Očitno je ta nemirni čas primeren za branje turških ekonomistov oz. sta vsaj dva takšna, da se ju splača brati. Nista čisto turška, ker je Acemoglu po rodu Armenec, Rodrik pa sefardski Jud, oba sta se rodila v Istanbulu, študirala (tudi) na zahodu in delata v Trumplandiji.

Nekaj Acemogluja so nam v prevodu ponudile Finance pred dvema dnevoma,
www.finance.si/89496...obra-ideja

kakšen teden prej pa je v Foreign Affairs izšel Rodrikov članek, ki bralcem njegove knjige The Globalization Paradox nikakor ne bo nov. Takole se začne:

Globalization’s Wrong Turn
And How It Hurt America
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization’s biggest boosters now concede that it has produced lopsided benefits and that something will have to change.
Today’s woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current, hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property, industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments’ attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth. But these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the upside.
...
www.foreignaffairs.c...wrong-turn