Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ECONOMIC RELATIONS
Istvan Benczes
GLOBALIZATION
• The origins of the modern-day IMS dates back to the early nineteenth
century when UK adopted gold mono-metallism in 1821.
1867 – The European nations, as well as the United States, propagated
a deliberate shift to gold at the International Monetary Conference in
Paris.
• Gold was believed to guarantee a non-inflationary, stable economic
environment, a means for accelerating international trade.
1880 – The gold standard became the international monetary regime.
Germany joined in 1872, France in 1878, and the United Stated in
1879, Italy in 1894 and Russia in 1897.
• Before the World War I, 70% of the nations participated in gold standard.
The Main Strengths of the Gold Standard
• The EMS was a unique system since neither the US Dollar nor gold could
play a role in the stabilization process of exchange rates. Instead, a
symmetric adjustable peg arrangement, the European Exchange Rate
Mechanism was created.
• In 1957, the signing of the Rome Treaty occurred which established the
European Economic Community (EEC).
• The six members of the EEC aimed at the creation of a common market,
where goods, services, capital and labour moved freely. Originally, they did
not plan any direct cooperation in the field of finance or exchange rates
policy.
EUROPEAN MONEY INTEGRATION
• However, the global financial and economic crisis of 2008-9, posted dramatic
challenges for the European Union (EU). As a response to the crisis, the EU
enacted a three-pillar financial rescue program in 2010, comprising the
following:
The European Financial Stability Mechanism
The European Financial Stability Facility
The financial assistance of the IMF.
• Since the three-pillar system was designed for a temporary period only, the
European Union decided to activate its own permanent rescue facility, the
European Stability Mechanism, from 2013 onwards.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND
TRADE POLICIES
• Europe
multilateral system of bilateral agreements, giving birth to the ‘first
common market’ in the second half of the nineteenth century (Marsh, 1999)
• World War I
dramatic blow to free trade.
Protectionism, in turn, was detrimental to development, peace and
stability (Ruggie, 1982).
• US Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1934:
put a stop to any further decline in international trade.
Act was a return to the principle of MFN
MULTILATERALISM:
FROM THE GATT TO THE WTO
• Dollar
World currency, backed by two-thirds of the world’s gold reserve in
1950 (Green, 1999).
The United States was the largest aid donor, mostly in the form of the
Marshall Plan.
• New Trade Regime
more or less a liberal,multilateral rules-based system backed by
a solid legal approach to trade relations (Winham, 2008).
MULTILATERALISM:
FROM THE GATT TO THE WTO
• Three pillars of the Bretton Woods system
International Trade Organization (ITO)
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
• In place of Unique Trade Organization
lowered tariffs
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
• European Economic Community in 1957
United States
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Kennedy Round
The result was an across-the-board cutting and reduction of non-tariff
barriers, especially that of anti-dumping measures (Evans, 1971).
MULTILATERALISM:
FROM THE GATT TO THE WTO
• Most of the developing countries did not manage to integrate into the
post-World War II trading system successfully.
• They followed an inward-looking, import-substitution
industrialization strategy, which did not favour trade openness (Findlay
and O’Rourke, 2007).
• Advanced economies were also reluctant to open their markets to
commodities such as textile or agriculture products in which developing
countries had a natural comparative advantage.
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
• WTO
means by which industrialized countries can gain access
to the markets of developing countries. (Khor, 1995)
a logical consequence of the Washington Consensus
approach to development, which considers domestic
interventions highly distortive and ineffective.(
DiCarpio and Amsden, 2004)
today’s advanced economies applied such ‘distortions’
widely at the onset of their own development.(Stiglitz,
2002)
• WTO is heavily criticized for ‘a striking asymmetry’ – this
asymmetry … lies at the heart of inequality in the rules of the
game for globalization’ (Nayyar, 2002: 158).
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!