Editor's Note: In Search of Our Narratives

In a world seemingly mired in disinformation and the minutiae of partisan politics, much of the public’s attention is taken up by what we are against—however “we” is defined. As new and returning governments take shape after a year of historic elections where half of the world’s democracies went to the polls, we at the WQ think it’s important to have a conversation about what we are 

 Thus, we turned to some of the world’s most respected global leaders and foreign policy thinkers to share the narratives that have helped guide them and the world through past times of challenge, and which can inspire us as we seek a brighter, more peaceful and prosperous future. With topics ranging from technology, democracy, human rights, and foreign policy approaches to pivotal countries and regions, these are the narratives they believe we should embrace in the months and years ahead. 

One of the most ambitious issues of the WQ undertaken during my tenure, we are pleased to bring together this incredible roster of global leaders and thinkers.

Stephanie Bowen is editor of the Wilson Quarterly.

In this introduction to the issue, WQ Editor Stephanie Bowen provides a little context to the issue and details its contents.

From the Bible to the Quran and other sacred religious texts in between, there are numerous references to helping the less fortunate in times of great need. It’s no wonder that many faith-based organizations have established robust operations that deliver humanitarian assistance to some of the most vulnerable populations and actively respond to crises around the world. To learn about the role of faith-based organizations, or FBOs, in providing humanitarian aid, 

 editor Stephanie Bowen spoke with Robert Hokanson, senior manager of Global Priorities at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hokanson has spent nearly two decades focused on the church’s humanitarian efforts—responding to natural disasters, health emergencies, and other crises around the world.

Stephanie Bowen: How long has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints been providing global humanitarian assistance and how does this work fit into the church’s mission?

Caring for those in need has been a core belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since its inception. In 1842, the church organized the Women’s Relief Society to provide relief to members in need and the broader community, laying the groundwork for future humanitarian efforts. During World War I and the Great Depression, the Relief Society sent grain to help feed the hungry, exemplifying their ongoing commitment to service. Building on this legacy, in 1985, the church responded to the Ethiopian famine, calling for a special fast and monetary donations from its members. Since then, the church has responded to global needs through the generosity of its members and friends.

There is a common misperception that faith-based organizations compete with each other; in reality, we have a strong awareness of each other’s strengths and rely on each other.

The church’s humanitarian efforts have expanded globally to include clean water, food security, maternal and newborn care, wheelchairs and mobility, strengthening medical services, and disaster relief. In 2021, it pledged $20 million to support UNICEF’s global COVID-19 vaccination efforts. In 2022, it donated $32 million to the World Food Program, aiding 1.6 million people in nine countries facing acute hunger. In 2023, the church’s humanitarian expenditures supported 4,119 projects in 191 countries. Most recently, in June 2024, the church announced a $55.8 million initiative led by the Relief Society General Presidency. This effort focuses on nutrition, maternal and newborn care, immunizations, and education. As part of this initiative, the church announced a $55.8 million donation to strengthen health and nutrition programs in 12 high-need countries. Working with 8 global humanitarian organizations, this effort is expected to benefit 12 million children and 2.7 million new and expectant mothers.

Stephanie Bowen: What can a faith-based institution do that a typical non-profit humanitarian response organization might find more difficult?

Faith-based organizations have a unique and powerful connection with local communities. They understand the context, history, needs, hopes, and challenges of the people they serve, making them critical in identifying and addressing problems. FBOs leverage deep moral convictions to unify and motivate people toward the common good, often prioritizing long-term community needs over immediate personal desires.

Faith-based organizations also have a convening power that quickly multiplies impact. They can mobilize their members to take collective action, amplify messages, and engage in community service. Many FBOs are part of larger, often global networks, enabling them to quickly mobilize external resources for local use. Contributions from congregations worldwide allow the church to respond swiftly to local needs. FBOs are organized to address both immediate emergencies and ongoing, long-term needs. Because they are in the community, they can provide sustained responses to chronic issues and help rebuild institutions and infrastructure after crises, fostering community self-reliance. For example, in response to the conflict in Ukraine, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints collaborated with Catholic Relief Services and Adventist Development and Relief Agency to provide resources such as food, water, shelter, and medical supplies. Church members in nearby border countries opened their homes to refugees, gathered needed items, and found many ways to help those in need. In 2023, working with Project Hope, the church also provided funding to help reconstruct a new outpatient clinic in the Kyiv region of Ukraine that suffered significant damage during the hostilities. The clinic will serve 5,000 people from 13 surrounding villages with medical care.

Stephanie Bowen: The LDS church both funds and implements humanitarian assistance. How do you decide what to fund versus what to do yourself? Do the efforts ever overlap?

