1、「全球化」英語作文，
Globalization and Internet （全球化/Internet）
The drawing vividly unfolds …(Describe the picture描述圖畫)
This phenomenon which this picture points out is one of numerous international phenomena to have become common and already attracted broad attention in the world in recent years. Globalization/Internet, in brief, makes the whole world a small village. Globalization/Internet offers extensive opportunities for every country in the world to develop their economy, improve their regime, enrich their culture, update their technology and so forth, but globalization/Internet is a two-edged sword: it can bring both benefit and harm. (Present state/situation現象描述+ /Meaning含義)
這幅圖畫指出的這個現象是近幾年在世界上眾多已經變得普遍並且已經引起了廣泛關注的國際/世界現象之一。全球化/Internet，簡言之，就是使整個世界變成一個小村子。全球化/Internet給予了這個世界上的每一個國家廣泛的機會去發展它們的經濟、改善它們的政體、豐富它們的文化、更新它們的技術等等，但全球化/Internet是一把兩刃劍：既有利的一面，也有害的一面。
We must first understand the nature of the problem. On the one hand, globalization/Internet offers extensive opportunities for every country in the world. On the other hand, One of the most controversial aspects of globalization/Internet is the global spread and dominance of American culture.
我們必須先要理解這個問題的本質。一方面，全球化/Internet為這個世界上的每一個國家提供了廣闊的機會。另一方面，全球化/Internet最具有爭議的其中一個方面是認為全球化就是美國文化的全球擴張和一統天下。
I have some suggestions about dealing with this problem. First and foremost, Globalization/Internet can bring benefit. In the past twenty years, in the process of globalization and explosive development of the Internet, China has brought about rapid economic growth, sustained social progress and continuous betterment of people's living standard, so we should accept. Secondly, it can also bring harm. China has been experiencing the collapse of own traditional virtue in the process.
In summary, I am deeply convinced that she, a nation which has civilization for 5,000 years, never loses any good things, physical, intellectual, or moral, till she finds a better substitute, and then the loss is a gain. (Suggestion+conclusion建議+結束語)
關於處理這個問題，我有一些建議。首要地，全球化/Internet能帶來利益。在過去二十年，在全球化和Internet爆炸性的發展的過程中，中國已經產生了快速的經濟增長、持續的社會進步和人們生活水平的不斷改善，因此我們是應該接受的。其次，它也能帶來傷害，在全球化和Internet爆炸性的發展的過程中，中國一直在經歷著自己傳統美德的瓦解。
總之，我深信她，一個擁有5000年文明的民族，決不會丟掉任何好的東西，物質的、精神的或道德的，直到她找到一個更好的替代，那麼到那時侯這種丟失就是一種獲得。
2、寫一篇經濟全球化的英語作文。詮釋自己的三個觀點
Globalization`s al power Globalization has found a significant place in the lives of the people. During the process of globalization, we have made a bridge where ideas and beliefs can cross the borders, and the walls of distrust and the barriers of suspicion between countries have graally disappeared. Though globalization is seen as a sign of a hopeful future by some, there are others who believe that it can cause a horrible disaster for the world economy. Counties benefit a lot from globalization, especially the developing countries. With it, there is a global market for companies to trade their procts which can make the proction sector develop rapidly. This gives lots of options to the manufacturers as well. Besides, competition keeps prices relatively low and it can provide a wider range of options for people, to choose from among the procts of different nations. In addition, there is a sound flow of money, as a result, inflation is less likely to occur. But the disadvantages brought by globalization cannot be ignored. Globalization is causing Europeans to lose their jobs as work is being swerved to the Asian countries. The cost of labor in the Asian countries
is low as compared to other countries which is often argued that poor countries are exploited by the richer countries where the work force is taken advantage of and low wages are implemented. Moreover, companies are as opening their counterparts in other countries which can result in transferring the quality of their proct to other countries, thereby increasing the chances of poor quality. Simply put, globalization is an ongoing process of integration of regional economies into global network of communication which the human being cannot hold back. So we should keep a positive attitude toward it, take good use of it and avoid disadvantages at the same time. Thus there will be a better world where all the people can have a brighter future.
