When I was a kid, the boy next door once played a nasty trick on my brother Paul: our neighbor held his cat in his arms, brought it within a few inches of Paul’s face, and pulled its tail. The suddenly angry cat bit Paul’s face. My brother and I were upset; the cat, we thought, should have bitten the perpetrator’s face. I think of that incident whenever I hear people call for economic sanctions against a whole country.
When governments impose sanctions, the officials implementing the policy want to harm the dictator or bad guy heading the other country’s government. That’s the goal. What they do to achieve it is intentionally harm many innocent people in those countries by cutting them off—if the sanctions are effective—from food, medicine, and other goods that they need or value. The sanctions almost always work in a limited sense: they impose some harm on innocent people in the target country. But that’s not the goal. Nor is the goal to cut off the dictator from food, medicine, et cetera. You can be sure that Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro are not hurting for antibiotics or high-quality food. No. The harm that the advocates of sanctions want to inflict on the bad guys is indirect. They are yanking innocent people’s tails so that those people, like our neighbor’s cat, will lash out at whoever’s face is right in front of them. They want those people to see their own government as the enemy and to try to overthrow it.
But people are smarter than cats. When people suddenly find food, clothing, medicine, and other goods in short supply, when they find themselves a lot poorer and focusing desperately on day-to-day survival, they will take the time to find out who is responsible. And guess what? They do find out. Although governments in embargoed countries like Iran, Iraq, and Cuba strictly control what newspapers, radio, and television report, one piece of information that is sure not to be censored is the role of outside governments in the country’s economic distress.
This is from David R. Henderson, “Why Economic Sanctions Don’t Work,” which I wrote in 1998.
Later in the piece, I wrote:
To understand how people in embargoed countries feel, you will have to use your imagination. Picture yourself back in 1974. President Nixon’s popularity has hit bottom. Many Americans want him out, but he holds on. Now imagine that the head of a freer country—say, Switzerland—thinks Nixon is a vicious leader and imposes sanctions on us. Because of these sanctions, we can’t get medicine and we can’t feed our families adequately. We spend our days scraping for the basics we need to survive. (Of course this is implausible in the United States, which is why I said you would have to use your imagination.) Now ask yourself: Is your first thought that you should organize and try to overthrow the president?
I bet it’s not. For one thing, you don’t have much of a shot at succeeding. The Nixon administration is probably in charge of allocating the scarce medicine and food. But more important, you’re furious with the Swiss government. “Who are they to interfere in our country’s affairs?” you ask. So if Nixon offers you a war against the Swiss infidels, you’re likely to say, “Hell, yes,” and postpone thoughts of getting rid of your president until you’ve gotten those foreign bums off your back. And that’s probably how Iraqis are feeling right now about the United States and other governments that are participating in the embargo.
I thought of all this when I read this article: David Lawler, “Inside wartime Russia, Putin isn’t losing,” Axios, April 11, 2022.
One excerpt:
Russian shoppers can no longer buy many Western products or use certain payment methods, and many goods they can buy are now more expensive thanks to the sanctions. But they don’t blame Putin, says Yana, a journalist in Moscow who asked that we not use her last name.
Note: When I put the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics together, I had 3 experts on sanctions, Kimberly Ann Elliott, Gary Clyde Hufbauer, and Barbara Oegg, all of the Institute for International Economics, write the piece. This Institute is now called the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Their piece is more nuanced than mine, but I think they would agree that the kind of sanctions imposed on Russians will not cause people to overthrow Putin.
READER COMMENTS
Andrew_FL
Apr 12 2022 at 6:30pm
Not necessarily. That would indeed be very silly, when you could just have your intelligence agency do something I’m probably not allowed to say instead. The goal of sanctions could instead be, and often has been, to starve the war machine of the hostile state actor of the resources it needs to wage war.
Jon Murphy
Apr 12 2022 at 9:10pm
And yet, that is the goal. Personal sanctions do not make sense if you want to “starve the war machine.”
