Search

Begin New Search Topic Political Economy Political Geography Asia

91. Strengthening the International Financial Architecture: Where Do We Stand?

Author:
Morris Goldstein
Publication Date:
10-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
It's not easy to get senior economic officials worked up about the functioning of the international monetary system. Usually, they are preoccupied with the more immediate issues surrounding the national and global economic outlook. But the Mexican peso crisis of 1994-95 and, even more so, the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 made crisis management important for the economic outlook and pushed many of the otherwise arcane issues in the so-called “international financial architecture” (hereafter, IFA) to the front burner of economic policy.
Topic:
Economics, International Organization, International Trade and Finance, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
Asia and Mexico

92. The New Asian Challenge

Author:
C. Fred Bergsten
Publication Date:
03-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The initial postwar challenge from East Asia was economic. Japan crashed back into global markets in the 1960s, became the largest surplus and creditor country in the 1980s, and was viewed by many as the world's dominant economy by 1990. The newly industrialized countries (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore) followed suit on a smaller but still substantial scale shortly thereafter. China only re-entered world commerce in the 1980s but has now become the second largest economy (in purchasing power terms), the second largest recipient of foreign direct investment inflows, and the second largest holder of monetary reserves. Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia grew at 7 percent for two or more decades. The oil crises of the 1970s and the financial crises of the late 1990s injected temporary setbacks but East Asia has clearly become a third major pole of the world economy, along with North America and Western Europe.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, Israel, Taiwan, East Asia, Asia, North America, Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong

93. A New Beginning: Recasting the U.S.-Japan Economic Relationship

Author:
Bruce Stokes
Publication Date:
07-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The time is ripe for a bold new initiative to recast the U.S.-Japan economic partnership for the 21st century. A new Japan is emerging. Foreign investment is on the rise. Tokyo is deregulating and restructuring its economy. A new generation of Japanese entrepreneurs and venture capitalists has arrived on the stage.
Topic:
Economics and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Israel, East Asia, Asia, and North Africa

94. Economic Crisis and Corporate Reform in East Asia

Author:
Meredith Woo-Cumings
Publication Date:
06-2000
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The Asian financial crisis of 1997–98 involved, among other things, a failure of regulation. Some believe this failure is endemic to global capitalism, and others believe it was profoundly local and idiosyncratic, emanating from regulatory flaws in the affected countries, stretching an arc from Thailand and Indonesia to Korea and Japan. There is also a debate about the nature of the regulation that failed. Some argue that the crisis emanated from a surfeit of nettlesome regulations and endemic industrial policy; others claim it happened for want of effective regulations and (even) industrial policy. Across the hypotenuse of these disagreements, however, stretches a universal recognition that regulatory infrastructure and institutions do matter and that they must play a major role in the way we think about economic development. After the miracle years in East Asia, “good governance” has become the Spirit of the Age.
Topic:
Economics and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Indonesia, Israel, East Asia, Asia, Korea, and Thailand

95. Hazards and Precautions: Tales of International Finance

Author:
Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Erika Wada
Publication Date:
09-1999
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
In the wake of financial crises in Mexico (1994-95), Asia (1997-98), Russia (1998) and Brazil (1998-99), respected observers have questioned the benefits of wide-open international capital markets (Bhagwati, 1998; Krugman, 1998; Rodrik, 1998; Eichengreen, 1999). Our purpose is to identify true hazards and suggest appropriate precautions.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
Russia, Asia, Brazil, and Mexico

96. Time to Terminate the ESF and the IMF

Author:
Anna J. Schwartz
Publication Date:
08-1998
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The International Monetary Fund and the U.S. Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund are undemocratic institutions unaccountable for their actions. Their current functions have little to do with their original missions. The ESF is used by the executive branch to circumvent Congress in the provision of foreign aid. Its foreign exchange interventions have, in any event, always been wasteful and ineffective at controlling the relative price of the U.S. dollar. The IMF has also been used to provide massive bailouts in the cases of Mexico in 1995 and of Asian countries since 1997. Defenders of the IMF as an international lender of last resort are misinformed since the IMF does not and cannot serve that purpose. Both institutions should be abolished, not reformed, because they are not needed to resolve currency crises and they preclude superior solutions.
Topic:
Economics, International Trade and Finance, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, Asia, and Mexico

