Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 739-741
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Trade Surplus ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Bilateral Agreement ◽  
Trade Credits ◽  
Liberal Trade

In July 1949, negotiations for a European payments agreement to finance international trade, which had been delayed by a dispute between the United Kingdom and the United States over currency convertibility, were blocked by a difference between the Swiss and the United States governments regarding the terms of Switzerland's participation. The Swiss government had refused to sign the bilateral agreement with the United States which all other members of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation receiving dollar aid had done, on the ground that it needed no dollar aid for itself and that the bilateral agreement would give the United States a right to check on the Swiss economy. The payments committee of the OEEC Council had attempted to bring Switzerland into the payments plan to widen the area of more liberal trade, urged by the United States. The committee's proposal that half of Switzerland's trade surplus be financed by a grant of dollars and half by trade credits on the terms of the Economic Cooperation Administration as advanced by Switzerland to her debtors was submitted to the Swiss Federal Council. Following the statement by the Economic Cooperation Administration that dollars could not be had without signature by Switzerland of a bilateral accord with the United States, the Swiss Federal Council refused to sign the accord.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 359-360 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Underdeveloped Countries ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Free Trade Association ◽  
Set Up

The January 14, 1960, meeting of the Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was preceded by a meeting of representatives of the organization's eighteen members and of the United States and Canada to examine the resolutions adopted by a special economic conference. At this meeting, which ended with approval of a move sponsored by the United States that was designed to reorganize economic cooperation and transform the organization, it was decided, and subsequently approved by the OEEC Council and the United States and Canada, that: 1) four experts, representing respectively North America, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the European Economic Community (EEC) and other European nations, would prepare a report on the transformation of OEEC for consideration by senior officials of twenty countries, namely, the OEEC nations and the United States and Canada, at a meeting scheduled for April 19, 1960; 2) a preparatory meeting of representatives of the same twenty nations would be held in a month's time, when decisions would be taken to appoint a permanent chairman, a secretariat, and working parties to look into outstanding trade problems; and 3) a group, consisting of Canada, France, West Germany, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the United States, the United Kingdom, and a representative of EEC, would be informally set up to coordinate aid policies to underdeveloped countries. The outcome of the discussions was regarded as paving the way for a new Atlantic economic grouping, composed of the members of OEEC plus the United States and Canada, which would give priority to consideration of the problems between the two rival European economic groups, EEC and EFTA. Other matters discussed by the Council were the removal of discriminatory measures against imports from the dollar zone and the increase in assistance to underdeveloped countries.

Relief and Rehabilitation Organizations: Committee of European Economic Cooperation

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Joint Conference ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

On June 5, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, George C. Marshall, stated that the United States could not proceed much further with its plans to assist European recovery unless the countries themselves reached some agreement as to their requirements and to their own contribution to European recovery. Immediately following this speech at Harvard University, representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union met in Paris to discuss the possibility of a joint conference on the problem. After the Soviet representative (Molotov) withdrew, sixteen nations, upon the invitation of France and the United Kingdom, met in Paris from July 12 to September 22, 1947, to draw up a joint program for European reconstruction. Participating countries were: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 342-346
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Marshall Plan ◽  
Total Production ◽  
International Investments ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Inflationary Pressure ◽  
United States Economy

In February 1950 the annual report of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation was presented to the United States Economic Cooperation Administration. The report stated that future progress of European recovery would depend to a large extent upon the level of economic activity in the United States, upon United States tariff policy; and upon international investments made by the United States. The forecasts of European trade were based on the assumption that United States business activity would remain at least as high as in the second and third quarter of 1949; it was pointed out that even small setbacks in the United States economy would have disproportionately large consequences for western Europe whose reserves were not great enough to stand much strain. The report insisted that what remained to be done to solve the dollar problem was not a task for Europe alone but was rather a “joint problem.” Western Europe's dollar deficit could not be eliminated unless its exports to the United States amounted to 75 percent of its imports in value. It was necessary that the emphasis shift from the expansion of total production to the development of dollar earning and dollar saving types of production, as well as a reduction in costs. Inflationary pressure had been greatly relieved but nearly all the Marshall Plan countries were still suffering from some inflationary pressure which tended to reduce their exports and increase their imports. This pressure was likely to continue unless a world depression developed.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-508
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
American Military ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Appreciable Increase ◽  
Substantial Progress ◽  
Manufactured Goods

