Abstract
This chapter outlines the actions and initiatives conducted by the United States at international level during the 1990s, in the context of many areas of high relevance: the establishment of the World Trade Organization, the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement and other important regional agreements, the process of supranational integration in Europe, the economic transition in post-communist countries and structural reforms in developing countries. During these years, the American government played a major role as a regulator, by actively participating in the definition of supranational and international rules. This chapter describes the role played by the United States in shaping the new neoliberal order of the 1990s and the actions implemented in order to take advantage of the changing global system.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In reality, very few countries have been able to apply the neoliberal prescriptions to the letter, approaching this model without never completely achieving it. Perhaps Chile after the structural reforms implemented by Pinochet during the 1970s represents the most extreme attempt to embrace the neoliberal paradigm. See also the discussion on this point in Chap. 2.
- 2.
In this context, despite the liberalization of international markets led to the reduction of public intervention at national level in many industrialized countries, the shrinking of the government role was focused particularly on protectionist trade policies. Indeed, during the neoliberal era , science and technology policies remained a high priority, continuing to value increased productivity and technological innovation, in order to assure competitiveness at the international level. The next chapter is devoted to discuss, in particular, science and technology policy during the 1990s.
- 3.
- 4.
In this context, the bargaining power of the United States during the 1990s was of the same nature which had allowed Reagan administration to negotiate voluntary export restraints and to adopt an “aggressive unilateralism ” in trade policy during the 1980s (see Chap. 3).
- 5.
- 6.
For example, the Buy American has been relaunched in recent times, in the context of the stimulus package implemented by Obama in 2009 in response to the crisis , raising a lot of criticism (Hufbauer and Schott 2009) .
- 7.
Public procurement sanctions remained in force for both parties until 2006, when the substantial liberalization of the European telecommunications market rendered the US sanctions unjustified. See the Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) n. 352/2006, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) n. 1461/93 concerning access to public contracts for tenderers from the United States (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R0352, last accessed September 2017).
- 8.
More generally, in addition to public procurement issues, in the same years, a broader set of issues related to the national structure and institutions was addressed with Japan through bilateral negotiations, called “Structural Impediments Initiatives”, focused mainly on six areas: savings and investment; territorial planning policy; price mechanism; distribution system; antitrust policy; Keiretsu’s relationships (companies holding each other’s capital) (ERP 1990). Further agreements also pursued the specific objective of reducing trade barriers that were restricting access to the market for American products (such as semiconductors, wood products, mobile phones and constructions) and those of structural nature (e.g. related to distribution systems, excessive regulation and lack of transparency in public procurements ). With the Clinton administration , under the framework of the 1993 US-Japan Framework for a New Economic Partnership Agreement , in 1998 the United States had already negotiated 33 trade agreements with Japan , regarding both “structural issues” (such as intellectual property rights , deregulation and investment) and “sector issues” (in automotive and spare parts industry, financial services, telecommunications and medical, pharmaceutical and glass technologies) (ERP 1998) .
- 9.
Clinton W.J. , Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement , 14 September 1993, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=47070 (last accessed September 2017).
- 10.
- 11.
However, one of the main issues that the “Industrial policy in an open and competitive environment” (European Commission 1990) had to address was the cohesion between the different European countries. The ability of the different European territories to adequate their productive structure to the growing extent of the market and the growing competition has increasingly become fundamental for participating to the benefits of the single market. Cohesion policies (namely structural adjustment policies , or innovation policies , or regional policies —all these terms, in different historical stages, have replaced the old term “industrial policy ” used during the 1970s, that was understood as synonymous of vertical and protectionist intervention) began to be implemented to stimulate innovation and the creation of complementary productive specializations in lagging regions. The Single European Act (SEA) of 1986 defined the first cohesion policies , and structural funds were provided to finance development projects in poorer geographical areas. Later, the structural funds were declined under other regional development programmes, including Agenda 2000 and the Lisbon Strategy (Bianchi and Labory 2006) . In particular, the Lisbon Strategy , launched in 2000, was important to fix a distinctive feature of the current European industrial policy. In the prevailing approach at the beginning of the new century, the European Commission assumed the role of coordinator of the single industrial policy actions, which were defined in detail at national and regional level. In this context, the industrial policy had to be implemented at local level with a horizontal approach, through general interventions able to develop the competitiveness of the whole regional system, not with mere subsidies to compensate for efficiency gaps (Bianchi and Labory 2009) . In this manner, the ability of the local economic actors to create networks and to share knowledge for innovation has today become a central element of the European industrial policy. In line with the Lisbon strategy’s approach, Europe 2020 strategy , of 2010, has encouraged the adoption of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization (RIS 3) to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (European Commission 2010) . The dominant role in the managing of structural funds is played by individual states and regions (see the “Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization—RIS 3 ” on https://www.researchitaly.it/uploads/4692/RIS3%20Guide%20March%202012final_0204.pdf?v=048101c, last accessed September 2017). Nevertheless, today, despite the cohesion policies implemented at European level, the economic crisis and the growth of emerging industrial powers seem to have exacerbated regional disparities between the “centre” and the European “periphery” (Bianchi and Labory 2011; Pianta 2014; Fazi 2014) . These internal challenges to the structural adjustment of the single countries are leading to the formation of regressive coalitions which demand protectionist policies from the national governments. Under these conditions, the European economic integration is seriously threatened.
- 12.
- 13.
See, White House Statement, 12 July 1991, on https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/foreign-policy-bulletin/article/trade-enhancement-initiative-for-central-and-eastern-europe/B291ED6B52FD4CE9796F00BE81A9F392 (last accessed September 2017).
- 14.
In 1996, for example, the Clinton administration authorized a spending of $6.7 billion, requesting subsequently an increase of 10% in the 1998 budget.
References
Bianchi, P., & Labory, S. (Eds.). (2006). International Handbook on Industrial Policy. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.
Bianchi, P., & Labory, S. (2009). Le nuove politiche industriali dell’Unione Europea. Il Mulino: Bologna.
Bianchi, P., & Labory, S. (2011). Industrial Policies after the Crisis. Seizing the Future. Cheltenham: E. Elgar.
Cecchini, P., Catinat, M., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). The European Challenge: The benefits of a Single Market. Aldershot: Wildwood House.
Chang, H.-J. (1994). The Political Economy of Industrial Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Dunlop, J. B. (1993). The Rise of Russia and the Fall of the Soviet Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Elms, D. K. & Low, P. (Eds.). (2013). Global Value Chains in a Changing World. Geneva: Fung Global Institute (FGI), Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and World Trade Organization (WTO).
Emerson, M., et al. (1989). The Economics of 1992: The EC Commission’s Assessment of the Economic Effects of Completing the Single Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ERP. (1990). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1991). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1992). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1993). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1994). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1995). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1996). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1997). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
ERP. (1998). Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
European Commission. (1990). Industrial Policy in an Open and Competitive Environment (Bangemann Memorandum), Bruxelles, Working paper December14.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth. COM: 2020.
Fazi, T. (2014). The Battle for Europe. How an Elite Hijacked a Continent and How We Can Take It Back. London: Pluto Press.
Foreman-Peck, J., & Federico, G. (1999). European Industrial Policy: The Twentieth Century Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The Governance of Global Value Chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 78–104.
Geroski, P. A. (1989). European Industrial Policy and Industrial Policy in Europe. Oxford Review of Economic Policy
Gibbon, P., Bair, J., & Ponte, S. (2008). Governing Global Value Chains: An Introduction. Economy and Society, 37(3), 315–338.
Grabas, C., & Nützenadel, A. (Eds.). (2014). Industrial Policy in Europe after 1945: Wealth, Power and Economic Development in the Cold War. London: Palgrave.
Hoekman, B. M., & Mavroidis, P. C. (1997). Law and Policy in Public Purchasing. Ann Arbor: Michigan Press.
Hufbauer, G. C., & Schott, J. J. (2009). Buy American: Bad for Jobs, Worse for Reputation (Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief number PB09-2). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Krueger, A. O. (1990). Government Failures in Development. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 9–23.
Le Grand, J. (1991). The Theory of Government Failure. British Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 423–442.
Pack, H., & Saggi, K. (2006). Is There a Case for Industrial Policy? A Critical Survey. World Bank Research Observer, 21(2), 267–297.
Pelkmans, J. (2006). European Integration: Methods and Economic Analysis. London: Prentice Hall.
Pianta, M. (2014). An Industrial Policy for Europe. Seoul Journal of Economics, 27, 3.
Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2011). Global Value Chains Meet Innovation Systems: Are There Learning Opportunities for Developing Countries? World Development, 39(7), 1261–1269.
Rice, C. (2000). Promoting the National Interest. Foreign Affairs, Washington, Council on Foreign Relations, 79, 45.
Sakwa, R. (2008). Russian Politics and Society. London: Routledge.
Schultze, C. L. (1983). Industrial Policy: A Dissent. The Brookings Review, 2(1), 3–12.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton.
Trionfetti, F. (2000). Discriminatory Public Procurement and International Trade. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Weiss, L. (2005). Global Governance, National Strategies: How Industrialized States Make Room to Move Under the WTO. Review of International Political Economy, 12(5), 723–749.
Weiss, L., & Thurbon, E. (2006). The Business of Buying American: Government Procurement as Trade Strategy. Review of International Political Economy, 13(5). Routledge.
Williamson, J. (1989). What Washington Means by Policy Reform. In J. Williamson (Ed.), Latin American Readjustment: How Much has Happened. Washington: Institute for International Economics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tassinari, M. (2019). The End of the Cold War and the New Neoliberal Order. In: Capitalising Economic Power in the US. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76648-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76648-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76647-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76648-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)