The Experts below are selected from a list of 33549 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
William I Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the transnational state and the brics a Global Capitalism perspective
Third World Quarterly, 2015Co-Authors: William I RobinsonAbstract:It is commonplace for observers to see the increasingly prominent role of the BRICS in international economic and political affairs as a Southern challenge to Global Capitalism and the power of the core Trilateral nation-states. Extant accounts remain mired in a tenacious realist debate over the extent to which the BRICS are challenging the prevailing international order. I suggest that we shift the paradigmatic focus in discussion of the BRICS phenomenon towards a Global Capitalism perspective that breaks with such a nation-state/inter-state framework. Global integration and transnational capitalist class formation has advanced significantly in the BRICS. BRICS protagonism is aimed less at challenging the prevailing international order than at opening up space in the Global system for more extensive integration and a less asymmetric Global Capitalism. The article examines agricultural subsidies, US–China relations and international trade agreements as empirical reference points in arguing that the concep...
-
Global Capitalism and the crisis of humanity
2014Co-Authors: William I RobinsonAbstract:1. Global capital and Global labor 2. Notes on transnational state apparatuses 3. Beyond the theory of imperialism 4. The 'Great Recession': financial speculation and militarized accumulation 5. Policing Global Capitalism 6. Interregnum: a new crisis of hegemony.
-
Global Capitalism and its anti human face organic intellectuals and interpretations of the crisis
Globalizations, 2013Co-Authors: William I RobinsonAbstract:This article analyzes and theorizes the Global crisis from the perspective of Global Capitalism theory. The crisis is unprecedented, given its magnitude, its Global reach, the extent of ecological degradation and social deterioration, and the scale of the means of violence. If we are to avert disastrous outcomes, we must understand the nature of the new Global Capitalism as well as its crisis. The system-wide crisis will not be a repeat of earlier such episodes of crisis in the 1930s and the 1970s precisely because world Capitalism is fundamentally different in the early twenty-first century. Among the qualitative shifts in the Global system this article highlights are: (1) the rise of truly transnational capital and the integration of every country into a new Globalized production and financial system; (2) the appearance of a transnational capitalist class; (3) the rise of transnational state apparatuses; (4) and the appearance of novel relations of inequality and domination in Global society. The curren...
-
the crisis of Global Capitalism cyclical structural or systemic
Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies, 2010Co-Authors: William I RobinsonAbstract:W A L D E N BELLO Beijing has talked a lot about a New Deal for the countryside over the last few years, but there are few signs that it has the political will to adopt policies that would translate its rhetoric into reality. Given this, while Chinese rural demand might help mitigate the impact of the Global recession in China, it is unlikely that the Chinese peasant will supplant the now bankrupt American consumer as the engine of Global consumption. CONCLUSION The non-coincidence of Western and Chinese economic interests has become a topic for the Western media only over the past few years. Until well into the current decade, China was in fact portrayed as a major example of the beneficial effects of capitalist Globalization. While it might occasionally have been resented by American workers, whose lives and communities were destroyed by factory closings and relocations, such sentiments remained too localized to have much political impact. On the contrary, China supplied the low-cost goods on the shelves of Walmart, and so gave American workers more consumer bang for their borrowed buck. China's willingness to recycle its export earnings into American debt was widely appreciated, as it served to perpetuate this felicitous situation. The current crisis and the dim prospects for a new phase of sustained economic growth have reminded Western commentators of the downside of this one-sided arrangement, prompting them to urge China to take seriously its role as a Global consumer. As this chapter has argued, hopes that China will transform itself into a major absorber of Global (over)production are highly fanciful. There are few signs that the Chinese government is interested in enhancing the purchasing power of its peasant population. Moreover, even if it were prepared to do so, it would only temporarily attenuate the fundamental conflict between the exploitation of the Chinese population and its ability to function as responsible citizen-consumers. As Marx argued, capital's exploitative methods constitute the ultimate barrier to its objective of self-expansion. THE CRISIS OF Global Capitalism Cyclical, Structural, or Systemic? William I . Robinson The crisis that exploded in 2008 with the collapse of the Global financial system has been in the making since at least the late 1990s. How we understand it is not just an academic but a burning political question. I want to suggest in this essay that the Global Capitalism perspective I have put forth in recent years offers a powerful explanatory framework for making sense of this crisis. Following Marx, we should focus on the internal dynamics of Capitalism to understand the Crisis; and following the Global Capitalism perspective, we should look for how Capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades. This system-wide crisis will not be a repeat of earlier such episodes in the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because world Capitalism is fundamentally different in the early twenty-first century. Globalization constitutes a new epoch in the ongoing evolution of world Capitalism, marked by a number of fundamental shifts in the capitalist system. These shifts include: (1) the transition from a tuorld economy, or national circuits of accumulation in an integrated international market, to a Global economy, 1 For my theory of Global Capitalism and also a more detailed exposition of my ideas on the multidimensional crisis of the system, see, inter-alia, W. I. Robmson, A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, C/as.s and State in a Transnational World, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004; and Robinson, Global Capitalism and Latin America: A Critical Globalization Perspective, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.1 would like to thank my research assistant, Brandon Roberts, for his assistance in preparing the three graphs included in this essay.
