|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
143825
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The body of theoretical and empirical literature suggests that economic regionalism is beneficial for trade flows. The fundamental analytical questions are whether the groups demonstrate significant impetus to expand intra-bloc trade and whether trade liberalisation within the regional arrangement results in non-trivial mutual gains. To address these queries, this paper investigates the trading pattern and potential of Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). It adopts a stochastic trade frontier approach to an augmented panel gravity model. The results reveal that imports of the member countries follow the Linder hypothesis, while exports can be explained by Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson theorem. Controlling for behind and beyond the border constraints, the results of a stochastic frontier gravity model also support these findings. Such constraints are found to explain most of the total variation in imports and exports. The results also suggest that the highest trade potential, estimated by the frontier gravity model, turns out to be significant. Also, members of the group can substantially expand intra-BIMSTEC trade if the constraints are either removed or kept at the minimum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
155096
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Of the recent transformations in the political economy of the Asia-Pacific, one of the most dramatic has been to the region's trade architecture. For many years, Asian government were committed trade multilateralists: pursuing liberalisation either globally through the GATT, or regionally via APEC's model of open regionalism. Underpinned by US and Japanese leadership, this system provided the foundation for the export-driven Asian economic miracle. But since the early twenty-first century, the system has been rapidly transformed. The proliferation of preferential trade agreements has threatened to undermine the cohesiveness of regional trade arrangements. The emergence of WTO-Plus style liberalisation, emphasising services, investment and intellectual property, marks the maturation of a system previously focussed on tariff reduction and manufacturing exports. Since 2011, competition between two ‘mega-regional’ proposals – the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership – is also indicative of new splits which cut across traditional developmental divides. Growing geopolitical rivalry between the US and China has also raised question of who will lead the next round of liberalisation in the region. Exploring these new trends, this paper argues the trade architecture of the Asia-Pacific is entering is becoming more contested and fragmented, with major implications for economic regionalism in coming years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
170077
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Pentagon Press, 2020.
|
| Description |
xi, 161p.hbk
|
| Standard Number |
9788194283737
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 059809 | 954/SAK 059809 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157540
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Building on this journal’s recent debates about the need for “global” international relations (IR), this article calls attention to the overlooked significance of two important Latin American thinkers from the interwar years: Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre and José Carlos Mariátegui. We argue that the study of their thought—and the debates between them—has much to contribute to current efforts to build a more global international political economy (IPE) whose classical intellectual foundations are less dominated by American and European scholarship. Through a detailed analysis of their thinking, we show how Haya and Mariátegui generated some highly innovative ideas about many IPE issues including the following: the negative impacts of imperialism on their region; the roles of class, race, culture, and indigenous peoples in anti-imperialist politics; the relationship of imperialism to the stages of capitalism; the regulation of foreign investment, economic regionalism, and the Eurocentric biases of IPE thought. We show how many of their ideas foreshadowed the better-known postwar Latin American contributions to IPE of structuralism and dependency theory in ways that have not been fully recognized. We also suggest that their critique of Eurocentrism served as an early precedent for the kind of global IPE that many are seeking to build in the current era. For these reasons, we argue that their work deserves much more recognition from contemporary IPE scholars than it has hitherto received and inclusion among the cannon of classical literature that forms the foundations of the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|