 Like any effective organization, the church has to know its strengths and the resources it can call on in different settings. Where the church does not have a presence, that strength might be the ability to respond quickly with financial contributions to another organization that is present where a disaster occurred and has a reliable supply chain in a difficult-to-reach location. Sometimes the strength is the ability to mobilize the church’s own network of storehouses to deliver food and water to people displaced by a hurricane—and then organize volunteers in neighboring communities to assist with cleanup and recovery. This happened in response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton in the Southeastern US.

Faith-based organizations also have a convening power that quickly multiplies impact. They can mobilize their members to take collective action, amplify messages, and engage in community service. 

Many times, the greatest asset the church has is members of local congregations who are ready to rally to assist their neighbors and strengthen local institutions. For example, in the Philippines, local church leaders realized that families in some communities faced malnutrition. Parents and local church leaders worked together to learn about malnutrition, how to avoid it, how to identify it, how to treat it, and what resources in the community can help a family that faces malnutrition. They shared this knowledge and resources with families in their congregation and others in their neighborhoods and worked with local clinics and caregivers to host nutrition screenings, teach fundamental nutrition, and connect families to local resources. As they work with local clinics and caregivers, they donate supplies and equipment that help to respond more effectively to those in need; this model is now being applied throughout the Philippines, and in parts of Africa and Latin America. These locally led efforts are complemented by financial donations the church has made—including the $55.8 million announced in June—to organizations addressing malnutrition in high need locations.

Stephanie Bowen: How do faith-based organizations come together during humanitarian crises? Can you share examples of working with other faith-based partners?

 There is a common misperception that FBOs compete with each other; in reality, we have a strong awareness of each other’s strengths and rely on each other. Our experience is that our differences in doctrine don’t divide us but unite us in the common trust we have in the goodness of God, and in the cooperation of his children.

A colleague at a Muslim aid organization that the church has worked with for years shared an experience about having difficulty getting visas for his staff for a particular country following a disaster. They had materials ready to be distributed but couldn’t get into the country. He reached out to his friends at a Catholic organization with a presence in the country and they were able to mobilize and distribute the relief on behalf of the Muslim organization. The assistance needed was delivered and no one was concerned about who received credit.

One of the things implicit in a faith community is trust. Individuals will donate to their church for a good cause because of that trust. When that faith-based organization demonstrates trust through collaboration with another faith-based organization, it illustrates that we can overcome differences and work together with others on shared values. Many people may be surprised to know the level to which faith-based organizations roll up our sleeves, lock arms, and work together. A great example of this is a 

 project in Syria where we teamed up with the Greek Melkite Catholic church to provide freshly baked bread (using local recipes) to displaced people. This 

 was  set up quickly and has been a lifeline for many—and shows how faith-based organizations can work together to make a real difference.

Another example where this is particularly evident is in 

 agencies that are often sponsored by faith-based organizations. Those agencies rely on volunteers from the community to welcome refugees, orient them to the community, introduce them to local services, and help them settle into a new home. Many of those volunteers will be from the faith community that sponsors the agency, but they also rely on countless dedicated volunteers who put their faith into action serving in those agencies. The church has a global presence and collaborates with various interfaith organizations like Catholic Relief Services, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, and Muslim Aid to provide both immediate and sustainable support to those in need. For more than a decade, the church has collaborated with Muslim NGOs on humanitarian projects worldwide. A memorable event was in May 2019, when church members and Jamiyah Singapore joined for a community 

, which built interfaith understanding and helped strengthen interfaith collaboration.

In terms of humanitarian efforts, the church made a significant impact during the COVID-19 crisis in India by donating $4 million worth of medical equipment through collaborations with organizations like ADRA and CRS. In Italy, the Episcopalian Friendship Center in Rome supported refugees by offering various skill-building classes to help them integrate into their new community. Many of the volunteers who taught the classes were members of the church. In New Zealand, church president Russell M. Nelson announced a donation of $100,000 in May 2019 to help rebuild mosques in Christchurch after the tragic attacks. And after the devastating tsunami in Indonesia in 2004, the church worked with several organizations to provide homes, schools, and essential supplies.

Stephanie Bowen: Are there any common misconceptions about the humanitarian work of faith-based organizations that you’d like to address?

 There is sometimes a perception or expectation that faith-based organizations have ulterior motives, that they are competing with each other, or that they’re only interested in serving their own. In practice, I have not observed this. It seems almost universal that when we see others in need and we are in a position to help, our differences melt away, we see others with empathy, and we want to provide relief, lift others, and help them back on their feet. This sentiment seems to be magnified and a focus of the faith-based organizations I am familiar with—they don’t let differences of belief get in the way of helping others.

Because of their place in the social fabric of their communities, faith-based organizations can raise awareness, teach principles of good health, help identify those who may be ill or malnourished and encourage parents to make use of local health services.

Stephanie Bowen: How have you seen humanitarian response needs change over time? How are the church and the sector more generally adjusting to these shifting needs?

