MIT OpenCourseWare


» 進階搜尋
 課程首頁
 教學大綱
 教學時程
 相關閱讀資料
 作業
 研習資料

研習資料

本頁翻譯進度

燈號說明

審定:無
翻譯:江玟璇(Wen-hsuan Chiang)(簡介並寄信)
編輯:侯嘉玨(簡介並寄信)

第二堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

博蘭尼著,《鉅變:當代政治、經濟的起源》

  1. 英國政府在工業革命之前的經濟方面扮演什麼樣的角色?政府機構在扮演這個角色上是否為最頂尖經濟精英的仲介?

  2. 對於經濟對社會和政治的關聯,我們可以從歷史與人類學中學到什麼?博蘭尼的根據是什麼?具有說服力嗎?

  3. 什麼是市場經濟?什麼是虛擬商品?博蘭尼如何將二者聯結在一起?博蘭尼與馬克思是否擁有相同市場的觀念?他們對虛擬商品的觀念又是什麼?

  4. 工業革命與市場經濟的成功有什麼關係?市場經濟成功的關鍵是什麼?

  5. 什麼是史賓翰蘭體系?為何在博蘭尼的著作中擔任核心的要角?

  6. 誰是博蘭尼敘述中的英雄,為什麼?

  7. 為什麼經濟管制會再度發生?什麼是雙重律動?

  8. 研究博蘭尼馬克思、韋伯與傅立曼對資本主義的概念。有什麼樣的差異?這些差異在構思資本主義經濟的國家角色中,有多大的關係?如何影響到資本主義發展的自然軌跡?對了解移轉至不同國家的資本主義又有何重要性?


第三堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

Angell, Norman諾曼.安吉爾著,《巨大幻覺》

  1. 安吉爾首先挑戰以下的觀點:「國家的權力意指國家的財富、國家的優勢;開拓版圖就是增進產業的機會;強國能為其國民保證機會的獲得,然而弱國就不能。」(第十二頁)安吉爾提出什麼反駁意見?你同意嗎?為什麼?

  2. 就安吉爾的觀點,為何侵略手段已經不能獲利了?侵略手段曾經有利可圖嗎?侵略手段改變了什麼?侵奪他國得付出什麼代價?能否舉出例子支持或反對安吉爾的看法?

  3. 根據安吉爾的看法,經濟和金融的獨立性如何確保和平呢?你對他的論點有何想法?

  4. 安吉爾所分析經濟與政治的世界裡,哪些關鍵點和我們的研究有雷同之處?國家變動中的國際經濟或強權關係具備哪些重點呢?

保羅.赫斯特與格雷厄姆.湯普森合著,《質疑全球化》,第一章和第二章

  1. 赫斯特和湯普森區別國際化與全球化之分,有何差異?為什麼這樣的區別那麼重要?

  2. 哪些經濟指數可以用來「衡量」全球化?如果有,你可否找出一些更具說服力、更相關與更具資訊性的指標。為什麼?

  3. 以閱讀赫斯特和湯普森的著作為根據,能否指出過去二十年間引領全球化成長的三種或四種關鍵性發展?這些發展是自然地發生還是政府政策的產物?


第四堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

Bhagwati, Jagdish著,《保護主義》

  1. 根據Bhagwati的說法,貿易自由化與經濟成長有關。Bhagwati是否清楚提出貿易如何促進成長的證據?你是不是認為(自由)貿易有益於促進成長?為什麼?原因何在?可否舉出實例印證你的立場?

  2. Bhagwati如何說明二次世界大戰後貿易自由化的活動?你認為Bhagwati的解釋之中哪些是最重要的因素?為什麼?

  3. 一九八零年代末,Bhagwati就觀察到保護主義的興起。對於保護主義的興起,Bhagwati的解釋是什麼?為何Bhagwati對未來抱持樂觀的態度?

  4. Bhagwati的著作出版後,美國隨即朝向重點多邊致力於促進自由貿易:包括關稅暨貿易總協定之烏拉圭回合與北美自由貿易區達成協議,以及世界貿易組織的創設。Bhagwati的樂觀看法似乎已經成真。就你對這些發展的了解,Bhagwati所視為樂觀主義根本的因素在這些事件中是否扮演重要的角色?是不是還有其他因素促進貿易自由化的發展?

  5. 最近的報告指出去年美國經歷了史上最糟糕的貿易赤字(1998年:一千六百八十億美元),該項赤字顯示美國出口大幅減少,然而美國去年也還享有強勁的經濟成長。你是否對美國領導的促進自由貿易抱持樂觀的態度?如果回答是,為什麼呢?或者你是不是預期在美國的保護主義會重新崛起?如果是這樣,到底是為什麼呢?

Ruggie提到:「國際建制...」的問題

  1. Ruggie提及二次大戰後的國際經濟秩序是基於「嵌入性自由主義」的一項「妥協」,何謂「嵌入性自由主義」?與傳統的自由主義有何不同?「嵌入性自由主義」今天是否仍保有國際經濟體系的秩序規範?

  2. 有何證據可以支持Ruggie所說的「嵌入性自由主義之妥協」概念?你認為這種說法是否具有說服力?原因何在?

