Globalization and Environmental Regulation

  • Graham K. Wilson
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 23)


A wide range of authoritative indicators establishes what we sense in our daily lives: the effects of international influences and factors are increasing. This trend is most easily observed in economic activity. Goods and money move around the globe at levels that until recently seemed unimaginable. Even nations, such as the United States, whose economies were only marginally dependent on trade, are drawn into world trade. While total trade, the sum of exports and imports, was 6.5 percent of U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) in the period 1946-59, it was 15.3 percent in the period 19801992(Economic Report of the President1994). U.S. trade dependence continued to increase, growing 44 percent between 1992 and 1996. By 1996, trade was equivalent to 30 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (U.S. Trade Representative 1997). Cross border investment stock (assets in the United States owned by foreigners plus assets owned by Americans overseas) grew from 15.45 of GNP in 1960 to 41 percent in 1992 and has continued at a faster rate than the growth in GNP overall(Economic Report of the President1995). The United States, although it remains less trade dependent than other countries such as the United Kingdom, is now fully part of international markets.


European Union Interest Group Trade Liberalization Innovation Policy International Standard Organization 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ayres, J. M. (1999). “From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention.”AnnalsAAPSS, November, pp. 132–143.Google Scholar
  2. Berger S. and R. Dore, eds. (1996)Globalization and Its LimitsIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Evans, P., H. Jacobson and R. D. Putnam. (1993).Double Edged Diplomacy: International Diplomacy and Domestic PoliticsBerkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Economic Report of the President .(1994). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Economic Report of the President .(1995). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Garrett, G. (1995). “Capital Mobility, Trade and the Domestic Politics of Economic Policy.”International Organization49: 657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrett, G. and P. Lange. (1995). “Internationalization, Institutions and Political Change.”International Organization49: 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gourevitch, P. (1986).Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to Economic CrisesIthaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gowa, J. (1993). “An Epitaph for Hegemonic Stability?” in J. S. Odell and T. D. Willett, eds.International Trade Policies: Gains from Exchange between Economics and Political ScienceAnn Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
  10. Haas, P. (1992). “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.”International OrganizationWinter, 46: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jordan, G. (1998). “Indirect Causes and Effects in Policy Change: Shell, Greenpeace and the Brent Spar.” Paper prepared for delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the APSA, Boston MA.Google Scholar
  12. Keohane, R. O. (1984).After Hegemony: Co-operation and Discord in the World Political EconomyPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Keohane R. O. and Milner H. V. (1996).Internationalization and Domestic PoliticsCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nivola P., ed. (1997).Comparative Disadvantage? Social Regulation and the Global EconomyWashington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  15. Schwartz, H. M. (1994).States versus Markets: History Geography and the Development of the International Political EconomyNew York: St Martin’s.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Trade Representative. (1997).1997 Trade Policy Agenda and 1996 Annual Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program, Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
  17. Vogel, D. (1995).Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global EconomyCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wilson, G. K. (1999). “Dolphins and Tuna, Shrimp and Turtles: An American Tale or Policymaking Goes Global?” Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graham K. Wilson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations