Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:15:39.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Globalization and Turbulence on Policy‐Making Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Miriam L. Campanella
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During Recent Years, Analysts of World Politics Have noted increasing tensions and conflicts between the countries of the OECD area. As the process of globalization is extending to include several new sectors of domestic economies, multilateralism is deteriorating and perhaps, in some sectors, reaching breaking-point. Globalization, widely acknowledged as a powerful engine for the growth of the world economy during the 1970s and 1980s is now splitting up into trading blocs and much more limited minilateralism. This contribution aims at analysing the extent to which policy-making could be improved so that it can address and deal with the effects of globalization and turbulence on domestic and international environments.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1993 , pp. 190 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On multilateralism and minilaterism see: Ruggie, John, ‘Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1992;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Caporaso, James A., ‘International Relations Theory and Multilateralism: The Search for Foundations’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1992;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kahler, Miles ‘Multilateralism with Small and Large Numbers’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The end of the year number of The Economist: Looking Back from 2992, Vol. 325, Number 7791, 1992, comments on the consequences of a failure of the victorious coalition between the United States, the European Community and Japan.

3 Geiger, Theodor, The Future of the International System: The United States and the World Political Economy (translation), London, Unwin Hyman, 1988, p. 114.Google Scholar

4 Gilpin, Robert, The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Rosenau, James N., The Study of Global Interdependence: Essays on the Transnationalization of World Affairs, London, Pinter, 1980;Google Scholar Campanella, Miriam, ‘Globalization: Processes and Problems’, World Futures, Nos 1–2, 1991.Google Scholar

6 An example is Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth, King (eds), Globalization, Knowledge and Society, London, Sage, 1990.Google Scholar

7 OECD Background Report by the Secretary General, Concluding the Technology/Economy Programme, C/MIN 891 14, Paris, 1991.

8 United Nations, Transnational Corporations in World Development: An Overview, New York, 1988, p. 77.

9 For a theoretical assessment of the shift produced by service activities in the global economy and in the multilateral debate which has developed during the Uruguay Round negotiations, see William, J. Drake and Nicolaids, Kalypso, ‘Ideas, Interests, and Institutionalization: “Trade in Services” and the Uruguay Round’, International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 1, Winter 1992 pp. 37–100.Google Scholar

10 Andrew, Massey, ‘Managing Change: Politicians and Experts in the Age of Privatization’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 27, No. 4, Autumn 1992.Google Scholar

11 Rosencrance, R., The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modem World, New York, Basic Books, 1986.Google Scholar On the strategic trade policy and the role of the state, a new school has grown up in the USA advocating managed trade policies. See Krugman, Paul (ed.), Strategic Trade Policy and the New International Economics, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1990 Google Scholar and D'Andrea Tyson, Laura, Who's Bashing Whom, Institute for International Economics, Washington 1993.Google Scholar

12 Kotkin, Joel, ‘Economies in the ‘90's: Big New Players from the Third World’, International Herald Tribune, 3 01 1993.Google Scholar This author's book, Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identities Determine Success in the New Global Economy is about to be published.

13 The two terms were first introduced by Keohane, and Nye, : Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1977;Google Scholar Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony. Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1984.Google Scholar

14 Soediomoto, ‘Opening Statements’, in Michael, J. L. Kirby, The Science and Praxis of Complexity, contribution to the Symposium held at Montpellier, 9–11 05 1984, The United Nation University of Tokyo, 1987.Google Scholar

15 was not only the case for Peronist Argentina but also for some OECD countries.

16 Gowa, Joanna, ‘Public Goods and Political Institutions: Trade and Monetary Policy Processes in the United States’, in Inkenberry, G. John, Lake, David A., and Mastanduno, Michael (eds), The State and American Foreign Economic Policy, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1988;Google Scholar Ikenberry, G. John, ‘Conclusion: An Institutional Approach to American Foreign Economic Policy’ in Ikenberry, Lake and Mastanduno, op. cit., pp. 219–243.Google Scholar

17 Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, op. cit.; Campanella, Miriam, Stato‐nazione e ordine sociait. Modelli e paradigmi delle societd complesse, Milan, Angeli, 1984.Google Scholar

18 See for example Haas, Ernst B., When Knowledge is Power. Three Models of Change in International Organization, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1990;Google Scholar Soroos, Marvin S., Beyond Sovereignty. The Challenge of the Global Policy, University of S. Carolina Press, 1986.Google Scholar

19 Rosenau, James N., ‘The National Interest’, in Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, 1968.Google Scholar

20 Krasner, Stephen, ‘Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics’, Comparative Politics, No. 16, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Sundelius, Bengt, Managing Trans‐nationalism in Northern Europe, Boulder, Colorado, Westview, 1978.Google Scholar

22 The scheme that follows has been freely reworked on the basis of the tripartition presented in Ikenberry, op. cit., note 16.

23 Proactive versus adaptive policies are urged in Miriam, Campanella, ‘Proactive Policy‐making and the State‐actor’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1991,Google Scholar and ‘The Globalization Challenges. Globalization, Governance, and Technology Transfer’, Monitor‐Fast, Global Perspective 2010, Task/or S&T, forthcoming 1993.

24 Karvonen, Lauri and Sundelius, Bengt, ‘Interdependence and Foreign Policy Management in Sweden and Finland’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2, 06 1990, p. 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 March, James G. and Olsen, Johan P., ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review, No. 78, 07 1984.Google Scholar