Search results

This paper analyses the stalling of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and its systemic and institutional consequences through a geopolitical economy approach that integrates the French school of international economic relations and Régulation Theory. These approaches put states and their economic roles at the fore, correcting dominant free trade approaches to world trade. The paper also avoids monocausal explanations for trade talk deadlocks and aims to provide a comprehensive approach on the co-evolution of world trade patterns and its institutions. In this approach, the DDA stalemate is traced to an institution-structure mismatch in how states articulate their accumulation strategies and institutions (competition, state regulation, adhesion to international regime) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) regime occasioned by the emergence of new trade powers. This has given rise to three distinct conflicts in how member states navigate between the main parameters of the multilateral trading system (non-discrimination, reciprocity and balance of power) and their national accumulation strategies: the erosion of non-discrimination and reciprocity; the failure to build an operational compromise between development and ‘globalization’, that is, between multilateral openness and new trade and power balances; and the difficulty in reaching a compromise between historical and emerging capitalisms. The outcome of these conflicts will determine the institutional configuration of the post-Doha WTO agenda.

Demonstrates that the European Union (EU) has moved from a twin‐track to a triple‐track approach to the vetting of cross‐border competition concerns. The twin‐track approach is based on co‐operation at the multilateral and bilateral levels. The new third track, not based on co‐operation, is the legal right to unilaterally apply competition instruments extraterritorially. The EU has pushed to establish a multilateral approach through the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. Although there has been some support for this, the reservations from the USA and others make this track unfeasible for the foreseeable future. In the absence of any significant multilateral progress, the EU has concluded bilateral agreements with major partners, but the approach has its limitations – the EU can only deal with the countries with which it has such an agreement. The Commission’s third track unilaterally applies EU competition instruments extraterritorially using the effects doctrine.

This chapter will situate the global paradigm shift toward Post-Education-For-All (Post-EFA) not only in the policy trends in the field of international education development, but also in the academic context of international relations and comparative education.

The chapter highlights three dimensions which characterize the paradigm shift; namely, discourse on norms, diversifying actors, and the changed mode of communication and participation in the global consultation processes. The existing formal structure of the EFA global governance is based on multilateralism which recognizes sovereign nation-states, representing national interests, as the participants. However, such an assumption is eroding, given that there is a growing number of state and nonstate actors who influence decision-making not only through conventional formal channels, but also informally. Urging the revision of theories of multilateralism, the chapter introduces the attention given to nontraditional donors and horizontal networks of civil society actors in this volume.

The introduction also shows that that the widening basis of participation in the global consultation processes on post-EFA and advanced communication technology have changed the ways in which discourse is formulated. While the amount and the speed of exchanging information have been enhanced and different types of actors have been encouraged to take part, it also obliges scholars to adopt innovative methods of analyzing discourse formation.

The chapter also demonstrates the importance of the focus on the Asia-Pacific region, which is composed of diverse actors who often underscore Asian cultural roots in contrast to Western hegemony. By focusing on the discourse, actors, and the structure through which the consensus views on the post-EFA agenda were built, the volume attempts to untangle the nature of the post-EFA paradigm shift, at the global, Asia-Pacific regional, and national levels.

At its inception, the Doha Round offered the hope of a more inclusive World Trade Organisation (WTO); one where developing countries in particular envisioned would allow them the policy space to enable their socio‐economic advancement even as they carried out their obligations as Member States of the rules‐based international trade system. While the rewards of this novel development round are awaited, WTO Member States are making a marked shift away from the foundation principles of multilateralism on non‐discriminatory treatment, and pursuing independent trade deals outside the rules. An emerging acceptance of this shift comes with an idea that countries can converge after divergence – that alternatives to multilateralism can still yield agreements that will operate in a multilateral rules‐based framework, post Doha. To this end, this article reviews the challenges facing the Doha negotiations as it pertains to developing country concerns and the shortcomings of the existing development framework. It critically examines the issues arising from the stalemate of the Doha negotiations and the efforts of the international trading system to continue engaging in trade in the face of globalisation, increasing unemployment, decreased wages and living standards in the backdrop of a global recession. It examines the emerging convergence theory which recognises departures from the uniform trading arrangements under multilateralism, without recognising this as a tacit acceptance of a return to protectionism with its consequences. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Reference is made to primary and secondary research material on the subject including WTO rules and agreements.

The article finds that the stalemate in this Doha Round reveals more than just dissatisfaction between Member States on the nature and scope of the rules that must guide their global trading activities. It reveals the fragility of rules and the potential inefficacy of a system that attempts to regulate nebulous activity – trade in the face of divergent needs and concerns.

The research is library/desk based.

This work is an original contribution and is not under consideration elsewhere.

The spread of COVID-19 is not just a health crisis. The pandemic has taken a geopolitical dimension. The health crisis amplified the competitive dynamics between the USA and China, affected the provision of global public goods and injected instability into the global order. In line with the geopolitical zero-sum thinking, both the USA and China have sought to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. Instead of working together to mitigate the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, the two powers fear that the other will exploit the current situation to accrue political, economic or military gains that will give it an edge after the pandemic subsides. The spread of COVID-19 has set off a “battle of narratives,” in which China and the USA are accusing each other of failing to rise to the challenge. The world seems to be falling into a “Kindleberger Trap,” in which the established power is unable to lead while the rising power is unwilling to assume responsibility. The COVID-19 crisis is occurring amid the collapse of global cooperation. The USA, the traditional leader of international collective efforts in times of crisis, has abandoned its role entirely. The lack of leadership at the global level during an international crisis may cause the breakdown of the international order.

This paper examines the US-China competitive dynamics through the lens of the work of Charles Kindleberger, which both liberals and realists regard as foundational when examining the dynamics of global crisis management. This paper also uses the meta-geopolitics framework to determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and its implications for their power and standing in the international system.

This paper concludes that the only way to escape the Kindleberger trap is “to embed Sino-American relations in multilateralism.”

As rivals, both the USA and China are seeking to capitalize on the crisis to boost their international profile. This paper probes how China and the USA navigated the ongoing COVID-19 crisis to determine whether or not they are currently in a “Kindleberger Trap,” using elements of the meta-geopolitics framework of analysis, namely, health issues, domestic politics, economics, science and international diplomacy. Using the meta-geopolitics framework will help us determine the ability of both China and the USA to respond to the current COVID-19 crisis and the implications of that on their power and standing in the international system.

The conclusion of the Uruguay Round (UR) in 1994 and the subsequent establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in January 995 signaled a new era in terms of global trade. At the same time the prolonged years of negotiations of the UR also witnessed an increase in the expansion and extension of various regional arrangements. Consequently, the global environment has shifted toward institution‐driven globalisation and regionalism concurrently. The new international horizon promises significant opportunities and challenges for Malaysian industries. The objective of this paper is to assess the ability of Malaysian manufacturing to face these opportunities and challenges by evaluating their competitiveness. The findings of this study reveal only three sub‐sectors that are competitive even before the advent of the financial crisis. Further, the crisis has worsened the competitive position of the manufacturing sector. Hence, it is imperative that current government policies work toward restoring macro‐economic and political stability. At the same time, the medium‐ and long‐term needs of this sector call for a shift in industrial policy from mere export promotion to technology and human resource promotion.

This paper aims to provide a theoretical approach of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in order to assess whether CSR will develop as a concept pushing efficiently for more de facto social responsibility or will become a pure marketing artefact. The trade-off between the development of CSR behaviour and lobbying over regulations is a key element that will influence the evolution of CSR. The result is that if the world consolidates or if it tends towards multilateralism to a large extent, then CSR is less likely to have an efficient impact.

Theoretical approach based on three fields: credence goods, greenwashing and political economy.

