Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy in Current Perspective

Gardner, Richard Ν.

doi:10.7312/gard92960

Cited by 184 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the early rounds that took up only border measures, one can understand a casual approach to evaluation. When GATT began, foreign policy -uniting Europe against further wars and later containing Soviet communism -was for the leading country, the US, a more significant motive than was economics (Gardner, 1980). Thus it is possible that when GATT 'members' arrived at the Uruguay Round, their tradition of casual analysis -no real economics and only notional quantification of the mercantilist exchange of concessions -came with them.…”

Section: (I) Tradition Of Casual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations

Finger

Nogués

2002

World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: (I) Tradition Of Casual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations

Finger

Nogués

2002

World Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These international institutions formed part of a U.S.-led new hegemonic world order (Gardner 1980;Ruggie 1982). But while serving compatible economic and ideological roles, the IMF and GATT had significantly different systems of rules.…”

Section: The Postwar Origins Of the Imf And Gattmentioning

confidence: 99%

The crisis of neoliberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO

Chorev

Babb

2009

Theor Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current crisis of neoliberalism is calling into question the relevance of key international institutions. We analyze the origins, nature, and possible impacts of the crisis through comparing two such institutions: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Both originated in the post-World War II U.S.-led hegemonic order and were transformed as part of the transition to global neoliberalism. We show that while the IMF and the WTO have been part of the same hegemonic project, their distinct institutional features have put them on significantly different trajectories. Historical differences in the two institutions' systems of rules have placed the IMF in a more vulnerable position than the WTO, which provides clues to the future contours of global economic governance.Less than a decade ago, market-liberalizing ideas and policies reigned supreme. Today, however, the popularity of unfettered markets has declined dramatically. Latin America, once at the cutting edge of a global free-market revolution, is now dominated by left-wing governments elected on explicitly anti-neoliberal platforms. Around the world, economists and policymakers have opined that excessive reliance on unfettered markets was the root cause of the current worldwide financial crisis. At the meeting of the Group of 20 (G20) heads of state in the spring of 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the death of "the Washington Consensus"-the famous list of market-liberalizing policy prescriptions that guided the previous 20 years of economic policy (Painter 2009).Yet if neoliberalism is dying, the institutions associated with its rise are not all equally moribund. For example, the global economic crisis has unexpectedly Theor Soc (2009) 38:459-484

show abstract

“…More importantly, compared to congressional members, state officials were relatively autonomous from social pressures (Haggard, 1988: 95;O'Halloran, 1994). Initially, the agency responsible for formulating trade laws and for negotiating international trade agreements was the Department of State, which was a committed promoter of free trade (Gardner, 1980). In 1962, State was replaced by the Office of the Special Trade Representative (STR), which was expected to have domestic sensibilities but had the formal responsibility to promote trade liberalization.…”

Section: Innovation I: Protectionism In Congress 1934-74mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixing Globalization Institutionally

Chorev

2010

International Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are the origins of neoliberal and globalizing policies? The most common sociological explanation for the emergence of neoliberalism draws on the importance of institutional legacies. This article focuses, instead, on the fundamental role of institutional innovations. Rather than extant institutions, it was a new institutional context, itself an outcome of political struggles between supporters and critics of neoliberalism, which allowed for the emergence of neoliberal policies. The article investigates the case of trade liberalization in the US, showing that supporters of liberal trade defeated protectionists by challenging extant legacies, replacing old institutions with new ones. Internationalists managed to change protectionist policies by shifting decision-making authority from US Congress to quasi-judicial bodies in the executive and to judicial proceedings at the World Trade Organization.

show abstract

Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy in Current Perspective

Cited by 184 publications

References 0 publications

The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations

The Unbalanced Uruguay Round Outcome: The New Areas in Future WTO Negotiations

The crisis of neoliberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO

Fixing Globalization Institutionally

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About