Economic Globalisation: Past, Present, and Future - Essay Example

Economic Globalisation: Past, Present and Future 2007 PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO DELETE THIS PART! As for Massey: this was a ic chapter ‘Power Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place’ which introduced the concept of Power Geometry. It was published in a major book edited by Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G. and Tickner, L., Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, London: Routledge, on pages 59-69. Horowitz 2004 - http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/127 Dahan Doh and Guay 2006 http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/11/1571 Cohen 2006 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oso/1416090/2007/00000001/00000001/art00000 KPMG (2002) International Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, Amsterdam: KMPG [http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/manulDocumentRequest.do?hdAction=ref_document_request&r_contentId=0&r_atitle=&r_jtitle=KPMG%204th%20International%20Survey%20of%20Corporate%20Sustainability%20Reporting&r_issn=&r_year=2002&r_volume=&r_issue=&r_startpage=&r_endpage=&r_publisher=KPMG/WIMM&r_authors=KPMG] TWN 2006: 14 is the publication you have already located, namely Third World Network (TWN) 2006, Globalization, Liberalization and Protectionism: Impacts on poor rural producers in developing countries, International Fund for Agricultural Development. Michalak and Gibb 1997 can be found here http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/anna/1997/00000087/00000002/art00004 Hope this helps. In my humble opinion, no tutor can request from the student to read EVERY source used in the paper, that’s just my opinion. Economic Globalisation: Past, Present and Future Introduction Globalisation is often addressed as the distinct feature of modernity, but this phenomenon is not new though the speed, reflexivity, complexity and consequences of modern global processes are genuinely outstanding. Modern globalisation processes can be traced back to the period after World War II while the earlier versions remain subject to intensive scholarly debate. Thus some authors study events since 1492 in considering the history of globalisation, and some focus on the more remote past (Frank and Gills 1994). However, these views are not commonly accepted with the majority of scholars concentrating on the recent past in their studies of modern globalisation processes. One popular perspective on globalisation (particularly economic globalisation) seeks for its origins in the period between approximately 1850 and 1914. These earlier forms of globalisation manifested in British imperialism and increased trade and capital flows between politically independent European states, their colonial territories, and the United States (Raskin et al. 2002). The first era of globalization was characterized by growth of export and profits, capital flow, massive migration of workforce from Europe to Northern America and other states (almost 60 million people). At the same time, the world saw increasing disparity between the countries actively involved in globalization processes and the rest of the world with industrialization being the key reason for this tendency (Crafts 2000). Evidently, this perspective also implies that World War I was the outcome of the first era of globalisation. The period between the wars was characterized by decline in the integration processes: the countries focused on their domestic needs. As a result, the share of trade in global income dropped to the level of 1870 while migration was limited and reduced tremendously (Crafts 2000). End of World War II manifested the second era of globalisation which continues up to date though, for example, Noam Chomsky, one of the brightest modern philosophers, claims that the origins of contemporary globalization can be traced to the mid-1970s characterised by floating of exchange rates and erosion of limitations on capital flows (Chomsky 2000). The second era was driven by the major advances in technology, reduced trade barriers, which led to lower trading costs, capital and information flow and workforce migration (Crafts 2000). However, the global processes became remarkably intensive only after the end of the Cold War. Some authors claim that the event released the forces that could effectively propagate new socio-political and economic movements both domestically and internationally in the world no more characterised by strategic confrontation of the two superpowers. Thus, the demise of the Cold War in 1990 is commonly believed to be the landmark marking the real beginning of rapid and extensive global change which dramatically transformed (and continue to transform) the face of modern world (Horowitz 2004). The period between 1950 and 1980 was marked by integration processes involving developed industrial countries. Liberalisation of trade relations between developed countries and the rest of the world resulted in never yet seen growth. Thus, in 2002 the World Bank reported that the developing countries involved in the globalisation process during the 1980s such as China, Hungary, and Mexico shifted their export priorities from raw resources to industrial goods and services which had immediately led to stable inflow of FDI. Consequently, the average economic growth rate increased to 5 percent in the next decade