The coordination is harder for lobbies in the more multilateral scenario. The more politically powerful group would lose its influence on the decision body in the multipolar scenario. If lobbies keep influencing their state governments, the efficiency would also be reduced in the regionalization or multipolar scenarios. The easiness of the greenwashing strategy is also crucial in order to determine the possible evolution of the CSR as a real commitment that benefits environment and society.

Countries may take advantage of CSR by offering an advantage to firms willing to develop CSR thanks to public regulations if greenwashing is easy and if the evolution of the world that prevails is similar to the tripolar or regionalization scenarios. This may also occur under the multipolar scenario but it would necessitate an effective international coordination.

This is the first work that brings together the strategic behaviour of firms with respect to Corporate Social Responsibility and political economy determinants. The predicted evolutions of these two features according to the degree of multilateralism as well as how they are intertwined are also novelties of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the potential of partnerships of the European Union (EU) with two of the so‐called BRIC countries, i.e. Brazil and India.

The scope of analysis will be the EU vis‐à‐vis Brazil and India, using two types of trade liberalization: bilateralism/regionalism and multilateralism.

It is found that Brazil and India want to become more important players; yet, they seem to lean against “old” powers (mainly the USA), and tend to focus on south‐south regionalism.

The present study provides a starting‐point for further research on the relationship between the European Union and the new leading powers.

This paper offers practical information to anyone interested in the role of Brazil and India in their relations with the EU, bilaterally/regionally and multilaterally.

The multilateral liberalisation of trade in education under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has achieved little progress. In a bid to overcome this lacklustre education trade liberalisation under the World Trade Organization (WTO), the purpose of this paper is to examine education trade bilateralism between Australia and India as an alternative to multilateralism. The end is to maximise bilateral trade liberalisation in education as a means to facilitate dynamic productivity gains, export opportunities, market competition, and FDI in the sector. The combined effect of this bilateralism would help accelerate economic growth in both countries, which is likely to generate domino effects on other WTO members, thereby contributing to the multilateral liberalisation of trade in services under the WTO.

The research methodology is analytical, based on pertinent empirical and secondary information.

Strong complementarities and synergies are found for the integration of trade in education services between Australia and India. Of the major exporters of education services, Australia enjoys the most competitive edge and comparative advantage in the Asia‐Pacific. India faces strong demands for quality education services due to its economic reforms and expansion requiring knowledge‐based workforce for high efficiency and productivity and has become a major importer of education services in the region.

The paper identifies new means of consolidating Australia and India's existing trade, niche areas of further opportunities, and potential challenges to be confronted for greater economic integration through trade in education. The originality of the paper lies in its core message that education trade bilateralism can be a valuable stepping stone, in many instances, to multilateral trade in education.

South‐South trade is the fastest growing segment of world trade in the last two decades. This paper aims at demonstrating that it is a unique opportunity and a sound development tool for developing countries.

The paper describes the statistical and empirical evidence from a macroeconomic and microeconomic viewpoint, and discusses the policy options developing country governments face to promote South‐South trade and investment.

Not all regions, countries, products and services fare equally in the current state of play. That South‐South trade expands at a much faster pace than other trade, although it is subject to higher barriers and higher distance‐related costs, suggests that addressing trade facilitation issues is of the essence for future progress, including major investments in trade‐related infrastructure, like the modernization of air and water ports, roads, transport and customs services.

South‐South trade expansion is a market‐driven development – mostly resulting from the widespread operation of international supply chains of the South – that may be enhanced by government intervention but seldom spearheaded by it in the long run.

The “natural” next questions are whether South‐South trade can be an alternative to North‐South trade, whether the learning process for international trading is enhanced or retarded by it, and whether the proliferation of PTAs is strangulating progress in rules‐based multilateralism, the first‐best choice according to mainstream economic theory. Even more important in development terms is whether South‐South trade can help bring developing countries, small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and the poor into the export process or, rather, it is a distraction from the real targets. This paper suggests there are robust answers to these queries already.