Suchergebnisse

Are IPE journals becoming boring? The question is a serious one. Over the four decades or so since the modern field of International Political Economy was born, the character of what gets published in leading journals in the United States -- IPE standard setters like International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, and World Politics -- has changed dramatically. Arguably, the change has not been for the better. Adapted from the source document.

One of the most striking financial developments in recent years was the emergence of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) – large publicly owned investment portfolios, which until recently were growing rapidly in both number and size. In a global environment already roiled by a prolonged credit crisis, SWFs raise tricky and potentially controversial new questions for international financial regulation. One issue of concern to many in host countries is the possibility that some SWFs might be used for overt or tacit political purposes, posing a challenge for global monetary governance: a Great Tradeoff between, on the one hand, the world community's collective interest in sustaining the openness of capital markets; and on the other hand, the legitimate national security concerns of individual host countries. Can some balance between the two be found that will be both stable and acceptable to all concerned? Individually as well as collectively, recipient countries have begun to address the regulatory challenge directly. To date, however, accomplishments have been slight and have failed to stem a noticeable drift toward financial protectionism. A review of some recent proposals suggests that there is no foolproof solution to the Great Tradeoff. But the potential for controversy could be significantly reduced by a negotiated agreement among host governments addressing three key issues: (1) definitions; (2) risk assessment; and (3) dispute resolution. The most logical venue for such an exercise would be the OECD, building on its already extensive experience with international investment issues.

AbstractAfter nearly a century of dominance of the international monetary system, has the US dollar finally met its match in the euro? When Europe's economic and monetary union (EMU) came into existence in 1999, many observers predicted that the euro would soon join America's greenback at the peak of global finance. Achievements, however, have fallen short of aspiration. After an initial spurt of enthusiasm, international use of the euro actually appears now to be levelling off, even stalling, and so far seems confined largely to a limited range of market sectors and regions. The euro has successfully attained a place second only to the greenback – but it remains, and is likely to remain, a quite distant second without a determined effort by EMU authorities to promote their money's global role. The temptation will surely be great. In practical terms, it is difficult to imagine that EMU authorities will refrain entirely from trying to promote a greater role for the euro. But that, in turn, could turn out to be a recipe for discord with the United States, which has never made any secret of its commitment to preserving the greenback's worldwide dominance. A struggle for monetary leadership could become a source of sustained tensions in US–European relations. Fortunately, however, there seems relatively little risk of a destabilizing escalation into outright geopolitical conflict.