which represented a 3-percent increase as compared to the 2-percent rate in the developed states (The World Bank 2002). Driving Factors and Effects of Globalisation Despite relatively long history the phenomenon of globalisation has not been defined and fully understood yet. One probable reason for such situation is that globalisation is an exceptionally dynamic and multilateral term which relates social, economic, political reforms, communication patterns, and virtually all aspects of human life and activity. Often globalisation is mistakenly confused with economic globalization (Levitt 1983), which constitutes only one aspect, though an important one, of globalisation process. In that sense, there are a number of definitions which emphasize the increasing interconnectedness of national economies and life across the world. Thus, Mittelman (1996) describes globalisation as “cross-border flows of capital, knowledge, and consumer goods” (p. 1). Economically, the essence of globalisation is the convergence of products, wages, profits, prices, rates of interest towards the norms accepted in the so-called developed countries (Wolf 2004). Globalization of the economy depends on a group of specific factors such as international trade, capital movement, integration of financial markets and workforce migration patterns. Increase in free international capital flows, increasing volume and variety of international and multinational transactions, and rapid diffusions of knowledge and technologies regularly reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are the distinct features of economic globalisation. Information and Communication Technology The so-called ‘technologisation’ of trade relations is reasonably perceived as one of the cornerstones of the globalisation process. The impact of modern Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on various aspects of human life is profound which makes it one of the major driving forces of globalization (Wolf 2004). Although each of the three components of modern ICT (namely computing, improved communications, and Internet) plays exceptionally important role in the global economy the Internet can probably be addressed as the most significant one. The onset and rapid development of e-commerce, e-governance, virtual offices, markets and states literally shapes the process of globalisation these days and is expected to become even more important in the nearest future. The role of ICT in general and Internet communications in particular are likely to become an important tool in stimulating economic growth for developed countries. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently addressed ICT as a highly essential tool in bridging the gap between the developing and developed countries thus challenging the traditional notion of modern technologies as ‘digital divide’ between those who have access to them and those who do not (OECD 2004). Trade Liberalisation Liberalisation of trade is another essential factor contributing to the increase in the interdependence between countries in the global world economy. The key assumption underlying the concept of economic liberalism is that that unrestricted international trade stimulates total world income and welfare growth by establishing more efficient patterns of resources and technology use (Yarbrough and Yarbrough 1987). According to the liberal paradigm, tariff and non-tariff barriers which hamper free international and domestic trade transactions must be removed. For example, the export-led growth strategy that contributed largely to the spectacular economic development of East Asian countries depends on trade liberalisation. In addition to domestic policy changes, the international regime under the rules of the WTO promotes an external environment in liberalising trade policies in both developed and developing countries (Bhardwaj and Hossain 2002). The ongoing tendency of free trade agreements initiated within the GATT (which later transformed into the WTO) demonstrates benefits of trade liberalisation. Unfortunately, these benefits are not distributed equally between the parties involved in free trade though some theorists argue that the distribution is equal. For example, Hecksher and Ohlin’s (H-O) theory states that “countries export goods which use intensively those factors of production that are relatively abundant at home and import goods which use intensively factors that are relatively scarce. Trade thus increases the demand for abundant factors, because of the expansion of export sectors, and reduces the demand for scarce factors, because of the contraction of import-competing sectors, with corresponding effects on factor prices” (Fontana, Joekes, and Masika, 1998: 5). However, analysis of the world trade history seriously undermines validity of the assumption that free trade is equally beneficial for both developed and developing states (Stieglitz 2002). Multinational Corporations The globalised world has faced a remarkable increase in the global transactions and international trade. The main objectives which force the companies to engage in international activities are expansion of sales, minimizing competitive risk, acquisition of resources, and diversification of sources of sales and supplies (Wolf 2004). Therefore, the emergence and activities of transnational and multinational business organizations is closely linked to the concept of globalisation. International reach