Advertisement

The Wobbly Triangle: Europe, Asia and the US after the Asian Crisis

  • Vinod K. Aggarwal
Chapter

Abstract

Discussion of the potential conflict among three actors — Japan, Europe, and the US — has been a popular topic among academics, policymakers, and popular commentators.1 More recently, China has replaced Japan in this role. Less pessimistically, there have also been co-operative efforts among different regions — or what I term transregional arrangements. These include the formation of the APEC forum that ties North America to Asia, ASEM, TABD, FTAA linking North and South America, and EU-Mercosur agreement. Thus, at least in theory, the three poles in the global economy might be able to stabilize and lead the world economy together, particularly if co-operative arrangements develop among major regions. The recent Asian crisis, however, has thrown this three-legged stool into a wobbly crisis, and speculation that Asia is now ‘finished’ because of mismanagement, gross corruption, poor state planning and the like, rule the day. Yet reports of Asia’s demise recall what a healthy Mark Twain cabled in 1897 upon reading his obituary: ‘The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.’

Keywords

Trade Liberalization European Economic Community Asian Economy Uruguay Round Free Trade Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aggarwal, V. Liberal Protectionism: The International Politics of Organized Textile Trade (Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, V. ‘Comparing Regional Cooperation Efforts in Asia-Pacific and North America’, in A. Mack and J. Ravenhill, Pacific Cooperation: Building Economic and Security Regimes in the Asia Pacific Region (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1994).Google Scholar
  3. Aggarwal V. (ed.) Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  4. Aggarwal, V., R. Keohane and D. Yoffie, ‘The Dynamics of Negotiated Protectionism’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 2 (June 1987).Google Scholar
  5. EC/UNCTAD, Investing in Asia’s Dynamism: European Union Direct Investment in Asia (Luxembourg: EC/UNCTAD, 1996).Google Scholar
  6. Gilpin, R. U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1975).Google Scholar
  7. Haas, Ernst, ‘Why Collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes’, World Politics, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 357–405, (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keohane, R. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  9. Kindleberger, C.P. The World in Depression, 1929–1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  10. Krasner, S.D. ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’ World Politics, Vol. 28, No. 3 (April 1976).Google Scholar
  11. Weber, S. ‘Origins of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’, International Organization, 48 Winter (1994).Google Scholar
  12. World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries: Beyond Financial Crisis, 1998/99 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1998).Google Scholar
  13. Zacher, M. ‘Trade Gaps, Analytical Gaps: Regime Analysis and International Coinmodity Trade Regulation’ International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 2, Spring (1987).Google Scholar
  14. Zacher M. with B. Sutton, Governing Global Networks: International Regimes for Transportation and Communications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinod K. Aggarwal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations