baldwin talks about his extensive bodybuilding career for the Bodybuilding Legends Podcast. Richard talks about competing in the 1970's and '80's and meeting some of the legends in the sport like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Pearl, Serge Nubret, Danny Padilla, Robby Robinson and Tom Platz. Richard also talks about his great bodybuilding career, competing at the local and national level against some of the best bodybuilders of his generation.

The buzz: “Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.” (Lao Tzu) Given the uncertainty, pace, and unexpected nature of today's world, there are too many unknowns for us to effectively predict the future. Reality check: A convergence across science, technology, politics, society, economics, the environment, and growing ethics discussion, has created a complex web that requires the type of system thinking that may exceed our human capacity. Do machines hold the answer? Can they predict the path of an overwhelming number of possible futures? The experts speak. Frank Diana, TCS: “We have a duty to think hard about what may be, so as to better prepare society for the changes that may come” (Richard Baldwin). Gray Scott, Futurist: “Prediction is not just one of the things your brain does. It is the primary function of the neo-cortex, and the foundation of intelligence” (Jeff Hawkins). Join us for Tech Magic or Hype: Can We Teach Machines to Predict?

The buzz: “Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.” (Lao Tzu) Given the uncertainty, pace, and unexpected nature of today's world, there are too many unknowns for us to effectively predict the future. Reality check: A convergence across science, technology, politics, society, economics, the environment, and growing ethics discussion, has created a complex web that requires the type of system thinking that may exceed our human capacity. Do machines hold the answer? Can they predict the path of an overwhelming number of possible futures? The experts speak. Frank Diana, TCS: “We have a duty to think hard about what may be, so as to better prepare society for the changes that may come” (Richard Baldwin). Gray Scott, Futurist: “Prediction is not just one of the things your brain does. It is the primary function of the neo-cortex, and the foundation of intelligence” (Jeff Hawkins). Join us for Tech Magic or Hype: Can We Teach Machines to Predict?

El foco de la discusión sobre el Acuerdo de Paz en estas elecciones se ha puesto, principalmente, en los temas de justicia. Pero, el espíritu del Acuerdo es combatir las causas estructurales que han permitido que el conflicto se haya prolongado durante todo este tiempo, entre ellas los conflictos rurales. La Reforma Rural Integral, el punto uno del Acuerdo, podría ser una de esas patas de lo acordado que por falta de voluntad política termine haciéndose trizas. Para entender los riesgos y posibilidades de éste en el próximo gobierno invitamos a tres expertos de La Red Rural a nuestro podcast. Ellos son Margarita Varón, Gerente de Colombia Rural, Jhenifer Mojica, experta en temas agrarios de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas y Ricaurte Becerra, líder de la organización campesina El Común, quien nos habló desde San Gil, Santander. Misión para la Transformación del Campo lhttps://www.dnp.gov.co/programas/agricultura/Paginas/mision-para-la-transformacion-del-campo-colombiano.aspx “Para sembrar la paz, hay que aflojar la tierra: comunidades, tierras y territorios en la construcción de un país” de Darío fajardo“Siervo sin tierra”, Eduardo Caballero Calderón http://www.lecturalia.com/libro/31939/siervo-sin-tierra“La reforma rural integral está en manos de la Corte Constitucional” https://www.ambitojuridico.com/noticias/civil/ambiental-y-agropecuario/la-reforma-rural-integral-esta-en-manos-de-la-corte “Are Local Registers the Solution?” de Richard Baldwin https://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2018/index.php?page=browseSessions&form_session=724&presentations=show

Trade has dominated discussions at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos amid fears that Donald Trump's America-first approach will lead to fragmentation. Gideon Rachman sat down with Richard Baldwin, Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, and asked him how worried people should be about the integrity of the global trading system. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Stephen Roach is a senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and a senior lecturer at the Yale School of Management. He was formerly the chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and the firm’s chief economist, positions of immense influence on Wall Street. His longtime study of globalization has led to many books, most recently Unbalanced: The Codependency of America and China in 2014. He also writes for Project Syndicate. Stephen joins Kaiser and Jeremy on Sinica to discuss many of the findings of his book, and what has changed since it was published. The topics include: The unhealthy codependency between the economies of China and America, and the inverse nature of their savings rates, investment rates, labor, and consumption. How much of the West has relied on economic policies that promise “false prosperity,” and how China may fall into the same trap. Where the U.S. trade deficit with China actually comes from. Whether savings rates in China are changing dramatically, or will change soon. Why Xi Jinping has formed leading small groups on economic policy, and what that means for the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and China’s economic direction. The path toward rebalancing, for both the U.S. and China. Recommendations: Jeremy: The literary website The Bitter Southerner, which covers the American South from a broad-minded perspective that Yankees often overlook. Stephen: The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New Globalization, by Richard Baldwin. It forced the former chief economist of Morgan Stanley to rethink many of the ideas he had about globalization. Kaiser: An app called Audm, which has audiobook narrators read aloud long-form articles from outlets such as the Atlantic and the New Yorker.