and mobility of Multinational Corporations (MNC) is believed to seriously stimulate competition between countries and even regions within the same country to have MNCs locate their facilities within. Success in such competition results in subsequent improvement of employment opportunities, tax revenue, and overall economic growth of the country/region. Tax breaks, pledges of governmental assistance or improved infrastructure, lax environmental and labour standards are on the list of instruments utilised to gain competitive advantage in this race (Bhardwaj and Hossain 2001). As a result, MNCs act as major agents of influence in various channels of globalisation process. Thus, multinational and transnational enterprises account for all Foreign Direct Investment (FDI); they also intensify trade activities (more than thirty percent of world trade taking place within and not between companies); and finally, they facilitate and stimulate transfer of knowledge across geographical and political borders via transactions which occur within the enterprise. MNCs can be reasonably addressed as a driving force behind the process of globalization though the relationship between MNCs and this process is not unilateral: it is rather a complementary one with MNCs’ activities reinforcing the globalization and visa versa. Under the conditions of globalisation, MNCs are building their influence at both international and domestic levels (Dahan, Doh and Guay 2006). Economic potential of modern MNCs is huge. Thus, already in the beginning of this decade multinational corporations accounted for a quarter to a third of total world output, 70 per cent of the world trade, and 80 per cent of direct international investment (KMPG 2002). The shares have been only on the upward trend since then. However, the potential of these powerful corporations brought by globalisation poses a serious threat to smaller domestic businesses (although entrance of MNC into new markets can have both positive and negative impacts on local economics). The increasingly important role of MNCs and further globalization of the world economies also raise serious concern about issues of inequality and stabilization (Dahan, Doh and Guay 2006). IMF, World Bank and WTO The increasing role of MNCs has resulted in a controversial situation for governments of developing countries. On the one hand, attracting the benefits provided by MNCs is an economically reasoned endeavour; on the other hand, the potential risks related to transfer of essential national assets from domestic hands to foreign control must be taken into consideration as well (Cohen 2006; Dahan, Doh and Guay 2006). This important dilemma has become particularly vital these days when the volume of FDI is on the tremendous rise, but the strategies adopted MNCs are meant to give them increased leverage. This tendency towards MNC-based FDI is predicted to continue as a result of further globalization of markets for goods, services, and capital (Cohen 2006). Under such circumstances, the role of international financial and economic organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank has become subject for intensive debate. These organisations were created at the Bretton Woods Meetings in 1944 to become an instrument in designing a new architecture for the post-war international economy. Although the World Bank was initially created to help rebuild European economies ruined by war the focus of its activities soon shifted to the ‘underdeveloped’ states and their inclusion into the international economy. The primary purpose of creating the IMF was to help stabilise currency exchange rates between nations. Over the last decades, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have systematically undertaken ‘structural adjustment programmes’ across the globe. The essence of these programmes, which are strongly associated with the globalisation process, was systematic establishment of strict conditions to use their lending to help developing countries adjust their economic structures to suit the purposes of world development strategies by opening their economies to international market (The World Bank 2002). At the same time, the programmes and policies promoted by these organisations often represent a strange and highly controversial “...combination of liberalisation and protectionism” (TWN 2006: 14). Thus in many cases developing countries are obliged to implement more liberal regulations than the developed states that are allowed to retain or even establish new protectionist policies. Such attitude puts economy of the developing countries in disadvantageous position as compared with the developed countries (Stieglitz 2002). The most probable reason for such situation is that majority of developing countries are forced to act as passive “policy takers” with practically no influence on the process of making of the regulations and policies of such agencies as the IMF, World Bank and the WTO. On the other hand, they must implement these policies designed with little consideration of their needs. By contrast, the developed countries have sufficient influence at the World Bank, IMF (by virtue of the voting system which is weighted by equity shares), and the WTO to act as active “policy makers”. The recent shift of power from the UN to these institutions controlled and dominated by the developed countries clearly demonstrates the reduction of the influence of the developing