全球化`的雙電源全球化已發現在人們的生活中一個重要的地方。在全球化的過程中，我們已經有了一個橋梁，想法和信念可
3、求一篇英語演講稿。
All the nations are co-existed in one world. But poverty still remains one of the biggest and most difficult issues untackled today. And people are suffering from the disasters that are caused by regional conflicts. The rapid trend of economic globalization has made the world fortune more unevenly distributed. The instrialization of countries leaves a great burden to the environment. So how can we make this world a better place for us human beings? It will not be able to be achieved without love and peace. So let's do our best to contribute to peaceful development of the world.
(98words)
所有國家都共處於一個世界。但是貧窮依然是今天未解決的最大和最困難的問題之一。還有人們正飽受地區沖突所帶來的災難的折磨。經濟全球化的迅猛趨勢已使世界財富分配得更加不均。各國的工業化留給了環境一個沉重的包袱。因此，我們要如何使這個世界成為我們人類更美好的家園？如果沒有愛與和平，這個目標將無法實現。所以，讓我們盡自己最大努力來為世界和平發展貢獻自己的力量吧！
（英文部分98詞。本文為原創，供參考。）
【公益慈善翻譯團】真誠為你解答！
4、急需一篇命題為全球化的英文演講稿。時間一分鍾左右，不要太難。內容要有內涵。
global competition
CHINA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER:
Is a new world order in the making? The answer: yes. Up to now, only about 20% of the world's people have attained solid development, growth, and modernity. Now the rest are catching up at an unprecedented speed. This sudden surge in so many late developers suggests a brave new world in the making.
Several Key Changes
Huge changes are happening, within a vastly expanded sphere for all people and nations. We can identify four in particular.
First, wealth making through instrialization and commercialization has become a universal thing. For a long time, procts made in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany dominated global markets. Today, procts made in China, Mexico, Vietnam, and Indonesia, among other developing nations, are increasingly flooding the world, changing the global proction map again.
Behind this changing map, interestingly, many poor nations have rapidly taken on active roles in the global economy. But their biggest weapon remains low-cost labor, which provides a working platform for cooperation and sharing between the rich and poor nations.
Today, most developing nations are extremely limited in resources and strengths. Hence, for them, this cost gap is a survival gap. In fact, other than cheap labor and hard work, they have few advantages. However, it turns out that low labor cost and hard work do make a difference.
For now, manufacturing activities, especially in the low end of the value chains, increasingly shift to the poor nations, while the developed nations focus more and more on a service and high-tech-oriented economy. This giant change, though only beginning, will impact the future world economy even more.
Second, all regional markets are connected to each other. Interdependence is opening up the old national boundaries dramatically. Most profoundly, the flows of capital, technology, goods, and people have reached a new level. Moving from survival of the fittest to rational collaboration and sharing, life on the earth will never be the same again.
Third, wealth making has gained a record-high status. Consequently, old ideology is lost to the new economic waves. This is a truly golden age for capitalists anywhere, who can reach all corners of the world for the first time in human history.