What can unions do to transform themselves to meet the new realities of the 21st century?

Australia is now one of the least unionised countries in the OECD. What's behind the union movement's decline and what factors impede its future?

Globalisation: the history of the movement of goods, knowledge and people. Laurie Taylor talks to Richard Baldwin, Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva and author of a groundbreaking new study. They were joined by Diane Coyle, Professor of Economics at the University of Manchester. Juliet Webster, Director of Work and Equality Research at the LSE, explores the brave new world of virtual workers - characterised by short contracts, flexible working hours and the blurring of boundaries between work and free time. Producer: Jayne Egerton.

Election results around the world in 2016 showed that the expansion of global trade in recent decades—till recently accepted as an unalloyed good—has also sparked a shocking growth in economic discontent. As Donald Trump begins his term, businesses are grappling with the potential changes to U.S. trade policy and potential disruptions to their supply chains. Senior European Economist Ilaria Maselli, China Center Associate Director Ethan Cramer-Flood, and U.S. Senior Economist Brian Schaitkin examine how globalization has left some workers feeling neglected and whether a reversal of these trends would help them. Then they dive into the personalities and policies of the new administration and how businesses and governments in Europe and China may react.  Indications 5 Reading List The Conference Board Global Economic Outlook 2017Podcast listeners have exclusive access to regional reports: U.S. | Europe | Asia  Webcast with Richard Baldwin, author of The Great Convergence(Peterson Institute) Europe 2.0: Four Scenarios for Post-Brexit Europe by Ilaria Maselli and Wim Overmeer (Member report) China Center Quick Note: The US election-an unexpected de-stabilizer by Ethan Cramer-Flood (Member report) MEMBERS: Want the complete story from our Global Outlook and beyond? Working for a member of The Conference Board opens up our exclusive portfolio of research, events, and webcasts. Click here to find out if your company's a member.  

