Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Trends towards regionalism in the world economy

A contribution to a new international economic order?

  • International Trade
  • Published:
Intereconomics

Abstract

The world economy has for some time been characterised by a growing generalised trend towards regionalism. This is often considered to be on a par with the formation of blocs, fragmentation of the trading system and a relapse into the disastrous conditions of the thirties. However, if regionalism is understood not as a defensive or aggressive policy of bloc building, as in the thirties, but as a regional grouping that is open towards the world economy, it appears to have something to offer as an alternative to the old international economic order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The pair of terms “legally created” (“gesetzte”) and “naturally developed” (“gewachsene”) order stem from Walter Eucken: Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie, Tübingen 1950. The term “organised international economic order” was coined by Hans Möller: Internationale Wirtschaftsorganisationen, Wiesbaden 1960.

  2. For an interesting variation, see the GATT Report of 1984/85, pp. 13 ff.

  3. Further details in D. Lorenz: Notes on NICs and Regional Developments in the World Economy—A European View, Free University Berlin (mimeo, September 1988). See also the “dropping-out syndrome” postulated by A. Brender: The Vision of Disintegration is Scarcely Plausible, in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 24, 1989, No. 1, p. 4.

  4. Compare for instance J. Pelkmans: Economic Cooperation among Western Countries, in: R. G. Gordon, J. Pelkmans (eds.): Challenges for Interdependent Economies, New York 1979; E. Minx: Von der Liberalisierungs- zur Wettbewerbspolitik: Internationale Wirtschaftspolitik zwischen Industrieländern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Berlin 1980; D. Lorenz: Ursachen und Konsequenzen des Neomerkantilismus, in: A. Woll (ed.): Internationale Anpassungsprozesse, Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, New Series, Vol. 114, Berlin 1981, pp. 9 ff; A. Pfaller (ed.): Der Kampf um den Wohlstand von Morgen. Internationaler Strukturwandel und neuer Merkantilismus, Bonn 1986.

  5. D. Lorenz: A Gatt for the Mercantilists? in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 20, 1985, No. 6, pp. 255 ff.

  6. On the difference between negative and positive policies, see E. Minx, op. cit. Von der Liberalisierungs- zur Wettbewerbspolitik: Internationale Wirtschaftspolitik zwischen Industrieländern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Berlin 1980; pp. 12–14, and J. Pelkmans, op. cit. Economic Cooperation among Western Countries, pp. 97 ff.

  7. O. Sievert: Is There an Alternative to Floating Exchange Rates? in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 21, 1986, No. 5, p. 233. Foreign Affairs, Summer 1984, p. 184.

  8. R. Pomfret: Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988.

  9. Quoted in R. Senti: GATT. System der Welthandelsordnung, Zürich 1986, p. 117.

  10. Quoted in H. G. Krenzler: Zwischen Protektionismus und Liberalismus. Europäischer Binnenmarkt und Drittlandsbeziehungen, in: Europa-Archiv, Vol. 9, 1988, p. 241.

  11. See the report in IMF Survey, 14th November 1988, pp. 362 ff.

  12. See the report on the Hakone X Conference in Berlin in 1988 by S. Awanohara: Japan und Ostasien. Auf dem Weg zu einer pazifischen Arbeitsteilung, in: Europa-Archiv, 1988, Vol. 22, pp. 639 ff. The US Department of State and the ASEAN Governments recently commissioned the East-West Center in Honolulu to carry out a study entitled “The ASEAN-U.S. Initiative”. A report on the study says that “The U.S. needs to pay more attention to ASEAN. Otherwise these countries are going to fall under the economic domination of Japan. That is not something the U.S., or ASEAN, wants to see happen.” EWC Centerviews, Vol. 6, 1988, No. 5, p. 1.

  13. R. Pomfret, op. cit. Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988, p. 189.

  14. G. and V. Curzon: defusing Conflict between Traders and Non-Traders, in: The World Economy, Vol. 9, 1985, pp. 19 ff.

  15. Cf. J. D. Richardson: International Coordination of the Trade Policy, Working Paper No. 2293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (Mass.) 1987, pp. 39 ff.

  16. M. C. Aho and J. D. Aronson: Trade Talks. America Better Listen!, New York 1986, p. 130.

  17. M. C. Aho and J. D. Aronson, op. cit. Trade Talks. America Better Listen!, New York 1986, p. 122.

  18. Cf. G. Koopmann: Reorganization or Disorganization of the World Economy? in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 24, 1989, No. 1, p. 11. Another aspect is the important “control function” of the GATT tariff rounds, as practised successfully vis-à-vis the EC during the Kennedy Round. Cf. D. Lorenz: Außenwirtschaftspolitik der EG: Neue Wege unter neuen Bedingungen? in: Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik (Ludwig-Erhard Stiftung), 1988, No. 38, p. 44.

