State capitalism – 麻豆直播

Financial Statecraft and its Limits in the Semi-Periphery

September 12, 2023August 31, 2023 karasgdavidLeave a comment

Over the past decade, two, intertwined research agendas on (IFS) and (SF) have proposed to identify how an increasingly finance-dominated global capitalism incorporates the (Semi-)Peripheries.

The IFS research agenda recognizes that a 鈥渟ubordinate鈥� national currency comes with a risk premium increasing the costs of financing public debt 鈥� in other words, the current, US dollar-based currency hierarchy acts as a structural fiscal constraint in the Global South, limiting the scope for badly needed public investments. Foreign capital 鈥� in the form of foreign currency-denominated sovereign and private debt-, foreign aid, and foreign direct investment – is then to this artificial and unfair developmental constraint.

The SF agenda examines how this straightjacket on fiscal space has been further compounded with the liberalization of global capital mobility over the past forty years, diffusing credit-based accumulation strategies from the Core to the Peripheries: from socially and environmentally vital public goods and transformative industrial policies towards developmentally regressive strategies of accumulation driven by speculation and asset-price inflation.

Programmatic visions for liberating (semi-) peripheral economies from the dual constraints of a national fiscal space suffocated by the global currency hierarchy and globally mobile capital flows which deepen financialization are underdeveloped. Two scales of action are plausible: At the international level, , but it remains uncertain what forms of international financial solidarity and collaboration, if any, will materialize under its aegis. The national level comprises an alternative scale as the State continues to be perceived as the most likely candidate for ringfencing domestic social, environmental, and developmental objectives from the pressures of global capital mobility and the structural constraints of the global currency hierarchy.

In a with P谋nar E. 顿枚苍尘别锄, we study the politics governing the management of money in Hungary and Turkey, two semi-peripheral economies where the executive has built a vast array of direct and indirect tools to intervene in monetary policy, retail banking and credit allocation to manage financial subordination.

Who鈥檚 in control? Wall Street Consensus, state capitalism, and spatialised industrial policy

July 11, 2022July 13, 2022 Ilias ALAMI1 Comment

By Seth Schindler, Ilias Alami and Nick Jepson

Recent trends may well have puzzled critical observers of global development policy. On the one hand, we witness the rise of聽what Daniela Gabor has aptly termed聽the聽鈥�,鈥櫬燼n emerging聽paradigm聽promoting聽the mobilisation of private finance as a developmental priority.聽Southern states are encouraged to聽re-engineer聽their聽domestic financial systems around securities and derivatives markets, create聽鈥榠nvestable鈥� opportunities in聽sectors such as聽infrastructure, water, climate adaptation, health and education, as well as聽deploy聽policies that聽specifically 鈥榙e-risk鈥櫬爄nvestment聽for global investors. In this formulation Southern states are subordinated to global financial capital and their policy space is significantly constrained.

On the other hand, however, we observe a tendency towards , wherein states are increasingly active within markets, as entrepreneurs and owners of capital as well as regulatory agents in the world economy. Across the income spectrum states have embraced the role of agents of transformation and development. In the , one way these trends manifest is in the proliferation of new modalities of spatialised industrial policy underpinned by . Examples include the China鈥揚akistan Economic Corridor, Indonesia Vision 2045, the Plan S茅n茅gal 脡mergent, Morocco鈥檚 New Development Model, and the developmental aspects of Mexico鈥檚 Fourth Transformation such as the Tehuantepec Isthmus Interoceanic Corridor. Some of these plans have benefitted from the rise of China and its multitrillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative, which traditional development actors now increasingly seek to counter by providing .

(After) Neoliberalism? Rethinking the Return of the State

January 10, 2022January 6, 2022 John NarayanLeave a comment

By Ishan Khurana and John Narayan

A number of commentators have recently suggested or is in a . During the disruption of global commodity chains caused by the Covid 19-pandemic, free-market policies that have dominated the global economy for the past 40 years appear to have less purchase. Here, authors point to a reversion to a national form of capitalism and protectionism, the questioning of globalization and return of state intervention in the economy. A prime example is the Biden regime鈥檚 approach to the US economy, which has turned to deficit driven social spending, expansion of union rights and protectionist measures to public procurement. This hasn鈥檛 come out of nowhere 鈥� with the neo-liberal global economy being zombie-like since the 2008 global financial crisis.

The fracturing of the global economy along national lines may herald conflict and a new cold war between the US and China. However, the retreat of neo-liberalism also seems to offer a possible opening 鈥� . Here, a rejuvenated politics of the left may be able to avoid the pitfalls of and launch a new national form of progressive politics around welfare policies such as the Green New Deal and Universal Basic Income in locations such as the UK and US.

Neo-liberalism is in trouble, but missing from these debates about its demise is a discussion of neo-liberalism in the Global South and, thus, the reality of what the crisis of neo-liberalism means for all rather than simply those within the Global North.

The聽Geopolitics of聽Financialisation聽and Development: Interview with Ilias Alami

October 19, 2021October 13, 2021 Ilias ALAMI3 Comments

This聽interview聽was originally聽published in German in the special issue on聽financialisation聽and development policies of the journal聽Peripherie, September 2021, No. 162/163. Frauke Banse and Anil Shah聽(both based at Kassel University)聽spoke with political聽economist聽Ilias Alami聽(Maastricht聽University)聽about聽some of his recent work聽on the relationship between geopolitics, financial flows for development and emerging forms of聽鈥榮tate capitalism,鈥櫬燼s well as related new imperialist formations. The聽interview was conducted via email in May 2021.聽聽

The interview covers a聽series聽of聽International Political Economy聽topics.聽Ilias聽first locates the emergence of the聽Wall Street Consensus in the long and turbulent histories of the relation between finance and development聽as well as in聽secular聽capitalist transformations. He then聽outlines聽some of the conceptual tools he鈥檚 developed聽in his work聽in order to make sense of the聽contemporary聽interconnections聽of money and finance聽and the reproduction of聽imperialism and race/coloniality.聽Next,聽he situates these interconnections within broader scholarly debates about聽financialisation聽and聽highlights聽the similarities and differences between ongoing sovereign debt crises in the global South and the so-called 1980s 鈥楾hird World debt crisis.鈥� Finally,聽Ilias聽discusses the聽recent聽emergence of new forms of聽鈥榮tate capitalism鈥櫬燼nd their聽complex relation聽to the extension聽and deepening聽of market-based finance.聽

Economic Corridors as Infrastructures of Extraction

July 13, 2021July 8, 2021 charliethame4 Comments

Economic Corridors

Economic corridors are geographically targeted development initiatives currently under construction on nearly every continent of the planet. While hard infrastructure such as transportation links, power generation, ports, and industrial zones contrive a spine, economic corridors are distinguished by accompanying “soft infrastructure” including business-friendly policies, regulations, and institutions to facilitate trade and investment. They feature prominently in foreign policy and development initiatives worldwide and have provided They will likely do the same for those spurred by the recently announced by the G7. Yet despite being around for over twenty years,

Notable exceptions to this dearth of conceptual engagement include those framing them as a form of , and In an article recently published in the : a constellation of policy prescriptions that advance processes of valorisation and accumulation based on the subjugation of human and extra human nature to intensified exploitation. The adjective “extractivist” here denotes This includes but is not limited to the plundering of the earth and biosphere, extending also to social dimensions of exploitation, such as the reorganisation of production and social relations that enable production.

A new Washington Consensus on the role of the state?

April 15, 2021 Ilias ALAMI5 Comments

By Ilias Alami, Adam Dixon and

In a recent , Martin Sandbu of the Financial Times argues that 鈥渢he conversion by the IMF and World Bank to support the activist state would put Saul of Tarsus to shame.鈥� According to him, we may be witnessing the rise of a new Washington Consensus, which embraces deficit spending (by rich countries), 鈥渢emporary solidarity surtaxes鈥� on the rich and businesses, green public investment, and other forms of government intervention. This is not only to address the short-term effects of the pandemic, but also to stimulate demand across the world economy. Sandbu finds evidence of this new consensus in the benign view that the IMF has taken on Biden鈥檚鈥渞escue package鈥�, and claims that 鈥渢he new Washington consensus could prove as politically powerful as the old one.鈥� In another in October 2020,

Sandbu characterised this new consensus as follows:

鈥淎fter 1945, the guiding assumption was, first, that the state knew best, then that the private sector was best. We are about to transcend both, in favour of an economic worldview based on finding ways in which government intervention can guide the private sector to perform better. In that sense, economic planning and the activist state are back.鈥�

It is indeed striking that the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the G20, and other multilaterals, have adapted their discourse on the role and place of the state in development. This predates the COVID-19 pandemic. In an recently published in Antipode, we document the emergence of this new vision of the state in development and outline its key features. Since the early 2010s, these institutions have produced a remarkable wealth of material explicitly concerned with old and new forms of state ownership and intervention. Witness, for instance, this November 2020 EBRD Transition titled The State Strikes Back, or this dedicated to state-owned enterprises in the IMF 2020 Fiscal Monitor. Our analysis of such policy documents and others suggests that we are witnessing a gradual yet fundamental reorientation of official agendas and discourses about the state. This emerging vision embraces a fuller role of the state in development (than the post-Washington Consensus), including as promoter, supervisor, and owner of capital. Our analysis expounds the material context in which this vision is emerging. Two interrelated transformations are particularly important.

The Strategic Logics of State Investment Funds: Beyond Financialization

January 19, 2021January 11, 2021 Adam Dixon3 Comments

State capital has increasingly taken on marketized forms. From state enterprises to sovereign wealth funds, it is increasingly difficult to find much difference at the operational level with cognate organizations in the private sector. Manager cadres have become professionalized, with many having spent significant time honing their skills in the private sector before taking up their positions in state entities. Business practices and corporate governance standards typical of private capital and the syllabi of elite business schools have become the norm. This includes, as to be expected, an embrace of a shareholder value logic. State entities in doing so are becoming increasingly financialized, not dissimilarly to their peers in the private sector.

The Socialist Market Economy in China, Vietnam and Laos: A development model to embrace?

January 11, 2021January 8, 2021 Arve Hansen2 Comments

By Jo Inge Bekkevold, Arve Hansen and Kristen Nordhaug

China, Vietnam and Laos have for three decades been among the fastest growing economies in the world. In other words, three of the best growth performers in global capitalism are authoritarian states led by communist parties with socialism as the official development goal. This fact has received surprisingly little attention, especially when considering their strong performance on a wide range of development indicators. Many claim China and Vietnam indeed represent some of the most impressive 鈥渄evelopment success stories鈥� the world has seen in recent decades. The three countries claim to have found their own model of development combining a market economy with socialism 鈥� 鈥榯he socialist market economy鈥�. According to official definitions, this is not capitalism, but a more sustainable and socially just way of making a market economy work for national development and the improvement of living standards. In , an edited volume newly published by Palgrave Macmillan, we engage with the coherence, achievements and failures of this particular development model.

麻豆直播