Photo: Hattie Page (flickr)

Conventional wisdom says that America's standing in the world will go up — maybe even way up — if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected president. We'd sign multilateral global-warming treaties, seek advice from allies once again … maybe even accept an invitation to tea from Iran.

But the world is likely to respond to a Clinton or Obama presidency with only tepid applause if the two contenders continue spouting "dangerous and ill-informed" trade rhetoric, argues Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria.

In the magazine's March 10th issue, the influential columnist slapped the wrists of both Democratic contenders for promoting protectionist policies. All the talk about renegotiating Nafta, he says, has people in Latin America and India worried that one of their favored paths to greater economic growth — free trade and open markets — is about to close down.

"For a struggling farmer in Kenya," says Zakaria, in a not-so-subtle reference to Obama's roots, "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs."

The concern from abroad is real. The Economist, for example, recently warned readers to get ready for "grumpy isolationism."

But Zakaria, a left-of-center globalist, represents the concern emanating from what you might call the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party. (Online comments on his Newsweek piece include: "I'm an Obama supporter, but his crazy anti-trade talk is worrisome.") These were the New Democrats who cheered when Bill Clinton's 1993 push for Nafta seemed to finally rid the party of its longheld protectionist plank — and who hung their heads when his wife repudiated the pact in Ohio. (Obama largely followed suit, leading The New Republic's Josh Patanick to bemoan Obama's "disappointing" shift on trade. Matt Cooper of Portfolio.com labeled both Obama and Clinton "phony populists.")

Perhaps it's not surprising to see the candidates try to nuance — or, in Clinton's case, outright disown — their previous pro-trade statements. But it's worth watching how the eventual winner chooses to frame the issue this fall, and whether they can find, as Zakaria recommends, "a way to speak about the pain of globalization" while acknowledging its benefits.

One way may be to emphasize how trade can reliably advance America's stated aim to lift millions abroad out of extreme poverty. Surely the candidates can argue that America can both create good jobs and open our markets to products like cotton from Mali. Such a move would not only lend a hand to poor African farmers, but also help us climb back into the world's good graces.

In last week's print edition of The Economist, it is suggested that lavatories must come before laptops in the leapfrogging of technologies. The article suggests that most new technologies need to follow a traditional path when diffusing into emerging markets. Basic infrastructure is still a primary concern in these countries and the introduction of high-tech products does not directly address the core issues. "Most of the time, to go high-tech, you need to have gone medium-tech first." Cell phones may prove to be the exception of a rapid technological advance in the developing world.

A new BBC global poll reveals a notable divide in world public opinion: while many in the richest countries express concern about the pace of globalization, those in developing countries are more likely to believe that globalization is moving too slowly.

"People in some developing countries want to accelerate globalisation and appear to believe that this will help break down some of the inequities in their country," said Steven Kull of the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, a co-sponsor of the poll.

According to the Christian Science Monitor's January 30 article, Namibia's rug-weaving industry can provide us with a lesson on globalization.

The New York Times is producing a fascinating series of articles and multimedia examining the human toll, global impact and political challenge of China's epic pollution crisis.

We've all heard globalization linked to the growth of multi-national corporations. However, an article from yesterday's Business Week takes a look at how globalization is driving the growth of small entrepreneurs.

"These young entrepreneurs are trying to make their marks independent of what their fathers and grandfathers have done. These young people and their companies are growing fast and becoming relevant on the global scale," he says. While previous generations were often constricted by government red tape and low customer expectations, younger entrepreneurs who take their cue from the international business models they see online are more open to new ideas and are setting higher standards for their companies.

Today an International Herald Tribune article asks, "is economic history about to change course?" As power transfers from the west to the east, many economists are worried about a protectionist backlash by governments in attempt to regain control.

"Economic theory tells us that globalization is a win-win, but it isn't, at least not in the West," Roach said. "The theory was written for another era. We have to ask some hard questions about unfettered capitalism. We need a new script."

The risk is that Western governments, mindful of the growing backlash among voters, will be tempted to rewrite the script by engaging in old and new forms of protectionism.

Many are predicting 2008 to be a year for the economic history books.

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz paints a grim picture of the global economic outlook for 2008. Stiglitz warns that this is likely to trigger a backlash against the forces of globalization and that:

For those who think that a well-managed globalization has the potential to benefit both developed and developing countries, and who believe in global social justice and the importance of democracy (and the vibrant middle class that supports it), all of this is bad news.

In the end, Stiglitz believes that central banks will be able to restore order after a global slowdown in which the inflationary pressure is wrung out of the system.

The Economist has a correspondent traveling in rural Thailand to view the impacts of globalization there. Recently visiting a rural market to see whether the traders are feeling the pinch from the opening of a Tesco a few miles away, the correspondent reports:

Are these local traders feeling the heat from the giant superstore down the road? Not really, say the handful that we talk to: Tesco’s opening doesn’t seem to have had much effect on the market’s trade at all. As the retailer itself points out, even the supposedly threatened “mom and pop” stores are often benefiting from Tesco’s spread, because they can buy their supplies from the nearest superstore and sell it on at a small mark-up, rather than having to rely on inefficient and expensive wholesalers, as before. It is probably much the same as we found with the fishermen on the Mun river: those who are suffering make a big noise about it while those who are unaffected or actually benefiting from the change remain quiet.

What happens when you sit down with 4 mid-career Harvard business grads (who just so happen to be from Argentina, China, Tanzania and Thailand) and two Harvard economists (one ‘pro-trade’ and the other ‘ambivalent’) and ask if their fellow citizens are for or against globalization? From the NewsHour:

NewsHour's Paul Solman: So first question: How would their fellow citizens vote if asked to give globalization a simple thumbs-up, thumbs-down?

Thailand Parliament Member Kriengsak Chareonwongsak : Fifteen percent on the pro, maybe 5 percent on the against, and the rest is a silent majority.

Paul Solman: Argentina?

World Bank Former Communications Officer Yanina Budkin: Sixty-five percent no, 35 percent yes.

Paul Solman: Tanzania?

Former Prime Minister of Tanzania Frederick Sumanye: Eighty-five percent no, 15 percent yes.

Paul Solman: China?

People's Bank of China Mingyou Bao: The majority of the Chinese people will say yes to this question. Globalization is a win-win for China and the rest of the world.

Paul Solman: For the last word, we turned to the professors. At the end of the day, what did free-trader Robert Lawrence hear? A common theme.

Harvard's Robert Lawrence: It was the need to somehow manage the process in some way. Nobody believes that it should just be unleashed and left without a very strong role for government in some way.

Paul Solman: What did the more skeptical Danny Roderick hear?

Harvard's Danny Roderick: Markets will not work on their own. You need all the institutions that regulate markets, that stabilize markets, that compensate to losers and provide the safety nets, without which markets can neither be legitimate or, for that matter, efficient, if you don't have the appropriate regulatory frameworks.

Paul Solman: You're from Turkey. What would the vote be in Turkey, pro-, anti-globalization?

Danny Roderick: Globalization's a dirty word, without any doubt, so I think we would get 60 percent of the people say that it's a bad thing.

Paul Solman: And you're from South Africa originally.

Robert Lawrence: And I think probably 70 percent against.

Paul Solman: And what do you think in America, if you just asked that question?

Danny Roderick: We know the answer. We take those polls all the time, and it's, again, between 55 percent and 60 percent.

Paul Solman: Against?

Danny Roderick: Against.

Paul Solman: Against globalization, the dirty word on so many people's tongues these days.

Watch the NewsHour's video of the discussion.