Directory Search
Scroll further down to browse by year.
| 1. | Peter Draper Andreas Freytag, Christoph Dörffel Sebastian Schuhmann : Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order. In: Global Summitry, 4 (2), pp. 30–49, 2019. (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Development, Equality, Global Order, Inclusive, Inequality, Structural Change, Trade) @article{Draper2019, title = {Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order}, author = {Peter Draper, Andreas Freytag, Christoph Dörffel, Sebastian Schuhmann}, url = {https://globalsummitryproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Trade-Inclusive-Development-and-the-Global-Order.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-04-13}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {2}, pages = {30–49}, abstract = {Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition.}, keywords = {Development, Equality, Global Order, Inclusive, Inequality, Structural Change, Trade}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition. |
| 2. | Draper, Peter; Freytag, Andreas; Dörffel, Christoph; Schuhmann, Sebastian: Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order . In: Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 30-49, 2018, ISSN: https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Development, Equality, Global Order, GVC, IDI, Inclusive, Inclusive Development Index, Inclusiveness, Inequality, Structural Change, Technology, Trade) @article{Draper2018, title = {Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order }, author = {Peter Draper and Andreas Freytag and Christoph Dörffel and Sebastian Schuhmann}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.3.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001}, issn = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {30-49}, abstract = {Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {Development, Equality, Global Order, GVC, IDI, Inclusive, Inclusive Development Index, Inclusiveness, Inequality, Structural Change, Technology, Trade}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition. |
| 3. | Rafferty, Devin T: The IMF’s “New” Institutional View: An Unwitting Trojan Horse for International Financial Fragility . In: Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 50-63, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). (Type: Journal Article | Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Brady Bonds, Development, East Asian Financial Crisis, Economic Crisis, Economy, Financial Fragility, Financial Stability, IMF, Interest Rates, International Monetary Fund, Latin American Debt Crisis, Mexican Debt Crisis) @article{Rafferty2018, title = {The IMF’s “New” Institutional View: An Unwitting Trojan Horse for International Financial Fragility }, author = {Devin T Rafferty}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.4.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guy005}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {50-63}, abstract = {In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), it became widely accepted that loosely regulated international capital flows were responsible for transmitting the crisis from the developed to the developing world. As a result, using capital controls to manage them came into vogue with many groups. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was one such actor, and its revamped policy proposals became encapsulated as its “New” Institutional View. It was here the Fund officially recognized the efficacy of controls for countering international financial fragility and stated the exact conditions under which they were acceptable. However, it also designated that authorities should retain a heavy preference for using “market-based” adjustment measures to correct capital flow-induced macroeconomic imbalances, even going as far as to mandate specific correctional paths and sequences for common individual scenarios, which indirectly relegated capital controls to secondary importance. This article argues these proposed adjustment measures are procyclical and hence the “New” Institutional View increases international financial fragility and impedes economic development. To do so, we combine Albert Hirschman’s vision of a development process with Hyman Minsky’s take on international financial instability to demonstrate this “View” is discordant with the challenges developing economies face. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {Brady Bonds, Development, East Asian Financial Crisis, Economic Crisis, Economy, Financial Fragility, Financial Stability, IMF, Interest Rates, International Monetary Fund, Latin American Debt Crisis, Mexican Debt Crisis}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), it became widely accepted that loosely regulated international capital flows were responsible for transmitting the crisis from the developed to the developing world. As a result, using capital controls to manage them came into vogue with many groups. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was one such actor, and its revamped policy proposals became encapsulated as its “New” Institutional View. It was here the Fund officially recognized the efficacy of controls for countering international financial fragility and stated the exact conditions under which they were acceptable. However, it also designated that authorities should retain a heavy preference for using “market-based” adjustment measures to correct capital flow-induced macroeconomic imbalances, even going as far as to mandate specific correctional paths and sequences for common individual scenarios, which indirectly relegated capital controls to secondary importance. This article argues these proposed adjustment measures are procyclical and hence the “New” Institutional View increases international financial fragility and impedes economic development. To do so, we combine Albert Hirschman’s vision of a development process with Hyman Minsky’s take on international financial instability to demonstrate this “View” is discordant with the challenges developing economies face. |
