Patents and Development in the New Global Economy

Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Shadlen

The concluding chapter reviews the main findings from the comparative case studies, synthesizes the main lessons, considers extensions of the book’s explanatory framework, and looks at emerging challenges that countries face in adjusting their development strategies to the new global economy marked by the private ownership of knowledge. Review of the key points of comparison from the case studies underscores the importance of social structure and coalitions for analyses of comparative and international political economy. Looking forward, this chapter supplements the book’s analysis of the political economy of pharmaceutical patents with discussion of additional ways that countries respond to the monumental changes that global politics of intellectual property have undergone since the 1980s. The broader focus underscores fundamental economic and political challenges that countries face in adjusting to the new world order of privately owned knowledge, and points to asymmetries in global politics that reinforce these challenges.

2021 ◽  
pp. 223-249
Author(s):  
Stephanie Lawson

This chapter offers an overview of the field of Global Political Economy (GPE)—also known as International Political Economy (IPE). It builds on themes introduced in previous chapters, including connections with theories of global politics. These are discussed from a historical perspective to enable a better appreciation of how ideas, practices, and institutions develop and interact over time. These theories arose substantially within a European context, although the extent to which these may be applied uncritically to issues of political economy in all parts of the globe must be questioned. Significant issues for GPE include trade, labour, the interaction of states and markets, the nexus between wealth and power, and the problems of development and underdevelopment in the global economy, taking particular account of the North–South gap. The chapter then discusses the twin phenomena of globalization and regionalization and the way in which these are shaping the global economy and challenging the traditional role of the state. An underlying theme of the chapter is the link between economic and political power.


Author(s):  
Felicity Vabulas

Informality is increasingly defining outcomes in an international political economy that has previously been defined by precise treaties and large bureaucracies. Nonetheless, research in the budding area of “informality in IPE” is still nascent. This chapter brings some cohesion to the literature by discussing how soft law, informal governance, and informal intergovernmental organizations are affecting our global economy. By overviewing informality in the areas of international finance, international trade, and international economic institutions, it underscores how important bodies such as the G7, Financial Action Task Force, and Basel Committee are increasingly shaping how states interact. It underscores that informality is neither normatively better nor worse than its formal brethren, but instead that informality will have different effects on international relations. The chapter ends by highlighting ripe areas for more “informality in IPE” research going forward, including a better understanding of how topics such as block chain technologies, informal sanctions, and informal migration affect global politics. Nonetheless, a deeper investigation of these important areas will continue to be challenged by the things that define informality itself—a lack of transparency, working around the rules, and fluidity.


1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Helleiner

One of the central objectives of the field of international political economy (IPE) in the last 20 years has been to introduce insights from the field of international relations into the study of global economic affairs. Although this effort has been largely successful in the study of international trade, much less attention has been focused on the financial sector of the global economy. Seemingly highly technical and arcane, the study of international finance has been left largely to specialists in international economics, financial journalists, and international financial practitioners.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9s10 ◽  
pp. 69-98
Author(s):  
Hongyi Lai

For over a decade China has been the predominant carbon emitter in the global economy. It is thus imperative for us to understand the factors behind its climate change policy in the past decades. In the article, the author surveys the evolution of China�s climate change policy during 1990�2021 and applies theories from international relations and international political economy to explain it. It is found that (neo-)realism/nationalism and liberalism, two main theories in the field, offer only a partial explanation of China�s climate policy. The most effective theory is domestic sources. In particular, leadership power consolidation and a concern with economic growth seem to dictate China�s climate policy. The findings point to the analytical utility of domestic political economy in accounting for the climate stances of nation-states. Policy suggestions for external parties to interact with China on climate change are proposed. There the importance of involving China in global action against climate change, as well as the utility of the economy and trade leverage, soft power standing, and the prevention of extreme weather are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 957-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Oatley

How should we theorize about international political economy in an era of complex interdependence? The global economy is much more interdependent today than it was 40 years ago. As a result, there is a widening appreciation that we need new theoretical tools to understand how complex interdependence arose, how it operates, and where it might be headed. I argue that to develop such tools, we must embrace new theoretical logics that more readily accommodate and explain change. I develop this point by drawing on complexity theories, ecology, and information theory. I first develop the core elements of a complexity-based approach and contrast it to the central assumptions of the Open Economy Politics approach. I then illustrate this complexity-oriented approach by using the logic of coevolution and the information–entropy cycle to explain key elements in the development of the 2008 global financial crisis.


Free Traders ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 163-181
Author(s):  
Malcolm Fairbrother

Globalization’s origins are not just a historical concern. Democracy and expertise confer legitimacy. Insofar as the foundations of today’s global economy were neither very democratic nor based on serious expertise, it is unsurprising that globalization remains contentious. In this light, Chapter 8 considers the implications of the book’s analysis for the future of globalization. It also compares the case of North America to cases elsewhere, and reflects on the implications for the social science literatures on international political economy and ideas in politics. This chapter closes with a discussion of the costs of thinking about trade in the informal, anti-expert way of the businesspeople and politicians who defended CUFTA and NAFTA back in the 1980s and 1990s. Such thinking biases domestic decision-making against the interests of workers and the environment.


Author(s):  
Paul Kirby

This chapter examines the power of gender in global politics. It considers the different ways in which gender shapes world politics today, whether men dominate global politics at the expense of women, and whether international — and globalized — gender norms should be radically changed, and if so, how. The chapter also discusses sex and gender in international perspective, along with global gender relations and the gendering of global politics, global security, and the global economy. Two case studies are presented, one dealing with the participation of female guerrillas in El Salvador's civil war, and the other with neo-slavery and care labour in Asia. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that asks whether war is inherently masculine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document