Suchergebnisse

THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE U.S. IN THE CREATION OF THE OPEN TRADING REGIME OF THE POST WORLD WAR II PERIOD. IT ANALYZES THE INTERESTS THAT LED TO THE TARIFF REDUCTIONS AND CODES NEGOTIATED DURING THE TOKYO ROUND AND ASSESSES THE PROSPECTS FOR STABILITY AND THE DANGERS OF A SLIDE INTO A NEW PROTECTIONIST ERA.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PAPER IS TO PRESENT A MODE OF ANALYSIS THAT ILLUSTRATES HOW A STATE-CENTRIC OR STATIST MODEL CAN BE USED TO ANALYZE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN ECONOMIC POLICY IN WHICH CONCENTRATED BENEFITS ARE ENJOYED BY SPECIFIC GROUPS AND COSTS ARE DIFFUSED THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE SOCIETY. FOUR CASES OF OIL POLICY ARE EXAMINED.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign economies in the hope that its investments would help remake the world in its own image - or, at the very least, make the world "safe for democracy." So far, the returns have been disappointing, to say the least. Pushing for fair and free elections in undemocratic countries has added to the casualty count, rather than taken away from it, and trying to eliminate corruption entirely has precluded the elimination of some of the worst forms of corruption. In the Middle East, for example, post-9/11 interventionist campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have proved to be long, costly, and, worst of all, ineffective. Witnessing the failure of the utopian vision of a world full of market-oriented democracies, many observers, both on the right and the left, have begun to embrace a dystopian vision in which the United States can do nothing and save no one. Accordingly, calls to halt all assistance in undemocratic countries have grown louder. But, as Stephen D. Krasner explains, this cannot be an option: weak and poorly governed states pose a threat to our stability. In the era of nuclear weapons and biological warfare, ignoring troubled countries puts millions of American lives at risk.

Defending the national interest -- US commercial and monetary policy : unravelling the paradox of external strength and internal weakness -- Approaches to the state : alternative conceptions and historical dynamics -- Sovereignty : an institutional perspective -- Structural causes and regime consequences : regimes as intervening variables -- State power and the structure of international trade -- Global communications and national power : life on the Pareto frontier -- Sovereignty and its discontents -- Organized hypocrisy in nineteenth century East Asia -- Sharing sovereignty : new institutions for collapsed and failing states -- Conclusion : garbage cans and policy streams : how academic research might affect foreign policy

Studies on development highlight the rational choice approach; this fact pushes theories of modernization and institutional capacity into the background. However, these theories still predominate in discussions on aid and in international aid agencies, both in words and in deeds. The reason is that the proposals of the theories used are more manageable or legible administratively. Thus, on reviewing recent studies, it can be seen that in the case of rational choice the perspectives and conclusions on international aid differ. This hinders its use by international aid agencies. Adapted from the source document.

Only policy makers in great-power nations can aspire to realize grand strategies. They rarely succeed. In the contemporary international environment, coherence is more likely to be achieved by aiming at something more modest, a principle around which foreign policy might be oriented. Responsible sovereignty is the most promising candidate. Responsible sovereignty focuses on the need to create states capable of governing effectively within their own borders and to realizing, where possible, mutually beneficial bargains with regard to global public goods. Irresponsible sovereigns and failing states threaten the well-being of their own populations and the security, domestic norms, and authority structures of even the world's most powerful countries. There is no alternative to responsible sovereigns; no regional much less global authority structure can replace the state. Adapted from the source document.