DOCSLIB.ORG

TRADE TREATIES and DEGLOBALIZATION Christopher

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TRADE TREATIES and DEGLOBALIZATION Christopher Applied Econometrics and International Development Vol. 17-1 (2017) TRADE TREATIES AND DEGLOBALIZATION Christopher E.S.WARBURTON* Abstract The central issue in this paper is whether technological innovation and international trade can spur economic growth and sustainable development within a structured environment of trade agreements. By analyzing historical precedents and data on trade imbalances, innovation, dynamic comparative advantage, weighted exchange rates, poverty, and wages, the evidence suggests that freer international trade very often has a greater potential for increasing welfare and sustainable development, although a few exceptions hold when free trade implies unfair trade, diminution of industrial production per head and strong trade deficits. Implicitly, exports must be strongly encouraged when wages are stagnant, poverty is substantial, production costs are low, and disposable income is insufficient to substantially absorb domestic production. On the other hand, trade imports have positive effects on domestic market when they increase production, productivity and income per head. JEL Codes: F13, F15, F18, F31, K33, O 13, O24, O44, O51 Keywords: Dynamic Comparative Advantage, Free Trade Area, Globalization, Trade Weighted Dollar, Trade Law, Renewable Energy, and Sustainable Development 1. Introduction This paper investigates the performance of free trade areas (FTAs) as models of economic growth and sustainable development. Members of an FTA agree to trade among themselves without erecting tariff and non-tariff barriers. On the other hand, a customs union is an elevated form of an FTA in which the members agree to have a common trade policy against the trading interests of outsiders. In another form of economic integration, a common market, the members adopt a common trade policy, but also allow the free movement of goods and services as well as the factors of production. The highest form of economic integration is a monetary union in which the members decide to use a common currency in addition to the previously identified freedoms. At the time of this writing, factor movement is increasingly coming under stringent scrutiny. The central issue in this paper is whether technological innovation and international trade can spur economic growth and sustainable development within a structured environment of trade agreements or laws. By analyzing historical precedents and data on trade imbalances, innovation, dynamic comparative advantage, weighted exchange rates, poverty, and wages, the evidence suggests that very often freer international trade has a greater potential for increasing economic growth, economic welfare, and sustainable development. Implicitly, exports trade must be strongly encouraged when wages are stagnant, poverty is substantial, production costs are low, and disposable income is insufficient to substantially absorb domestic production. This paper provides additional dimension to the trade literature by analyzing the interaction of multiple * Christopher E.S. Warburton, Ph.D., Department of Political Science and Economics. East Stroudsburg University, Pennsylvania, United States. E-mail: [email protected] Applied Econometrics and International Development Vol. 17-1 (2017) variables in the context of dynamic changes and the changing comparative advantage of the US economy. I conclude that US trade negotiations must be encouraged, but that they must also be sensitive to human rights laws for their successful implementation. In this paper, “deglobalization” alludes to the bifurcated mechanisms that reduce the volume of trade and economic welfare. The re-emerging patterns are evaluated from two perspectives with common insular effects. First, the concept is used to analyze traditional forms of trade restrictions, tariffs and non-tariff barriers (without trade talks). Second, the concept is used in the context of the prompt repudiation of trade talks, sometimes due to a false sense of nationalism without careful thought about the effects of technological innovation and dynamic changes that are generating new opportunities for robust trade and sustainable development (inter-generational equity of resource consumption). The paper cuts across a broad spectrum of international trade and sustainable development to highlight the usual importance of freer trade and trade negotiations (talks). I discuss the literary background and some historic experiences in the next section. The economic and lawful bases for international trade are then presented in Section 3. The theories of dynamic comparative advantage and sustainable development are discussed in Section 4. The arguments for freer trade, within even relationships in a trade area, and the findings in support of economic integration are continuously reported through the paper under different and appropriate categories of importance. I finally provide brief comments at the end of the paper. 2. The literary background of deglobalization The US has a long experience with insular trade policies and the lessons are very unpleasant. Of course, when policy makers think about tariffs they are generally preoccupied with the real sector. They generally see no compelling reason why identical thought patterns should be extended to the financial sector or financial markets. That is, there is a presumption that imprudent decisions that can unfavorably destabilize one sector of a macroeconomy are not applicable to another. Lessons of aggressive tariffs are immutable and new proposals to employ old tariff theories will not change the adverse and apparent consequences of restrictive trade. In the history of the US, two tariffs—the 1828 Tariff (of Abominations) and the Smoot- Hawley (1930)—are particularly enlightening. The destructive political and economic consequences of the tariffs were strongly influenced by negligent parochial politics of the nineteenth century, and the outcomes are unsurprisingly unsavory. The 