全球競爭
中國和世界新秩序:
是一個新的世界秩序的過程? 答案:是的。 到目前為止,只有約20%的世界人民獲得了牢固的發展、增長、和現代化。 其他地區現在已趕上以前所未有的速度。 這麽多晚突然增加的發展商建議的勇敢新世界中作出的。
幾個關鍵的修改
正在發生巨大的變化,在一個領域大大擴大為所有國家和人民。 我們可以確定四個特別是。
第一,財富使通過工業化和商業化已經成為一個具有普遍意義的東西。 長期以來,產品在聯合王國、美國和德國,主宰全球市場。 今天,中國製造的產品、墨西哥、越南、印度尼西亞、在其他發展中國家,正越來越多地水浸的世界,不斷變化的全球生產再次地圖。
這一變化背後地圖,有趣的是,許多窮國已迅速採取積極的作用對在全球經濟。 但他們最大的武器仍然是低成本勞動力,這提供了一個工作平台,以合作和分享富國和窮國之間。
今天,大多數發展中國家都極為有限的資源和力量。 因此,對他們來說,這一費用差距是一個生存差距。 事實上,其他較廉價勞工和勤奮工作,他們有幾個優勢。 然而,原來,勞動力成本低和艱苦的工作是有影響的。
現在,製造業活動,特別是在低端的價值鏈,日益轉移到窮國,而發達國家把重點更多和更多的服務和高科技為主的經濟。 這一巨大變化,盡管只是開始,將會影響未來世界經濟的更多。
第二,所有的區域市場是相互連接。 相互依存是開放的舊國家邊界急劇增加。 最深刻、流動方面的資本、技術、商品、和人民達到了新的水平。 從適者生存的合作和交流,合理,生活在地球也永遠不會是原來的樣子。
第三,財富作出了記錄很高的地位。 因此,舊思想是失去了對新經濟浪潮。 這真的是一個黃金年齡的任何地方資本家,誰能達到對世界所有角落首次在人類歷史。
5、求比爾蓋茨在2008瑞士達沃斯全球經濟論壇演講的英文原稿及中文翻譯，謝謝！
那個中文翻譯跟英文原版不是很一樣（太長了，英文在參考資料里）：
這是微軟董事長比爾·蓋茨今年1月在達沃斯論壇所作的他認為是他最重要的一次演講。
在人的本性中蘊藏著兩股巨大的力量，一是自利，一是關愛他人。資本主義利用了人性中自利的力量，取得了經濟進步和社會發展，但這只服務於有錢人。而窮人就只能依靠政府援助和慈善。21世紀的新型資本主義需要對此進行調整，通過市場的力量以及制度創新，來服務窮人。
世界正變得越來越好，而且進步常明顯。在未來幾十年裡，人類還將擁有驚人的新力量，擁有更強大的軟體，更精準的診斷手段，更有效的治療葯物，更好的教育以及更好的發展機會，而且會有越來越多的優秀的人才貢獻出解決問題的創意想法。這就是我眼中的世界。
我是一個非常樂觀的人，但我是個急性子。誠然，世界在越變越好，但在我看來，速度還是太慢，而且世界並非對所有人而言都是越變越好。偉大的進步總會加劇不平等現象。豐衣足食的人可以享受到技術進步帶來的改善，而貧苦困頓的人卻獲益很少，特別是那些一天的生活支出還不足1美元的最貧困的10億人。
在全球范圍內，差不多有10億人缺乏足夠的食物，喝不上清潔的飲用水，用不上電，而這些是我們已經習以為常的生活基本必需品。全世界每年有超過100萬人死於瘧疾，然而這類疾病得到的關注還比不上治療脫發的葯物。全世界最貧困的10億人沒有享受到全球化的好處，相反他們承受著經濟發展帶來的弊端。他們被撇在一邊。氣候變化的成因和他們無關，可偏偏對他們的生活影響最大。
為什麼人們的需要總是和他們所能享受的經濟發展成果成反比？原因就在於市場激勵機制。
在資本主義體系中，一個人的財富增加了，為他服務的經濟動力就相應增強；而如果一個人的財富減少，則為他服務的經濟動力就減弱，直到完全消失。我們必須得找到一個辦法讓資本主義的這種為有錢人打工的屬性同樣也能夠幫扶窮人。
資本主義的奧秘就在於它有能力讓自利服務於更廣大社會群體的利益，它能通過財務回報來推動創新。自利所驅動的資本主義制度催生了許多令人難以置信的創新發明，這些創新改善了很多人的生活。
在我看來，我們需要一個新的制度體系來讓自利的動力發揮作用，從而使每一個人都能從中受益。在人的本性中蘊藏著兩股巨大的力量，一是自利，一是關愛他人。資本主義利用了人性中自利的力量，讓它能持續不斷地發揮有益的作用，但只是服務於那些有支付能力的人。而那些沒錢買服務的人就只能靠政府援助和慈善。