  19. in: A. Predöhl: Außenwirtschaft, 2nd edition, Göttingen 1971, pp. 219 ff. and 297 ff. For Triffin, see his essays in: H. Grubel (ed.): World Monetary Reform. Plans and Issues, Stanford 1963, pp. 50 ff. and 435 ff.

  20. Cf. M. C. Aho and J. D. Aronson, op. cit. Trade Talks. America Better Listen!, New York 1986, p. 126ff.

  21. M. C. Aho and J. D. Aronson, op. cit. Trade Talks. America better Listen!, New York 1986, p. 129; and the chapter on Mexico in: W. Diebold Jr., op. cit. Bilaterlism, Multilateralism and Canada in U.S. Trade Policy, New York 1988, especially pp. 172 ff.

  22. For a Japanese view, see S. Awanohara, op. cit. Japan und Ostasien. Auf dem Weg zu einer pazifischen Arbeitsteilung, in: Europa-Archiv, 1988, Vol. 22, pp. 645 f.; and The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC: Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 45. Compare also remarkable insights in the Report No. 35 of The Trilateral Commission: East Asia in Transition. Challenges for the Trilateral Countries (Authors: R. Holebrooke, R. MacFarquhar, K. Nukazawa), New York 1988, pp. 19–36.

  23. M. C. Aho and J. D. Aronson, op. cit. Trade Talks. America Better Listen!, New York 1986, p. 129.

  24. R. Pomfret, op. cit. Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988, pp. XI and 9.

  25. R. Pomfret, op. cit. Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988, pp. 155.

  26. R. Pomfret, op. cit. Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988, p. 171.

  27. See D. Lorenz: Außenwirtschaftspolitik der EG, op. cit. Neue Wege unter neuen Bedingungen? in: Orientierungen zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik (Ludwig-Erhard Stiftung), 1988, No. 38, p. 44.

  28. See also R. Pomfret, op. cit. Unequal Trade. The Economics of Discriminatory International Trade Policies, London 1988, p. 185.

  29. See especially S. Awanohara, op. cit. Japan und Ostasien. Auf dem Weg zu einer pazifischen Arbeitsteilung, in: Europa-Archiv, 1988, Vol. 22, pp. 642 f. and 647; The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC, op. cit. Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 38 ff.; The Trilateral Commission op. cit. East Asia in Transition. Challenges for the Trilateral Countries (Authors: R. Holebrooke, R. MacFarquhar, K. Nukazawa), New York 1988, pp. 21 f. and 31; and D. Lorenz: Intraregional Trade and Pacific Cooperation: Problems and Prospects, in: W. Klenner (ed.): Trends of Economic Development in East Asia, Berlin and Heidelberg 1989, pp. 65 ff.

  30. See footnote 22. For a Japanese view, see S. Awanohara, op. cit. Japan und Ostasien. Auf dem Weg zu einer pazifischen Arbeissteilung, in: Europa-Archiv, 1988, Vol. 22, pp. 645 f.; and The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC: Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 45. Compare also remarkable insights in the Report No. 35 of The Trilateral Commission: East Asia in Transition. Challenges for the Trilateral Countries (Authors: R. Holebrooke, R. MacFarquhar, K. Nukazawa), New York 1988, pp. 19–36.

  31. The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC, op. cit. Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 46.

  32. The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC, op. cit. Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 11.

  33. See H. G. Krenzler, op. cit. Zwischen Protektionismus und Liberalismus. Europäischer Binnenmarkt und Drittlandsbeziehungen, in: Europa-Archiv, Vol. 9, 1988, pp. 235 and 243; and W. Nölling: Festung Europa? Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Gemeinschaft im Zeichen des Binnenmarktes 1992, Hamburg 1988, pp. 38 ff.

  34. The Japan Institute of International Affairs/PECC, op. cit. Review on Pacific Cooperation Activities, Osaka, May 1988, p. 45.

  35. See W. Hager: Protectionism: A World Divided? in: INTERECONOMICS, Vol. 24, 1989, No. 1, pp. 5 ff.; and the Annual Report of UNIDO: Industry and Development. Global Report 1988/89: Regional Integration and Global Production Network, pp. 18 ff.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Free University, Berlin, West Germany

    Detlef Lorenz

Authors
  1. Detlef Lorenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lorenz, D. Trends towards regionalism in the world economy. Intereconomics 24, 64–70 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928553

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928553

Keywords

Search

Navigation