Philip Hand
Apr 12 2022 at 9:22pm
I think there are two different levels of sanctions. One level is general sanctions which harm the whole country and its economy. That will only have very indirect effects on the leadership. The other level is more targeted sanctions on the leadership’s specific sources of power. That would include arms embargoes, reducing their ability to strengthen their own military forces; and oil embargos, because it’s often oil (or other natural resources) that keeps the government afloat. Personal sanctions on the leadership’s inner circles would fall into this category, too.
There’s a bit of a contradiction within this complaint about sanctions. (1) It suggests that we shouldn’t punish ordinary people because the war is not their fault; (2) it says that ordinary people in Russia support their leader (and so, at least indirectly, the war). If these Russians are pro-war, then they are at least somewhat culpable as well.
Jon Murphy
Apr 13 2022 at 7:37am
In some cases. In Russia’s case, embargos help by driving up the price of oil.
Andrew_FL
Apr 13 2022 at 10:42am
Russia can only benefit from high oil prices if there are buyers for Russian oil exports. Urals crude is now trading at a 35 dollar a barrel discount from Brent. So the price of Russian oil has not been driven up, and people are not buying Russian oil, except at lower, not higher, prices.
Fazal Majid
Apr 13 2022 at 12:06am
There is an element of survivorship bias in this analysis. Sanctions certainly have a deterrent effect, and you are not counting all the cases of wars that have been averted. One example of when a war was cut short was when the UK and France were humiliatingly forced to withdraw from Suez under threat of US sanctions in 1956. The unexpectedly severe sanctions against Russia will also make China think twice about invading Taiwan.
Jon Murphy
Apr 13 2022 at 7:44am
Counterfactuals are indeed difficult, but it seems to me the example you provide doesn’t support sanctions. The Suez Crisis withdrawal was much more complicated than just US sanctions. The USSR threatened to retaliate against GB and France; this looked like it was going to rapidly expand into a broader war. There were many events going on.
Mark Z
Apr 13 2022 at 1:39pm
Echoing Fazal Majid, I think one can argue that the primary mechanism of deterrence for sanctions is more akin to life in prison or the death penalty than to lesser punishments: it’s not to induce the criminal to change his behavior, but to deter the next person from committing a crime in the first place. Sanctions on Russia have probably if anything galvanized Putin among the Russian public, but they may induce Chinese people to dampen their support for aggression against Taiwan by their own government.
An analogy: if someone punishes you for a crime your friend committed, you may react angrily and rally to your friend’s defense in indignation at the unfairness of it; but if you see someone punishing the friends of criminals ahead of time, you may be more inclined to try to stop your friend from committing a crime.
Mark Barbieri
Apr 13 2022 at 4:08pm
I’ve always admired the way you take on causes that have very little support in an effort to slowly shift the Overton window.
I’m more annoyed about the sanctions the US lives under. Do you realize that, because of sanctions placed on the US, other countries won’t help us ship goods between US ports, even to islands like Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The sanctions and the lack of available US flagged ships often force them to buy goods from foreign ports.
And then their are the sanctions that make US manufacturers pay more for steel, aluminum, and lumber, even when bought from close allies. Want to bake with sugar in the US? Good luck because sanctions make the price of sugar much higher than in other countries. It’s cheaper to just bake in Mexico and ship your products in to the US.
If we can’t free ourselves from the imposition of economic sanctions, I think it will be a long time before you can convince people we shouldn’t apply sanctions to Russia.
Andrew_FL
Apr 13 2022 at 5:15pm
Yes, I do believe he is aware.
Art Carden
Apr 13 2022 at 7:23pm
Even one of the supposed “successes” of international sanctions–South Africa and the end of Apartheid–isn’t.
Juan Manuel Perez Porrua Perez
May 5 2022 at 1:09am
An interesting piece of historical trivia: 2022 marked the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Embargo.
Comments are closed.