-
beyond the theory of imperialism Global Capitalism and the transnational state a travers la frontiere de la theorie de l imperialisme le Capitalisme Global et l etat transnational mas all de la teoria del imperialismo Capitalismo Global y estado transnacional
Societies Without Borders, 2007Co-Authors: William I RobinsonAbstract:Theories of a "new imperialism" assume that world Capitalism in the 21st century is still made up of "domestic capitals" and that distinct national economies and world political dynamics are driven by US e orts to o set the decline in hegemony amidst heightened inter-imperialist rivalry. These theories ignore empirical evidence on the transnationalization of capital and the increasingly salient role of transnational state apparatuses in imposing capitalist domination beyond the logic of the inter-state system. I argue here that US interventionism is not a departure from capitalist Globalization but a response to its crisis. The class relations of Global Capitalism are now so deeply internalized within every nation-state that the classical image of imperialism as a relation of external domination is outdated. The end of the extensive enlargement of Capitalism is the end of the imperialist era of world Capitalism. The implacable logic of Global accumulation is now largely internal to the complex of fractious political institutions through which ruling groups attempt to manage those relations. We need a theory of capitalist expansion – of the political processes and the institutions through which such expansion takes place, the class relations and spatial dynamics it involves. Les theories d'un 'nouvel imperialisme' supposent que le Capitalisme mondial au 21eme siecle se compose toujours des capitaux domestiques et des economies nationaux distinctes. Ils supposent aussi que la dynamique politique mondiale est mene par l'e ort americain pour reconstituer sa proper hegemonie dans la rivalite intensi ee interimperialiste. Ces theories ignorant l'evidence empirique sur la mondialisation du capital et le role de plus en plus saillant des appareillages transnationaux d'etat d'imposer la domination capitaliste au-dela de la logique du systeme transnational. Je constate du fait ici que l'interventionnisme des Etats-Unis n'est pas un depart de la mondialisation capitaliste mais, contrairement, elle est une reponse a sa crise. Les relations de classe du Capitalisme mondial sont maintenant si profondement internalisees dans chaque Etat-nation que l'image classique de l'imperialisme comme relation de la domination externe est demodee. La n de l'agrandissement etendu du Capitalisme est la n de l'ere imperialiste du Capitalisme du monde. La logique implacable de l'accumulation Globale est maintenant en grande partie interne au complexe des corps politiques grincheux par lesquels les groupes puissants essaient de controler ces relations. Nous avons besoin d'une theorie d'expansion capitaliste – des processus politiques et des institutions par lesquels une telle expansion a lieu, des relations de classe et de la dynamique spatiale qu'elle implique. Las teorias del nuevo imperialismo asumen que el Capitalismo mundial del siglo 21 se compone aun de "capitales nacionales" y economias nacionales distintas y que la dinamica politica inter nacional estan dirigidas por el esfuerzo de US para contrarrestar su declive hegemonico como consecuencia de la rivalidad internacional. Estas teorias ignoran la evidencia empirica acerca de la transnaciona lizacion del capital y el papel crecientemente preponderante de los mecanismos del Estado transnacional para imponer una dominacion capitalista mas alla de la logica del sistema Interestatal. Aqui argumento que el intervencionismo americano no es una desviacion de la Globalizacion capitalista sino una respuesta a su crisis. Las relaciones de clase del Capitalismo Global estan hoy tan profundamente internalizadas dentro de cada Estado nacion que la imagen clasica del imperialismo como una relacion de dominacion externa esta pasada de moda. El n de la ampliacion extensiva del capita lismo es el n de la era imperialista del Capitalismo mundial. La logica implacable de la acumulacion Global es ahora principalmente
Jan Aart Scholte - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Global Capitalism and the state
International Affairs, 1997Co-Authors: Jan Aart ScholteAbstract:'Globalization' is a term that has come to be used in recent years increasingly frequently and, arguably, increasingly loosely. In a close analysis of the term, the author focuses on the concept ofGlobalization as the transcendence (rather than the mere crossing or opening) of borders arguing that this interpretation offers the most distinctive and helpful insight into contemporary world affairs. The article goes on to explore one of the key questions raised by this trend, namely, how the growth of supraterritorial space has altered Capitalism in general, and the role of the state within Capitalism in particular. The author concludes by suggesting that ifGlobalization poses a threat, it is not (as is often argued) to the state itseff but rather to democracy.
Stark Barbara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Toward a Theory of Intercountry Human Rights: Global Capitalism and the Rise and Fall of Intercountry Adoption
Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law, 2020Co-Authors: Stark BarbaraAbstract:Human rights law, as set out in the International Bill of Rights 40 years ago, has not lived up to its drafters’ hopes. Its shortcomings are often blamed on weak enforcement. Because nation states resist restraints on their sovereignty, human rights law depends in large part on states policing themselves. On the international level, the UN and non-governmental organizations report on human rights violations, but they have no authority to sanction violators or compel remedies.This Article proposes another mechanism for enforcement, an alternative to self-serving domestic policing and weak international bureaucracy. “Intercountry,” as opposed to “international,” human rights would apply to specific rights in specific contexts and be enforceable through the legal resources of the state parties that accepted them. Intercountry adoption is a useful context in which to consider this proposal for several reasons.First, as a practical matter, there have probably never been more babies and children in orphanages, on the street, on the market, or on their own. Yet intercountry adoptions have declined to levels not seen for almost 40 years. Intercountry human rights would focus states on some of their most vulnerable people and better protect would-be adoptive parents from a range of risks. Second, from a jurisprudential perspective, since virtually all the states involved in intercountry adoption have ratified virtually all the human rights instruments applicable in this context (with the exception of the United States), the applicable human rights law is not in dispute. Receiving states and states of origin, moreover, presumably have a common goal — the best interest of the child.Finally, from a more theoretical perspective, the rise and fall of intercountry adoption, from the 1950s to the present, demonstrates the deep tension between human rights and Global Capitalism. By ‘Global Capitalism’ I refer to Capitalism unrestrained by national laws or shared ethical codes, what David Brooks calls “naked Capitalism.” Intercountry adoption exposes the human costs of Global Capitalism in a specific, concrete, international context.Part I of this Article describes the origins of the tension between human rights and Global Capitalism in the Cold War era, from the end of World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It explains how the American version of human rights veered off from the international version, why it prevailed, and how it promoted intercountry adoption.Part II explains how Global Capitalism changed the game. This Part focuses on the heyday of neoliberalism, from the elections of Reagan and Thatcher to the Great Recession in 2008. It shows how neoliberalism reshaped human rights and produced a perverse ‘solution’ for children in crisis.Part III explains why intercountry adoption requires intercountry human rights. It begins by examining the unprecedented inequality that currently characterizes the Global economy. It explains why the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption can’t address the problems this creates. Rather, intercountry adoption requires the revival of the full panoply of international human rights and a fresh approach to their realization.Part IV proposes a theory of intercountry human rights, drawing on the 18th century philosopher Thomas Paine and the 21st century economist Thomas Picketty. It explains how intercountry human rights would apply in the context of intercountry adoption and concludes by describing how intercountry human rights might operate in practice
-
Toward a Theory of Intercountry Human Rights: Global Capitalism and the Rise and Fall of Intercountry Adoption
Digital Repository @ Maurer Law, 2020Co-Authors: Stark BarbaraAbstract:This Article proposes another mechanism for enforcement, an alternative to self-serving domestic policing and weak international bureaucracy. “Intercountry,” as opposed to “international,” human rights would apply to specific rights in specific contexts and be enforceable through the legal mechanisms and other resources of the state parties that accepted them. Intercountry adoption is a useful context in which to consider this proposal for several reasons. First, as a practical matter, there have probably never been more babies and children in orphanages, on the street, on the market, or on their own. Yet intercountry adoptions have declined to levels not seen for almost forty years. Intercountry human rights would focus states on some of their most vulnerable people. They would also better protect would-be adoptive parents from a range of risks, from their children’s trauma to their own unknowing complicity in serious human rights violations. Second, from a jurisprudential perspective, since virtually all of the states involved in intercountry adoption have ratified virtually all of the human rights instruments applicable in this context, the applicable human rights law is not in dispute. Receiving states and states of origin, moreover, presumably have a common goal—the best interest of the child. This is very different from the ideological conflict at the core of other interstate efforts to promote human rights, such as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) litigation. Foreign support for human rights may also be more palatable when it involves family law, rather than ostensibly more important issues of trade or national security. Finally, from a more theoretical perspective, the rise and fall of intercountry adoption, from the 1950s to the present, demonstrates the deep tension between human rights and Global Capitalism. By “Global Capitalism” I refer to Capitalism unrestrained by national laws or shared ethical codes, what David Brooks calls “naked Capitalism.” Intercountry adoption exposes the human costs of Global Capitalism in a specific, concrete, international context. Part I of this Article describes the origins of the tension between human rights and Global Capitalism in the Cold War era, from the end of World War II to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. It explains how the American version of human rights veered off from the international version and why the American version prevailed. This Part also shows how the American version of human rights promoted intercountry adoption. Part II explains how Global Capitalism changed the game. This Part focuses on the heyday of neoliberalism, from the elections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to the Great Recession beginning in 2008. It shows how neoliberalism reshaped human rights and produced a perverse “solution” for children in crisis. Part III explains why intercountry adoption requires intercountry human rights. It begins by examining the unprecedented inequality that currently characterizes the Global economy. It explains why the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, enacted in the United States in 2008, cannot address the problems this creates for transborder adoptions. Rather, intercountry adoption requires the revival of the full panoply of international human rights and a fresh approach to their realization. Part IV proposes a theory of intercountry human rights, drawing on the eighteenth-century philosopher Thomas Paine and the twenty-first-century economist Thomas Picketty. It explains how intercountry human rights would apply in the context of intercountry adoption and concludes by describing how intercountry human rights might operate in practice
Wayne Hope - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Epochality, Global Capitalism and Ecology
tripleC, 2018Co-Authors: Wayne HopeAbstract:What type of Capitalism do we live in today? My answer to this question draws upon two interrelated lines of argument. Firstly, I will argue that we inhabit an epoch of Global Capitalism. The precursors of this kind of Capitalism originated from the late nineteenth century when the development of telegraph networks, modern transport systems and world time zones provided a Global template for industrialisation and Western imperialism. From about 1980 a confluence of Global events and processes bought a fully-fledged Global Capitalism into being. These included the collapse of Fordist Keynesianism, national Keynesianism and Soviet Communism along with First, Second and Third World demarcations; the international proliferation of neo-liberal policy regimes; the growth of transnational corporations in all economic sectors; the predominance of financialisation and the reconstitution of Global workforces. Secondly, I will argue that the shift from organic surface energy to underground fossil energy intertwined the time of the earth with the time of human history as nature was being instrumentalised as a resource for humanity. Understanding the capitalist relations of power involved here requires that we rethink the emergence of industrial Capitalism in the historical context of a world system built upon unequal socio-ecological exchange between core and periphery. Today, Global Capitalism has intensified the anthropogenic feedback loops associated with CO2 emissions and climate change and universalised the organisational frameworks of profit extraction and socio-ecological destruction. I refer here to the transnational systems of fossil fuel Capitalism along with their interlinkages with financialisation and advertising/commodity fetishism. From the preceding lines of argument I will briefly outline the intra-capitalist and planetary-ecological crises out of which transnational coalitions of opposition might emerge
-
crisis of temporalities Global Capitalism after the 2007 08 financial collapse
Time & Society, 2011Co-Authors: Wayne HopeAbstract:As Global Capitalism took shape, during the 1990s and early 2000s, high-speed, financialized profit making disrupted long-term strategies of capital accumulation centered upon production, employment, commodity exchange and aggregate demand. In addition, state constructions of time and temporality were besieged by the short-termist tendencies of financialized Capitalism. This sharpened temporal disjunctures within the nationally constituted economy and the nationally circumscribed state. And, as upper reaches of many nation states conformed to the temporal urgency of supra-national decision-making bodies such as the IMF, national politics could not effectively process the slower rhythms of the representative assembly, the election cycle, public policy formation and mediated public debate. Against this background, the aftermath and repercussions of the 2007--08 financial collapse will be examined. Global Capitalism became pervaded by a crisis of temporalities, manifestations of which can be summarized as fo...
-
conflicting temporalities state nation economy and democracy under Global Capitalism
Time & Society, 2009Co-Authors: Wayne HopeAbstract:The information and communication technology (ICT) driven, real-time tendencies of Global Capitalism are predominant, but they are not universal. Fast, short-term profits undermine long-term strate...
Jorg Wiegratz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
they re all in it together the social production of fraud in capitalist africa
Review of African Political Economy, 2019Co-Authors: Jorg WiegratzAbstract:Global Capitalism has never been more advanced and aggressive than now. A key feature of this intensively Global capitalist world is the staggering level, variety and institutionalisation of fraud ...