countries in decision-making over economic and social issues at the international level (TWN 2006). After numerous reports blasting the IMF for worsening the Asian financial crisis, exposing the Bank’s failure to alleviate poverty (many accuse the Bank of actually creating poverty), and numerous corruption charges around both institutions, the IMF and World Bank are today under mounting public pressure to change their policies. An intensive debate has been recently launched as to what role these two organisations are supposed to play in modern global economy. Many critics would like to see both the Bank and the IMF shut down completely (Stieglitz 2002), but the US government proposes to expand the IMF as a safety net for the larger and more frequent financial crises that are expected in contemporary deregulated global capital markets. Trading Blocs and Protectionism The phenomenon of economic blocs and protectionism represent another important issue to be analysed within the context of globalisation. Despite the advantages of liberal economy which emerged during the process of globalisation, the concept of regional trading blocs is still perceived as attractive by many countries. Moreover, during only four years from 1990 to 1994, the GATT was informed about 33 regional arrangements. Such surge in regional trading arrangement over the 1990s constitutes a striking contrast the post-war decades when regional blocs had been less numerous and less successful as contemporary ones. And what is particularly interesting, position of the United States which has traditionally been in the forefront of the globalisation processes is totally different these days (Frankel 1997). The nature of regional economic blocs openly contradicts the liberal underpinning of globalisation. Historically such blocs were formed in response some unfavourable prospects for world trade, and while globalisation rested on the ideas of liberal economy and open markets regional blocs relied on the policies of protectionism usually within national political boundaries. Relatively high costs and some other disadvantages associated with protectionist policies forced some states (for example, in East Asia) reduce the barriers, support industrialisation and adopt a more liberal model of economic development. By contrast, other states (mostly African and Latin American) preferred to form regional trading blocs instead of opening their economies. As a result, there were approximately sixteen different regional trading schemes in the developing world in the beginning of the 1990s (Michalak and Gibb 1997). The most essential observation in relation to the tendency is that these blocs were formed by developing countries to protect their economies from the liberal world trade, and became a serious obstacle on the way toward further development of this trade and formation of the global market. Ironically, the free trade notion which is the main driving force of globalisation has led to a new economic division in the world into several major blocks. Thus, there are three major economic blocs in the world these days (Northern America, the EU and the Asia-Japan) and probably the most important observation is the dominant tendency of the increase in trade within regional blocs rather than across them (Chortareas and Pelagidis 2004). Evidently, this tendency poses a serious threat to further globalisation of the world due to protectionism naturally involved in the regional economic blocking. Winners and Losers Clearly, such complex and controversial process as globalisation can hardly benefit all parties involved: there are winners and losers. The generally accepted point of view is that globalization benefits the developed economies who take advantage of the opportunity to exploit the cheaper labour and resource opportunities of the developing countries and at the same time maintain the flow of their domestic production across the world. Probably the most often cited example of globalisation looser is Argentina where the attempt to create a global marketplace with as few trade barriers as possible failed. The origins of Argentina’s economic collapse in the recent years can be traced back to the country’s failure to adequately compensate for failed globalization strategies that implemented since the beginning of 1990s. In an attempt to actively participate in the globalisation process, Argentina’s government designed and implemented a policy to keep inflation low and to attract FDI. One of the steps was making the national currency, the peso, equal to the US dollar, which greatly facilitated exchange process and brought the seeming impression of stability. Unfortunately, the decision to peg Argentina’s currency to the strongest economy in the world led to dilution of Argentina’s control of its monetary resources money, and loss of the ability to dynamically adjust exchange is reasonably known to aggravate the economic crises (Mahon and Corrales 2002). As a result, the country suffered several serious shocks over the 1990s and was force forced boost up the debt to keep the peso in line with the dollar. The IMF solution to these problems during the 1990s was for Argentina to cut spending in order to balance the budget and pay off the debt. Unfortunately, this meant cutting government spending during a recession. This aggravated the recession and required even more loans. Government spending stayed at around 20% of the GDP during