Johan Norberg at the Rafael del Pino Foundation, in Madrid.Samuel Sánchez
Johan Norberg (Stockholm, 50 years old) is, above all, an optimist with arguments.
A staunch defender of classical liberalism and globalization, historian and anarchist in his youth, he follows in a certain way in the footsteps of psychologist Steven Pinker in the basic argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds.
For Norberg, the search for profit, which for many is what drives the system, is something “vulgar.”
He is interested in something more “beautiful”: the creation of a better world.
Professor at the European Center for International Economic Policy (Brussels) and the Cato Institute (Washington DC), in his latest book, with a deliberately provocative title—The Capitalist Manifesto (Deusto, 2023)—he seeks to “distract the reader from the cultural war and "return it to the decisive issues for our future."
Norberg attends before giving a conference at the Rafael del Pino Foundation.
Polished and with impeccable English, he is affable.
Ask.
Social justice, she says, needs more capitalism, not less.
Answer.
Political scientists have been busy for years on the plight of humanity: infant mortality, chronic malnutrition... And it turns out that we have the solution: capitalism.
In recent decades we have reduced poverty, mortality and hunger more than at any other time in history.
It has happened in places where there is more economic freedom.
Q.
There is a lot of academic work, by very relevant thinkers, defending the opposite: higher taxes and a greater role for the States in the economy.
A.
In general, my answer is that we cannot generate wealth through taxes.
Only through the generation of wealth can we assume the social services we need.
In the long run, growth is almost everything: Sweden is one of the richest countries in the world, but if its economic growth had been one percentage point less since industrialization, we would now be like Albania.
It is absurd that growth and innovation do not occupy more space in our considerations.
Q.
Industrial policy has also gained a lot of traction.
A.
Yes, and it's a shame.
None of the things we value most, from bicycles to vaccines, come from a single genius or a political committee.
Progress comes from a long process of experimentation in which thousands of people are involved.
Not from someone at the top or with a political majority saying, “We need to innovate here.”
Q.
“We need free markets to end poverty and hunger,” you write.
It has improved, but the hunger is still there.
A.
I don't think we will ever finish solving these problems.
But in countries that have provided economic and commercial freedom in a sustained manner, extreme poverty has fallen to the point of almost eradicating it.
Q.
Has protectionism won in the dialectical battle?
A.
Many governments advocate that we repatriate as much as possible.
But it is a terrible misreading of the latest crises.
What saved us from the pandemic?
Businesses with complex supply chains: They were able to improvise and find new suppliers.
The opposite erodes productivity and does not make us safer.
Q.
At what point did China, and not the United States, become the great defender of global markets?
A.
It was curious when Xi Jinping presented himself in Davos as a defender of globalization and free trade, something absurd.
China controls and uses free trade as a weapon.
That speaks poorly of Western politicians: they have managed the globalization debate so poorly that China can defend that.
Q.
I quote you again: “The new generation of conservative politicians sounds very similar to the left of Attac in 2001.”
A.
Some time ago they told me that I was from the extreme right, and now, from the right, they tell me that I am a
woke
capitalist .
But I haven't changed: they are the ones who have.
Twenty years ago there was concern that the economy was a zero-sum game where some win and others lose.
It has become clear, however, that poor countries that have integrated into the global market, such as Bangladesh, India or China, have reduced their poverty faster than the rest in the history of humanity.
Now the opposite is happening: many believe that if they are prospering perhaps it is because we are losing, and that they are the ones who exploit us.
This has provided an argument to the populist and nationalist right: they believe we should close our border and abandon trade to defend ourselves.
“More and more innovation, culture and goods and services come from what we considered the poor world”
Q.
Why does this idea of the zero-sum game continue to have so much roots?
A.
It is part of human nature;
economic and technological growth is something new;
It dates back to the industrial revolution, just 150 years ago.
We should be grateful for having gone from 80% to 8% extreme poverty.
But our instincts come from thousands of years before, when we lived in a brutal world in which if someone was richer it was because they had stolen it from you.
We will always have that suspicion of others who are doing better: neighbors, foreigners, big companies... It is a dangerous temptation.
Q.
Donald Trump calls a globalist “who doesn't care much” about his own country.
A.
Trump is an indicator of something that is widespread: the protection of businesses from competition, a very right-wing idea today.
It is fatal.
It's just the other way around: a globalist is someone who cares so much about his country that he wants others to enrich it too.
May he have access to more brains, talent and innovation from other places.
If you lock yourself in your borders, you won't survive the competition of an open world.
Q.
Has that been the biggest ideological mutation in decades?
A.
It has been a radical change: if today you repeat what [Margaret] Thatcher or [Ronald] Reagan said about the world, trade and even the EU, many people on the right would call you a cultural Marxist.
It is an incredible change, one that I was not prepared for.
Q.
What would you say to those who believe that globalization has failed?
A.
Globalization spans the last 30 years, we have seen the fastest fall in poverty in history and more than a third of wealth has been created.
It's impressive: I think that, in the long run, we will see it as a turning point: we go from talking about great famines and global poverty to more and more innovation, culture and goods and services coming from what we considered the poor world.
It has been an unprecedented success in human well-being, not a failure.
Q.
And who do you call optimistic?
A.
My defense of globalization is based on objective indicators of quality of life.
They are not miracles.
The same thing has happened in Sweden, the United Kingdom or Spain: as soon as we have opened the markets and developed more competitive companies, extreme poverty has been left behind.
And today we see the opposite: a decline in globalization and trade, and authoritarianism is returning.
It worries me.
Q.
“We are addicted to bad news,” he said in 2018.
A.
Today we are even more so.
As soon as your phone lights up, you feel like everything is on fire.
The notifications recently stopped working and within three days I was more relaxed and happy.
Anxiety leads us to look for a solution: we want someone to protect us.
Hence the search for strong men-leaders.
It's very dangerous.
Q.
What can we do?
A.
The media needs to put things in context and stop looking for the next drama.
And individually, we don't have to open our mouths to all the incessant hoses of information surrounding us.
Sign up here
for the weekly Ideas newsletter.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_