If one town’s water pollution flows into another town, the two towns can negotiate a solution with no need for the state to intervene. But if all towns are polluting all neighboring towns, the lines of communication are too complex to negotiate – requiring the state to pass a law to solve the problem.
If one state’s water pollution flows into another state, the two states can negotiate a solution with no need for Federal intervention. But if all states are polluting all neighboring states, the lines of communication are too complex to negotiate – and it takes a national government to solve the problem.
In other words, those problems have solutions. If one nation’s water pollution flows into another nation, then (potentially, at least) the two nations can negotiate a solution with no need for a global government to intervene. But if all nations are polluting all neighboring nations, the lines of communication are too complex to negotiate – and no global government exists to solve the problem.
I’m currently pessimistic about two of the worst problems the world has faced: global climate change, and global financial contagion. Both are “externalities” in the classic sense. Each nation’s greenhouse gas emissions pollute the whole world, and the only really effective solution is a worldwide global agreement to reduce emissions. In fact, we don’t really “need” all nations to reduce emissions; all we really need is an agreement among all nations saying that if SOME countries reduce emissions then the other countries won’t increase emissions to steal their business. But the lines of communication are too complex to negotiate – and no global government exists to solve the problem.
Environmental policy is my usual bailiwick. At the moment, however, I’m even more worried about global financial contagion. It seems that one small country can have lax financial regulations that allow banks or investment companies to take on too much risk. Or a small country can overspend, taking on too much debt. In the olden days, that country could go down in flames, with no big problem for the rest of the world. With tremendously increased globalization, however, all financial markets are highly integrated. One country’s borrowing may come from any or all other countries of the world, and one nation’s problem become the world’s problem. If banks in other countries loan to that small country, then a financial crisis in that small country may create fear about the financial well-being of the banks that lent to them, causing a run on the banks in all those other countries. Moreover, globalization means much more trade in commodities. If one small country faces severe financial difficulties and must cut back all spending, that reduces aggregate demand worldwide, and can spread a recession worldwide.
A strong global government could rein in the poorly managed countries by requiring larger capital requirements, careful financial scrutiny, and only tax-financed spending. But we don’t have any such global government. As a result, even a small country like Greece can over-spend for years without oversight. The situation in Greece may be made worse when banks in other countries raise the rate at which Greece can turn over its debt and borrow again, making the financial situation in Greece even worse.
The problem may be caused by Greece or not. Regardless of “fault”, if Greece any small country were to go into default in years past, then the cost would be primarily on that small country. Now Greece could go bankrupt and impose horrible costs on the entire World?!?