Suchergebnisse

Contents -- Abbreviations -- Acknowledgments -- Perspectives -- Introduction -- Geopolitical economy -- FTAS, statistics, and Korea -- Containment and South Korean development -- The Korean FTA strategy -- FTAs as development strategy -- FTA consequences -- The geopolitics of FTAs -- South Korea and the United States -- China, the European Union, and Japan -- The emerging geopolitical economy -- Appendix: documentation of chapter 3 and chapter 5 -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

Geopolitical Economy examines the significance and nature of free trade agreements (FTAs), the primary policy tool through which modern nations seek access to international markets and promote economic growth. The book focuses specifically on how South Korea, the world's leader in the number and significance of FTAs as well as the world's sixth largest export economy, uses FTAs. Jonathan Krieckhaus argues that geopolitics-the struggle between powerful nations over specific geographic regions around the globe-influenced FTA strategy and economic policy in South Korea and beyond. This perspective illustrates the security approach to FTAs, but adds that the geographic specificity of security concerns deeply shape FTA policy. Geopolitical Economy also looks at Korean FTAs through the lens of development strategy. South Korea is singularly successful in garnering FTAs with all three players in the global economy: the United States, the European Union, and China. This unprecedented success was built on a strong commitment from three consecutive Korean presidential administrations, each operating within a favorable state-society context that enjoyed the existence of a centralized and effective trade bureaucracy

There is ongoing controversy as to whether political democracy inhibits or facilitates national economic growth. It is argued here that the answer to this question depends greatly on the regional political context within which democracy functions. In regions where social groups clamour for redistribution, as in Latin America, democracy may lead to populism and poor economic performance. Similarly, in regions where state elites are generally committed to promoting rapid industrialization, as in parts of Asia, democratic pressures may impede effective economic policy. However, in regions where patrimonialism is chronic, as in Sub-Saharan Africa, democracy may provide a useful mechanism for evicting grossly corrupt politicians and may therefore facilitate higher rates of economic growth. These regional arguments are tested statistically here and show that democratic governance constrains growth in Latin America and Asia yet facilitates growth in Africa. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these findings are fairly robust.

Some studies find that democracy inhibits growth while other studies find that democracy facilitates growth. Which conclusion is correct? To help resolve this debate, a variety of sensitivity analyses is conducted to answer two basic questions. First, why has the literature yielded contradictory results? Secondly, how believable are these results? The existing contradictions can be explained by analysts' choice of time period, with democracy having a negative effect on growth in the 1960s, a positive effect in the 1980s and no effect at all in the 1970s and 1990s. More generally, however, it is shown here that the statistical significance of these findings varies radically depending upon which control variables one utilizes and how one measures both growth and democracy.

A contribution to a special journal section marking the reprinting of Robert Wade's Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (2004 [1990]) considers the work's influence & applicability beyond the Asian context. It is contended that the text's fundamental importance lies in its challenge to neoliberalism wherein Ward makes a tripartite case for the continuing relevance of the state. Attention is given to the recent wave of research advancing the statist perspective & demonstrating the relevance of industrial policy not only to East Asia but to the rest of the world. However, it is asserted that the methods underlying statist analysis require revision, noting that no statistical evidence exists in support of statism whereas there is much backing neoliberal assertions. Without the ability to identify specific statist policies that covary with economic success across a broad range of countries, it is maintained that it will be difficult to promote industrial policy prescriptions in the Third World. In this light, how to identify such policies is considered, taking the example of the positive impact that states have had on economic development by mobilizing public savings. While lauding Wade & others for highlighting industrial policy, two tasks are seen in need of completion: (1) Activist states must be shown as a general condition for economic growth & not unique to East Asia. (2) Greater state activism must be demonstrated as related to greater economic success. 29 References. J. Zendejas