 Natural disasters are growing in scope and impact. They are more difficult to prepare for, and as populations have grown in places where natural disasters occur frequently, more people are affected. Relief and recovery efforts are more complex, require more resources and are stretching aid agencies and donors alike. Looking beyond natural disasters, so many of today’s disasters are human-caused—the result of ongoing military or political conflict. There are more people displaced today than at any other time in history. The number of forcibly displaced persons has increased for 12 years in a row and 

. Each of these conflicts is the result of complex, difficult issues that are not resolved easily or quickly, displacing people and putting them in need of assistance for extended periods of time. There are a few high-profile conflicts that we’re all familiar with, but there are many conflicts that are long-running, overlooked or forgotten. Examples of these include Sudan—which has the highest number of internally displaced persons ever reported, followed closely by Syria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These massive disasters—natural or human-caused—have caused tremendous strain on aid agencies and donors. It sometimes seems agencies are forced to run from one disaster to the next while pleading for ever increasing donor funds. While the need for immediate response to emergencies grows and garners attention and resources, many of the world’s most pressing needs and issues are chronic and constant. The three biggest killers of children under age five are malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia—compounded by malnutrition that contributes to about half of all childhood deaths. 

 through strengthened healthcare systems that help parents with the tools to consistently monitor children’s health, ensure timely vaccinations, help prevent malnutrition, and when malnutrition occurs, identify and treat it quickly.

These efforts don’t always grab the attention that the latest disaster does. But because of their place in the social fabric of their communities, faith-based organizations can raise awareness, teach principles of good health, help identify those who may be ill or malnourished and encourage parents to make use of local health services. They can rally together to bring support and resources to their local healthcare system. These things take time, and local faith-based organizations are in the community to stay. They are perfectly placed to address long-term change and instill principles of self-reliance.

There is an opportunity for international NGOs to connect with local organizations and institutions (including faith-based organizations) to tap into their connection to the social fabric of a community—their knowledge of the context, the history, the needs, the hopes and aspirations, and the real challenges. This will bring them closer to accurately identifying and defining the problems that need to be addressed and then tapping into the unifying and motivating power of faith to create solutions. Another effect of this kind of engagement is the potential for strengthening the capability, capacity, and self-reliance of local institutions and communities that will be there long after the international NGO moves on. 

Stephanie Bowen: Is there anything else you’d like to add on behalf of the church and their work?

 We strive to live the two great commandments: to love God and our neighbor. This love compels us to serve others and care for those in need around the world as Jesus Christ would. We can do this because we work through a broad network of local leaders and organizations, and can move quickly because of long-held trusted relationships throughout the community. It is that combination that makes our work possible.

 Robert Hokanson is senior manager of Global Priorities at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Cover photo by Bernd Wüstneck/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images.

The Church of Latter-day Saints is one of the many faith-based organizations that provide humanitarian assistance around the world. They often work with other FBOs—like Islamic Relief and Catholic Community Services—and organizations like the World Food Program, Shelter Box, and UNHCR, among others. This Q&A explores the unique role that faith-based institutions play in providing humanitarian assistance, how it dovetails with broader values, and allows them to tap into their community to provide significant humanitarian support (both in dollars and actions), while helping their congregants find deeper purpose.  

With deep-held values to help those in need and large global networks, faith-based organizations play a unique role in providing humanitarian assistance.

Here to Serve

As a civilization, we stand on the cusp of dramatic demographic change that over the next generation will transform the global workforce.

In the coming decades, populations will shrink in regions that for the past half century have provided workers who have fueled the greatest spurt of global economic growth, technical innovation, and prosperity humankind has ever known. Rapid drops are expected in Asia and Latin America, while declines already underway in North America and Europe will persist.

Economists and sociologists believe that to support current levels of global growth, the workforce needed to take us to the next level must come from a region expected to provide nearly the entire net increase of the world’s working age population over the next 20 years: the low- and middle-income nations of Africa. While there are other countries and regions experiencing their own population growth and youth bulges, it is the sheer size of 

’s growth that has captured the attention of planners and policymakers.

The challenge, especially for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, is how to prepare the workforce so it can more effectively participate in a global economy that is increasingly automated and digital.

While no one doubts the quantity of Africa’s projected strong “youth spurt” in the coming decades, there are serious concerns that the education systems in the continent’s 54 countries can turn out the quality of workforce required to compete in today’s global economy.

Despite decades of development assistance and budgets of national governments that prioritize education and routinely support it with spending equivalent to 4% of GDP or more, far too many graduates complete their primary education without basic literacy and numeracy skills. Those working to strengthen basic education levels often refer to Africa’s “learning poverty.”

The stakes involved in this effort to close this skills gap and make Africa’s workforce competitive could not be higher. The World Bank 

 that closing this gap could add $6.5 trillion—about 5-6% of global GDP—in the next five years.

“It’s a very sobering picture,” says Xiaoyan Liang, lead education specialist at the World Bank. “If we fail to develop the human capability of Africa’s youth, the costs will be huge—not just for Africa but for all of humanity.”