Soumaya Keynes speaks to leading economist Richard Baldwin about how to mitigate globalisation's destructive effects. Also on the show: South Africa’s debt rating is just one notch above junk. How might the country bounce back? And why golf is no longer cool in Japan. Simon Long hosts See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Soumaya Keynes speaks to leading economist Richard Baldwin about how to mitigate globalisation's destructive effects. Also on the show: South Africa’s debt rating is just one notch above junk. How might the country bounce back? And why golf is no longer cool in Japan. Simon Long hosts See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Pour écouter cette chronique donnée sur AligreFMApple et les ouvriers chinoisSteve Jobs est mort il y a tout juste quatre mois entouré de l’admiration générale. Le cours d’Apple, l’entreprise qu’il a fondée, a depuis sa mort, explosé, passant de 410€ à  450$, ses bénéfices n’ont jamais été aussi élevés, 13 milliards de $ pour le seul quatrième trimestre de 20011, soit deux fois plus que pour la même période de 2010, et ses réserves de trésorerie sont considérables. Inutile de donner un chiffre qui à ces niveaux ne veut plus dire grand chose. Il suffit pour donner leur mesure d’indiquer qu’elles sont plus importantes que celles du gouvernement américain. Apple a plus de liquidités que le gouvernement de la plus grande puissance mondiale. Tout cela grâce à ces iphones, ipods et ipads, tout cela grâce à nous en somme.Tout devrait donc aller pour le mieux à Cupertino, au siège social d’Apple et tout irait effectivement pour le mieux si quelques journalistes du New-York-Times n’étaient allés enquêter sur les conditions de travail des ouvriers chinois qui fabriquent ses produits. Car, bien sur, tout est fabriqué en Asie, en Chine. Et le résultat de leur enquête jette une ombre très vilaine sur l’entreprise préférée de tous les amateurs de technologie.On savait depuis longtemps que les conditions de travail sont dans les usines chinoises particulièrement pénibles, mais cette enquête en donne de nouvelles illustrations. Ouvriers qui travaillent de très longues heures, que l’on réveille en pleine nuit pour satisfaire les exigences du client, qui opèrent dans des milieux dangereux… On est plus du coté du servage que des relations industrielles acceptées dans les pays démocratiques.Véritable réquisitoire, cette série d’articles met en évidence la responsabilité d’Apple alors même que ses responsables disent tout faire pour assurer des conditions de travail satisfaisantes aux ouvriers de ses sous-traitants (voir, notamment, ici). Et il est vrai qu’il fait signer des chartes et envoie des inspecteurs mais ses exigences sont si grandes que les entreprises sont amenées à « tourner les coins ronds » pour les satisfaire.Mais tout cela est déjà connu et j’ai évoqué ici même, il y a deux ans, la répression brutale de manifestations d’ouvriers de Wintec, un des sous-traitants chinois d’Apple et de Nokia dont on ne payait pas les heures supplémentaires. Et si je vous parle ce matin de cette enquête, c’est qu’elle nous donne, au delà de ces informations sur les conditions de travail, un éclairage très intéressant sur les méthodes de l’industrie chinoise et sur ce qui fait aujourd’hui son succès. Méthodes qu’il est intéressant de connaître alors que l’on s’interroge sur le meilleur moyen de réindustrialiser la France.Au delà des salairesLorsque l’on parle de la concurrence des pays émergents et, notamment, de la Chine, on pense au coût du travail et on explique leur succès par ce seul avantage. Il existe, naturellement, mais il n’y a pas que lui. Le premier article de cette série donne un exemple éclairant de ces autres avantages. En 2007, à quelques mois de la sortie de l’iphone, Steve Jobs découvre que le revêtement de plexiglass prévu par les ingénieurs d’Apple pour l’écran se raie facilement. Il demande qu’on le remplace par du verre, ce qui est techniquement compliqué. Apple lance un appel d’offre. Une entreprise chinoise répond. Lorsque les ingénieurs du constructeur informatique se rendent sur place, l’entreprise a déjà acheté du verre pour faire des essais de coupe et mis à la disposition de son client potentiel des ingénieurs pour faire presque gratuitement les essais. Un mois plus tard, la solution est trouvée, la production peut commencer, mais les milliers de salariés nécessaires pour  la réaliser ont été recrutés, les dortoirs dans lequel ils vont dormir construits. Incapable de tenir ce rythme l’entreprise américaine qui avait été initialement retenue a perdu le marché.Première caractéristique donc de l’industrie chinoise : son aptitude à anticiper les demandes et à faire gagner à son client quelques semaines, voire quelques mois. C’est au moins aussi important pour Apple qui avait mis en place toute sa politique commerciale que des salaires faibles. Et cela n’est possible que parce que ces entreprises, qui veulent avoir le marché d’Apple, sont disposées à investir massivement pour l’obtenir.Seconde caractéristique : sa capacité à lancer rapidement des productions de masse. Le marché des produits électroniques grand public est mondial. Dès la première année de la commercialisation de son Iphone, Apple en a vendu près d’1,4 millions, l’année suivante, il en a