Sunday, February 2, 2025

Trump 2.0 as private provision of a global public bad

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rival and non-excludabe. It could be something material (fireworks) or non material (an idea). Different people may have different preferences for a public good: some people like fireworks, other people do not. For those that do not, fireworks are a public bad.

If a public good affects people all over the world, we are in front of a global public good. If people (or a majority) dislike it, it is no longer a good, it is a bad.

Public goods (or bads) are usually provided by the public sector, as it happens with local public goods such as roads or traffic signals. But they can also be provided by individuals or by the private sector, as in some charities or with corporate social responsibility.

Using these definitions, Trump 2.0 can arguably be characterized as a privately provided global public bad. Leaving the World Health Organization, or reneging from the Paris climate agreement, or stopping international aid, are going to cause unnecessary suffering all over the world. The support of the Trump administration for extreme right wing political parties in other countries, or the threat of causing geostrategic or trade disruption, and their poisoning of political communications, go in the same direction.

A public good (or bad) can be privately provided for a variety of reasons: it could be in the interests of the individuals providing the good, or they could be altruists or believers in something. The techno-oligarchs that run the new US administration with Trump are interested in removing regulations that may threaten their business or their power. The support of these oligarchs is one of the features that distinguishes Trump 2.0 from Trump 1.0.

An early example of private provision of a winning political alternative took place in Italy in the 1990s and early 2000s with Berlusconi. Like now in the US, it was a case of political vertical integration: two usually contracting units (lobby and political party) merged in the same value chain. There are differences though. Berlusconi created a new political party, while Trump basically took over an existing one. And the Trumpian techno-oligarchy has created a truly global public bad, whereas in Italy it didn’t go beyond the national level. The corruption inherent to the alliance between Trump, Musk and the other oligarchs is without precedent.

A global public bad can only be defeated with coordinated global action, or at least action from citizens and actors from as many jurisdictions and institutions as possible. How to fight these global powers should include breaking the private provision with regulations fighting the excessive power of techno-oligarchs, overcoming the global collective action problem with new forms of organization and communication, and developing policies that strengthen democratic forces and governments.

In this context, the European Union has an enormous responsibility, and also an opportunity: more than ever, it should reinforce its institutions (with further integration) and those of global peace, and promote a balanced industrial policy, compatible with competition to fight global monopolies, and a rule-based trading and immigration system.

In a way, Trump 2.0 challenges the notion of national sovereignty. But the right challenge to the nation-state is to question the idea of the US new administration as the only sovereign state. If sovereignty is shared in peace to face our global challenges, democracy will prevail.

 

Sunday, January 12, 2025

A more perfect (federal, European) Union

Joshua Livestro has written a fantastic book about the history of the idea of a federal European Union. I knew about the book  from one of the columns of Simon Kuper in the Financial Times. The volume should be read by all Europeans, and belong to the bookshelf of any European federalist.

It tells the history of a 500 year-old idea, from Machiaveli to the founding fathers of the European Union ancestor institutions, Monnet and Schuman.


The success of the nation-state after the Middle Ages was challenged very early by the ideas of many authors and philosophers, and by the pratices of leagues of cities, empires, federations and confederations. 

The twentieth century lived through the biggest explosion of a long run old battle, the battle between nationalism and shared sovereignty. The myth that nationalism and international integration could peacefull coexist was demolished by the Second World war. The idea of national self-determination, which was seen by many, including US President Wilson, as the final remedy agaist wars, provoked instead the biggest of all wars, because the self-determination of one procclaimed nation prevented the self-determination of another overlapping one.

It was only after the second World War that progressive thinkers and activists like Arendt or Spinelli reached the conclusion that national sovereignty was incompatible with peace and that the future of Europe depended instead on sharing sovereignty instead of restricting it to the national level.

An important innovation in the postwar years was that gradual strategies became key in an uncertain world: economic objectives should take priority (for example, by sharing resources such as coal and steel), and projects should start with a core of countries and expand thereafter.

We know about the difficulties of the present, with the threat of Trump and his olygarchs, of Putin and the far right. But the EU will be run in the next five years by basically a coalition of democratic leaders, with Ursula Von der Leyen and Teresa Ribera in the European Commission and Antonio Costa in the European Council. They have the Draghi Report as their guide. Romania ans Bulgaria have just joined the Schengen agreement, and the single market and single currency remain in place. Spinelli and Arendt would be proud for it, and ready to fight to defend these achievements and expand from them.

This book about the history of an idea contains the intellectual ingredients to fight for peace and union in our current difficult times.