  3. 就Ruggie的觀點,美國規劃國際經濟方面扮演什麼樣的角色?哪些特點是Ruggie提出美國所涉入的國際經濟秩序?你覺得美國今天在國際經濟上是擔任何種角色?你認為角色是否變化甚鉅?倘若是的話,是如何改變的呢?


第六堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

蘇珊.斯特蘭奇著,《賭場資本主義》

  1. 比較並且將斯特蘭奇對於銀行、投資企業以及其他金融交易所利益的觀點,與Frieden對於國際投資者的分析來做對照。從斯特蘭奇的觀點中,有沒有企業因為詭譎多變的國際金融市場而受益或招致損失?關於Frieden或斯特蘭奇所作的金融社群利益或是偏好分析,你贊同誰的看法?你認不認為由於亞洲金融危機和俄羅斯、巴西的金融風暴後使得金融社群的利益經歷了變化?為什麼?原因何在?

  2. 斯特蘭奇強力批評美國政策的作為與猶豫不決嚴重造成國際金融的不穩定狀態,這樣的批判屬實嗎?斯特蘭奇如何評估美國於一九九零年代的經濟政策,尤其對於近期亞洲、俄羅斯與拉丁美洲金融危機的反應方面?美國的經濟政策是否持續加劇國際金融市場的惡化?還是美國已發揮穩定國際金融市場的力量?

  3. 斯特蘭奇於一九八六年的著作中,對較大國際政策協商的前景看壞,同時對於國際組織解決國際金融不穩定狀態的能力感到悲觀。之後的亞洲金融危機和陸續發生在俄羅斯、巴西的金融風暴,這些危機的解決方案才再度獲得矚目。法國總統席哈克近來要求美國、歐洲和日本來協調各國的經濟政策以便穩定匯率。其他國家則要求國際貨幣基金應在國際經濟領域負責該有的任務(即國際貸款的最後憑藉),抑或是訴諸一個全新的世界中央銀行的成立。今天這些解決方案是不是比起斯特蘭奇當初寫《賭場資本主義》的時候還可行?還是斯特蘭奇的悲觀立論仍舊成立?斯特蘭奇當時也辯稱關鍵在於美國扮演了世界經濟的主角,應體認到本身在國際金融穩定上的優勢,美國到底有沒有意識到呢?為什麼?如果美國尚未明白此優勢的影響力,將會使美國付出何種代價來促進穩定與發揮其優勢地位?

<金融恐懼>,《經濟學人》

  1. 《經濟學人》的調查指出國際資本流動的擴展乃是十分必然之命運。究竟是什麼力量或因素造成這些流動的逐步增長?你認為哪些因素特別重要?理由何在?

  2. 各國政府掌管國際經濟的能力如何受到增加的資本流動性所影響?同時如何對浮動匯率機制採取行動呢?哪些國際金融的特定發展使得貨幣和財政政策產生作用?這些發展如何有效影響貨幣和財政的政策?

  3. 根據《經濟學人》的調查指出(一九九二年出版),由於國際資本的流動使得國際金融的不穩定威脅已逐步增加。從亞洲金融危機以及近來發生在俄羅斯和巴西的危機中,這種不穩定狀態是否已經獲得證實?換句話說,是不是這些危機代表國際經濟體系根本問題的實證?還是單純的案例而已?倘若你覺得國際金融的不穩定狀態已經是一項嚴重的問題,以國際合作來處理該問題的方式,你抱持樂觀或是悲觀的態度?

Jeffry Frieden:「投資利率...」

  1. Frieden提到蒙代爾-佛萊明模型(Mundell- Fleming model)主張一個國家在以下三個條件中至多能有兩項的標準:固定匯率、自主的貨幣政策、資本移動性。美國面臨匯率(美元幣值)波動時會選擇奉行自主的貨幣政策及資本移動性的選項,基於Frieden的分析架構,哪些經濟團體或參與者受益於這項政策的實施?又哪些團體遭受損失?亞洲國家遭遇經濟危機前係採取哪種選項?何種因素造成這些參與者的受益或是損失?

  2. Frieden表明國際金融的整合與資本流動的規範之間的政治鬥爭是來自於兩個陣營爭鬥:金融業、企業主、跨國企業陣營與特定產業、地域陣營之間的對決。你認為美國的情形是哪邊有較優勢的政治實力?美國的政策走向是不是反映這些優勢陣營的偏好呢?你想其他國家是否可以對這些陣營採取均勢的做法或許情況會有所不同呢?這些國家對於採取國際金融整合和資本移動性的政策是不是與美國的做法有所差異?