vendu plus de 11 millions et 40 millions en 2010. Les démarrages des produits qui ont du succès sont foudroyants. Et ils ne sont possibles que parce que les industriels chargés de les fabriquer peuvent  quasi instantanément ou, du moins, très rapidement, mobiliser des capacités de production considérables. Et ceci grâce aux conditions de travail de ses salariés, serviables et corvéables à merci, mais aussi grâce à un marché du travail très profond qui lui permet de recruter rapidement , lorsque nécessaire, des milliers d’ouvriers, de techniciens ou d’ingénieurs et de les mettre immédiatement au travail.Lorsque l’on demande aux responsables d’Apple pourquoi ils ne fabriquent plus leurs produits aux Etats-Unis, ils répondent, toujours d’après l’article du New-York-Times : « parce qu’il n’y a tout simplement plus assez d’ouvriers avec les compétences nécessaires aux Etats-Unis, plus assez d’usines avec la réactivité et la flexibilité nécessaire. »Les vertus de l’agglomérationL’article met en avant un autre aspect capital qui explique le succès de l’industrie chinoise : les vertus de l’agglomération. Car, faut-il le rappeler ? les salaires chinois sont depuis longtemps très faibles et ce n’est que depuis quelques années que ce pays est devenu l’usine du monde.L’entreprise américaine qui avait perdu l’appel d’offres d’Apple sur l’écran de verre, Corning Glass, n’a pas abandonné la partie. Bien au contraire, elle a continué de proposer son offre aux concurrents d’Apple, la plupart installés en Asie. Et elle a construit des usines dans cette partie du monde. L’article donne deux chiffres qui expliquent : pour transporter les écrans de l’usine qui les fabrique en Chine à celles qui montent l’iphone, il faut 8 heures de transport. Pour les transporter des Etats-Unis en bateau, il aurait fallu 35 jours. Avec l’avion cela aurait été plus rapide, mais à des coûts extravagants. La puissance industrielle de la Chine tient à sa géographie industrielle. Plutôt que de disperser ses activités industrielles sur tout le territoire elle a su créer des agglomérations industrielles qui mettent au service de ses clients tout ce dont ils ont besoin. Un des responsables d’Apple interrogé par les journalistes du NYT l’explique ainsi : « toute la chaine de production est aujourd’hui en Chine. Vous avez besoin de joints en caoutchouc ? Vous les trouverez dans l’usine à coté ? Vous avez besoin d’un millions de vis ? L’usine est en face. Vous avez besoin d’un tournevis un peu différent ? cela prendra trois heures pour le trouver. »Ce n’est pas une nouveauté. En 2009, Paul Krugman, économiste célèbre qui se trouve être aussi un spécialiste de la géographie économique, publiait un article (Increasing Returns in a Comparative Advantage World) dans lequel il mettait en évidence le rôle de ces effets d’agglomération.Cet effet d’agglomération tient à la géographie, on trouve tout à proximité, ce qui réduit les coûts logistiques, mais aussi à la structure de l’économie chinoise. A l’inverse de la notre, dominée par quelques grands groupes, elle comprend des milliers d’entreprises spécialisées sur un créneau étroit, les vis par exemple, qui sont en concurrence, qui sont à proximité et qui offrent donc à l’industriel à la recherche d’un produit particulier toutes chances de trouver rapidement ce qu’il souhaite et dans les meilleures conditions puisque, concurrence aidant, toutes sont intéressées à répondre au plus vite à la demande. Si j’osais une image et pour en rester aux vis, l’économie chinoise ressemble au sous-sol du BHV où l’on trouve à peu près tout, en matière de vis, sous la main, alors que nos économies ressemblent beaucoup plus à ces grandes surfaces qui n’offrent à leurs clients qu’un nombre limité de références et imposent à celui qui cherche un modèle de vis particulier une longue recherche. On comprend que des industriels soient séduits par ce modèle qui allège considérablement les coûts de développement d’un produit. Une grande flexibilitéL’autre grande caractéristique est la flexibilité. Ces usines savent répondre très rapidement à la demande, elles savent s’adapter à ce que souhaitent leurs clients. Et ceci parce qu’elles utilisent beaucoup de main d’œuvre. Nos industries ont mis l’accent sur l’automatisation pour réduire les coûts du travail humain. Les Chinois ont aussi des usines très automatisées, mais ils en ont d’autres qui utilisent beaucoup de main d’œuvre, tout simplement parce que celle-ci est bon marché. De manière générale, il semble, d’ailleurs, que les Chinois utilisent infiniment plus de main d’œuvre ouvrière que nous dans leurs usines. L’avantage est qu’il est plus facile de reprogrammer une fabrication avec des hommes auxquels on peut demander de modifier quasi instantanément leur production, qu’à des machines dont la programmation est toujours longue et difficile. On peut confier à des hommes des tâches qu’il est très difficile d’automatiser ou qui demanderaient, pour pouvoir l’être de très longs développements que les les fabricants de machines-outils ne pourraient engager que s’ils étaient assurés d’avoir un débouché important. Les clients n’ont évidemment pas le temps d’attendre.Résumons donc : la Chine a un coût du travail bien plus faible que le notre, elle offre à ses salariés des conditions de travail souvent