The Truth About Sovereignty

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

In the French parliament’s recent debate on Europe’snew fiscal treaty, the country’s Socialist government vehementlydenied that ratification of the treaty wouldundermine French sovereignty. It places “not one constraint on the level ofpublic spending,” Jean-Marc Ayrault, the prime minister, asserted. “Budget sovereignty remains in the parliament ofthe French Republic.”

As Ayrault was trying to reassure his skeptical colleagues, including manymembers of his own party, European Commissioner for Competition Joaquin Almuniawas delivering a similar message to his fellow social democrats in Brussels. To succeed, heargued, Europe must prove wrong those whobelieve there is a conflict between globalization and sovereignty.

Nobody likes to give up national sovereignty, leastof all, it seems, politicians on the left. Yet, by denying the obviousfact that the eurozone’s viability depends on substantial restraints onsovereignty, Europe’s leaders are misleadingtheir voters, delaying the Europeanization of democratic politics, and raisingthe political and economic costs of the ultimate reckoning.

The eurozone aspires to full economicintegration, which entails the elimination of transaction costs that impedecross-border commerce and finance. Obviously, it requires that governments renounce direct restrictions on trade and capitalflows. But it also requires that they harmonize their domestic rules andregulations – such as product-safety standards and bank regulations – withthose of other member states in order to ensure they do not act as indirecttrade barriers. And governments must forswearchanges in these policies, lest the uncertainty itself act as a transactioncost.

This was all implicit in the EuropeanUnion’s single-market initiative. The eurozone went one step further, aimingthrough monetary unification to eradicate fully the transaction costsassociated with national currencies and exchange-rate risk.

Simply put, the European integration project hashinged on restrictions on national sovereignty. If its future is now indoubt, it is because sovereignty stands in the way once again. In a trueeconomic union, underpinned by union-wide political institutions, the financialproblems of Greece, Spain,and the others would not have blown up totheir current proportions, threatening the existence of the union itself.

Consider the United  States. No one even keeps track of, say, Florida’s current-accountdeficit with the rest of the country, although we can safely guess that it ishuge (since the state is home to many retirees livingoff benefits that come from elsewhere).

When Florida’s state government goesbankrupt, Florida’sbanks continue to operate normally, because they are under federal rather thanstate jurisdiction. When Florida’sbanks go belly-up, state finances areinsulated, because the banks are ultimately the responsibility of federalinstitutions.

When Florida’s workers become unemployed,they get unemployment checks from Washington, DC. And when Florida’s voters are disenchanted about the economy, they do not riot outside the state capital; they put pressureon their representatives in Congress to push for changes in federal policies.Nobody would argue that US states have an abundance of sovereignty.

The relationship between sovereignty and democracy is also misunderstood.Not all restrictions on the exercise of sovereign power are undemocratic. Political scientists talk about“democratic delegation” – the idea that a sovereign might want to tieits hands (through international commitments or delegation to autonomousagencies) in order to achieve better outcomes. The delegation of monetarypolicy to an independent central bank is the archetypalexample: in the service of price stability, daily management of monetary policyis insulated from politics.

Even if selective limitations on sovereignty may enhance democraticperformance, there is no guarantee that all limitations implied by marketintegration would do so. In domestic politics, delegation is carefully calibrated and restricted to a few areas where theissues tend to be highly technical and partisan differences are not large.

A truly democracy-enhancing globalization would respect these boundaries.It would impose only those limits that are consistent with democraticdelegation, possibly along with a limited number of proceduralnorms (such as transparency, accountability, representativeness, use ofscientific evidence, etc.) that enhance democratic deliberationat home.

As the American example illustrates, it is possible to give up onsovereignty – as Florida, Texas, California, andthe other USstates have done – without giving up on democracy. But combining marketintegration with democracy requires the creation of supranational politicalinstitutions that are representative and accountable.

The conflict between democracy and globalization becomes acute whenglobalization restricts the domestic articulation of policy preferences withouta compensating expansion of democratic space at the regional/global level.Europe is already on the wrong side of this boundary, as the political unrestin Spain and Greeceindicates.

That is where my political trilemmabegins to bite: We cannot have globalization, democracy, and nationalsovereignty simultaneously. We must choose two among the three.

If European leaders want to maintain democracy, they must make a choicebetween political union and economic disintegration. They must eitherexplicitly renounce economic sovereignty or actively put it to use for thebenefit of their citizens. The first would entailcoming clean with their own electorates andbuilding democratic space above the level of the nation-state. The second wouldmean giving up on monetary union in order to be able to deploy nationalmonetary and fiscal policies in the service of longer-term recovery.

The longer this choice is postponed, the greater the economic andpolitical cost that ultimately will have to be paid.

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：Sovereign About truth Over Bout colleagues government parliament including minister

Simply put, the European integration project has hinged on restrictions on national sovereignty.In a true economic union, underpinned by union-widepolitical institutions, the financial problems of Greece,Spain,and the others would not have blown up totheir current proportions, threatening the existence of the union itself.Consider the United States. No one even keepstrack of, say, Florida’scurrent-account deficit with the rest of the country, although we can safelyguess that it is huge (since the state is home to many retirees living off benefits that come from elsewhere).

The relationship between sovereignty and democracy isalso misunderstood. As the American example illustrates, it is possible togive up on sovereignty – as Florida, Texas, California, andthe other USstates have done – without giving up on democracy. But combining market integrationwith democracy requires the creation of supranational political institutionsthat are representative and accountable.The conflict between democracy and globalizationbecomes acute when globalization restricts the domestic articulation of policypreferences without a compensating expansion of democratic space at theregional/global level.

That is where my political trilemmabegins to bite: We cannot have globalization（integration）, democracy, and nationalsovereignty simultaneously. We must choose two among the three.

If European leaders want to maintain democracy, theymust make a choice between political union and economic disintegration.The first would entailcoming clean with their own electorates andbuilding democratic space above the level of the nation-state. The second wouldmean giving up on monetary union in order to be able to deploy nationalmonetary and fiscal policies in the service of longer-term recovery.