  3. 研究Frieden書中第四百四十五頁的二乘二矩陣圖:根據自主的貨幣政策和利率穩定的各種政策偏好,分類出多種經濟團體或參與者。你是不是能夠舉出一些特別的例子來證明這矩陣當中的四個經濟團體或參與者?Frieden是否忠實推導出這些經濟團體或參與者的政策偏好?這些偏好是有效的還是不充分的論點?再者,什麼因素影響一個經濟團體或參與者的政策偏好強度?這些團體的政治行為(如果有的話)有沒有符合Frieden對他們行為的描述?舉例而言,Frieden預測「跨國企業、一般國際投資者與國際市場取向的生產交易物資企業」會維持匯率的穩定與國際政策協商。美國的金融界是否有這樣的佐證出現?歐洲的情況是怎樣的?


第七堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

格雷厄姆著,《全球企業與國民政府》

  1. 什麼是跨國企業?有哪些不同的定義?為什麼跨國企業那麼重要?

  2. 為何企業要投資海外?對本國的經濟是好的還是壞的影響?此案例中兩方最為有力的論據為何?

  3. 國民政府中來自外國的直接投資(外資,即表現要件、本國限制等)是不是降低全球經濟的福利?這種限制如何消極地影響世界經濟的成長?你認為全球經濟福利是不是或者應當是政府施政的首要考量?

  4. 格雷厄姆主張以國際協定來規範外商直接投資的自由與融和,外商直接投資是如何影響國際經濟的表現?在高度發展的工業國家中,這種協議將會如何表現在本國政策上?例如,如果發展國家取消限制外資的做法,誰將會受益?誰又會得到損失?Frieden的主張是什麼?發展中國家的情況是怎樣?你對這種協定的看法抱持樂觀還是悲觀的態度?

保羅.赫斯特與格雷厄姆.湯普森合著,《質疑全球化》,第三章和第四章

  1. 赫斯特和湯普森所擔憂外商直接投資的看法為何?與格雷厄姆的看法有什麼不同?赫斯特、湯普森或格雷厄姆二者的剖析裡:你覺得哪個看法較具說服力?原因何在?

  2. 赫斯特和湯普森同樣提出外資多邊協議的建議,認為何種國際協定比較可行?他們對於達成此種協定的方式抱持樂觀或是悲觀的看法?提出何種見解來證明其說法?

  3. 赫斯特和湯普森分析跨國企業商業活動的地理分布,你是否對他們的調查結果感到意外?你將如何解釋他們的觀察?他們的研究是不是暗示世界經濟正朝向全球化或是區域化的發展?


第八堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

保羅.赫斯特與格雷厄姆.湯普森合著,《質疑全球化》,第五章

  1. 赫斯特和湯普森在書中第五章評估發展中國家在未來成長的前景,對於他們的觀察你感到樂觀還是悲觀?關於未來成長他們指出了哪些國內政治、經濟及社會或人口的要件?是否贊同他們的看法?可否舉出其他的重要國內因素是他們沒有想到的?發展中國家在面臨「全球化」世界經濟的限制與機會是什麼?發展中國家享有強勁經濟成長的歷程中,高度工業化國家未來將會扮演何種角色?


  • 根據赫斯特和湯普森的說法,反全球化人士傾向過度解讀跨國企業以低廉工資設廠於開發中國家的行為;再者,製程技術的演進將造成跨國企業實際上傾全力著手在母國從事生產活動的可能性。你認為這個分析合理嗎?或是過於輕描淡寫該問題的嚴重性?將工作轉移至發展中國家是不是成為經濟上的主要問題?這些高度工業國家的政府要怎樣解決這種問題呢?
  • 世界銀行,《東亞奇蹟》

    1. 為什麼有些發展中國家成長快速而其他國家則不然呢?世界銀行對少數成功的國家以及那些非常緩慢進展的國家又提出何種解釋呢?世界銀行報告指出到底是什麼因素造成亞洲新興經濟體的快速成長?你覺得這樣的成功經驗能否複製到其他的發展中國家?又哪些經驗未必能夠複製到別的地方?「東亞奇蹟」具備何種國內因素或國際發展的層次才能夠影響到世界各地呢?

    2. 東亞國家推行鼓勵出口的經濟政策為何?根據世界銀行的調查,這些國家如何集中注意力於出口以便加速經濟成長和發展呢?與作為出口成長導向而存在的「高度投入的亞洲奇蹟經濟」有什麼相似處?各個國家實行的方法有什麼不同?東亞國家政府所從事的相關政策是不是仍適用於其他發展中國家?如果有這樣的政策,是哪些呢?你覺不覺得出口成長導向整體上留給發展中國家一項可行的開發或是成長的策略呢?

    3. 東亞國家政府怎樣分配勞工階級、企業以及資深精英名流?這項安排能不能給政府、勞方、資方與其他團體獲得政治利益或同時擁有經濟利潤呢?亞洲金融危機的餘波已經對上述關係的重新評估,而且如今普遍認為他們的聯繫是導致貪汙和經濟失靈的主因。你覺得這個再詮釋在東亞國家政府與當地社群之間的情況是否屬實?原因何在?

    4. 思考東亞新興工業國的資本和勞工市場的演進與本質。政府在何種層面干預這些市場的發展?政府政策如何影響這些市場的結構與運作?這種政策到底造成正面效應還是反效果?

    5. 「東亞奇蹟」的新古典主義解析強調,亞洲新興工業國政府怎樣運用總體經濟教義派之基本「權利」,提供一個低通膨的經濟環境以及有助快速經濟成長的競爭市場。世界銀行報告的訴求重點在於高度投入的亞洲奇蹟經濟政府如何完全處理財政上、貨幣與利率的政策,並且有效承擔經濟危機的責任。你要如何解釋這些亞洲新興工業國政府成功解決自身經濟問題的能力,同時助長加速成長的能耐?


    第九堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

    丹尼.羅德瑞克(D. Rodrik)著《太過全球化了嗎?》

    1. 全球化是不是造成更多的不公平?羅德瑞克的答案是肯定的;到底勞動市場的哪種確切的機制與變化導致這些負面結果的產生?還有哪些相同後果的其它解釋?

    2. 難道所有的勞工都受到全球化的影響嗎?還是有些行業的勞工比起其他行業的勞工受到全球化的危害更深呢?你能不能舉出實例來驗證羅德瑞克的假設?

    3. 有些人爭論貿易的「公平性」、勞工與環境的標準必須集中,並要求以貿易開放的先決條件作為調和。羅德瑞克的立場為何?你的結論又是什麼?

    4. 羅德瑞克發現增加開放和減少政府在社會保護計畫(指的是「政府消費」)有關聯,他認為這樣造成政府稅賦資本能力的低落,使得全球化的世界經濟資本移動增加。你覺得他的說法有說服力嗎?你能不能舉出其他(經濟的及/或有非經濟的)解釋來說明羅德瑞克覺得先進工業國家的社會支出比例下降的原因?

    5. 羅德瑞克的結論裡,提出許多政策的建言來排解全球化與社會保護之間的緊張關係,你認同他的建議嗎?原因為何?哪方面的建議你覺得最有用?哪方面你認為最難以實行?

    6. 研究羅德瑞克的整體觀點與論證。是否太過全球化了呢?你是否覺得有國內的或同時有國際的推進力才可能成功促進貿易與資本流動障礙的降低?為什麼?


    第十堂課之筆記:閱讀問題

    這禮拜的閱讀資料使我們思考全球化是否,如何且涉入的經濟生活範圍為何-尤其不單是國際流動性以及商品與資本流動-限縮了自主權而且促使國家經濟、其他相關政策、作法等等的結合。同時也讓我們思考到不管結合還是分開的走向都是好事一樁,不論未來或大或小的結合走向,終究應該維持國家的實踐可能性。

    伯杰在導言中提供一些危急情況下問題與爭論的概況,其餘的閱讀資料則包含依據邏輯思辨與實例的答辯。

    蘇珊.伯杰與羅納德.多爾主編,《國家多樣性和全球的資本主義》

    1. 過去或當前也許多少造成集中壓力在總體經濟政策、個體經濟政策與政治和社會實踐上重要的國家差異為何?

    2. 伯杰指出,以往的觀點把論點聚焦於技術的角色,作為帶領早先各種經濟政策實踐的聚合。玻以爾、偉德、伯杰和厄漢則焦點對準在全球資本主義承擔不同機制下的各樣可能性匯合;包括不僅從流動資本和商品上加倍努力實踐的壓力-並且更致力於政府和產業行動者互相仿效或彼此迫使採取保護家計政策的實施。全球資本主義可能導致國家差異匯合的機制是什麼?且這些各種的國家機制的情況有何不同?

    3. 根據偉德和玻以爾的見解,全球化與互賴如何使世界成為各種標準的依據?他們相信由國家資本主義的各樣機制,來壓抑國家間的主權和推動國家匯合的程度到底有多少?

    4. 厄漢和司綴克提出全球化和國家匯合政治經驗的特殊專題研究。美日間的「結構性障礙計劃」和德國自動生產工業改革之間,透露出全球資本主義時代關於機制、政治與匯合程度的何種訊息?結合全球資本主義加劇或匯合的方面,國內的政治鬥爭扮演了什麼角色?

    5. Streeten的章節裡談論到貿易政策如何能夠,並且應該貌似有理的來保護國家間的多樣性?哪些是使用貿易政策保護國家間的多樣性或多或少較不令人信服的理由?例如,你認為他所主張國家福利也許需要擴展於傳統的貿易理論外以囊括「寧靜的生活」有何看法?

    6. 多爾的結論提供全球性資本主義侷限效果的悲觀看法和一個保存和加深全國區別和人道資本主義的多情請求。多爾相信造就更多或較少人道資本主義的政策與實行方式為何?什麼是他盼望全球性資本主義威脅這些政策和實踐的原因?並且什麼是他認為可能保存更多人道資本主義的特別社會與機構上的改變?

    加勒特:「全球市場...」

    1. 加勒特對於政府行動主義在世界經濟的遠景表示樂觀。根據加勒特的看法,政府能尋求什麼樣的政策?政府將必須觀察的底限為何?您同意他的樂觀說法嗎?為什麼或為什麼不是?