inadmissibles, mais son succès ne tient pas seulement à cela. Il tient aussi, et peut-être surtout pour l’avenir, à sa réactivité, à sa flexibilité, à sa structure et à son organisation géographique qui lui donnent les moyens de mobiliser rapidement les ressources considérables dont ont besoin les industriels aujourd’hui. Et dont ils auront plus encore besoin demain.La concentration des industries capables de travailler ensemble dans la même région est sans doute le trait le plus remarquable de cette organisation industrielle. Je disais tout à l’heure que Paul Krugman en avait fait la théorie dans un article en 2009. Un autre économiste, Richard Baldwin est rentré plus dans le détail (Trade and industrialisation after globalisation’s 2’nd unbundling). Il montre que la fragmentation de la chaine de production, caractéristique de l’industrie moderne, est allée avec une concentration de cette industrie dans des régions géographiques étroites. Les coûts du transport n’ont pas disparu. Je parle aujourd’hui de la Chine, mais ne même phénomène explique sans doute le succès de l’Allemagne dont les industriels ont su nouer des liens étroits avec les industries des ex-pays socialistes qui sont à ses frontières et dont les coûts de main d’œuvre sont plus faibles.Un modèle industriel adaptée à la demande…Au delà des critiques sur la gestion des hommes qui confine, je l’ai dit, à un quasi-servage, c’est la modernité et l’efficacité de l’appareil chinois qui frappe. Il s’est adapté à la demande des industriels occidentaux. Non pas en jouant exclusivement sur le coût du travail comme d’autres pays en voie de développement mais en construisant une économie qui répond exactement aux attentes de l’économie contemporaine. Sa capacité à mobiliser rapidement ressources humaines et techniques lui permet de répondre aux attentes de ces entreprises qui travaillent pour un marché mondial. J’ai donné l’exemple d’Apple et de son iphone, mais plein d’autres industriels sont dans la même logique. Une logique qui suppose que l’on puisse rapidement produire en quantités considérables pour fournir simultanément des clients aux quatre coins du monde mais qui suppose aussi une grande flexibilité : ces produits se renouvellent très vite. Nous en sommes déjà à la troisième ou quatrième génération d’iphone.Sa flexibilité lui permet également de répondre aux exigences du commerce électronique, sur internet, qui demande que l’on se rapproche de la fabrication à la demande. On ne peut pas dans l’univers du commerce sur internet stocker tous les produits que l’on vend, puisque l’on ne sait pas combien on en vendra dans quelques semaines ou quelques mois. Il faut donc trouver une solution industrielle qui permette de les fabriquer pratiquement à la demande. Ce modèle existe, c’est celui qu’avait imaginé le constructeur informatique Dell. L’industrie chinoise, avec son coté BHV dont je parlais tout à l’heure s’y prête particulièrement bien. Le sous-traitant stocke les composants des différents modèles d’un même produit, un téléphone, une tablette électronique… et les assemble à la demande. Et en quelques heures, le produit peut être expédié au client qui l’a commandé. Ce modèle ne peut évidemment fonctionner de manière satisfaisante que si le marché est très vaste, c’est-à-dire global.Cette modernité profonde du modèle chinois de production industrielle est trop rarement soulignée. Or, elle est capitale. Elle veut tout simplement dire que l’industrie chinoise pourra résister à une hausse du coût du travail à laquelle elle ne saurait échapper. Ces salariés que l’on traite si mal vont se rebeller, ils ont commencé de le faire et les pays occidentaux qui voient leurs emplois ouvriers disparaître vont exercer une pression forte sur la Chine pour qu’elle respecte mieux les règles sociales. Mais ces hausses du coût du travail que l’on peut anticiper ne ramèneront pas du travail chez nous. Et les emplois ?Pour se défendre, Apple indique que l’essentiel de la valeur ajoutée de ses produits est restée aux Etats-Unis. Dans un article publié dans le New-York Times en 2007, son économiste en chef, Hal Varian, indiquait, en s’appuyant sur les travaux de jeunes chercheurs, que plus de 54% de la valeur ajoutée d’un ipod fabriqué en Chine restait aux Etats-Unis, dont 46% pour la distribution et près de 50% pour Apple, ses ingénieurs… C’était en 2007, mais on peut penser que les chiffres pour l’iphone sont à peu près du même ordre. Cette ligne de défense n’est évidemment pas complètement satisfaisante : la valeur ajoutée et les emplois sont deux choses différentes. Si plus de la moitié de la valeur ajoutée reste aux Etats-Unis, le plus gros des emplois est en Chine, ce qui ne convient pas évidemment pas aux salariés américains au chômage. Voici, pour finir, quelques chiffres que je tire de cette série d’articles qui a servi de support à cette chronique. Apple emploie 40 000 personnes aux Etats-Unis et 20 000 ailleurs dans le monde tandis que 700 000, oui 700 000, personnes fabriquent et assemblent ses produits en Chine et ailleurs en Asie. Apple crée donc bien des emplois, mais pas là où on les imagine…Face à ces évolutions, on peut être tenté par le protectionnisme, il serait plus sage d’approfondir ce modèle chinois et de voir s’il ne serait pas possible de s’en inspirer.Le 31/01/2012