2018 |
Draper, Peter; Freytag, Andreas; Dörffel, Christoph; Schuhmann, Sebastian Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order Journal Article Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 30-49, 2018, ISSN: https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001, (Article). @article{Draper2018, title = {Trade, Inclusive Development, and the Global Order }, author = {Peter Draper and Andreas Freytag and Christoph Dörffel and Sebastian Schuhmann}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.3.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001}, issn = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guz001}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {30-49}, abstract = {Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Economic globalization has increasingly affected countries across the world, through participation in global value chains (GVCs) and helping to lift over one billion human beings out of extreme poverty since 1990. However, there are still too many people living in poverty, even in rich countries, and so concerns over exclusion of certain groups from the gains of economic globalization are rising internationally. Using the concept of inclusiveness based on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, we find that G20 countries perform better than non-G20 countries. We then review how economic theory contributes to understanding the causes of (missing) inclusiveness by reviewing the literature pertaining to five drivers: growth, technology, structural change, trade, and political economy. Overall, domestic policies tailored to specific national circumstances are the main instruments for promoting inclusiveness. The danger is that in pursuing these domestic policies, states may undermine international arrangements constituting the liberal economic order. We argue that the liberal economic order generates insufficient global governance because there is always a fraction of countries opposing global policy coordination as they believe it harms them, and that this group of countries is increasing propelled by the surge of populism. This dynamic implies that global governance focus will increasingly shift to “coalitions of the willing”, rendering multilateralism an increasingly challenging, and a la carte, proposition. |
Rafferty, Devin T The IMF’s “New” Institutional View: An Unwitting Trojan Horse for International Financial Fragility Journal Article Global Summitry, 4 (1), pp. 50-63, 2018, ISSN: 2058-7449, (Article). @article{Rafferty2018, title = {The IMF’s “New” Institutional View: An Unwitting Trojan Horse for International Financial Fragility }, author = {Devin T Rafferty}, url = {http://globalsummitry.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GSP-4.1.4.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/global/guy005}, issn = { 2058-7449}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-00-00}, journal = {Global Summitry}, volume = {4}, number = {1}, pages = {50-63}, abstract = {In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), it became widely accepted that loosely regulated international capital flows were responsible for transmitting the crisis from the developed to the developing world. As a result, using capital controls to manage them came into vogue with many groups. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was one such actor, and its revamped policy proposals became encapsulated as its “New” Institutional View. It was here the Fund officially recognized the efficacy of controls for countering international financial fragility and stated the exact conditions under which they were acceptable. However, it also designated that authorities should retain a heavy preference for using “market-based” adjustment measures to correct capital flow-induced macroeconomic imbalances, even going as far as to mandate specific correctional paths and sequences for common individual scenarios, which indirectly relegated capital controls to secondary importance. This article argues these proposed adjustment measures are procyclical and hence the “New” Institutional View increases international financial fragility and impedes economic development. To do so, we combine Albert Hirschman’s vision of a development process with Hyman Minsky’s take on international financial instability to demonstrate this “View” is discordant with the challenges developing economies face. }, note = {Article}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), it became widely accepted that loosely regulated international capital flows were responsible for transmitting the crisis from the developed to the developing world. As a result, using capital controls to manage them came into vogue with many groups. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was one such actor, and its revamped policy proposals became encapsulated as its “New” Institutional View. It was here the Fund officially recognized the efficacy of controls for countering international financial fragility and stated the exact conditions under which they were acceptable. However, it also designated that authorities should retain a heavy preference for using “market-based” adjustment measures to correct capital flow-induced macroeconomic imbalances, even going as far as to mandate specific correctional paths and sequences for common individual scenarios, which indirectly relegated capital controls to secondary importance. This article argues these proposed adjustment measures are procyclical and hence the “New” Institutional View increases international financial fragility and impedes economic development. To do so, we combine Albert Hirschman’s vision of a development process with Hyman Minsky’s take on international financial instability to demonstrate this “View” is discordant with the challenges developing economies face. |
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.
Sorry, no publications matched your criteria.