但為了讓窮人的生活能迅速改觀，我們需要一個制度體系，這個制度體系需要比我們現在的更能夠吸引創新者和企業參與。這個新制度有兩個使命。一是賺錢贏利，二是讓那些無法充分享受市場經濟益處的人群生活得到改善。
為了讓制度可以有持續性，我們必須用利潤來進行激勵。而如果企業服務的對象非常貧困，那利潤就不大可能產生，那這時我們就需要另一個激勵手段，那就是認可(recognition)。企業得到認可就意味著它的知名度提高了，知名度能吸引顧客，更為重要的是，它可以感召優秀的人才前來加盟。這種知名度能夠讓好的行為得到市場的嘉獎。當企業在市場上無法贏利的情況下，知名度可以是一種替代；而如果可以實現市場利潤，則知名度又是額外的激勵。
我們的挑戰就是設計出一個新的制度體系，讓利潤和知名度這樣的市場激勵發揮作用，使企業更加傾向於為窮人服務。我把這種想法稱為創新型資本主義(creative capitalism)。通過這種途徑，政府、企業及非贏利組織可以進行合作，讓市場的作用在更大的范圍內發揮作用，從而更多的人可以從中賺取利潤，或是得到認可，最終改善全球不平等的現象。
也許有人會反對這種基於市場的社會變革，他們認為如果把感情和自利結合在一起，市場的作用范圍不會擴大，相反會縮小。但亞當·斯密，這位資本主義的鼻祖，《國富論》的作者，這位堅信自利對於社會的價值的思想家，在他的第一本著作的開卷部分這么寫道：無論把人看成多麼自私，在人的本性中明顯地存在某些根本原則：一個人對改善別人的命運產生興趣，將別人的快樂當成是自己的必需，雖然從中他並不能獲得什麼，只是看見它就感到滿足。
創新型資本主義把這種對他人命運的興趣與對自己命運的關心聯系起來，既可以幫助他人，同時也可以提升自己。與單純的自利行為相比，利己與利他相結合能夠惠及更多的人。
創新型的資本主義將商業專長和發展中國家的需要相結合，在發展中國家，市場一直存在，只是沒有企業去開辟。有些時候，市場經濟的做法在發展中國家行不通，並不是在發展中國家不存在需求，或是他們缺錢，真正的原因是企業沒有花足夠的時間來研究該市場的需求。普拉哈拉德在他的著作《金字塔底層的財富》中對此有相當精彩的論述。此書對很多公司和企業產生了巨大的影響，它幫助這些企業通過特殊的創新拓展了贏利空間。
在這里我可以舉一個例子。世界衛生組織希望在非洲擴大腦膜炎疫苗的接種范圍。但它沒有直接去和生產疫苗的廠商接觸，它先是到非洲了解人們的支付能力。該組織了解到如果要讓非洲的母親為她們的孩子接種腦膜炎疫苗，那疫苗的價格不能超過50美分。隨後世界衛生組織要求合作廠商按這個價格標准組織生產。事實上，一家印度的制葯企業找到一種新的生產方法，將售價降到了40美分。世界衛生組織允許該企業在未來十年為公共衛生體系提供2.5億支腦膜炎疫苗，同時允許它將產品賣給私營醫療機構。
另一個例子是有一家荷蘭的制葯企業擁有一種疫苗的產權。該企業對在發達國家生產該疫苗的企業收取專利費，而免除發展中國家生產該疫苗企業的專利費。結果在越南生產這種疫苗的成本還不到1美元，而且這1美元當中還包含了運費和免疫宣傳費用。
因為今天許多重要產品的邊際費用已經很低了，軟體、醫葯、媒體作品等等都是如此。這種分級定價的做法能夠讓沒錢的人也可以買得起一些有價值的產品。這種定價方式其實可以在更大的范圍內進行推廣。
我所舉的這些項目能夠給我們一點啟示。致力於滿足發展中國家需要的人要和科學家一起合作，因為科學家知道可以在哪裡實現突破，這一點在軟體業和醫葯行業都一樣。兩方面的人結合在一起就可以找到辦法讓好的想法在貧窮國家得到實施。
另一個實現創新型資本主義的辦法需要政府的直接參與。當然政府在幫扶窮人方面已經做了大量的工作。這就不僅僅是培育市場方面的努力，政府在援助、科研和醫療衛生方面投入了大量財力。這些工作都非常有意義。但我認為政府最能夠調動資源的做法是出台政策，通過市場的方式鼓勵企業為改善貧困人口生活來做出努力。
布希總統最近簽署了一個法案，根據該法案，如果一家制葯公司為瘧疾或肺結核這樣長期受到忽視的疾病開發出了一種新的治療手段，則該公司高利潤的產品，比如治療膽固醇的葯物就可以提早兩年上市銷售，這種優先權可能意味著上億美元的市場。