the 1990s, but the percentage of spending used to pay off the interest on the debt that the country carried increased from 6% in 1993 to 15% in 2000. The IMF supported the policy of tying the dollar of the peso to that of the dollar when Argentina started the plan in 1991, and generally support keeping exchange rates high (Weisbrot and Baker 2002). However, the solution failed because an increase in federal spending was not the primary cause of the problems, while the increased interest payments on existing debt – the most probably cause – were not adequately addressed. In the early 1990s, Argentina launched a privatisation campaign, and by 1999, the country had privatized almost all the services included in the privatisation plant. However, the results of Argentinean privatisation appeared rather controversial. On the one hand, the company voluntarily deprived itself of any resources to rely upon in times of possible economic crises. On the other hand, the polices of privatization contributed to the growth of income inequalities between the rich and the poor: the rate of increase in income for the wealthiest 10% of people doubled as compared with the same measure for the poorest 10% between the years 1991 and 1994 (13.7% and 5.3% respectively) (Bosco 1998). The idea of free global trade also failed in Argentina. Even though money could move rapidly from the Argentina to the United States and back, the economic systems of the two states were too different in many respects. Thus, there was absolutely no reason to believe that when the US Federal Reserve board raised interest rates in 1994 they did consider the consequences of this step for the economic system of the neighbouring country. With fixing their currency to the dollar, they effectively moved the power of their currency outside of their control: They could not get it back without serious economic repercussions. The capitalist sector is who benefits from the fixed prices; the state, located in a specific place, is not able to take advantage of the compression of space in a ‘global’ economy (Massey 1993). Foreign debt is a problem in most Latin American economies; companies need to worry about how to pay off the interest before they can even attempt to pay off the debt itself. This foreign debt is not new. However, in attempting to construct a more appealing place for economic development for foreign corporations and encouraging investment, they seem to have made a major mistake. The IMF, in continuing to give loans to keep the peso high, may have made things worse in the long run. Other countries who have let their currency devalue, such as Russian and Brazil, although they have suffered economic recession, have not experience the kind of hyperinflation that the IMF was so concerned about (Massey 1993). The example of Argentina clearly demonstrates the danger associated with introduction of single currencies – another distinct feature of the globalisation process. Although the IMF is one of most devoted proponents of the so-called ‘dollarization’ scheme, the risks of such step manifested brightly in Argentina where loss of internal monetary controls to foreign financial institutions resulted in economic collapse. By contrast, Chile is commonly described as the globalisation success story which allegedly demonstrates that the onset of global market and liberal economic regulations can also benefit developing economies. In 1982, the outstanding American economist Milton Friedman labelled the market-driven policies implemented by Chilean government an economic miracle. The same view was confirmed almost two decades later, in 2000, when Harvard economist Robert Barro asserted in Business Week that Chile’s performance derived from the free-market reforms instituted by Pinochet (Cypher 2004). And even the Nobel winning critic of globalisation Joseph Stiglitz described Chile in his 2002 book Globalization and its Discontents as an exception to the failure of unregulated free markets and free trade policies in developing nations (Stiglitz 2002). Although Chile’s success is far from being absolute – the country has experienced periods of stagnation, suffered form high unemployment rate and outside crises – but its success in comparison to other developing countries can hardly be denied. Therefore, Chile’s example once again demonstrates the complexity of economic globalisation processes and lack of clarity in regard to their consequences. Conclusion Although modern globalization characterised by never yet seen speed and intensity is a relatively new process history of the past epochs suggests that it will play a prominent role in the economic, political, and social life of human civilisation. The increase in free trade, competition, and nation profits are the most evident confidences which have already started to manifest. Unfortunately, the lion’s share of these benefits seems to go mainly towards the developed economies. As a result, these economies are increasingly interested in the ongoing globalisation processes as they are at present. On the other hand, the developing economies experience greater needs for growth and development, but globalisation in its current form does not adequately satisfy these needs. Instead, the policies promoted by powerful international institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, and the WTO controlled by the developed countries lead to collapse of the developing economies and