1828 tariff, which was passed by Congress on May 19, 1828, was designed to protect American industry from cheaper British goods. The hated tariff became resentfully known as the “Tariff of Abominations.” The southern opponents of the tariffs were rightfully concerned about the increase in taxes on raw materials like cotton and tobacco, and the increase in southern opposition led to a Nullification Crisis.1 The southerners knew that the outrageous and hateful taxes on tobacco and 1 By “Nullification,” a State formally suspended the application of federal law within its borders. The concept was introduced to the US by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was ostensibly intended to control the actions of foreigners in the US during an impending war. “The principle was accepted by the Hartford Convention of New Englanders in 1814 as well as many in the South, who saw it as protection 72 Warburton, C.E.S. Trade Treaties and Deglobalization cotton would seriously affect their ability to have access to foreign markets beyond the northern markets of the USA. Explicitly, by paying more for southern goods, the British importers were surely going to have less money to buy from the American farmers. The reduction in the volume of trade was invariably and adversely going to affect the welfare of the dissenting southern farmers. Apparently, even some New England industries were also opposed to the tariff, because it included provisions for increasing the taxes on raw materials. John Quincy Adams—the 6th American President (1825-1829)—who was more interested in protecting the business interests of the industrial and manufacturing class in the North, raised taxes on British imports to nearly 50 percent and confronted the strong southern opposition. In fact, the “Tariff of Abominations” was just one of many tariffs during the nineteenth century. A tariff of 1816, which was a response to a wave of nationalism (jingoism) after the War of 1812, placed a 20 to 25 percent tax on all foreign goods. An 1824 tariff imposed a 35 percent duty on imported iron, wool, cotton, and hemp. As time progressed, nineteenth century tariff philosophy degenerated from nationalism to regionalism (industrial north v. agrarian south) in the USA. The Nullification Crisis diminished the 1828 tariff and a Compromise Tariff became inevitable, even as the US Congress and the President (Andrew Jackson) tried to coerce South Carolina to pay its dues to the Federal government. By concurrently passing the Force and Compromise Bills of 1833 a compromise was reached. The compromise required reversion of the 1828 tariff to the 1816 level over a ten-year period. South Carolina eventually repealed its nullification of the 1828 tariff, but jarringly nullified the Force Act of 1833. By the 1930s, the tariff lessons of the nineteenth century had not been very well absorbed. In 1930, the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Act. This time, the Act was intended to protect the agricultural sector. Irwin (2011) estimates that the law probably raised the average tariff on dutiable imports by about 15 to18 percent, an increase of about 6 percentage points on previous tariff. The tariff was not as extreme as conventional wisdom might suggest, but it was problematic. For example, the tariff is reported to be far less than the Fordney-McComber tariff of 1922, which raised the average tariff rate by 64 percent.2 However, one major problem with the Smoot- Hawley tariff is that it compounded a tariff, the Fordney-McComber, which was already considered to be very high. The depression
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: Kowalski, P. (2011), “Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance: Policy Implications”, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 121, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg3vwb8g0hl-en OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 121 Comparative Advantage and Trade Performance POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski JEL Classification: F11, F14, F16, F17 OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS The OECD Trade Policy Working Paper series is designed to make available to a wide readership selected studies by OECD staff or by outside consultants. This document has been declassified on the responsibility of the Working Party of the Trade Committee under the OECD reference number TAD/TC/WP(2010)38/FINAL. Comments on the series are welcome and should be sent to [email protected]. OECD TRADE POLICY WORKING PAPERS are published on www.oecd.org/trade © OECD 2011 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: OECD Publishing, [email protected] or by fax 33 1 45 24 99 30 Abstract COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE PERFORMANCE: POLICY IMPLICATIONS Przemyslaw Kowalski Trade Policy Analyst, Development Division, OECD This paper builds on recent generalisations of theory and empirics of comparative advantage and establishes the relative importance of different sources of comparative advantage in explaining trade, with particular focus on policy and institutional factors. The broad policy and institutional areas posited as determinants of comparative advantage in this paper include: physical capital, human capital (distinguishing between secondary, tertiary education and average years of schooling), financial development, energy supply, business climate, labour market institutions as well as import tariff policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Transnational Corporations Investment and Development
    Volume 27 • 2020 • Number 2 TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Volume 27 • 2020 • Number 2 TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT Geneva, 2020 ii TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS Volume 27, 2020, Number 2 © 2020, United Nations All rights reserved worldwide Requests to reproduce excerpts or to photocopy should be addressed to the Copyright Clearance Center at copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licences, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to: United Nations Publications 405 East 42nd Street New York New York 10017 United States of America Email: [email protected] Website: un.org/publications The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its officials or Member States. The designations employed and the presentation of material on any map in this work do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has been edited externally. United Nations publication issued by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2020/2 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales no.: ETN272 ISBN: 978-92-1-1129946 eISBN: 978-92-1-0052887 ISSN: 1014-9562 eISSN: 2076-099X Editorial Board iii EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief James X. Zhan, UNCTAD Deputy Editors Richard Bolwijn, UNCTAD
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R
    INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS, FINANCE AND TRADE – Vol.I - Comparative Advantage and Trade Policy - Bharat R. Hazari, Pasquale M. Sgro COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND TRADE POLICY Bharat R. Hazari Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Pasquale M. Sgro Professor of Economics, School of Economics, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia Keywords: absolute advantage, autarky, community indifference curve, comparative advantage, consumer surplus, domestic market failure, dual markets, exports, first-best, factor endowments, free trade, import substitution, infant industry, Heckscher-Ohlin, imports, manufacturers, non-tariff barriers, optimal tariff, pattern of trade, producer surplus, production possibility curve, protection, quotas, Ricardo, second-best, tariffs, technological differences, transformation surface, tariff revenue. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Comparative Advantage 2.1. The Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage 2.2. The Heckscher-Ohlin Theory of Comparative Advantage 3. Free Trade 4. Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers 5. International Trade Policy Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketches Summary The theory of comparative advantage suggests that voluntary trade between nations takes place because it is mutually beneficial, and that the pattern of trade is determined by differences in comparative advantage. Despite the undeniable gains free trade produces, throughout history countries have applied both tariff and non-tariff barriers to restrict trade. The concepts of consumer and producer surplus are often used to measure both the welfare benefits of free trade and the welfare costs of imposing tariffs. Both economicUNESCO and non-economic reasons have – been EOLSS used justify the restriction of trade. 1. IntroductionSAMPLE CHAPTERS Nations trade with each other because they consider it to be mutually beneficial. The gains occur in at least two ways.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S Trade Policy-Making in the Eighties
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Politics and Economics in the Eighties Volume Author/Editor: Alberto Alesina and Geoffrey Carliner, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-01280-8 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/ales91-1 Conference Date: May 14-15, 1990 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: U.S Trade Policy-making in the Eighties Chapter Author: I. M. Destler Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5420 Chapter pages in book: (p. 251 - 284) 8 U. S. Trade Policy-making in the Eighties I. M. Destler 8.1 Introduction As the 1970s wound to a close, Robert Strauss, President Jimmy Carter’s Special Trade Representative, won overwhelming congressional approval of the Tokyo Round agreements. This was a triumph of both substance and polit- ical process: an important set of trade liberalizing agreements, endorsed through an innovative “fast-track” process that balanced the executive need for negotiating leeway with congressional determination to act explicitly on the results. And it was accompanied by substantial improvement in the nonoil merchandise trade balance. Both the substance of trade policy and the process of executive- congressional collaboration would be sorely tested in the 1980s. During the first Reagan administration, a mix of tight money and loose budgets drove the dollar skyward and sent international balances awry. The merchandise trade deficit rose above $100 billion in 1984, there to remain through the decade (see table 8.1). The ratio of U.S. imports to exports peaked at 1.64 in 1986, a disproportion not seen since the War between the States.
    [Show full text]
  • Preventing Deglobalization: an Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors
    Preventing Deglobalization: An Economic and Security Argument for Free Trade and Investment in ICT Sponsors U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOUNDATION U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CENTER FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION Contributing Authors The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations. Copyright © 2016 by the United States Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form—print, electronic, or otherwise—without the express written permission of the publisher. Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 Part I: Risks of Balkanizing the ICT Industry Through Law and Regulation ........................................................................................ 11 A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 11 B. China ........................................................................................................... 14 1. Chinese Industrial Policy and the ICT Sector .................................. 14 a) “Informatizing” China’s Economy and Society: Early Efforts ...... 15 b) Bolstering Domestic ICT Capabilities in the 12th Five-Year Period and Beyond ................................................. 16 (1) 12th Five-Year
    [Show full text]
  • Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability?
    3 Has US Comparative Advantage Changed? Does This Affect Sustainability? The evidence is overwhelmingly persuasive that the massive increase in world competition— a consequence of broadening trade flows—has fostered markedly higher standards of liv- ing . this surge in competitive trade has clearly owed, in large part, to significant advances in technological innovation. —Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, “Technology and Trade,” remarks before the Dallas Ambassadors Forum, Dallas, Texas (16 April 1999) [T]he globalization system . is not static, but a dynamic ongoing process: globalization involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before—in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation- states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before. —Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (1999) Why Trade? People trade because they want different things, have different skills, and earn different amounts of money. With individuals represented by their national aggregates, countries trade for the same reasons. Countries differ from one another in terms of resources and the techniques firms use to produce goods and services. People value goods and services differently, depending on their income and tastes. Investors in financial assets have different preferences for risk, return, and diversification. These differ- 29 Institute for International Economics | http://www.iie.com ences are reflected across countries as differences in costs of production, prices for products and services, and rates of return on and “exposures”1 to financial assets. Because costs, prices, and returns differ across countries, it makes sense for a country to trade some of what it produces most cheaply and holds less dear to people who want it more and for whom production is costly or even impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries
    sustainability Article Agri-Food Export Competitiveness of the ASEAN Countries Tamás Mizik * , Ákos Szerletics and Attila Jámbor Department of Agribusiness, Corvinus University of Budapest, F˝ovám tér 8, 1093 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] (Á.S.); [email protected] (A.J.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 October 2020; Accepted: 23 November 2020; Published: 25 November 2020 Abstract: Agri-food trade competitiveness analyses are relatively understudied in the empirical literature with many countries/regions missing. The novelty of this paper to analyze the agri-food export competitiveness patterns of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), thereby aiming to fill this gap in the literature. Our research questions include which countries and products are competitive in the ASEAN region in agri-food trade; whether raw materials or processed products are more competitive; whether regional or global agri-food trade is more competitive and how persistent competitiveness is in the long run. The paper is based on ASEAN–ASEAN and ASEAN–world agri-food trade flows from 2010 to 2018, thereby global and regional competitiveness patterns have become visible. Results suggest that Myanmar (18.88), Laos (8.21) and the Philippines (5.36) have the highest levels of agri-food trade competitiveness in the world market, while in regional markets, Laos (17.17), Cambodia (15.46) and Myanmar (12.39) were the most competitive. Both raw materials, as well as processed products, are generally competitive, and regional trade, in general, was more competitive than global trade for the majority of the countries. However, results suggest a generally decreasing trend in keeping these competitive positions, which is also supported by the duration tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Balance Trade
    SECTION 2 • CHAPTER 4 Balance trade In this Oct. 18, 2011 photo, crew members look on as containers are offloaded from the cargo ship Stadt Rotenburg at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. AP PHOTO/WILFREDO LEE oods and services trade—exports plus imports—now account for nearly one-third of overall U.S. economic Gactivity,2 meaning trade’s importance to the economy has never been greater. The United States is the world’s largest exporter,3 with exports directly supporting an estimated 9.7 million jobs.4 At the same time, the United States is also the world’s largest importer, and herein lies the problem. Over the past 30 years, our trade balance has been shifting in the wrong direction—toward more imports than exports—and reached a $560 billion deficit in 2012.5 While imports can be a boon to U.S. economic ing also carry offsetting costs, including job productivity and American living standards, losses domestically. Second, in order to pay providing consumers and business with for the imports from abroad that exceed U.S. access to a larger variety of goods and ser- exports, the U.S. economy must balance this vices at lower costs than would otherwise be trade deficit by selling assets—stocks, bonds, the case, there is also a price to pay. and other assets such as companies and real estate—to overseas purchasers. Mounting trade deficits present two key problems for the U.S. economy. First, the Our trade imbalance has resulted from a economic benefits made possible by import- number of factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Asean Statistical Yearbook 2020 Yearbook Statistical Asean Asean Statistical Yearbook 2020