還有個實現創新型資本主義的辦法，那就是幫助貧困國家的企業進入發達國家的市場。明天我會在此宣布一個合作計劃，這個計劃將幫助非洲農民進入上等咖啡市場。計劃的目的是要讓這些農民種植咖啡的收入能夠增加一倍。它幫助非洲農民種植優質咖啡，幫助他們與需要購買咖啡的企業建立聯系。最終計劃將使咖啡種植農民和他們的家庭擺脫貧困。
最後，還有一種實現創新型資本主義的最有創意的方式。幾年前的一個深夜，我和Bono(U2主唱)在達沃斯小鎮上的一個酒吧里閑聊。在小酌了幾杯後，Bono變得非常激動，他和我談起我們要用什麼方法讓那些具備公益心的企業拿出銷售收入的一小部分來幫助改變整個世界。那天晚上，他不停地打電話，把別人從睡夢中叫醒，然後還把電話交給我，讓我知道他們對此都很感興趣。我們用了不少時間才啟動這項工作。
但Bono說得對，如果一個人意識到他在購買一件好產品的同時還有機會參與一項他非常重視的社會事業，那他一定會非常樂意購買。紅色運動就是這樣在達沃斯誕生的。GAP、摩托羅拉、阿瑪尼等公司的產品都參與了這項活動。
本周，這些公司的代表在微軟相聚，商量下一步的發展。在過去的一年半時間里，我們通過這項運動籌集了1500萬美元在全球范圍內防治艾滋病、肺結核和瘧疾。它的成果便是今天在非洲差不多有兩百萬人得到了救命的葯品。現在世界上越來越多的人認識到，如果有合適的激勵方式，那麼改變就可以持續進行。因為利潤和認可是可以不斷更新的資源。
更為重要的是在這個基礎上，全世界的企業家不論性別都可以把他們改善生活的想法轉化為人們可以購買得起的產品和服務。柯林頓總統作為非贏利組織成員，幫助發達國家的生產商和貧困國家的消費者建立聯系，他在當中發揮了獨特的作用。有的企業還為他們所認為的社會資本主義專門設立了獎項。
我只是舉了幾個例子來說明世界上對這樣的創新型制度體系有了越來越濃厚的興趣。這會是個全球性的運動，我們每一個人都有能力而且有責任來加速推動這個進程。在座諸位，無論你們是來自企業，還是政府，或是非營利機構，我想請你們在新的一年裡一同從事創新型資本主義的活動舉措。看看我們是否能夠擴展市場經濟的影響，我們要做成一些事，無論這會是國際援助的，還是慈善捐贈，或是一項新產品。
各位能否應用這樣一個創新型的制度體系，讓市場的力量發揮作用來幫助窮人？我希望公司企業可以安排最有創新能力的研發人員拿出一部分時間來考慮這些問題，從而幫助人們一起來推動全球經濟。這類貢獻會比直接捐贈現金更有價值。你們或許可以給員工放假讓他們從事志願者工作，這樣便是讓公司集中發揮你們最擅長的優勢。這也是創新型資本主義的一種形式，因為這種智慧在讓有錢人生活得更好之後，又開始致力改善所有人的生活。
目前已經有許多制葯企業，像葛蘭素·史克公司，他們讓最有創造能力的研發人員開發幫助窮人的葯物。日本的住友化工利用他們的專長建好蚊帳工廠後再捐贈出去。其實在食品、高科技、行動電話，以及銀行業都有許多這樣的例子。事實上我想說的是如果各行業的企業都可以做到像這些公司一樣，那世界的不平等現象就會有極大的改觀。
我們處在一個非同尋常的時代。如果我們能夠在21世紀的前幾十年探索到滿足貧困人口需要的方式，找到為企業帶來利潤和認可的辦法，那麼我們減少世界貧困的努力就可以一直持續下去。這個任務永遠都不會結束。能投身這項事業，我內心激動不已。
6、急需全球化是機遇的英語演講搞
Globalization. It's a new word—so new in fact that my 1997 Microsoft Word program underlines it in red. The term does not stir my emotions, but that bland reaction is obviously not shared by the thousands of demonstrators who appeared in Quebec City last week to protest against a new manifestation of globalization, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas.
