 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Ekkart Zimmermann
Full-Text PDF
XML 535 Views
DOI:10.17265/2328-2134/2023.05.003
Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany
In a paper conceived about five years ago (“Globalization and Public Goods: Too Big to Tackle?”) roughly a dozen factors were linked to explain important causal paths from globalization to the potential output of public goods. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the corona epidemic, and the increased hegemonic rivalry between China and the U.S. interrupted or even destroyed many of the linkages between globalization and potential public good production. About five important detrimental paths involved in the meantime. In the present article we aim at linking what is left from the previous level of globalization or emerging to form a new and simplified causal model for likely linkages between truncated or (re-)emerging globalization, and the deadly needed output of public goods. These linkages refer to rules of climate control, go to trade linkages and arbitrary tariffs and trade interventions. Regime change, regime formation, and alliance restructuring address aspects of domestic rule and international stability. Selectorate theory, regime type, and exit options for political elites provide key explanatory factors in explaining globalization and public goods productions, or their decay. Where possible we use some data and transformation experiences corroborating our arguments. In other instances need for further empirical macro research will become clear.
hegemonic rivalry, new alliances and bloc formation, de-globalization and re-globalization, selectorate theory, regime type and regime change, elite exit options, public goods
Ekkart Zimmermann. (2023). Globalization Under the Spells of Breakdowns in Supply Chains, Regime Change, Regime Formation, and Alliance Restructuring: How Much Is Left for Public Goods? International Relations and Diplomacy, Sept.-Oct. 2023, Vol. 11, No. 5, 211-216.
Aristotle. (2008). Politics. New York: Cosimo Inc.
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., & Siverson, R. M. (2005). The logic of political survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Economist. (2023). The case for global optimism. February 16, 2023.
James, H. (2023). Seven crashes: The economic crises that shaped globalization. London: Yale University Press.
Krugman, P. (1994). The myth of Asia’s miracle. Foreign Affairs, 73(6), 62-78.
Kuran, T. (1995). The inevitability of future revolutionary surprises. American Journal of Sociology, 106(May), 1528-1551.
Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation. London: John Murray.
Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, D.C.: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Rogowski, R. (1990). Commerce and coalitions: How trade affects domestic political alignments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roland, G. (2000). Transition and economics: Politics, markets, and firms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Zimmermann, E. (2014). Internal wars and revolution. In M. Sasaki, J. Goldstone, E. Zimmermann, and S. K. Sanderson (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of comparative sociology (pp. 437-448). Boston, MA: Brill.
Zimmermann, E. (2022a). Globalization and public goods: Too big to tackle? International Relations and Diplomacy, 10(4), 190-195.
Zimmermann, E. (2022b). Was tun mit Putin und nach Putin? Retrieved from https://rotary.de/gesellschaft/was-tun-mit-putin-und-nach-putin-a-20261.html