Rodrik's trilemma, what does it consist of?

The Rodrik's trilemmaby Dani Rodrick, a brilliant professor at Hardard University, argued that economic globalization and technology remained in constant tension due to the demands of democracy and sovereignty national. In this sense, the author opens an interesting debate on globalization and the effect it has on true democracy and national sovereignty.

Well in his Rodrick thesis, shows that these three represent a trilemma of political-economic options impossible to obtain at the at the same time, since they are incompatible and the country in question is obliged to highlight only two of the themselves.

What is the Rodrick trilemma?

It is an economic and political theory that exposes the relativity between economic globalization, political democracy and national sovereignty, where according to the same this relationship is irregular and merits the exhaustion of one of these forces.

In simpler words, the Rodrick's trilemma, Also known as the impossible trilemma, it indicates the impossibility of a country achieving, at the same time, an economic globalization, political democracy and national sovereignty. These three options are incompatible to achieve simultaneously. In such a way that the country must choose between them to develop only two.

• He chooses to achieve economic globalization, with a global democracy, sacrificing part of his national sovereignty.
• It chooses to fully retain its national sovereignty and lead an internal democracy, leaving aside integration to globalization.
• Choose to adhere to economic globalization, maintaining national autonomy, sacrificing democracy as internal politics.

Achieving these three objectives according to the trilemma is impossible, obtaining one prevents the completion of another.

Controversy around Rodrick's trilemma

For many it is a simple argument, given that globalization involves certain social costs that for Rodrick only democracy or sovereignty can lessen, but never both at the same time.

Some experts consider that the force of progress can deactivate this trilemma, through some measures such as, for example; the way of thinking about politics, approaching it as it is lived in the XXI century. Based essentially on three axes.

• The left or right axis, debate between public and private, taxes and morals.
• The axis down or up debate between the classes, the elite or the people.
• The closed or open axis, which, in combination with the previous ones, allows to address politics in a transversal way, giving the negotiation of certain democratic legitimacies to get out of the conflict, from job security, from local to global, and from migration To the change.

On the other hand, globalization must address financial power and inequality differently. The trilemma is fulfilled only in situations of extreme globalization.

As for sovereignty and democracy, the ideal would be the abandonment of monolithic sovereignty, that conjectured centuries ago centuries by some philosophers and instead implant sovereignty shared. Finally, democracy should be understood more broadly, as the connection of tribes, parliaments and nations with the rest of the world.

Rodrick's trilemma application

Let's see an example of the analysis or applying of said triology, in the European Union there are three desirable options:

1. Delve into the integration and union of the countries that make up the bloc.
2. Strengthen and improve the internal democratic characteristics of each country.
3. Defense of the national sovereignty of each member country of the bloc.

According to the trilemma, these three options will not be achieved simultaneously, since progress in one significantly affects the development of another. Therefore, to move forward, you must choose between the following variables:

• Strengthening of the integration of the bloc of the European Union preserving a democracy at a global level in Europe, for example, with greater power in parliament, which reduces the autonomy of states independent.
• Weaken the European integration bloc, strengthening the internal democracy and sovereignty of each country.
• Create and maintain a State fully adhered to the European Bloc, maintaining its autonomy, and leaving aside internal democracy.

The appropriate decision depends on the belief that is handled regarding which of these three objectives can bring greater benefits to citizens.

For example, in the United Kingdom, those who supported Brexit went for option two, as a consequence they moved away from the European Union.

The trilemma has become a warlike device at the service of various forces and thoughts. In the first place, neoliberalism did not hesitate to sacrifice sovereignty and democracy in favor of the growth of its markets. In another case, the movement against globalization from Porto Alegre to Seattle, launched and supported a war against globalization referring to the abuse committed by multinationals.

Recently the turn is of populisms, Brexit and Trump and the growing economic crisis, put on the order of the day any conspiratorial speech against popular sovereignty, experiencing a transformation of capitalism in the form of a de-globalization of commerce, (however, not of finance) and a strong ratification of the State as nation.