Suchergebnisse

E. Gellner (see SA 25:3/I6412) has suggested that a process is occurring of liberalization of ongoing regimes in many countries. The French Revolution was not viewed as the revolution until long after it occurred; it actually appears better understood as a failure of the liberalization which occurred in England & the United States. This myth was carried on by the USSR, but with that country's loss of attraction for Western intellectuals, it has lost its appeal. A comparison is made of the concept of liberalization as it is viewed in southern & eastern Europe. Neither liberty nor equality was identified with democracy in the nineteenth century, as they came to be by many people in the twentieth; the two in fact are not identical, nor can either be identified automatically with the Left. In Plaidoyer pour une liberalisation manquee (A Defense for a Failed Liberalization), Ernest Gellner (London School of Economics & Political Science, England) notes Aron's view of revolutions as failed liberalizations. It appears, however, that the changes involved in movement from agricultural to industrial society automatically undermine the old basis for power, creating a radical discontinuity which seemingly has to produce revolution. Aron seems to feel that ideocratic states cannot be expected to liberalize, but in fact the need for an educated technical class seems to make liberalization necessary. In addition, growing prosperity in such states makes concessions relatively cheap for their governments. W. H. Stoddard.

'THE CLAIM WHICH IS BEING MADE IS THAT THE LIBERALIZATION is now becoming a generic and indeed a crucial phenomenon, as the Revolution had been; that, for good and in the main obvious reasons, it is replacing the earlier myth as a central political preoccupation or category; and that its basic assumptions are not merely more pertinent to our time, but probably also rather sounder by any criterion and at all times'. So wrote Ernest Gelher in a recent article destined in my view to initiate a vast debate.

Recommended readings (Machine generated): Vol I. 1. Paul A. Samuelson (1939), 'The Gains from International Trade', Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 5 (2), May, 195-205 -- 2. Wolfgang F. Stolper and Paul A. Samuelson (1941), 'Protection and Real Wages', Review of Economic Studies, 9 (1), November, 58-73 -- 3. Rudiger Dornbusch, Stanley Fischer and Paul A. Samuelson (1977), 'Comparative Advantage, Trade and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods', American Economic Review, 67 (5), December, 823-39 -- 4. Rudiger Dornbusch, Stanley Fischer and Paul A. Samuelson (1980), 'Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory with a Continuum of Goods,' Quarterly Journal of Economics, 95 (2), September, 203-24 -- 5. Edward E. Leamer (1980), 'Welfare Computations and the Optimal Staging of Tariff Reductions in Models with Adjustment Costs', Journal of International Economics, 10 (1), February, 21-36 -- 6. Jonathan Eaton and Samuel Kortum (2002), 'Technology, Geography, and Trade', Econometrica, 70 (5), September, 1741-79 -- 7. Arnaud Costinot, Dave Donaldson, Jonathan Vogel and Iv�an Werning (2015), 'Comparative Advantage and Optimal Trade Policy', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130 (2), February, 659-702 -- 8. Paul R. Krugman (1979), 'Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade', Journal of International Economics, 9 (4), November, 469-79 -- 9. Paul R. Krugman (1981), 'Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade', Journal of Political Economy, 89 (5), October, 959-73 -- 10. Gene M. Grossman and Elhanan Helpman (1990), 'Comparative Advantage and Long-Run Growth', American Economic Review, 80 (4), September, 796-815 -- 11. Luis A. Rivera-Batiz and Paul M. Romer (1991), 'Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), May, 531-55 -- 12. Alwyn Young (1991), 'Learning by Doing and the Dynamic Effects of International Trade', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 (2), May, 369-405 -- 13. Sebastian Edwards (1992), 'Trade Orientation, Distortions, and Growth in Developing Countries', Journal of Development Economics, 39 (1), July, 31-57 -- 14. Dan Ben-David (1993), 'Equalizing Exchange: Trade Liberalization and Income Convergence', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108 (3), August, 653-79 -- 15. Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew Warner (1995), 'Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration', Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1 (25), January, 1-64 [64] -- 16. Ann Harrison (1996), 'Openness and Growth: A Time-Series, Cross-Country Analysis for Developing Countries', Journal of Development Economics, 48 (2), March, 419-47 -- 17. Sebastian Edwards (1998), 'Openness, Productivity and Growth: What Do We Really Know?', Economic Journal, 108 (447), March, 383-98 -- 18. Jeffrey A. Frankel and David Romer (1999), 'Does Trade Cause Growth?', American Economic Review, 89 (3), June, 379-99 -- 19. Alberto F. Ades and Edward L. Glaeser (1999), 'Evidence on Growth, Increasing Returns, and the Extent of the Market', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3), August, 1025-45.

During the past two decades, international trade in telecommunication services has significantly intensified. What is more, an increasing number of telecommunications operators have begun to expand their activities beyond national borders through FDIs, joint ventures, and cooperation agreements. In this paper it is argued, however, that in spite of the rather successful efforts of late to liberalize the telecommunications sector (networks and services) at the regional (EU) and the global (WTO) level, much remains to be done to create and preserve a truly open and competitive worldwide telecommunications market. ; In den vergangenen beiden Jahrzehnten hat sich der internationale Handel mit Telekommunikationsdienstleistungen wesentlich intensiviert. Parallel dazu begannen immer mehr Telefongesellschaften, sich durch Direktinvestitionen, Joint ventures und Kooperationen auch auf ausländischen Märkten zu engagieren. Wie in dem vorliegenden Papier gezeigt wird, kann allen bisherigen Liberalisierungserfolgen der jüngeren Vergangenheit auf regionaler (EU) und globaler Ebene (WTO) zum Trotz von einem offenen globalen Markt für Telekommunikationsdienste und damit auch von einem freien, unverfälschten Wettbewerb zwischen alternativen Netz- und Diensteanbietern noch immer nicht die Rede sein.

Externally encouraged policies of liberalization in Sierra Leone in the 1970s and 1980s fed into civil war in the 1990s; yet such policies are now being revived. This article analyzes the impact of liberalization on the war in Sierra Leone, suggesting that it affected the conflict in four ways: first, by encouraging inflation, extreme devaluation, and private oligopolies; second, by reducing key state services such as education and health; third, by fueling corruption as real state salaries were cut; and fourth, by taking attention away from soldiers' abuses under the military government of 1992–96, a government that was praised and rewarded for its liberalization agenda.

Why have governments found reciprocal trade agreements such as GATT to be a more effective means of facilitating trade liberalization than unilateral initiatives? We provide in this paper an analytic framework for the study of reciprocal trade agreements. We use this framework to establish three main results. First, we argue that political-economy factors are important for explaining the range of trade policies observed, but that these factors can not explain why governments seek reciprocal trade agreements as an institutional form for implementing their preferred policies. Rather, whether or not governments are politically motivated, Johnson (1953-54) was right: The central purpose of a reciprocal trade agreement is to eliminate the terms-of-trade driven policies that arise in the absence of such an agreement. Second, we establish an economic interpretation of the principles of reciprocity and nondiscrimination that represent the foundation of postwar reciprocal trade agreements. Finally, we offer new insights regarding the treatment of export subsidies in reciprocal trade agreements.