small companies while benefiting the developed economies and MNC. Although liberalisation of trade, removal of trade barriers, improved capital mobility and communications, and other elements of globalisation benefited some developing countries, in most case the effort to promote competition worldwide on the contrary rendered it impossible for small economies companies successful locally to maintain their success in the global economy. The most important task associated with modern globalisations processes seems to be finding the balance between often conflicting interests of the developing countries and developed countries. At present, the role of developing countries in shaping the global economy does not live up to reasonable expectations. The developed countries and international institutions in their turn often seem to imitate activities meant to actually stimulate rapid development of the developing countries. The chances are that such situation rests on the desire of the developed countries to preserve their leading positions in the world. However, selective approach in establishing economic rules and regulations upon the conditions of ongoing globalisation is pregnant with unexpected risks and shocks: protectionism and liberalism will barely manage to peacefully coexist within the framework of one system. References Bhardwaj, A. and Hossain, D. 2002, ‘Globalization and Multinational Corporations in South Asia: Towards Building a Partnership for Sustainable Development’, RCSS Policy Studies 20, Sri-Lanka: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies. Bosco, F.J. 1998, ‘State-society relations and national development: a comparison of Argentina and Taiwan in the 1990s’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 22, pp. 623-652. Chomsky, N. [interviewed by Robert A. Schupp and Richard L. O. Hlemacher] 2000, ‘Marginalizing the Masses’, Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 53, No. 2 [electronic version available online at http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20000303.htm] Chortareas, G. E. and Pelagidis, T. 2004, ‘Trade flows: a facet of regionalism or globalisation?’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 253-271. Cohen, S. D. 2006, Multinational Corporations and Foreign Direct Investment UNsimplified, Oxford University Press. Crafts, N. 2000, ‘Globalization and Growth in the Twentieth Century’, IMF Working Paper WP/00/44. Cypher, G. M. 2004, ‘Is Chile a neoliberal success? Chile is often heralded as the global Souths best case for free-trade economic policies, but the facts tell a different story’, Dollars & Sense, September-October [electronic version available online at http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2004/0904cypher.html] Dahan, N., Doh, J. and Guay, T. 2006, ‘The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective’, Human Relations, Vol. 59, No. 11, pp. 1571-1600. Fontana, M., Joekes, S. and Masika, R. 1998, ‘Global Trade Expansion and Liberalization: Gender Issues and Impacts’, Bridge Development – Gender, Report No. 42. Frank, A.G. and Gills, B.K. 1994, The World System: Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand, London and New York: Routledge. Frankel, J. 1997, Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System, Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. Horowitz, S. 2004, ‘Restarting Globalization after World War II’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 127-151. Levitt, T. 1983, ‘The Globalization of Markets’, Harvard Business Review, 61 (May-June), pp. 92-102. Mahon, J. E. and Corrales, J. 2002, ‘Pegged for Failure? Argentina’s Crisis’, Current History, Vol. 101, No. 652, pp. 72–75. Massey, D. 1993, ‘Power Geometry and a Progressive Sense of Place’, in Bird, J., Curtis, B., Putnam, T., Robertson, G. and Tickner, L. (eds), Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change, London: Routledge, pp. 59-69. Michalak, W. and Gibb, R. 1997, ‘Trading Blocs and Multilateralism in the World Economy’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 264-279. Mittelman, J. 1996, Globalization: Critical Reflection. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 2004, ‘Science, Technology and Innovation for the 21st Century. Meeting of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy at Ministerial Level 29-30 January 2004 - Final Communique’, retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://www.oecd.org/document/0,2340,en_2649_34487_25998799_1_1_1_1,00.html Raskin, P., T. Banuri, G. Ga llopín, P. Gutman, A. Hammond, R. Kates, and Schwartz, R. 2002, The Great Transition: The Promise and the Lure of the Times Ahead, Boston, MA: Tellus Institute. Stieglitz, J. 2002, Globalization and its discontents, New York: Norton. The World Bank 2002, World Development Report 2002 [available online at http://www.worldbank.org/wdr/2001/fulltext/fulltext2002.htm] Third World Network (TWN) 2006, Globalization, Liberalization and Protectionism: Impacts on poor rural producers in developing countries, International Fund for Agricultural Development. Weisbrot, M. and Baker, D. 2002, What Happened to Argentina?, Centre for Economic and Policy Research. Wolf, M. 2004, Why Globalization Works, Yale University Press. Yarbrough, B.V. and Yarbrough, R.M. 1987, ‘Cooperation in the Liberalization of International Trade: After Hegemony, What?’, International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 12–13. Read More