Supervisor(s): Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Sponsor(s): Institute of World Economics and Politics Chinese Academy of Social Sciences CN：11-3799/F
International Economic Review is supervised by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and sponsored by Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. It is the only publication dedicated to publish academic reviews on the international economy in China. It aims to review the international economic and political activities based on China’s position from an academic perspective. Its scope covers international economic and political activities and development, particularly those with an emphasis on the international economic activities related to China. The journal is included in CSSCI.
The world economy is yet to step out of the fallouts of the global financial crisis ten years after its eruption in 2008. Historically, every global economic crisis occurred in a critical period of the global monetary system restructuring. Moreover, failure of the global monetary system to get adjusted in accordance with changing times was an important factor behind the outbreak of the global economic crisis, which has prompted us to explore the relationship between global monetary system adjustment and global economic crisis. Theoretically, the premise that a single sovereign currency acts as an international standard currency is that the private attribute of its currency issuance can support its public attribute as an international standard currency and whether the premise holds depends on the size of the economy of the sovereign state. However, the reality is that with the convergence of external economic growth, the United States has had a declining share in the global economy, which leads to the cyclical breakdown of the theoretical tension that sustains the global monetary system. The result is the cyclical outbreak of global economic crisis.
Globalization has brought about unprecedented prosperity, but has also resulted in growing inequality. In the face of the rising trend against globalization, it is necessary to approach global governance from the perspective of political economy, as development is about economics, but distribution is about politics. By tracing the evolution of the anti-globalization trend, this article argues that while globalization has greatly narrowed the wealth gap among countries, the wealth gap within countries has kept widening. Economic differentiation has led to political polarization. When populist politicians in some countries opt to politicize economic problems and blame foreign countries for domestic problems as a political expediency, we see a collective wave against globalization at the international level. The article also analyzes the root causes of anti-globalization. They include the narrowing down economic differentiation caused by technological progress, getting rid of the mismatch between the institutional supply and the reform demands, and the “dilemma paradox” of global economic governance, namely, the conflict between the borderless world economy and the global governance system based on nation-state. To solve those problems, we need to find a new paradigm of globalization that is more inclusive. To that end, we must recalibrate the role of the market and the government in the economy, rethink the universal applicability of liberal democratic system, and make efforts to build a community with a shared future for mankind to improve global governance.
Most scholars believe that economic interests are the main factor influencing a country’s trade policymaking. However, this article argues that the evolution of ideas should be a key variable in studying the current trade policy adjustments of the US as Trump administration’s trade policy reflects a marked departure from policy stances of his predecessors. Three levels of ideas, including worldview, principle-based belief and causality, play an important role in the formulation of US trade policy by influencing the trade preferences of the US public and the strategic choices of its policymakers. This article helps understand the root causes of the current trade war between China and the US. To alleviate the ongoing Sino-US economic confrontation, it is inadequate for China to take economic countermeasures since the evolution of ideas will undermine the effectiveness of those economic measures. How to position itself in the current world system and how to disperse other countries’ confusion about and misunderstanding of its economic rise will be crucial for China’s future economic relations with the rest of the world.
The Sino-US trade disputes not only expose our misunderstanding of the United States, but prompt us to think about the deep-level background of the Trump administration’s willful “America First” behavior. This paper argues that the current disputes between the United States and the rest of the world, especially the trade disputes with China, are built on the country’s strong financial and monetary advantages. For a long time, the theory of “America’s decline” has only focused on the topic of the decline itself and turned a blind eye to the changes in its economic structure and the resulting political and economic implications, especially the changes in the core interests of the United States. The US economic structure has been increasingly finance-oriented since the 1970s, which has led to two important results: one is the formation and strengthening of the US dollar system; and the other is the formation of the global industrial chain featuring the US technological innovation and its transfer of its manufacturing capacities to other countries. It is an important background or guarantee for Trump’s launch of trade protectionist actions. The formation and development of the US dollar system is the most crucial change of the world economy in the 20 th century. It allows the United States to build a world control system that is totally different from the hegemonic countries in the past. Its exploitation and control of the world has become more secretive; more importantly, it has changed the long-standing financial rules of mankind, namely, the creditor-centered rule has been changed into the debtor-centered rule. Such a change is an important foundation for all its economic behaviors in today’s international community. The implementation of debtor-centered rule is mainly backed by the US dollar system. The core interest of the system lies in maintenance of an international monetary order that allows the US to take advantage of the debtor-centered rule to borrow heavily without being restrained by any other country. Based on the discussion of the financial rationale and operational mechanism of the US dollar system, this paper analyzes the nature of the system and its global strength, before putting forward China’s overall strategy for dealing with the Sino-US trade disputes and its future development.
The twin surpluses in China’s balance of payments have gradually vanished since 2012. As a result of the declining surplus of trade in goods, the increasing trade deficit in services, the shrinking domestic savings-investment gap caused by population aging and the rising household leverage in the coming years, China’s current account may suffer from frequent deficits in the short term and persistent deficits in the mid-term. Along with the upgrading of China’s industrial structure, the two-way opening up of its financial markets and loosening capital regulation, China’s non-reserve financial account may swing between surplus and deficit. China’s foreign exchange reserve may decline gradually as the liberalization of renminbi exchange rate regime improves, the current account surplus declines and becomes negative, the “Belt and Road” Initiative is carried out, and foreign exchange holdings by enterprises and households increase. The evolution of China’s balance of payments has the following policy implications. First, the volatilities of both renminbi exchange rate and domestic asset prices will significantly intensify. Second, the operational framework of China’s monetary policy will change dramatically. Third, the increasing two-way capital flows will amplify the internal and external impacts on China’s financial system. Last but not least, the US treasury bond market will face heavy pressure of volatility in the mid-term as a result of the shrinking demand from Chinese investors.
Populism in Latin American countries has a history of more than one hundred years, starting from late 19th century, and its inauguration and development are deeply rooted in the local economic, political, social, ideological and cultural conditions. In Latin America, populism has a deep symbiosis with nationalism, and economic populism and political populism are intertwined, while left-wing populism and right-wing populism coexist. Populism in Latin America does not come from or have linkups with populism in North America and Europe; it is also different from populism in other regions. Given the special social conditions in Latin America, populism has been, in a sense, a positive force in the region; however, given its many serious flaws both in theory and practice, populism has caused a series of serious negative consequences and becomes quite paradoxical. The populists in Latin American countries have attempted to promote economic development through state intervention, promote democracy through measures against established systems, and enhance social equity through the distributive public policy. However, in contrast to their original purposes, those measures have caused economic collapse, exacerbated the fragility of democratic system and intensified social dissatisfaction. The experiences of those Latin American countries show that in order to avoid the negative consequences of populism, it is necessary to eliminate the economic, political, social, ideological and cultural root causes of populism.
