Official international economic statistics are generally considered accurate and meaningful gauges of cross-border flows of trade and capital. Most data users also assume that the quality of the underlying data keeps improving over time. Through an extensive review of the national accounting literature, archival research, two dozen interviews with high-level statisticians, and a series of data quality tests, we evaluate this common view for the primary source of data on trade and capital flows: the International Monetary Fund's Balance of Payments (BOP) Statistics. Our assessment paints a less rosy picture: reported figures are far less accurate than they are typically imagined to be and often do not correspond to the theoretical concepts with which users associate them. At the same time, measurement quality deteriorates over time as the transnationalization of economic production gradually undermines the validity of BOP statistics. Our findings raise serious questions about the widespread use of these numbers, with their deceptive pretense to accuracy, in scholarly research and public debate about the international political economy.
In the 1950s-1970s inward foreign direct investments (IFDI) were widely seen as a menace, threatening to undermine national economic development. Two decades later such concerns had virtually disappeared. Rather than as a problem, IFDI were now portrayed as a solutioneven symbols of national economic success. To better understand the ideational dynamics underlying this remarkable transformation in perceptions of IFDI, this research traces the evolution of economic discourses in the United Kingdom over the postwar period. Deviating from conventional accounts in constructivist IPE, the investigation indicates that the rise of first-generation neoliberal discourses in the 1980s played only a secondary role in these processes. Instead, the discursive reshaping of IFDI was primarily driven by the rise of the narrative of national competitiveness in the early 1990sa discourse inspired by managerial rather than neoclassical economic theory. Building a framework that prioritizes (multinational) firms over national economies, the rise of this second-generation neoliberal narrative played a critical role in promoting now taken-for-granted imaginaries of the global economy as an economic 'race' between nations-as-platforms-of-production. The findings highlight the ideational underbelly of the rise of the competition state and how it reshaped dominant social representations of IFDI.
The transnationalization and digitization of economic activity has undermined the quality of official economic statistics, which still center on national territories and material production. Why do we not witness more vigorous efforts to bring statistical standards in line with present-day economic realities, or admissions that precision in economic data has become increasingly illusive? The paradoxical answer, we argue, lies in the norms underpinning global statistical practice. Users expect statistics to draw on unambiguous sources, to allow for comparison over time and across countries, and they prize coherence—both internally and with holistic macroeconomic models. Yet as we show, the ambition of the transnational statistical community to meet these norms has in fact undermined the ability of economic data to represent economic life more faithfully. We base our findings on interviews with two dozen leading statisticians at international economic organizations, archival research at the International Monetary Fund and a thorough review of debates among statistical experts.
The global spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 brutally exposed the vulnerabilities of hyperconnected just-in-time production networks. It was met by prominent calls by business and political leaders to prioritize resilience over efficiency and to reshore global production. About one year later, this commentary provides an early assessment of the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has altered the political economy of globalized production. Rather than fundamentally changing the structural organization of multinational corporations, it is argued, the pandemic highlighted and accelerated important trends that were already well underway before the outbreak of the pandemic. Even though the COVID-19 crisis has not fundamentally altered infrastructures of global production, there are indications that transnational production networks may be in the process of bifurcating further into US- and China-centered spheres—with more cross-border integration within but less across the two—in the years to come.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.