    ASEAN STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2020 ASEAN STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2020 ASEAN: A Community of Opportunities for All ASEAN STATISTICAL YEARBOOK 2020 The ASEAN Secretariat Jakarta The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on 8 August 1967. The Member States are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. The ASEAN Secretariat is based in Jakarta, Indonesia. For inquiries, contact: The ASEAN Secretariat Community Relations Division (CRD) 70A Jalan Sisingamangaraja Jakarta 12110, Indonesia Phone: (62 21) 724-3372, 726-2991 Fax: (62 21) 739-8234, 724-3504 E-mail: [email protected] Catalogue-in-Publication Data ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2020 Jakarta, ASEAN Secretariat, December 2020 315.9 1. ASEAN – Statistics 2. Demography – Economic Growth – Social Indicators ISBN 978-623-6945-04-9 ASEAN: A Community of Opportunities for All The text of this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided proper acknowledgement is given and a copy containing the reprinted material is sent to the Community Relations Division (CRD) of the ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta. General information on ASEAN appears online at the ASEAN Website: www.asean.org Copyright Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 2020. All rights reserved. The map in this publication is only indicative and is not drawn to scale. FOREWORD The ASEAN Statistical Yearbook is one of the ASEAN Secretariat’s most established publications since it was first released in 2002. Now in its 16th edition, the ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2020 continues to provide accurate, timely, and reliable time series data on social and economic progress in the region. The ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2020 covers data for the period of 2010-2019 comprising of sections on ASEAN population, education, health, employment, macroeconomic performance, trade in goods and services, foreign direct investment, transport, tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, and other socio-economic indicators.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE
    Comparative Advantage and Specialization TRADE We have learned enough about production that we can now begin our explanation of trade. TRADE - Assumptions Let’s assume there are two products (Food and computers). There are two countries: Europe, South America. TRADE the main question: To be self-sufficient and produce everything we need OR To cooperate with the other country & TRADE TRADE Trade is beneficial if one can only produce food while the other can only produce computer. Trade is good if Europe is better in one while South America is better in the other. – They should SPECIALIZE and trade. SomeSome points points on on South South America’s America's PPF PPC SomeSome points points on on Europe’s Europe's PPF PPC Computers Food Computers Food 200 0 400 0 100 200 200 100 0 400 0 200 TRADE But what happens if one is much better in producing both computers and food? A different example SomeSome points points on on South South America'sAmerica’s PPC PPF SomeSome pointspoints on Europe’sEurope's PPCPPF Computers Food Computers Food 250 0 200 0 125 125 100 50 0 250 0 100 They can still benefit from trade as long as opportunity costs are different. Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? Let’s look at the extremes: 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs What is the opp. cost of 1 food in Europe? If you pick to produce 100 units of food … you give up producing 200 computers. 100 vs. 200 Opportunity Costs 100 vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Simple Principles of Trade Policy
    Three Simple Principles ofTrade Policy Douglas A. Irwin The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WAS HING TON, D. C. 1996 Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. ISBN 0-8447-7079-5 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 ©1996 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or reproduced in any manner whatso­ everwithout permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute exceptin the case ofbriefquotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews. The views expressed in the publications of the American Enterprise Institute are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, advisory panels, officers, or trustees ofAEI. THE AEI PRESS Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute 1150 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 Printed in the United States ofAmerica Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS v INTRODUCTION 1. A TAX ON IMPORTS Is A TAX ON EXPORTS 2 2. BUSINESSES ARE CONSUMERS Too 10 3. TRADE IMBALANCES REFLECT CAPITAL FLOWS 18 CONCLUSION 27 NOTES 29 ABOUT THE AUTHOR 31 iii Acknowledgments This is a revised version of an informal talk I gave at the American Enterprise Institute inJanuary 1996. I thankAEI President Christopher DeMuth for inviting me to write up my remarks and make them available to a broader audi­ ence, as well as for his constructive advice on the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges and Conceptions of Globalization
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7606.htm Challenges and Challenges and conceptions conceptions of of globalization globalization An investigation into models of global change and their relationship with business practice 23 Christopher Bond Business School, University of Roehampton, London, UK, and Darren J. O’Byrne Department of Social Sciences, University of Roehampton, London, UK Abstract Purpose – This paper, which is conceptual in both nature and approach, builds on a recent contribution to the theorization of “globalization” and seeks to utilise the framework developed therein to help promote a more complex conceptual understanding of the potential implications of how business operates and responds to these challenges in a global environment. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws primarily on a heuristic framework developed by O’Byrne and Hensby that reviews eight models of global change. In this paper, the authors review and give consideration to the relationship between these models and business practice and contend that this relationship is far more complex than the majority of the current literature in the business and management field represents. Within the paper, the authors explore and discuss the dynamics of the eight models of “globalization” and assess the potential implications for business practice of working within these often conflicting and contradictory paradigms of “globalization”. As part of this review, the authors consider the strategic implications of “globalization” for business practice and propose a conceptual model with eight strategic options which are aligned to the eight models of global change.
    [Show full text]