    2. 加勒特聲稱社會過程中全球化升高了整個社會中經濟不可靠的感覺。他並且認為中間偏左的政黨很可能會比中間的政黨對這種情緒反應敏感。根據這些斷言,當全球化的過程繼續前進時,在國內政治層面的趨勢方面我們可以做什麼預言?如果有,也許國際政治趨向也有類似的預測嗎?

    3. 加勒特對於金融市場綜合化的觀點是什麼?他似乎支持或反對資本帳戶自由化嗎?

    4. 蒙代爾-佛萊明模型主張國家可於以下三個條件中至多包含兩種特質:固定匯率、資本流動性和總體經濟學(貨幣)政策自治權。在頁802-803裡,加勒特建議政府應該選擇後兩者,並允許他們採取的浮動匯率的方式。您同意他的政治處方嗎?它能否適用於所有國家嗎?抑或此種政策隨各國國情而不同?

    5. 加勒特提出一些關於深化金融市場的整合的資料,此舉似乎支持傳統對於全球化的觀念。您會怎麼解釋這種趨向更大金融市場整合的現象?有什麼因素似乎在驅使這種情況?是技術、意識型態,還是強有力的國際參與者?

    6. 加勒特的報告以國家的層級思考全球化的政治。現在來思考全球化的國際政治。以國際協定來調控世界經濟有可能嗎?例如,政府能否可能達成外匯或資金流量的有效率多邊協議嗎?或者,全球化是否強加政治限制在國際還有國內的水平之上?



    Notes for Class #2: Reading Questions

    Polanyi, The Great Transformation

    1. What was the role of the British government in the economy before the Industrial Revolution? Was the government the agent of the most powerful economic elites in performing this role?

    2. What can we learn from history and anthropology about the relationship of the economy to society and politics? What is Polanyi's evidence? Are you convinced?

    3. What is a market economy? What is the fiction of commodities? How are these two connected by Polanyi? Do Polanyi and Marx have the same conception of markets? Of commodity fiction?

    4. What is the connection between the Industrial Revolution and the triumph of the market economy? What is the decisive factor in the triumph of the market economy?

    5. What is the Speenhamland system? Why does it play a central role in Polanyi's presentation?

    6. Who is the hero of Polanyi's account, and why?

    7. Why does regulation of the economy reappear? What is the double movement?

    8. Consider the concept of capitalism in Polanyi, Marx, Weber, and Friedman. What are the differences? How might the differences matter for conceiving the role of the state in a capitalist economy? How might they matter for conceiving the natural trajectory of development of capitalism? How might they matter for understanding the transferability of capitalism to different countries?


    Notes for Class #3: Reading Questions

    Angell, The Great Illusion

    1. Angell starts by challenging the view "that national power means national wealth, national advantage; that expanding territory means increased opportunity for industry; that the strong nation can guarantee opportunities for its citizens that the weak nation cannot." (p. 12) What are the arguments that Angell levels against this claim? Are you convinced? Why or why not?

    2. Why has conquest become unprofitable in his view? Was it ever profitable? What has changed? What are the costs involved in seizing and holding onto another country? Can you think of examples that might support or refute his argument?

    3. How do economic and financial interdependence preserve peace according to Angell? What do you think of his argument?

    4. In which critical respects [i.e., critical for the argument he is making] was the economic and political world that Angell analyzed the same as ours? In which significant respects have the international economy or power relations among nations changed?

    Hirst & Thompson, Globalization in Question, Chap. 1 and 2

    1. Hirst and Thompson distinguish between internationalization and globalization. What are the differences? Why do these distinctions matter?

    2. What are some of the economic indicators that can be used to "measure" globalization? Do you find some more useful/relevant/informative than others and if so, why?

    3. Based on your reading of Hirst & Thompson, what would you identify as the three or four key developments in the past two decades that have led to increasing globalization? Have these developments occurred spontaneously or been a product of government policies?


    Notes for Class #4: Reading Questions

    Bhagwati, Protectionism

    1. According to Bhagwati, the liberalization of trade is related to economic growth. Does Bhagwati demonstrate clearly how trade promotes growth? Do you think (free) trade helps promote growth? Why or why not? Can you think of examples to support your position?

    2. How does Bhagwati explain the movement toward trade liberalization after World War II? Which factors in his explanation do you think were the most important and why?

    3. Writing in the late 1980s, Bhagwati observed a rise in protectionism. What was his explanation for the rise in protectionism? Why was he optimistic about the future?

    4. Since the publication of his book, the United States has pursued significant multilateral efforts to promote free trade. These include the completion of the Uruguay Round of the GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the establishment of the World Trade Organization. Bhagwati's optimism therefore seems to have been justified. Based on your knowledge of these developments, did the factors cited by Bhagwati as grounds for optimism play a role in these events? Are there other factors that account for the move toward greater trade liberalization?

    5. It was recently reported that last year the United States ran its worst trade deficit in its history ($168 billion for 1998). The deficit appears to have been caused by a substantial decrease in US exports. However, the US also enjoyed strong economic growth last year. Are you optimistic about the future of US-led efforts to promote free trade and if so, why? Or do you expect a resurgence in protectionism in the US and if so, why?

    Ruggie, "International Regimes..."