Commentators have called attention to the diversity of causes and tactics represented at Quebec City and earlier demonstrations. At one end of the spectrum were self-described anarchists who condemned virtually all international economic activity. At the other end were law-abiding groups that could accept liberalized trade and investment, but only if linked to the mandatory observance of meaningful labor and environmental standards.
The interesting thing is that neither of these positions, extreme or moderate, would seem likely to resonate with US voters. The vast majority of Americans are repelled by violence, and only a minority is seriously moved by environmental degradation or poor working conditions in developing countries. Yet ring the last decade US opponents of globalization succeeded in stymieing the Clinton Administration's efforts to win renewed "fast track" authority, now renamed "trade promotion authority," to negotiate trade agreements.
How is this possible if these groups and their agendas do not appeal to mainstream America?
To answer this question, let me begin by defining globalization. My learned colleagues at the Institute for International Economics describe it as "the increased integration of proct and factor markets across countries via trade, immigration, and capital flows." To me, it is simply the increased cross-border flow of goods, services, people, and capital.
Whatever the definition, globalization is certainly a fact for the United States-and has been since 1960.
US imports as a share of gross domestic proct have risen from a scant 2 percent in 1959 to 12 percent in 1999.
Legal immigration has almost trebled from the 1960s to the 1990s, and the addition of illegals would expand current figures significantly. The percentage of foreign-born in the US population has grown from 5 percent in 1960 to 10 percent in 2000.
Foreign direct investment by US firms has increased from 7 percent of GDP in 1982 to 28 percent last year.
As the US economy was becoming increasingly globalized, the gap widened between the wages paid to more-skilled and less-skilled workers as measured by ecational level. In 1979, for example, male college-ecated workers earned 30 percent more than their high school-ecated counterparts. By 1995 the premium for college-ecated workers had risen to about 70 percent.
The effect of this increasing wage disparity among American workers has been compounded since 1973 by a fall in average real wages. US average real weekly earnings peaked in 1973 at nearly $320. They then fell to under $260 by the mid-1990s and recovered to only $280 last year.
You can quickly see the result of an increasing wage disparity and a falling average wage: sluggish to negative real-wage growth for most US workers. The lower the skill level, the greater the fall in real wages. Only workers in the top 10 percent of the overall wage distribution received higher real wages in 1998 than in 1979; earnings for the remaining 90 percent fell or stagnated. This development is radically different than the situation from 1948 through 1973, when family income for the lowest quintile grew faster than that for the highest.
Stagnant or falling wages are bad enough, but there is something even worse-job loss. In a book that will appear this summer, Lori Kletzer of our Institute examines the fates of workers who have lost their jobs in instries most impacted by import competition, such as textiles, apparel, footwear, and motor vehicles. During the 15 years ending in 1994, these workers accounted for about 39 percent of the 4.6 million manufacturing jobs lost.
Kletzer reports that indivial outcomes varied considerably. About one-third of these workers found new jobs at wages equal or better than they previously received, generally in their previous instry of employment. But 25 percent reported earnings losses of 30 percent or more.
Women suffer disproportionately as they are more likely to be employed in and displaced from import-competing instries. Married women are especially disadvantaged as they are seven percentage points less likely than married men to become reemployed. Their towns presumably do not offer alternative employment, and they are unable to relocate when their husbands still have relatively good jobs.