Because of this, skills development is at the heart of a major global transition driven by demographic shifts, technological advances, and the effects of climate change that are affecting education and labor markets worldwide. The challenge, especially for the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, is how to prepare the workforce so it can more effectively participate in a global economy that is increasingly automated and digital.

As technology accelerates, the demands become greater. Miho Taguma is a senior policy analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, and leads their work in this area; she says basic technical and specialized skills are no longer enough.

“So far, investment in developing workforces in Africa has been disproportionately focused on work that requires the ability to master basic repetitive tasks—one that planners refer to as “knowing.” But workers with these skills are finding themselves increasingly facing competition from artificial intelligence,” says Taguma.

In addition to knowing, those who direct the project have defined a second, higher level of skills they call “understanding.” Knowing includes literacy and numeracy skills that enable workers to manage repetitive tasks well. Understanding–the part that AI can’t easily replicate–requires knowledge of big ideas and key concepts and understanding of ethical standards and the importance of positive values. Understanding also requires more subtle skills like critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, leadership, and adaptability, called transversal skills.

Industrialized countries have their own issues. Take the United States, where those focused on strengthening workforce competitiveness describe the education-to-workforce pipeline as 'broken.'

But the low-and middle-income countries are among the least prepared to do that.

Many young people in these countries attend—and often complete—their schooling without acquiring basic literacy skills. For example, more than 80% of Ghana’s working-age population 

 from relatively easy text; the figure in Kenya is 60%. Africa isn’t alone in struggling to meet these goals. In India–now the world’s most populous country–nearly three quarters of all fifth graders can’t do simple division and more than half can’t read at second grade level, even in their own language.

As if the entire task wasn’t daunting from the start, the global pandemic has made it even harder. According to the World Bank, 

 post-secondary students dropped out of school or lost training opportunities during that crisis.

Industrialized countries have their own issues. Take the United States, where those focused on strengthening workforce competitiveness describe the education-to-workforce pipeline as “

.” They say not enough students are enrolling in higher education programs nor are they obtaining credentials that offer better employment opportunities and higher pay. The US education and training system is largely designed for “a once and done” era, an era that no longer exists, and no longer effectively supports a future-ready workforce.

After gaining independence in 1991, Estonia set out to shore up its technology infrastructure and make sure it was ready for the coming digital age.

These development specialists argue that we need a system that potentially supports every worker at some point, and likely multiple points, in their lives, adding the world needs systems–and cultures–that encourage 

. They also note that today most countries invest less than 0.5% of global GDP in this critical area.

Declining fertility rates and an aging workforce are creating a shortage of skilled workers. Increasing life expectancies are creating a more age-diverse workforce, while at the same time, mass migration is creating a more culturally diverse workforce. These changing demographics are leading to demands for more flexible work arrangements, as the rapid pace of technological change is creating a need for lifelong learning. A young and diverse workforce can be a gift, but it requires a lot of work, and investment including quality education, high-level technical skills, and much more.

With the demographic shifts in mind, the OECD, launched the 

 project in 2015. The vision was to understand the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values that a younger generation of students need to thrive and shape the future for better lives and societal well-being. The project has a goal to enable mainly low- and middle-income countries to develop a workforce that can compete in global markets. It focuses on skills, but also on the ethics and values needed for responsible economic growth.

 can help guide governments and educators with their workforce development efforts more effectively. Literacy and numeracy remain important, but in a world that is increasingly unpredictable, physical and emotional health and adaptability are also foundational to the lifelong learning that is now required. So, how do we nurture the higher-order skills of problem-solving and communications, alongside the socio-emotional skills of managing relationships, leading and building teams that are also important?

Such an effort needs significant investment that requires years to pay off.

Culture and Building the Global Workforce

 heavily in education, expanding the country’s university-level student population from 2.1 million in 1990 to 32.9 million in just 30 years, providing an invaluable injection of advanced skills and knowledge that helped drive the country’s impressive economic growth. While China’s past growth is impressive, the hyper-focus has created its own 

 that the country is now struggling to counter.

Many Asian countries, with cultures known for order and a strong work ethic, continue to have high literacy and numeracy scores, but the small former Soviet Republic of 

After gaining independence in 1991, Estonia set out to shore up its technology infrastructure and make sure it was ready for the coming digital age. By 1997 they had established a program called 

, which ensured that every school had computers and was connected to the internet. But it was more than hardware and cable runs that helped them strengthen their education system.

“The Estonian education system values autonomy at all levels, reflecting decades ruled from Moscow as a part of the Soviet Empire, then achieving independence,” says OECD’s Taguma. “Estonian students are encouraged to develop their own projects and their own curricula, so they own their own learning.”

That autonomy, says Teguma, is key to Estonia’s success, as in self-directed learning. By using the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment, Estonia boasts the best scores in Europe. It also offers a lesson for Sub-Saharan Africa.

“African education policymakers can think more freely, for example, adapting systems to fit the needs of students rather than making students fit the systems. However, their ties to British or French systems still retain as large segments of their education systems and curricula—systems that over the years have undergone major updates at home.”

Whether in Estonia or Zimbabwe, in order to develop human capital, Taguma believes we must allow each individual to explore their best potential to get their best in return. That, she says, is what the US and other developed countries should invest in.

One way to counter that, says Liang of the World Bank, is to encourage African countries to take greater control over their own development agenda and align education and training more closely with requirements of the labor market. But with 54 countries, more than 3,000 ethnic groups and 2,100 languages that cross national and other political boundaries, the task isn’t easy. A colonial past that has weakened cultural attributes, uneven governance, and weak implementation capacity, also doesn't help. Especially when compared to China, with one ethnic group (91% Han ethnic Chinese), just one political party, and an early laser-focused vision on its priorities for growth: 

The World Bank supports skills development and service delivery worldwide through both formal and informal technical and vocational education and training. They have an annual portfolio of $3 billion in Africa alone. Through that work they’ve learned that it is critical to strengthen partnerships between academia, industry, and governments.

East Africa Skills for Transformation and Regional Integration

 project focuses on strengthening sixteen Africa regional flagship learning centers, enabling them to offer responsive, flexible, and inclusive training programs at various levels—from certificates to degrees—in sectors that are both emerging and critical to economic development. Each one focuses on a different sector like energy, transportation, or agriculture.

“Through strengthening industry linkages and institutional autonomy, the project unleashed innovation and service delivery directly at the provider level,” says Liang. She believes that if countries are clear about their comparative advantages and use what is already working for them—say mining in Zambia and tourism in Tanzania—to hone and showcase their talents, they can lead by example.

That idea of valuing and using your innate gifts—individually or collectively—rings true with Teguma.

“When I was a university student, I lived with the Masai people in Kenya. Of course, the Masai speak the Masai language, but they needed to learn Swahili and English as the official languages. I noticed that when the Masai women were speaking in Masai with a lot of people, they were so strong. But when they came to talk to me in English, they struggled and lost their confidence,” says Teguma. “As people, we want to be valued for who we are, but some systems may make us feel we are not good enough for those particular systems.”

“A child’s brain can take whatever you give it, so we should give them the whole package and let locals decide which parts to take depending on their context,” says Taguma. “With the right policies and right education system in these countries, they can succeed.”

. Tyler Marshall is an award-winning journalist.

As population demographics shift worldwide, building a competitive workforce is the new imperative for nations everywhere. 

The Workforce of the Future

When we decided on trade as the topic for the spring 2023 issue, I knew I had some big knowledge gaps to fill, and quickly. As I made my way through articles, public addresses, and reports, I noticed the term “inclusive trade”

kept cropping up. I knew what inclusivity was in many contexts, but could only guess what it meant in reference to global trade. That’s when I turned to Jeffrey Kucik, Canada Institute fellow and associate professor at University of Arizona, who specializes in international trade law, and whose focus while at the Wilson Center is inclusive trade. The more we talked, the more I thought our readers would enjoy learning about this relatively new concept, and how it fits into current global-trade policy discussions. What follows are excerpts of our email exchanges and conversations, edited for clarity.

Stephanie Bowen: Let’s start with a brief scene-setter on trade. The last two US presidents broke from decades of pro-trade White House policy by raising tariffs and suspending new trade deals. How do you explain the recent change?

There are several explanations. The most common is that we’ve seen a 

 that globalization’s promise has been broken. Free trade was supposed to make us all better off. In some respect, it has. We can all buy cheaper goods because of greater market openness. But that luxury comes at a cost. Trade has been blamed—rightly or wrongly—for decades of job loss and wage stagnation. And, by 2016, voters’ frustrations ran so deep that candidates as dissimilar as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump found it politically expedient to 

The second explanation is that some governments around the world, including the United States, no longer believe that the rules-based global trading system works. The US has been an especially 

 of the World Trade Organization and its system of dispute settlement. Under WTO rules, countries can sue one another when they believe a fellow member’s policies are discriminatory. The US has been the WTO’s 

 of this system, initiating more complaints than any other member. However, it is also the country targeted most often. In response, US trade authorities, dating back long before President Trump, 

 the dispute process for overstepping its mandate and for unfairly targeting US policies.

Inclusive reforms activate old partisan divisions because they raise fundamental questions about the role of government in the marketplace. 

Those complaints are part of a broader concern that formal trade deals tie the government’s hands too tightly. The US is prevented, so the logic goes, from protecting its domestic interests. Meanwhile, other countries openly flout the rules. This perception that trade deals are no longer fit for purpose has had a tangible policy impact. It helped motivate the Trump administration’s 

 the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the vetoing of new WTO Appellate Body members, and the 

 the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Taken together, dissatisfaction with trade rules, along with worries about how trade impacts local communities, have both generated demand for policy reform.