    1. Ruggie refers to the post-World War II international economic order as a "compromise" based on "embedded liberalism." What is "embedded liberalism"? How does it differ from traditional liberalism? Does "embedded liberalism" remain the ordering principle of the international economic system today?

    2. What evidence does Ruggie cite to support his idea of an "embedded liberalism compromise"? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not?

    3. What role did the United States play in organizing the international economy according to Ruggie? What particular aspects of the international economic order does he attribute to the involvement of the United States? What role do you see the US now playing in the international economy? In your view, has it changed significantly and if so, how?


    Notes for Class #6: Reading Questions

    Susan Strange, Casino Capitalism

    1. Compare and contrast Strange's view of the interests of banks, investment firms, and other financial actors with Frieden's analysis of the preferences of international investors. In her view, have firms benefited or suffered as a result of increasing volatility in international financial markets? Do you subscribe to Frieden's or Strange's analysis of the interests/preferences of the financial community? Do you think its interests have changed as a result of the Asian financial crisis and subsequent crises in Russia and Brazil? Why or why not?

    2. Strange is highly critical of US policy decisions and nondecisions, which she claims have contributed substantially to international financial instability. Are her criticisms valid? How would she evaluate US economic policy in the 1990s, especially in response to the recent international financial crises in Asia, Russia, and Latin America? Has it continued to exacerbate volatility or has the US exercised a stabilizing influence on international financial markets?

    3. Writing in 1986, Strange was pessimistic about the prospects of greater international policy coordination or the strengthening of international institutions as viable solutions to the problem of international financial volatility. In the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis and subsequent crises in Russia and Brazil, however, both of these approaches have received renewed attention. French President Jacques Chirac has recently called for the US, Europe, and Japan to coordinate their economic policies so as to stabilize exchange rates. Others have called for the IMF to play a larger role in the international economy (e.g., acting as an international lender of last resort) or for the creation of a new world central bank. Are these solutions more viable today than they were when Strange wrote Casino Capitalism or are the grounds for her pessimism still valid? Strange also argued that the key problem was for the US, as the dominant actor in the world economy, to recognize its interest in international financial stability. Has the US recognized this interest yet? Why or why not? If not, what would it take for the US to develop an interest in promoting greater stability and act on this interest?

    "Fear of Finance," The Economist

    1. The Economist survey suggests that the expansion of international capital flows was largely inevitable. What forces/factors were responsible for the growth of these flows? Which factors do you think were especially important and why?

    2. How has the ability of governments to manage national economies been affected by increased capital mobility and the move to a system of floating exchange rates? What specific developments in international finance have influenced the conduct of monetary and fiscal policy? How have these developments affected the effectiveness of monetary and fiscal policy?

    3. According to the Economist survey (published in 1992), the danger of international financial instability has grown because of the expansion and increased mobility of international capital flows. Have its concerns about instability been substantiated by the Asian financial crisis and the more recent crises in Russia and Brazil? That is, do you think that these crises represent evidence of a fundamental problem with the international economic system or are they just isolated cases? If you think that international financial instability has become a serious problem, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects for international cooperation to address the problem?

    Jeffry Frieden, "Invested Interests..."

    1. Frieden cites the Mundell-Fleming approach, which argues that a country can have at most two of the following three conditions: a fixed exchange rate, monetary policy autonomy, and capital mobility. The United States has chosen to pursue monetary policy autonomy and capital mobility while allowing its exchange rate (the value of the dollar) to fluctuate. Based on Frieden's analytical framework, which economic groups/actors benefit from this policy choice? Which groups lose? What choice did Asian countries make prior to the financial crisis? Which actors gained/lost in these countries?

    2. Frieden argues that the political battle over international financial integration and the regulation of capital flows is between two camps: the financial sector, owners of financial assets, and multinational corporations vs. firms specific to particular industries and places. Which group do you think has greater political power in the United States? Does U.S. policy reflect the preferences of the more powerful group? Can you think of other countries where the balance of power between these two groups might differ? Do the policies of those countries toward international financial integration and capital mobility differ from those of the US?

    3. Consider Frieden's 2 x 2 matrix on p. 445, which categorizes various economic groups/actors according to their policy preferences with regard to monetary policy autonomy and exchange rate stability. Can you think of specific examples of each of the four types of economic actors/groups identified the matrix? Has he accurately derived the policy preferences of these actors/groups? How strong or weak do you think these preferences are and what factors might affect the intensity of a group/actor's policy preferences? Has the political behavior of these groups (if any) matched the preferences Frieden ascribes to them? For example, Frieden expects "multinational firms, international investors more generally, and internationally oriented producers of tradable goods" to support stabilization of exchange rates and international policy coordination. Is there evidence of such support among the financial community in the United States? What about in Europe?


    Notes for Class #7: Reading Questions

    Graham, Global Corporations and National Governments

    1. What is a multinational company? What different definitions might there be? And why does it matter?

    2. Why do companies invest abroad? Is it good or bad for their home economies? What are the strongest arguments on both sides of this case?