A report of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) on the relaxation of quantitative restrictions on imports of goods and restrictions on invisible transactions and transfers relating to the dollar area was made public during the period under review. The report was based on the replies of OEEC countries to a questionnaire approved by the OEEC Council, and on memoranda submitted by the two associate members, Canada and the United States. According to the report, substantial progress had been made since 1953 in the liberalization of imports from the dollar area and the relaxation of quantitative restrictions on imports of non-freed dollar commodities, with the extent and rapidity of the progress varying from one country to another. In general, the level of liberalization had been less for manufactured goods than for food and raw materials. In analyzing the effects of liberalization, the report stated that the very appreciable increase in dollar imports of raw materials and basic commodities had been not so much the result of liberalization itself as of the increased economic activity in member countries; and that on the whole, there had not been any sudden large-scale increase in imports from the dollar area of manufactured goods which had been freed by some countries. Since the imports of freed commodities from the United States and Canada had taken place against the background of a general increase in member countries' imports, there had not been generally any adverse change in the pattern of imports, particularly in regard to intra-European imports or those from other non-dollar countries. Nevertheless, the report stated, the increase in imports had contributed to the deterioration of the trade balance of member countries with the associated countries during the second half of 1954 and the first half of 1955, since exports to these countries did not rise above the 1953 level. However, because of increased American military expenditure in Europe, the current balance of member countries as a whole with the associated countries still showed a slight surplus.

The Act of State Doctrine of the United Kingdom: An Analysis, With Comparisons to United States Practice

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Singer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
Considerable Importance ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Contractual Rights

Until quite recently the doctrine of act of state had long occupied a quiet backwater of English jurisprudence. Some cases of the last few years, however, have indicated that this doctrine may assume considerable importance in the future. In this respect the English experience is similar to that of the United States, where act of state cases were relatively rare and received little attention for many years before Sabbatino. This coincidence should cause little surprise for, as the cases in both nations make clear, there are common underlying causes. Act of state doctrine developed in an era when governments confined themselves to a narrow range of activities. Nowadays, however, the doctrine is being strained to cope with the activities of states whose governments own and develop natural resources, and engage in international trade, while maintaining an approach to property and contractual rights vastly different from that of the United Kingdom and the United States.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-255 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
West Germany ◽  
Finance Minister ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Ministerial Council ◽  
Oecd Convention ◽  
International Obligations

The press reported that on September 30, 1961, the new Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) formally came into being with seventeen out of a possible twenty member nations having. deposited their instruments of ratification of the OECD convention. At the time of the entry into force of the convention, the following nations had deposited their ratifications: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany. Italy, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg shortly afterwards joined the organization. The OECD convention required members to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, nondiscriminatory basis in accord with international obligations. At the first meeting of the organization in Paris on September 30, 1961, Mr. Donald Fleming, Canadian Finance Minister, was elected chairman of the Ministerial Council, and Mr. Gunnar Lange, Swedish Commerce Minister, and Mr. Charles Arliotis, Greek Minister of Coordination, vice-chairmen. Mr. Thorkil Kristensen, the former Secretary-General of OEEC, was named Secretary-General of the new organization, and Mr. Charles Adair (United States) and Mr. Jean Cottier (France) were designated deputy Secretaries-General.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-398
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Aid ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Recovery Program

On April 2, 1948, the Congress of the United States passed legislation authorizing the appropriation of $6,098,000,000 for foreign aid, of which $5,300,000,000 was allocated for the first twelve months of the European Recovery Program. The bill became effective upon the signature of the President the following day, and early in April Mr. Paul Hoffman, President of the Studebaker Company, was appointed as director of the Economic Cooperation Administration, an independent agency to handle the funds appropriated by the Congress.

scholarly journals Competitiveness of meat and associated products in international trade

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
Attila Jámbor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Trade ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Data ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Advantages ◽  
First Results

There has been considerable growth in global meat trade recently in line with globally increasing population and changing diets. The paper analyses competitiveness patterns in global meat trade between 1989 and 2018. The article applies the method of revealed comparative advantages on global meat trade data and reaches a number of conclusions. First, results show top 10 countries in global meat exports and imports as well as most traded products. Global meat exports are dominated by the United States, Brazil and the Netherlands, whole main meat importers were Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. The paper shows that global meat trade is highly concentrated by country and product but this concentration has decreased considerably in the previous 20 years. By analysing specialisation in global meat trade, a diverse picture becomes apparent where export positions and comparative advantages are not always moving together. Last but not least, Hungarian positions are also analysed in context throughout the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document