|
|
|
|
Journal of International Relations and Development
Volume 2, No. 3 (September 1999)
The authors pursue the issue of new global architectural construction in the face of division between comparative and International Relations scholars over the issue of whether or not major states are declining in strength. Looking at the possibility of a hegemonic global structure for the ‘new world order’, they identify and apply Susan Strange’s concepts of relative versus structural strength. They find that in relative terms the United States continues to exhibit strength in hegemonic proportions. However, in terms of structural strength, American capabilities are in substantial decline, even though its domestic strength has continued to increase. They conclude that although domestic conditions in the US are in synch with the potential for transferring domestic resources for external pursuits, such change is not likely.
Recent work in International Relations has scrutinised the importance of representational practices for politics. Instead of beginning the analysis by simply postulating the existence of a set of actors and issues, which is the traditional tack, one has started one step ahead and scrutinised how we come to think of what the actors and the issues are in the first place. One of the tasks which remains to be done, however, is to show how the importance of representation ties in specifically to state action. Drawing on previous work regarding Russian representations of Europe and European representations of Russia and placing the problem in the context of the work done by the so-called Copenhagen School, and also on state action, the article begins to explore how this may be done.
This article examines the International Trade Organisation (ITO), the stillborn organisation linked to the Bretton Woods institutions of the post-war era. It recasts the history and failure of the ITO negotiations and presents the key principles of the ITO Charter. It outlines a framework of analysis for assessing the transformation in international political economy and state legitimacy that surrounded these negotiations. It argues that the aborted ITO project still offers some lessons for constructing credible alternatives to neoliberalism. In the context of increasing doubts about the world-wide consequences of neoliberal globalisation, the key question addressed in the 1940s by the negotiators of the ITO today remains as valid as ever: how can we comprehensively define a compatible relationship between the transnationalisation of capitalism and the economic and social roles of political authority?
According to the liberal school of International Political Economy, globalisation has effectively rendered the ability of the nation-state to manage the economy obsolete. At another extreme, the state-centric school stresses the primacy of the nation-state. This article transcends both extremes, by narrowing and recasting the general thrust of the relationship between the state and global economic relations to one about macroeconomic policy. The author examines the interplay between global financial markets and national currency, budget and monetary policies, and uses several recent examples, including Mexico’s 1994 crisis, the British European Exchange Rate Mechanism episode, and the recent Asian contagion. This study finds that, when ‘policy misalignments’ exists, that is when governments adopt monetary policies that have the unintended effect of undermining the soundness of the economy and the financial system, markets act as a disciplinary mechanism, sanctioning policy mistakes.