To summarize, then, we have three simultaneous developments. The US economy has become increasingly globalized, wages of most workers have dropped or stagnated, and most workers laid off in import-competing instries cannot find jobs at their previous pay level. Now here's a big question: Have developments two and three been caused by development one? Is globalization the culprit?
The answer is a qualified no. Most economic research indicates that technological change favoring skilled workers has been the main cause of wage and job loss in the US economy. Unskilled workers are less needed as proction processes become more efficient, and therefore their relative wages drop. This is not to say that imports, proction outsourcing, and immigration have had no effect, only that the influence of these globalization factors is substantially less than that of technological change.
But there is an even bigger question, measured in political terms: Do Americans believe that globalization is responsible for wage and job loss? The answer to this question is provided in Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers, a book recently published by our Institute. The authors, Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter, analyzed a wealth of polling data on this question, breaking down the responses by the skill levels of the respondents as measured by ecational achievement or average wage, in addition to other factors.
According to Scheve and Slaughter's findings, large majorities of Americans think that trade generates the benefits predicted by economics. (Good news for economists.) However, nearly 90 percent claim that imports destroy American jobs. What's more, when asked a question that mentions both the benefits and costs of trade, a plurality or majority of respondents emphasized the costs, not the benefits. Even when a pollster explained that the cost of saving a job in the apparel instry was more than $50,000 and the 1997 average wage in the instry was $18,000, nearly two-thirds of the respondents still said the cost was worth it. Similarly, a plurality or majority of Americans want fewer immigrants coming into the country and less foreign direct investment because of perceived labor-market costs.
Further analysis of these data proces even more interesting results. Scheve and Slaughter found that preferences about trade and immigration policy divide strongly across skill levels without regard to instry. Less-skilled indivials, measured in terms of ecation or wages, are much more likely to oppose freer trade and immigration than their more-skilled counterparts.
Even more intriguing, there is no strong evidence to support several pearls of conventional wisdom. For trade, instry of employment is not systematically related to a worker's attitude toward trade policy. Workers in "trade exposed" instries like textiles and apparel are not more likely to oppose freer trade than their equally skilled counterparts in other instries. For immigration, people living in gateway communities in California are not more or less likely to oppose freer immigration than other Americans.
Let me try to pull all this together. Most Americans appreciate the overall economic benefits of globalization. However, they also understand that increased trade, investment, and immigration proces losers as well as winners, even though the gains outweigh the losses. Workers at lower skill levels empathize with the losers, even when-and this is important-they themselves are not likely to be losers because of their instry of employment or area of residence. These perceptions seem chiefly responsible for American concerns about globalization-not the demonstrators' demands for improved labor and environmental standards abroad, except insofar as these international humanitarian objectives are understood to be proxies for domestic economic goals.
If this analysis is correct, supporters of freer trade, investment, and immigration would be well advised to find ways of assisting less-skilled workers threatened by a changing economy. Core labor and environmental standards-the demands of many antiglobalization protesters-may be important in themselves, but they will not allay the visceral concerns of Americans about jobs and wages. Globalization is a positive-sum game, but means must be found for American winners to share their gains with American losers or the play cannot continue.
In this regard, Lori Kletzer of our Institute and Robert Litan of Brookings have proposed a new safety net of health and wage insurance for displaced workers-regardless of the reason for their job loss. All full-time displaced workers would be eligible for health insurance coverage for up to six months until they found a new job. In addition, eligible workers would receive some portion of their wage loss for up to two years following the date of job loss, but would start receiving that benefit only when they found new jobs. The limitations on these benefits are intended to encourage rapid reemployment, even in trainee positions where the displaced worker would initially take a pay cut. Their cost would be surprisingly low-only $3.6 billion in 1997, when the national unemployment rate averaged 4.9 percent, if the program covered half the loss in wages.
The Kletzer-Litan proposal offers a partial solution to our current political quandary, but additional measures will probably be required. The point is that we must begin to see the opportunities and challenges of globalization as they are and deal realistically with them. Demonstration and denial are not adequate responses. Instead, we must reason together across age, class, and party lines to craft solutions that will benefit all Americans.
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=408