Abstract
The relationship between liberal international order and global trade has evolved over the years. International trade sectors that emerged in both the 19th and the 20th centuries reflect the interest of the hegemony. The agreements that lowered tariff barriers between nations established global orders that contain strong mercantilist and protectionist practices. Even so, the international order after World War II have been much more liberal than is usually assumed and provided the basis of expanding global trade in 20th century. Although the rise of Asian nations, Japan and China in particular, has contributed to the growth of the global trade, they have not yet made real drastic changes in liberal international order. It is to be seen how Japan’s initiatives of TPP renewal and Chinese OBOR efforts play out in establishing new international order that defines the patterns of global trade.
China and other rising states have growing opportunities to shape the rules and institutions of the existing system. But it is very unlikely that they will do so as part of a “power transition” moment, that is, a dramatic moment when the old order is overturned and rising states step forward to build a new one. ….the rising states are already deeply embedded in the existing modern international order. Their “rise” has been made possible by the openness and loosely rule-based character of the post-war system. (G. John Ikenberry on “Why the Liberal World Order Will Survive”).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chung, S. (2014). Environmental regulation and foreign direct investment: Evidence from South Korea. Journal of Development Economics, 108, 222–236.
Costinot, A., & RodrĂguez-Clare, A. (2018). The US gains from trade: Valuation using the demand for foreign factor services. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 3–24.
CRS Report. (2019). China’s economic rise: History, trends, challenges, and implications for the United States. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov. RL33534.
Dunn, J. H., & Litzinger, P. J. (2017). Trade policy in perspective: 1948–2017. Journal of Business and Behavioral Sciences, 30(1), 58–71.
Hanson, G. H. (2012). The rise of middle kingdoms: Emerging economies in global trade. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2), 41–64.
Jensen, J. B., Quinn, D. P., & Weymouth, S. (2017). Winners and losers in international trade: The effects on US presidential voting. International Organization, 71(3), 423–457.
Jensen, N. M. (2003). Democratic governance and multinational corporations: Political regimes and inflows of foreign direct investment. International Organization, 57(3), 587–616.
Kang, M., Park, I., & Rhee, D. E. (2017). Korea’s growth-driven trade policies: Inclusive or exclusive? The World Economy, 40(11), 2475–2490.
Kosack, S., & Tobin, J. (2006). Funding self-sustaining development: The role of aid, FDI and government in economic success. International Organization, 60(1), 205–243.
Kuznets, P. W. (1988, April). An East Asian model of economic development: Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea Author(s): Source: Economic Development and Cultural Change, 36(3), Supplement: Why Does Overcrowded, Resource-Poor East Asia Succeed: Lessons for the LDCs? (pp. S11–S43). the University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, R. Z. (1993). Japan’s different trade regime: An analysis with particular reference to Keiretsu. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 3–19.
Medlen, C. (2018). The great escape: The multinational trade deficit in historical perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, 52(1), 227–245.
Milner, H. V., & Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade? Democracy and trade policy in the developing countries. International Organization, 59(1), 107–143.
Mousseau, M., Hegre, H., & O’neal, J. R. (2003). How the wealth of nations conditions the liberal peace. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 277–314.
Nam, C. H. (2008). Does trade expansion still promote employment in Korea? The World Economy, 31(6), 720–737.
Pitruzzello, S. (2004). Trade globalization, economic performance, and social protection: Nineteenth-century British Laissez-Faire and post-world war II U.S.-embedded liberalism. International Organization, 58(4), 705–744.
Seib, G. F. (2019, May 28). China likes its own model, US learns. Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
Singh, J. P. (2006). Coalitions, developing countries, and international trade: Research findings and prospects. International Negotiation, 11, 499–514.
Stein, A. A. (1984). The hegemon’s dilemma: Great Britain, the United States, and the international economic order. International Organization, 38(2), 355–386.
Stephen, M. D. (2014). Rising powers, global capitalism and liberal global governance: A historical materialist account of the BRICs challenge. European Journal of International Relations, 20(4), 912–938.
Tong, T., Li, B., & Singh, T. (2018). China’s economic growth and foreign direct investment flows. World Economics, 19(3), 107–132.
Wolff, E. N. (1995). Technological change, capital accumulation, and changing trade patterns over the long term. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 6(1), 43–70.
World Bank Group. (2008). International capital flows and economic growth. Global Development Finance (pp. 59–83).
Yanikkaya, H. (2003). Trade openness and economic growth: A cross-country empirical investigation. Journal of Development Economics, 72(1), 57–89.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hong, P., Park, Y.W. (2020). Liberal International Order and Global Trade Growth. In: Rising Asia and American Hegemony. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7635-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7635-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7634-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7635-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)