| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
116848
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article engages with critical ipe scholars who have examined the rise of China and its impact on the neoliberal world order by analysing whether China poses a challenge to the neoliberal norm of free movement of capital. We argue that China's capital control regime is marked by a contradiction between its domestic social relations of production and its global geo-economic ambitions. On one hand, the key raison d'être of China's capital controls is to protect and consolidate an investment-led accumulation regime that redistributes income and wealth from Chinese workers to its state-owned enterprise sector. Dismantling these controls would result in changing social relations of production that would not necessarily benefit Chinese industrial and financial capital. On the other hand, China's accumulation regime has found itself increasingly constrained by the dynamics of US monetary hegemony, making the contestation of US structural monetary power a key global geo-economic ambition of China's ruling elites. In this regard, China would have to challenge the dominance of the US dollar by promoting the international role of the renminbi and developing liquid financial markets. Since it would have to abolish its capital controls in order to achieve this, there is a plain contradiction between its domestic and global objectives. A good understanding of this contradiction is necessary in order to be able to assess whether China will be capable of challenging the neoliberal world order in general and the norm of free movement of capital in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
085179
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The developmental state remains one of the chief points of reference, both analytical and political, for those who reject the current neoliberal global order. In this paper the validity of this approach is examined theoretically and historically. After a preliminary description of the developmental state, the paper investigates in turn the four terms contained in the title-neoliberalism, globality, the state and development-from a historical materialist standpoint. It is then argued that any approach that aims to provide an effective roadmap for a progressive alternative to neoliberalism needs to centre its analysis on the Marxian concept of class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|