Transnational Capital, the US State and Latin American Trade Agreements

Cox, Ronald W.

doi:10.1080/01436590802528598

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed studies clearly demonstrate that the Business Roundtable led the way in creating the wide-ranging USA*NAFTA coalition of businesses, which appointed "captains" in 30 states to organize corporate leaders to visit Senators and members of the House (Cox, 2008;Dreiling, 2001;Dreiling & Darves-Bornoz, 2015, pp. 195-208).…”

Section: Case-study Evidence For Corporate-moderate Unity and Effectimentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Corporate Elite Fractured, or is there Continuing Corporate Dominance? Two Contrasting Views

Domhoff

2015

CRCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares two recent analyses of continuity and change in the American power structure since 1900, with a main focus on the years after World War II. The first analysis asserts that the "corporate elite" has fractured and fragmented in recent decades and no longer has the unity to have a collective impact on public policy. The second analysis claims that corporate leaders remain united, albeit with moderate-conservative and ultra-conservative differences on several issues, and continue to have a dominant collective impact on public policies that involve their major goals. After comparing the two perspectives on key issues from 1900 to 1945, the article analyzes the fractured-elite theory's three claims about the postwar era: an activist government constrained the corporate elite, the union movement negotiated a capital-labor accord; and bank boards created policy cohesion among corporations. Finally, it compares the two perspectives on tax issues, health-care policies, and trade expansion between 1990 and 2010.

show abstract

Section: Case-study Evidence For Corporate-moderate Unity and Effectimentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Corporate Elite Fractured, or is there Continuing Corporate Dominance? Two Contrasting Views

Domhoff

2015

CRCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…other developed countries, in partnership with their governments, used global governance institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank to press for trade and financial liberalisation and push developing countries to open their markets to foreign goods and capital (Arrighi and Silver 1999;Braithwaite and Drahos 2000;Cox 2008;Evans 2008;Gill 2002;Harvey 2005;Helleiner 2001;McMichael 2004). Developing countries -with the potential complicity of their own states and domestic business groups -have largely been seen as the victims of northern TNCs, exploited in their quest for greater profits.…”

Section: Studies Of Globalisation Have Shown How Powerful Business Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The global economy and the institutions charged with its governance are in the midst of a period of transformation as new developing country powers emerge -such as Brazil, India and China -and potentially challenge the longstanding dominance of the US and other advancedindustrialised states (Ikenberry 2008;Nye 2010;Subramanian 2011;Wade 2011). The existing international economic order has been heavily shaped by US power (Gilpin 1987;Keohane 1984;Ruggie 1996) and the US has been a key driver of globalisation and neoliberal economic restructuring (Cox 2008;Evans 2008;Gill 2002;Harvey 2005;Helleiner 2001;Ikenberry 2011;Layne 2009;McMichael 2004;Sassen 2002). Many have argued that the institutions of global economic governance -such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank -and their neoliberal policies have been biased against the Global South and served to perpetuate the disparity between rich and poor countries (Bailin 2005;Chang 2002;Gallagher 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Protagonists in Global Economic Governance: Brazilian Agribusiness at the WTO

Hopewell

2013

New Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existing international economic order has been heavily shaped by US power and the US has been a key driver of globalisation and neoliberal economic restructuring, prompting speculation about whether the rise of new developing country powers could rupture the current trajectory of neoliberal globalisation. This paper analyses the case of Brazil at the World Trade Organization (WTO), a core institution in global economic governance. In the last decade, Brazil successfully waged two landmark trade disputes against the US and EU and created a coalition of developing countries – the G20 – which brought an end to the dominance of the US and EU at the WTO and made their trade policies a central target of the Doha Round. Brazil's activism has been widely hailed as a major victory for developing countries. However, I argue that rather than challenging the neoliberal agenda of the WTO, Brazil has emerged as one of the most vocal advocates of free market globalisation and the push to expand and liberalise global markets. I show that Brazil's stance has been driven by the rise of its export-oriented agribusiness sector. This case demonstrates that business actors from the Global South are becoming significant new protagonists in global economic governance; they are taking the tools created by the states and corporations of the Global North – in this case, the WTO and its neoliberal discourse – and turning them against their originators. At the same time, their interests are being wrapped in and advanced through a discourse of development and social justice and a strategic mobilisation of the politics of the North-South divide

show abstract

“…To summarize, what I term a transnational interest bloc has four fundamental features that can be captured through a content analysis of trade and investment agreements negotiated by the US state in combination with sectors of transnational capital located within different positions in global supply networks (Cox, 2008). First, this transnational interest bloc is led by transnational firms based in the market economies of the US, the EU and Japan, and linked to policymakers through business networks and associations that are uniquely privileged to influence regional and global trade and investment agreements.…”

Section: Transnational Interest Blocs and Business Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational Capital and the Politics of Global Supply Chains

Cox

2013

CRCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the latest phase of globalization, transnational corporations based in the U.S. have worked closely with U.S. foreign policymakers to secure favorable foreign direct investment provisions within U.S. domestic legislation and within U.S. trade agreements. These interactions between transnational firms and the U.S. state have provided many of the preconditions for an expansion of foreign direct investment connected to capital liberalization and the growth of global supply chains from the 1980s to the present. This relationship is best conceptualized as representing a "transnational interest bloc," whose policy objectives are incorporated within investment provisions in US-backed trade and investment agreements.

show abstract

Transnational Capital, the US State and Latin American Trade Agreements

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Is the Corporate Elite Fractured, or is there Continuing Corporate Dominance? Two Contrasting Views

Is the Corporate Elite Fractured, or is there Continuing Corporate Dominance? Two Contrasting Views

New Protagonists in Global Economic Governance: Brazilian Agribusiness at the WTO

Transnational Capital and the Politics of Global Supply Chains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About