More from these Authors

• Case | HBS Case Collection | July 2005 (Revised September 2020)

  The U.S. Current Account Deficit

  Laura Alfaro, Rafael Di Tella, Ingrid Vogel, Renee Kim, Sarah Jeong, Matthew Johnson and Jonathan Schlefer

  Investors and policymakers throughout the world were confronted with the risk of painful economic consequences arising from the large U.S. current account deficit. In 2007, the U.S. current account deficit was $731 billion, equivalent to 5.3% of GDP. The implications of the deficit were debated with intensity. At one extreme, it was argued that large deficits would eventually resolve themselves smoothly, even if they persisted for many more years. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was among those expecting a "benign resolution to the U.S. current account imbalance." Other analysts, such as economists at the World Bank, believed the large deficits raised the risk of a sharp and disorderly fall of the dollar and that necessary macroeconomic adjustment could be painful, for the United States as well as for the rest of the world. The Financial Times asked: "How long will foreigners be prepared to make such generous 'gifts' to the US?" In this environment, Berkshire Hathaway, run by legendary investor Warren Buffett, postulated that current account imbalances would lead to "some chaotic markets in which currency adjustments play a part" and announced to shareholders a plan to increase investment in overseas companies to protect against this risk. It remained to be seen what the short- and long-term implications of the current account deficit would ultimately yield.

  Keywords: world economy; Macroeconomics; Borrowing and Debt; Currency; Foreign Direct Investment; Business and Government Relations; United States;

  Citation:

  Alfaro, Laura, Rafael Di Tella, Ingrid Vogel, Renee Kim, Sarah Jeong, Matthew Johnson, and Jonathan Schlefer. "The U.S. Current Account Deficit." Harvard Business School Case 706-002, July 2005. (Revised September 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related

• Article | Global Policy | September 2020

  Dignity, Inequality, and the Populist Backlash: Lessons from America and Europe for a Sustainable Globalization

  Rawi Abdelal

  The greatest challenge to the sustainability of our current era of globalization comes from within the United States. Most Americans have come to reject globalization. We must discern the lessons from the parts of the developed world where the backlash is also profound—France, for example—and where it has been more muted—such as Germany. In both the United States and France, gross Gini coefficients have increased sharply during the past thirty or so years. The French state has, however, delivered a net, after-tax, after-transfer distribution of income that is more equal than it was thirty years ago. And yet: France is still in the midst of an anti-systemic populist revolt. There is only one inescapable conclusion: It is not just about the money. Those who feel left behind in both countries feel that they have lost respect and dignity. We cannot redistribute our way out of the crisis of global capitalism. The German experience holds lessons. We must value and valorize the many ways in which people contribute. We must also pursue policies that create patterns of employment that confer dignity, meaning, and purpose. I argue for dignity as a tool of policy, beyond its normative desirability as a goal.

  Keywords: populism; backlash; dignity; Globalization; Economic Systems; Equality and Inequality; Policy; Values and Beliefs; United States; Europe;

  Citation:

  Abdelal, Rawi. "Dignity, Inequality, and the Populist Backlash: Lessons from America and Europe for a Sustainable Globalization." Global Policy 11, no. 4 (September 2020): 492–500.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related

• Article | Marketing Science | September–October 2020

  The Air War Versus the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections

  Lingling Zhang and Doug J. Chung

  This study jointly examines the effects of television advertising and field operations in U.S. presidential elections, with the former referred to as the “air war” and the latter as the “ground game.” Specifically, the study focuses on how different campaign activities—personal selling in the form of field operations and mass media advertising by the candidate and outside sources—vary in their effectiveness with voters who have different political predispositions. The voting choice model takes into consideration voter heterogeneity and analyzes comprehensive data that include voting outcomes, detailed campaign activities, and voters’ party affiliation for three presidential elections (2004–2012). The results reveal that different campaign activities have heterogeneous effects depending on voters’ party affiliation. Field operations and political advertising from outside groups are more effective with partisans, while a candidate’s advertising is more effective with non-partisans. These findings can help strategists better allocate resources across and within channels to design an effective political marketing campaign.

  Keywords: multi-channel marketing; ground campaigning; political campaigns; discrete-choice model; instrumental variables; Political Elections; Marketing Channels; Advertising; United States;

  Citation:

  Zhang, Lingling, and Doug J. Chung. "The Air War Versus the Ground Game: An Analysis of Multi-Channel Marketing in U.S. Presidential Elections." Marketing Science 39, no. 5 (September–October 2020): 872–892.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related