Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Debates on controversial policies often stimulate extensive discourse, which is difficult to interpret objectively. Political science scholars have begun to use new textual data analysis tools to illuminate policy debates, yet these techniques have been little leveraged in the international business literature. We use a combination of natural language processing, network analysis and trade data to shed light on a high-profile policy debate—the EU’s recently enacted Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). We leverage these novel techniques to analyze business inputs to the EU’s public consultation, differentiating between different types of organizations (companies, trade associations, non-EU actors) and nature of impact (direct, indirect, potential). Although there are similarities in key concerns, there are also differences, both across sectors and between collective and individual actors. Key findings include the fact that collective actors and indirectly affected sectors tended to be less concerned about the negative impacts of the new measure on international relations than individual firms and those directly affected. Firms’ home country also impacted on their positions, with EU-headquartered and foreign-owned companies clustering separately. Our research highlights the potential of natural language processing techniques to help better understand the positions of business in contentious debates and inform policy making.
Debates on controversial policies often stimulate extensive discourse, which is difficult to interpret objectively. Political science scholars have begun to use new textual data analysis tools to illuminate policy debates, yet these techniques have been little leveraged in the international business literature. We use a combination of natural language processing, network analysis and trade data to shed light on a high-profile policy debate—the EU’s recently enacted Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). We leverage these novel techniques to analyze business inputs to the EU’s public consultation, differentiating between different types of organizations (companies, trade associations, non-EU actors) and nature of impact (direct, indirect, potential). Although there are similarities in key concerns, there are also differences, both across sectors and between collective and individual actors. Key findings include the fact that collective actors and indirectly affected sectors tended to be less concerned about the negative impacts of the new measure on international relations than individual firms and those directly affected. Firms’ home country also impacted on their positions, with EU-headquartered and foreign-owned companies clustering separately. Our research highlights the potential of natural language processing techniques to help better understand the positions of business in contentious debates and inform policy making.
In this article, authors critically analyze the concept of derisking. Derisking is actively promoted by the Western expert community as a new strategic basis for US-China trade relations. Derisking refers to the transition from the policy of radical breakdown from the trade partnership with China to the rhetoric of risk reduction, which implies limiting dependencies and risks arising from them. It does not imply a complete rupture with a partner. Based on the extensive historical material study, as well as applying modern conflictological methods of risk analysis, authors come to the conclusion that derisking management strategy does not have the conceptual optics necessary for analyzing political dimension of international economic relations and is unable to explain what is the source of risks in reality.Conceptual non-viability of derisking is due to disregard for the uneven capital development regularity, which determines the interstate relations. Global economy is a space of unfading conflict within the economic competition, and therefore eternal risk activity. The constant presence of risks in international relations makes conflict either a source that generates risks, or their result. On the example of the US-China trade relations, authors demonstrate how an attempt to elevate a partner who was designated for the outsiders’ fate generates a response from the risk-beneficiary to return the outsider to his native bosom by minimizing the consequences of risk for himself at the expense of others.In fact, behind the derisking strategy, lies desire to increase the intellectual rents’ price paid for Western patents and technologies. The reaction to the possibility of losing one’s monopoly position creates an impulse to shake up relations and change their dynamics in the right direction for oneself. These impulses expose inherent systematical contradictions and determine the outbreak of a new round of a hot trade war. While staying in the negative unity relations, participants have no other choice but to achieve the goals of enrichment, which are the same for all participants, through denying each other, and aspire every time to establish unequal economic exchange in their favor.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.