I started understanding that addressing the human condition was not really about finding technical solutions. Instead, it came down to the power of persuasion and, ultimately, politics. I would no longer be fooled by fancy-shmancy data-driven models.
Which is also when I seriously started thinking about persuading others through easy to understand approaches. One of the big topics then was free trade, and NAFTA in this part of the world. I did not oppose free trade, especially after my experiences in the socialist India. But, my logic told me that freely moving goods and capital alone merely provides advantages to those who are better-off. I wanted free movement of people also.
I went to talk about this with one of the professors. He disagreed with me. He gave me the same old textbook argument of how the movement of capital will counter and complement the controls on movement of labor. I was not convinced. I wrote an essay and sent that to Economic and Political Weekly. Of course it was not published--I bet that it was one horribly written essay, stylistically and content-wise.
Over the years, I have been more convinced than ever that globalization ought to include freer, if not completely free, movement of labor. Yes, I know that this exactly what the fascist thug campaigned against and for which he was rewarded with 63 million votes. But, hey, the fascist can and will bullshit and lie. But, the truth cannot be simply tweeted away.
One of the best contemporary thinkers on the distributional aspects of globalization, Branko Milanovic, whom I have quoted before, writes this:
income gaps are unlikely to be eliminated. Which, in turn, shows the importance of migration. If a borderless cosmopolitan world is to be achieved (an objective with which I agree but see enormous political difficulties in reaching it), migration is absolutely essential. But as economic migration faces increasing obstacles in rich countries (and, it has to be added, not solely because of xenophobia but for economic reasons as well), the ideal of a world “without injustice of birth” recedes.
Yes, the injustice of birth. Click here if you need a refresher on that.
Milanovic concludes:
I am very sympathetic to the borderless world but to believe that it can be achieved through trade alone, and without significant migration, is unrealistic. And once we say “migration”, we immediately open the Pandora’s box that the most recent elections in Europe and the United States have shown is a reality, not an imagination. Thus, our new “intellectual revolution” should be rather to address the issue of migration and citizenship than free trade. Free trade alone cannot solve world’s problems.
We need to think about migration and citizenship in new ways. And we need to be able to think about that while dealing with the fascist thug's tweets and rants channeling his narrow and nativist takes on migration and citizenship. Eventually, in the long run, truth will prevail. But then, we need to also keep in mind that wonderful line: In the long run we are all dead.