    3. Does national government regulation of foreign direct investment (FDI) (e.g. performance requirements, local-content restrictions, etc.) reduce global economic welfare? How might such regulation negatively affect world economic growth? Do you think global economic welfare is or should be a priority for national governments?

    4. Graham proposes an international agreement on liberalization and harmonization of regulations on FDI. According to Graham, how does FDI affect national economic performance? How might the domestic politics of such an agreement play out in the advanced industrial countries, i.e. who wins and who loses if restrictions are removed on foreign direct investment in developed countries? What would Frieden claim? How about in developing countries? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects of reaching such an agreement?

    Hirst & Thompson, Globalization in Question, Chap. 3 and 4

    1. What are Hirst & Thompson's concerns about foreign direct investment? Do they differ from Graham's and, if so, how? Which analysis of the problem -- Hirst & Thompson's or Graham's -- do you find to be more compelling and why?

    2. Hirst & Thompson also address the issue of a multilateral agreement on FDI. What kind of international arrangements do they consider most feasible? Are they optimistic or pessimistic about achieving such arrangements and what arguments do they offer to support their view?

    3. Hirst & Thompson analyze the geographical dispersion of the business activities of multinational corporations. Are you surprised by their findings? How might you explain their results? Do their findings suggest that world economy is evolving in the direction of globalization or regionalization?


    Notes for Class #8: Reading Questions

    Hirst & Thompson, Globalization in Question, Chap. 5

    1. In Chapter 5, Hirst and Thompson evaluate the prospects for future growth of developing countries. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about their prospects? What key domestic political, economic, and social/demographic requirements do Hirst and Thompson identify for future growth? Do you agree with their analysis? Can you think of any other important domestic factors that were not identified by Hirst and Thompson? What constraints and opportunities are developing countries likely to face in a "globalized" world economy? What role will advanced industrial countries have to play for developing countries to enjoy strong economic growth in the future?

    2. Hirst and Thompson outline two basic development strategies: 1) a laissez-faire approach of openness to international trade and capital flows, advocated by the United States and other developed countries; 2) an interventionist strategy premised on government regulation of the interaction between the domestic and international economy, along the lines of Asian NICs (newly industrializing countries). Which approach do they support and what arguments do they make to back their position? What kinds of policies with regard to trade, capital flows, and FDI would Hirst and Thompson recommend to the governments of developing countries? Which development strategy do you favor and why? Which strategy do you think is more feasible and why?

    3. According to Hirst and Thompson, opponents of globalization tend to overstate the dangers associated with multinational corporations relocating their operations to developing countries with low wages. Moreover, they suggest that trends in production technology and practice raise the possibility that MNCs may actually begin to reconcentrate their activities in their home country. Are you persuaded by their analysis or do you think they understate the seriousness of the problem? Is the transfer of jobs to developing countries a major problem economically? Politically? How might the governments of advanced industrial countries deal with such problems?

    World Bank, The East Asian Miracle

    1. Why did some developing countries grow rapidly -- and others, not? What explanations does the World Bank report offer of the success of a few and the much slower progression of others? Which of factors that they identify as responsible for rapid growth in the Asian newly industrializing economies do you think can be successfully duplicated by other developing countries? Which are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere? What domestic factors and/or developments at the international level are likely to influence the extent to which the "East Asian miracle" can be reproduced in other parts of the world?

    2. What economic policies did East Asian governments pursue to encourage exports? According to the World Bank, how did a focus on exports foster economic growth and development in these countries? What similarities existed in the export promotion strategies of the HPAEs? How did approaches differ across countries? Are any of the policies employed by East Asian governments still feasible for other developing countries and, if so, which one(s)? Do you think export-led growth remains a viable development/growth strategy as a whole for developing countries?

    3. How did East Asian governments deal with labor? Business? Old elites? What political and/or economic benefits did such arrangements provide to governments, lab, business, and other groups? How did the relationships between these groups and governments contribute to growth? In the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis, these relationships have been reevaluated and they are now widely believed to have contributed to corruption and economic inefficiency. Do you think this reinterpretation of the arrangements between East Asian governments and domestic social groups is valid? Why or why not?

    4. Consider the evolution and nature of capital and labor markets in the East Asian NICs. To what extent did governments intervene in these markets? How did government policies affect the structure and operation of these markets? Did such policies have a positive or negative effect?

    5. The neoclassical explanation of the "East Asian miracle" emphasizes how the governments of Asian NICs got macroeconomic fundamentals "right," providing an economic environment of low inflation and competitive markets highly conducive to rapid economic growth. The World Bank report calls attention to how the governments of HPAEs properly managed fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate policies and effectively responded to economic crises. How do you explain the ability of the governments of the Asian NICs to get all of this right, successfully manage their economies, and promote such rapid growth?


    Notes for Class #9: Reading Questions

    Rodrik, Has Globalization Gone Too Far?

    1. Does globalization create more inequality? According to Rodrik the answer is positive. What are the exact mechanisms and changes in labor markets through which these negative consequences are generated? What are alternative explanations of the same outcomes?

    2. Are all workers equally affected or are some types of workers hurt more than others? Can you think of ways to test Rodrik's hypothesis?