97. U.S. Trade Negotiations: Lessons Learned, Lessons Applied

Author:
Mickey Kantor
Publication Date:
11-1997
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Council on Foreign Relations
Abstract:
The challenges of the era of interdependence will constitute the greatest foreign policy test of the 21st century. The war over globalization and interdependence is at an end. Only the battles are yet to be fought. Those who cower behind walls of fear and fail to accept responsibility do so at their own peril, and will not turn containment into engagement, or mutual assured destruction into mutual assured prosperity. The approach of the new millennium finds us at the intersection of three epochal events: in politics, the end of the Cold War; in economics, the emergence of a global economy; and in technology, the rise of the Information Age. The intersection of economics, strategic issues, and political concerns is creating the glue which will bind together an updated U.S. foreign policy. Vast opportunities lie before us, and more than a few pitfalls. We face fewer serious military threats but an increasing number of competitors. The rise of competition, the need to create new opportunities, and the confluence of major economic and political changes create a need to intensely focus on U.S. priorities and goals. Despite this urgency, we have yet to fully articulate a foreign policy that matches the era in which we now live, especially the appropriate role of international economics. We need to direct our focus toward the lessons we have learned over the past five years. Seekers of universal truths or simple catch phrases should prepare in advance for disappointment. U.S. leadership in both the public and private sectors must accept the challenges represented by these enormous changes. Our willingness to take responsibility, clearly define our goals, and recognize our limitations but pursue U.S. leadership at every opportunity will dictate the success or failure of promoting a stronger United States and a less dangerous world. The goals and objectives are clear: U.S. leadership must pursue peace, stability, economic progress, basic human rights, and sustainable development. In order to address these goals we need to create foreign-policy tools and institutions that are pragmatic, practical, and resilient reflecting the speed with which events, opportunities, and challenges now confront us as a nation. There is no question that global economics has fundamentally changed the nature of foreign policy. Today, economics and foreign policy are no longer separable, and economic security and national security have become synonymous. We live in an interdependent, globalized world. No longer are we self-contained, nor is it in our interest to be so. We can no longer take for granted our global economic dominance and turn our back on foreign markets. It is self-defeating in the short run and impossible in the long run to ignore the problems which occur across the border or across the world, and we cannot overlook our responsibility as the world's remaining superpower. Driven by technological change, freed of Cold War conflicts and connected by economic and strategic interests, the era of interdependence demands negotiation, engagement, and leadership. Interdependence dictates that our foreign policy and economic future are increasingly connected to international trade. Interdependence dictates that terrorism, weapons proliferation, environmental concerns, the drug trade, and economic opportunity are now cross-border issues. These issues profoundly affect the everyday lives of people around the globe. Cross-border issues directly influence policies, laws, and regulations of the countries in question, raising issues such as the rule of and respect for law, regulation and deregulation, privatization, and other concerns heretofore thought to be strictly internal. This new era requires a redefinition of global leadership. Being the only remaining superpower does not simply mean that we are the strongest military power, nor does it mean only that we are the most economically competitive nation on earth. Both of those statements are true, of course. But holding the position of the world's only remaining superpower in the era of interdependence means that we have the opportunity to take advantage of the vast economic potential which is being created around the globe to the benefit of all Americans, and we have a corresponding obligation to rally other nations to pursue common long-term interests, such as strategic and political stability, economic progress, and sustainable development. There are other examples which support the notion of new multidimensional international relations. Brazil has dramatically increased its international standing and influence using its potential economic strategic position. During the Cold War and prior to the dramatic growth of economic power and industrialization, Brazil's strategic position would have been defined and dictated by its ability or inability to have an influence over strategic and political issues especially those concerning East-West relations. But today, and in the foreseeable future, not only do countries increase their influence based on economic potential and achievement, but economic considerations and relationships tend to bring entities together which in other circumstances could not or would not cooperate. The recent Middle East Economic Conferences and the participation of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are obvious examples.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Diplomacy, and Political Economy
Political Geography:
United States, China, America, Taiwan, Asia, Brazil, and Democratic Republic of the Congo

98. The Political Economy of Regional Development and Cooperation in the Pacific Basin, with Special Reference to APEC-A Rapporteurs' Report

Author:
Joseph Stevano and William Barnes
Publication Date:
04-1996
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Kellogg Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The papers and discussion summarized here were presented at the workshop “The Political Economy of Regional Development and Cooperation in the Pacific Basin, with Special Reference to APEC,” which was held at the Kellogg Institute, 12–14 October 1995. Some of the papers presented, including those by Yoji Akashi, Brian Job, and Clark Reynolds, will also be published in their entirety as part of the Kellogg Institute Working Paper Series. The United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, and many other East Asian countries all belong to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and a distinctive feature of the workshop was that it consisted of experts from both sides of the Pacific. The result is a comprehensive look at the issues of trade and development in this region. Yorizumi Watanabe pointed out some tensions between regional and multilateral trade agreements. Satoshi Hanai’s paper analyzed the current Japanese recession; the papers by Akashi, Tsutomu Kikuchi, and Job focused on APEC, the former two from an Asian perspective, the latter from a North American—which provided a provocative contrast between different explanations and interpretations of the exact same events. Shozo Inouye analyzed Japan’s contribution to human resource development throughout the Asia-Pacific, while Michael Plummer and Reynolds analyzed the economic impact of economic integration in this region.
Topic:
Development, Political Economy, Regional Cooperation, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
Asia