Download Free The Political Economy Of International Capital Mobility Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Political Economy Of International Capital Mobility and write the review.

Matthew Watson draws a distinction between the spatial and the functional mobility of capital, allowing fresh insights into existing work on the subject whilst repoliticizing the very idea of capital being 'in motion'. The dynamics of capital mobility and the patterns of risk exposure are illustrated through four detailed global case studies.
A comprehensive study of capital controls, assesses the existing literature and presents original research.
Seminar paper from the year 2011 in the subject Economics - Finance, grade: 1.0 (83 %), University of Warwick (Politics and International Studies), language: English, abstract: From the days of the Bretton Woods Agreements to the beginning of the subprime crisis, the world witnessed an impressive resurrection of global finance and with it the re-emergence of international capital mobility (ICM). But the phenomenon of ICM is a contested issue among commentators. While some almost go as far as denying its existence, the most widespread discourse portrays ICM as a powerful external force, putting pressure on the state to adopt capital-friendly policies and reduce welfare expenditures. This notion of forced competition among states is manifested in the “capital mobility hypothesis”, which draws a parallel between the rise of ICM and its structural power to constrain the state. The following essay argues that this functional connection is not necessarily given, as the mobility of capital is derived from technical, financial and regulatory sources, while its power originates from discursive mechanisms. By looking at historical developments, it is shown that ICM did indeed re-emerge. But a close examination of the constraints it poses on the different categories of the state reveals that the latter retains significant “room to move”. To understand where the premise of the “capital mobility hypothesis” comes from, ICM is analyzed through discursive institutionalism. A number of relevant discourses are examined and it is concluded that the state itself plays a substantial role in creating and maintaining the idea of ICM’s power.
Capitalism, Not Globalism shows that, while much has been made of recent changes in the international economy, the mechanisms by which politicians control the economy have not changed throughout the postwar period. Challenging both traditional and revisionist globalization theorists, William Roberts Clark argues that increased financial integration has led to neither a widening nor a narrowing of partisan differences in macroeconomic polices or outcomes. Rather, he shows that the absence of partisan differences in macroeconomic policy is a long-standing feature of democratic capitalist societies that can be traced to politicians' attempts to use the economy to help them survive in office. Changes in the structural landscape such as increased capital mobility and central bank independence do not necessarily diminish the ability of politicians to control the economy, but they do shape the strategies they use to do so. In a world of highly mobile capital, politicians manipulate monetary policy to create macroeconomic expansions prior to elections only if the exchange rate is flexible and the central bank is subservient. But they use fiscal policy to induce political business cycles when the exchange rate is fixed or the central bank is independent. William Roberts Clark is Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, New York University.
Structure and Agency in International Capital Mobility highlights the importance of mobile resources as a feature of globalization, and challenges the received wisdom about the causes and effects of international capital mobility. There seems little doubt that a sea change is taking place as a result of globalization. From a world concerned with strategic weapons and the risks of mutual annihilation, a new world order is emerging in which quite different forces loom large in the communal consciousness. In this order, resources and the jobs and prosperity they produce have - at least in the West - pushed security matters firmly into second place.
The essays in this book describe and analyze the current contours of the international financial system, covering both developed and developing countries, and focusing on the ways in which the current international financial system structures, and is affected by, profound inequalities in the international system. This keen analysis of key topics in international finance takes a heterodox perspective, with focus on the role of inequalities in power in shaping the structure and outcomes in the international sphere.
Essay from the year 2011 in the subject Economics - Finance, grade: 1,0 (80%), University of Warwick (Politics and International Studies), course: Politics of Global Finance, language: English, abstract: Historical developments during recent economic history have demonstrated a remarkably parallel development of international capital mobility (ICM) and central bank independence (CBI), making both fundamental factors of today's monetary system. Neoliberal economic models depict the anti-inflationary credibility associated with CBI as the outcome of strict market rules, insulating policy from political control. The structural power of mobile capital subsequently forced governments to adopt it as policy. However, the theoretical assumptions underlying these arguments misrepresent current realities and obscure the fact that credibility is a social phenomenon. Looking at CBI as a social institution shows that it facilitates a consensus between current political and market interests. For financial market actors, CBI functions as a guide for their intersubjective expectations and ensures the continuity of the current economic order with the financial markets at its centre. Governments consciously support the embedding of society within these markets, while shielding themselves from the reputational costs of adverse market outcomes. Within this consensus, substantial indirect state control over policy decisions remains. Consequently, CBI's central importance does not lie in anti-inflationary credibility derived from the removal of political control, but in its institutional role as a link between political and market interests in contemporary financial governance.
"In a meticulously researched study, David Bearce demonstrates that, contrary to predictions, financial globalization has not resulted in a systematic convergence of national monetary policies. The book is a must-read for students of the political economy of international finance. Highlighting the critical role of partisan politics in determining policy outcomes, Bearce adds a new and important dimension to our understanding of the impacts of international capital mobility in the contemporary era." —Benjamin Jerry Cohen, University of California, Santa Barbara "Bearce offers a compelling analysis of partisan economic policy in an open economy. By analyzing both fiscal and monetary policies, Bearce extends our understanding of how the electoral imperative conditions policy behavior. His conclusions will have to be addressed in any future debate about the topic." —William Bernhard, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Interest group divisions over exchange rates and macroeconomic policy have been at the center of international political economy research for about 20 years. Political scientists have studied these cleavages, focusing on the policy interests of various industry groups. On a separate but parallel track, another group of researchers explored the relationship between partisan politics and macroeconomic policy choices. In this exceptionally well researched book, Bearce integrates these two analytical traditions. Noting that industry groups are typically important organized constituents in left-wing and right-wing political parties, Bearce demonstrates how macroeconomic policy outcomes in advanced countries vary systematically with the alternation of political parties in government." —J. Lawrence Broz, University of California, San Diego David H. Bearce is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pittsburgh.