SB: Thanks, that was really helpful. One of the words we hear a lot in current policy conversations is “inclusivity.” Can you explain what makes a trade policy inclusive

Inclusive trade is a broad label for policies aimed at promoting equitable growth and healing the gashes that globalization cut into societies around the world. The idea is that trade policies need to take globalization’s harm more seriously if we want to sustain meaningful, profitable cooperation.

While the term is relatively new, the idea is not. New Deal–era trade officials 

 that market liberalization should serve workers, not the other way around. Today’s reformers argue that those lessons from the 1930s and ’40s were forgotten somewhere along the way, and that policy needs to refocus on worker welfare. This idea is sometimes called “worker-centric” policy or, as the Biden administration 

, “foreign policy for the middle class.”

The word “inclusive” is worth talking about. In everyday usage, we typically think of inclusivity in our efforts to combat discrimination against underrepresented groups. Inclusive trade can be used that way. For example, we know that trade 

 some of the manufacturing job loss across the United States in recent decades. But there is also evidence that Black manufacturing workers were 

 to work in lower-skilled positions that are more vulnerable to outsourcing. And, they are more likely to face barriers to reemployment.

So, inclusive trade can refer to those forms of discrimination. Typically, however, it is used more broadly. Inclusive policies are supposed to be just that—policies that promote worker welfare regardless of race, sex, or any other demographic trait.

Importantly, inclusivity also means looking beyond the domestic market. One of the core motivations behind trade reform is addressing 

—the exploitation of cheap labor, such as for textiles and sweatshops for apparel. In that sense, inclusive trade overlaps with concepts of fair trade. We want to ensure that coffee growers are paid a reasonable price for their beans or that minerals are not mined by slave labor in conflict zones.

SB: Promoting growth while treating labor fairly sounds like a good idea. How is that best accomplished? Are there specific policy proposals being considered?

Possible reforms are varied and far-reaching. In terms of global efforts, there 

 end corporate tax shelters, strengthen labor standards, and add more robust environmental regulations to trade deals. These diverse ideas share a common goal: avoiding 

 in which competitive pressures punish markets that try to protect their workers and their resources.

Those proposals may imply that inclusive trade is all about stricter rules. To the contrary, one of the leading proposals is to make trade deals more flexible.

Recall that one of the criticisms facing trade agreements is that they are 

, preventing governments from protecting their interests. This argument does not just come from import-competing businesses who seek trade protection. Advocacy groups 

 that trade rules too often prevent governments from regulating the market in ways that protect the public interest. For example, Country A may wish to have standards limiting lead paint in children’s toys or restricting which pesticides are used on agricultural products. But Country B may view these standards as discriminatory and, under a system like the WTO, may sue Country A for violating its trade-liberalizing commitments.

Not all countries agree that the rules-based order is broken. While the US has been a vocal critic of the WTO, the European Union has been more supportive. 

Recognizing this problem, a common claim is that governments need more room to maneuver within the rules, regulating their markets as they see fit. This means rewriting trade law to make commitments more flexible.

The idea is to put people ahead of prices. Trade deals already have 

, such as safeguards and anti-dumping measures, which provide governments with opportunities to relax their commitments when import competition unduly harms a domestic industry. However, reformers argue that the rules do not prioritize workers. To limit abuse of flexible provisions, escape is only permitted in specific circumstances. Under the World Trade Organization 

, wages and jobs are last on that list, behind losses to profits, productivity, and market share. Those calling for inclusive reforms say we need to reorder that list, putting workers first, not last.

Of course, trade rules alone cannot address all of globalization’s challenges. Inclusive trade also means 

 that work in conjunction with revisions to international law. At home, policy proposals focus on expanding worker retraining programs, strengthening unions, and raising minimum wages. They sometimes also include deeper investments in education and infrastructure.  

SB: That all sounds very ambitious. Given the trend away from trade in recent years, how realistic is it to think reform will make trade more inclusive?

One problem is that shared grievances have not created shared policy preferences. Just because people are disillusioned with the economy does not mean they agree on how to fix the problem.

In the United States, opinion on almost every issue is highly polarized—and economic policy is no exception. Our work at the Canada Institute shows that inclusive reforms 

 old partisan divisions because they raise fundamental questions about the role of government in the marketplace. Consider those domestic proposals we just mentioned. Higher minimum wages and worker-retraining programs are forms of government intervention in the economy. Not everyone agrees that is a good idea. A traditional, pro-market point of view would say that state interventions are inefficient and market-distorting. That is why it is a mistake to conflate Trump’s “America First” with Biden’s agenda. Both of them involve tariffs, but the similarities end there. Consistent with traditional Republican positions, Trump 

 looser regulations to allow the market to operate more freely. By contrast, Biden has 

 more redistribution and government investment in local communities.

Those disagreements help explain why trade-related policy remains uncertain right now. While both sides of the aisle express dissatisfaction, bipartisan cooperation is rare. Only 24 Republicans in the House 

 the CHIPS Act to invest in semiconductor capacity. Meanwhile, there is very little momentum behind renewing Trade Promotion Authority and, as a result, new trade deals have been sidelined 

There are also challenges internationally. Namely, not all countries agree that the rules-based order is broken. While the US has been a 

 of the WTO, the European Union has been more supportive. Last year, 20 WTO members 

 dispute appeals through an interim arrangement without US participation.

Disagreements about the WTO aren’t the only problem. Efforts to “friend-shore” production and to secure vital supply chains—two core elements of Biden’s policy agenda—

 allied countries’ dependence on China and Russia. Asking Western European or Pacific Rim allies to pull away from long-held partners 

SB: I was reading that there are concerns that inclusive reform is really just a fancy term for protectionism, and that it may disadvantage smaller and poorer economies. Can you help me understand what that’s about?

That is a valid worry. There are certainly development implications worth considering. For example, critics of inclusive trade policy point out that restricting foreign trade to focus on domestic job promotion can backfire. First, we know that any trade barrier has costs. The US-China trade war 

 that efforts to protect steel and solar manufacturers 

Second, and more importantly from a developmental standpoint, trade barriers can deprive foreign producers of economic opportunity. Put China aside for a moment and think about America’s smaller trade partners. Many developing markets are highly concentrated in just a few industries, typically raw materials, commodities, and low-skilled manufacturing. These markets depend crucially on exporting to richer nations. When those wealthier trade partners close off market access with trade barriers, it hits developing countries especially hard.

So, we have to strike a delicate balance. Limiting trade may sound like a good idea if we don’t want to support the exploitation of foreign labor. However, there is 

 around this issue, and we do not want to deprive developing countries of economic opportunities just in the name of inclusive trade.

Of course, supporters of inclusive trade 

. It is a thorny issue requiring more attention. Defining “worker welfare” is not straightforward, and devising standards that apply to labor around the world is very difficult.

SB: We’ve been talking a lot about the United States, especially given how important its trade policy decisions are for other countries. What role does the US have as we look forward?

Inclusive trade policy is something that many governments are thinking about, including 

, and numerous countries across Africa and Latin America. So, this is certainly not just a story about US interests. However, the US can have an important role to play.

The US helped design the current global trade regime and that, while its track record is not perfect, its patronage was and is important to upholding the rules. As frustrations grew amongst US policymakers and citizens, and uncertainty clouded US trade policy, we have already seen economic costs. Early in his administration, President Trump famously 

 trade wars “are good and easy to win.” But there are limits to America’s leverage over its partners. In recent years, traditional allies have forged new trade routes and signed new treaties in which the US is not involved. This will have longer-term implications for US companies and their workers who are not guaranteed market access under these new deals.

There are also security risks associated with turning inward. Commentators have been quick to point out that retreating from multilateral and regional institutions was a strategic mistake that 

 for other countries to fill. This argument was especially prevalent when the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 

 China’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement involving many of the same countries.

Of course, when talking about inclusive trade we are not just concerned with old notions of “soft power” and “spheres of influence.” But we should be concerned with the contents of trade deals around the world. While existing trade rules are far from perfect, the fact is the US had been a world leader in core areas like government transparency and labor standards in its trade deals. By opting for framework agreements instead of traditional trade treaties, one danger is that these standards are less clear—and much less enforceable.

That is why it is important to keep a seat at the table. No one argues that the current rules are absolutely perfect. The WTO is painfully silent on this and contemporary trade issues like e-commerce and crypto. Even more recent deals like the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement face criticism for omitting any mention of climate change, and for some key labor provisions, which were seen as thinly veiled protections. But imperfect rules are all the more reason to keep thinking about new solutions.

SB: In light of the challenges, what should our priorities be? And what are the prospects for meaningful reform?

 There are at least three things the US and other countries should do to address some of the political frustrations with globalization.

First, we need to focus on market stability. For too long, trade policy has been concerned solely with trade promotion. But recent events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, provide daily reminders that global instability hurts local communities around the world. Bringing greater stability to the marketplace should be a core priority, and this cannot be done by turning away from cooperation. Instead, we have to revisit the rules-based system.

Second, and relatedly, we have to take trade law reform seriously, including WTO reform. Currently, there is very, very little momentum in Washington behind fixing the WTO. That is a mistake. Not least because there is 

 that the rules-based world order, as imperfect as it has been, did not just promote trade—it also added predictability to the marketplace. That stability, as we see every day, has benefits for firms—and for workers—who depend on the ability to build long-term trade relationships.

Naturally, part of that conversation has to focus on reforming dispute settlement. The virtues of dispute settlement are frequently misunderstood. Dispute settlement processes don’t exist just to punish countries with discriminatory trade policies. They also exist to limit that punishment. Much like a domestic legal system, the idea is that you don’t shoot someone for stealing a loaf of bread. Dispute settlement mechanisms built into the 

, endeavor to take trade relations out of an economic Wild West and place them in a more controlled, predictable environment. This helps avoid trade wars and the kinds of market disruptions that leave workers on all sides worse off.  

Third, we need more careful consideration of how domestic and international policy efforts support one another. There is always a danger that trade partners see investing in domestic capacity as an unfair subsidy. That is why countries have 

 the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS Act, and other efforts to bolster US manufacturing capacity and re-shore production. Getting countries 

 one another’s industrial policies—and not sparking more trade wars—is probably the single biggest policy challenge facing reform right now.

The good news is that reform is possible. Commentators who were quick to eulogize the neoliberal world order have overstated public opposition to trade. It’s true that voters appeared frustrated with the status quo in 2016. However, public opinion data from 

 shows historically high support among average Americans for trade. That means there is an opportunity to continue this conversation about how to realize the gains from trade while still taking its risks seriously. That balance may never be struck perfectly but, if we claim to care about workers, it is worth trying.

Jeffrey Kucik, PhD, is associate professor in the School of Government and Public Policy and the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona and a fellow at the Canada Institute. He researches the politics of international trade and investment, and is interested in developing more sustainable, more robust trade rules. His work explores the conditions under which countries comply with international economic law. He also investigates how free trade helps or harms domestic workers. Both lines of research seek to better understand the local consequences of doing global business.

Stephanie Bowen is the editor of the Wilson Quarterly.

Cover photo: Outside of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Shutterstock/

In this Q&A, the Wilson Center’s resident expert on inclusive trade sheds light on a relatively new concept in global trade: inclusivity. He tells us what it means, provides important historical context, and analyzes its ability to contribute to a new global trade agenda. 


Healing the Wounds of Globalization

When we decided to dedicate our fall 2022 issue to the complex issue of global supply chains, we knew we needed to look forward to advance the conversation that has been taking place since the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare serious weaknesses previously unnoticed by many. As this issue’s articles, essays, and features started taking shape, it also became clear that we needed to take a step back. That’s when I reached out to Yossi Sheffi at MIT. Who better to help us establish the principles of a resilient supply chain—past and future—than the person who has studied and written about the topic for decades, and who is helping to prepare the next generation of supply chain professionals?

Our conversation has been edited for clarity:

Tell me a little bit about yourself and your work at MIT.

I’m a professor of engineering systems at MIT and the director of 

MIT’s Center for Transportation Logistics

. It’s an interdepartmental center, which means it has people from all departments working on research programs. There are about 100 permanent staff and close to 100 graduate students, but the faculty members associated with departments come and go depending on research under way.

Some companies drill and prepare all the time. Companies need to have an emergency management center where all the information is centralized and decisions can be made quickly. Companies also have to decide who makes the decisions.

We are trying to develop sophisticated and innovative methods to make more resilient supply chains. In particular, we work with industry in order for these innovations to be implemented. As part of this, we have a group of 50 companies that are working with us very closely in what we call “the supply chain exchange.” We have multiple activities with them, including roundtables and conferences, both online and in-person gatherings, both at MIT and at members’ locations. For example, tomorrow, our members are going to Wayfair to look at its logistics and how it manages its supply chains. Topics for a gathering like this are usually suggested by the members. Importantly, the companies also work with our students.

 Can you talk more about MIT’s supply chain research?

: The areas of research range from resilience to 

, freight transportation, food supplies, inventory management, 

, and so on—we have many, many subjects. We oversee about $15 to $20 million worth of research grants a year, mostly from industry but also from governments.

 Supply chains have been very important for a long time, but it seems the world did not fully understand their significance until the COVID-19 pandemic. Can you talk about shifts in understanding?

 In 2001, after 9/11, I was in the UK working with people from some of the bigger British companies. One of the politicians asked, “What happens if the next Al-Qaeda attack is not on a symbolic target but on an economic target like a port or a refinery?” Most of the assets in the UK and the US are owned by private companies, so he asked what the companies were doing. People looked around the table and said, “Nobody knows.” For me, this was a wake-up call to the need to build resilience in supply chains. My 

 came out in 2005, and I wrote even then that there are not enough medical ventilators in the United States, as an example of the country not being prepared. And companies were not prepared. A few companies like Intel were thinking about it all the time and getting prepared, but most companies were not.

So, some of us were screaming from the rooftop for a long time that the country is not resilient. We were not arguing for what people are arguing now—for getting out of China, for example, or building mountains of inventory. Interestingly, only during the recent pandemic did people start calling me from CNN and Bloomberg and the Wilson Center and all kind of places.

 I remember news story after news story about supply shortages, empty shelves—it was as if nobody had heard of a supply chain before. What did the media get right? What did they get wrong?