    3. Some people argue that for trade to be "fair," labor and environmental standards need to converge, and they demand such harmonization as the precondition of trade opening. What is Rodrik's position? What are your own conclusions?

    4. Rodrik finds that increasing openness is associated with decreased government spending on social protection programs (referred to as "government consumption"). In his view, this is attributable to the declining ability of governments to tax capital as a result of capital's increased mobility in a globalized world economy. Are you convinced by his argument? Can you think of other (economic and/or noneconomic) explanations for the decline in social spending in advanced industrial countries that Rodrik finds?

    5. In his conclusion, Rodrik offers a number of policy recommendations to reconcile the tension between globalization and social protection. Do you agree with his recommendations? Why or why not? Which do you think are most feasible? Which do you consider least likely to be implemented?

    6. Consider Rodrik's argument and evidence in its entirety. Has globalization already gone too far? Do you think national and/or international efforts to further reduce barriers to trade and capital flows are likely to succeed? Why or why not?


    Notes for Class #10: Reading Questions

    The readings for this week ask us to consider whether, how, and to what extent globalization of economic life – especially but not only international mobility and flows of goods and capital – constrains autonomy and impels convergence of national economic and other policies and practices. They also ask us to consider whether convergence or divergence is a good thing, whether the future holds greater or less convergence, and finally what can and should be done, if anything, to preserve national practices.

    The Berger introduction provides an overview of the questions and controversies at stake here. And the rest of the readings provide particular answers, with reference to particular sets of theoretical concepts and cases.

    Berger and Dore, eds., National Diversity and Global Capitalism

    1. What are some important national differences in macroeconomic policy, microeconomic policy, and political and social practices in the past or present that might be more or less subject to convergent pressure?

    2. In past thinking, Berger points out, convergence arguments focused on the role of technology as leading previously different economic policies and practices to converge. Boyer, Berger, Wade, and Upham focus on a variety of possibilities by which global capitalism might entail different mechanisms for convergence – including not only pressure from mobile capital and goods making some practices harder to pursue -- but also more intentional action by governments and industrial actors to copy one another or to force one another to adopt policies to protect home practices. What are the mechanisms by which global capitalism might lead to convergence of national differences? And how do the politics of these various mechanisms differ?

    3. According to Wade and Boyer, how globalized and interdependent has the world become according to various criteria? And how much do they believe national capitalism, by various mechanisms, constrains national sovereignty and impels national convergence?

    4. Upham and Streeck provide particular case study accounts of experience with the politics of globalization and national convergence. What do the Structural Impediments Initiative between Japan and the United States and industrial reform practice in German auto production tell us about the mechanisms, politics, and extent of convergence in an era of global capitalism? What role did domestic political struggles play in combining with aspects of global capitalism to allow or fuel convergence in some respects and not others?

    5. Streeten's chapter discusses how trade policy can, and plausibly should, be used to protect national diversity? What are some of the more and less persuasive justifications for using trade policy to protect national diversity? For example, what do you think of his claim that national welfare might need to be expanded beyond traditional trade theory to include the value of "the quiet life"?

    6. Dore's conclusion provides a pessimistic reading of the constraining effects of global capitalism and a passionate plea for what needs to be done to preserve and deepen national difference and a humane capitalism. What are the kinds of policies and practices Dore believes make for more or less humane capitalism? What are the reasons he expects global capitalism to threaten these policies and practices? And what are the particular social and institutional changes he thinks might preserve more humane capitalism?

    Garrett, "Global Markets..."

    1. Garrett is optimistic about the prospects for government activism in a globalized world economy. According to Garrett, what kinds of policies will governments still be able to pursue? What limits will governments have to observe? Do you share his optimism? Why or why not?

    2. Garrett claims that globalization has heightened feelings of economic insecurity throughout society. He also suggests that center-left political parties are more likely to be responsive to such sentiment than center-right parties. Based on these assertions, what predictions can we make about trends in domestic politics as the process of globalization continues? What implications, if any, might such trends have for international politics?

    3. What is Garrett's view of financial market integration? Does he seem to support or oppose capital account liberalization?

    4. The Mundell-Fleming approach argues that countries can have at most two of the following three conditions: a fixed exchange rate, capital mobility, and macroeconomic (monetary) policy autonomy. On pp. 802-803, Garrett suggests that governments should choose the latter two and allow their exchange rate to float. Do you agree with his policy prescription? Does it apply to all countries? Or would the choice of policies vary across countries and, if so, how?

    5. Garrett presents some data on the deepening of financial market integration that seem to support the conventional wisdom about globalization. How would you explain the trend toward greater financial market integration? What factors seem to be driving it? Technology? Ideology? Powerful international actors?

    6. Garrett's paper considers the politics of globalization at the national level. Now consider the international politics of globalization. Are international agreements to regulate the world economy still possible? For example, can governments still reach effective multilateral agreements on foreign exchange or capital flows? Or, does globalization impose political constraints at the international as well as the domestic level?



     
    MIT Home
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology Terms of Use Privacy