Blocking Progress: The Damaging Side Effects of Economic Sanctions

Nima Sanandaji
{"title":"Blocking Progress: The Damaging Side Effects of Economic Sanctions","authors":"Nima Sanandaji","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the twentieth century, economic sanctions became more prevalent. In the twenty-first century they have become a frequently used tool for governments seeking to change the behaviour of other countries. An extensive research literature exists on the effectiveness of sanctions. Overall the research shows that sanctions very rarely achieve foreign policy goals. At the same time, sanctions create negative externalities. Sanctions limit the economic well-being of people in targeted countries, in some cases leading to malnourishment or even starvation. They also undermine economic and civil liberties, instead encouraging centralised state control. While sanctions are often aimed at destabilising governments, people in sanctioned countries often turn to their government when the country is isolated from the global marketplace. The sanctions on Russia in early 2014 coincided with Vladimir Putin’s popularity rising from an all-time low to an all-time high point. The sanctions against Russia have led to a trade loss estimated at US$114 billion, with US$44 billion borne by the sanctioning Western countries. In percentage terms, Germany bears almost 40 per cent of the Western trade loss, compared with just 0.6 per cent incurred by the United States. Two wealthy countries that are neutral in sanctions against Russia – Israel and Switzerland – have experienced a trade loss of 25% between 2014 and 2016. This is nearly as high as the 30% trade loss of the largest four sanctioning economies. Since sanctions undermine global value chains, neutral third-party countries are also hurt. Fostering global value chains is a better strategy for promoting security, since economic interdependency makes peace a more attractive alternative than conflict. Market exchange is typically a better option than sanctions if the objective is a free, peaceful and prosperous world.","PeriodicalId":341166,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Trade Relationships (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the twentieth century, economic sanctions became more prevalent. In the twenty-first century they have become a frequently used tool for governments seeking to change the behaviour of other countries. An extensive research literature exists on the effectiveness of sanctions. Overall the research shows that sanctions very rarely achieve foreign policy goals. At the same time, sanctions create negative externalities. Sanctions limit the economic well-being of people in targeted countries, in some cases leading to malnourishment or even starvation. They also undermine economic and civil liberties, instead encouraging centralised state control. While sanctions are often aimed at destabilising governments, people in sanctioned countries often turn to their government when the country is isolated from the global marketplace. The sanctions on Russia in early 2014 coincided with Vladimir Putin’s popularity rising from an all-time low to an all-time high point. The sanctions against Russia have led to a trade loss estimated at US$114 billion, with US$44 billion borne by the sanctioning Western countries. In percentage terms, Germany bears almost 40 per cent of the Western trade loss, compared with just 0.6 per cent incurred by the United States. Two wealthy countries that are neutral in sanctions against Russia – Israel and Switzerland – have experienced a trade loss of 25% between 2014 and 2016. This is nearly as high as the 30% trade loss of the largest four sanctioning economies. Since sanctions undermine global value chains, neutral third-party countries are also hurt. Fostering global value chains is a better strategy for promoting security, since economic interdependency makes peace a more attractive alternative than conflict. Market exchange is typically a better option than sanctions if the objective is a free, peaceful and prosperous world.
阻碍进步:经济制裁的破坏性副作用
在20世纪,经济制裁变得更加普遍。在21世纪,它们已成为寻求改变其他国家行为的政府经常使用的工具。关于制裁的有效性存在着广泛的研究文献。总的来说,研究表明制裁很少能实现外交政策目标。与此同时,制裁造成负面的外部性。制裁限制了目标国家人民的经济福利,在某些情况下导致营养不良甚至饥饿。它们还破坏了经济和公民自由,反而鼓励了中央集权的国家控制。虽然制裁的目的往往是破坏政府的稳定,但受制裁国家的人民往往会在该国与全球市场隔绝时求助于政府。2014年初对俄罗斯的制裁恰逢弗拉基米尔•普京(Vladimir Putin)的支持率从历史最低点升至历史最高点。对俄罗斯的制裁导致了约1140亿美元的贸易损失,其中440亿美元由实施制裁的西方国家承担。按百分比计算,德国承担了西方贸易损失的近40%,而美国只承担了0.6%。在对俄罗斯的制裁中保持中立的两个富裕国家——以色列和瑞士——在2014年至2016年间经历了25%的贸易损失。这几乎与四大制裁经济体30%的贸易损失一样高。由于制裁破坏了全球价值链,中立的第三方国家也受到了伤害。培育全球价值链是促进安全的更好战略,因为经济上的相互依存使和平成为比冲突更有吸引力的选择。如果目标是建立一个自由、和平与繁荣的世界,市场交换通常是比制裁更好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信