LAWIN

International Political Economy

International Political Economy

Introduction to International Political Economy

International Political Economy, field of study that deals with the interaction of politics and economics among the world’s nations. The most important of these interactions concerns foreign trade. Students of international political economy also examine the politics of international financial relations, regional political and economic cooperation, international environmental management, international investment patterns of multinational corporations (MNCs), foreign aid, and relations between rich and poor regions of the world.

Military and defense issues dominated the study of international relations after World War II ended in 1945. In the decades that followed, attention focused on the Cold War conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, since the end of the Cold War in 1991, policy makers and scholars have directed new attention to the importance of the international political economy in the study of international relations. Students of international political economy examine how government policies affect economic trends and why nations adopt specific economic policies. They also seek to understand the foundations of global or regional economic cooperation in a world of growing, independent national governments.” (1)

Resources

Notes and References

Further Reading

  • Aklin, M. (2016). Re-exploring the trade and environment nexus through the diffusion of pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics, 64(4), 663–682.
  • Ambec, S., & Barla, P. (2006). Can environmental regulations be good for business? An assessment of the Porter hypothesis. Energy Studies Review, 14(2), 42–62.
  • Andonova, L., Mansfield, E. D., & Milner, H. V. (2007). International trade and environmental policy in the post-communist world. Comparative Political Studies, 40(7), 782–807.
  • Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001). Is free trade good for the environment? The American Economic Review, 91(4), 877–908.
  • Araya, M. (2002). Environmental benefits of foreign direct investment: A literature review. Paris: OECD.
  • Azomahou, T., Laisney, F., & Van, P. N. (2006). Economic development and CO2 emissions: A nonparametric panel approach. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6–7), 1347–1363.
  • Baker, A. (2003). Why is trade reform so popular in Latin America? A consumption-based theory of trade. World Politics, 55(3), 423–455.
  • Baker, A. (2005). Who wants to globalize? Consumer tastes and labor markets in a theory of trade policy beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 924–938.
  • Barbier, E. B. (2000). Links between economic liberalization and rural resource degradation in developing regions. Agricultural Economics, 23, 299–310.
  • Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2001). The economics of tropical deforestation. Journal of Economic Survey, 15(3), 413–433.
  • Barrett, S. (2000). Trade and environment: Local versus multilateral reforms. Environment and Development Economics, 5, 349–359.
  • Barrett, S., & Graddy, K. (2000). Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environment and Development Economics, 5(4), 433–456.
  • Bättig, M. B., & Bernauer, T. (2009). National institutions and global public goods: Are democracies more cooperative in climate change policy? International Organization, 63(2), 281–308.
  • Beaulieu, E. (2002). Factor or industry cleavages in trade policy? An empirical analysis of the Stolper–Samuelson Theorem. Economics & Politics, 14(2), 99–131.
  • Bechtel, M. M., Bernauer, T., & Meyer, R. (2012). The green side of protectionism: Environmental concerns and three facets of trade policy preferences. Review of International Political Economy, 19(5), 837–866.
  • Ben Kheder, S., & Zugravu, N. (2012). Environmental regulation and French firms location abroad: An economic geography model in an international comparative study. Ecological Economics, 77(C), 48–61.
  • Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, trade, and regulation: The seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Bernauer, T., & Caduff, L. (2004). In whose interest? Pressure group politics, economic competition and environmental regulation. Journal of Public Policy, 24(1), 99–126.
  • Bernauer, T., Kalbhenn, A., Koubi, V., & Spilker, G. (2010). A comparison of international and domestic sources of global governance dynamics. British Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 509–538.
  • Bernauer, T., & Koubi, V. (2009). Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1355–1365.
  • Bernauer, T., & Kuhn, P. M. (2010). Is there an environmental version of the Kantian peace? Insights from water pollution in Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 20(10), 1–26.
  • Bernauer, T., & Nguyen, Q. (2015). Free trade and/or environmental protection? Global Environmental Politics, 15(4), 105–129.
  • Bernauer, T., & Sattler, T. (2006). Sind WTO-Konflikte im Bereich des Umwelt-und Verbraucherschutzes eskalationsträchtiger als andere WTO-Konflikte? Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 13(1), 5–38.
  • Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., & Nogareda, J. S. (2007). Determinants of green innovation—ten years after Porter’s win-win proposition: How to study the effects of environmental regulation? Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 39, 323–341.
  • Birdshall, N., & Wheeler, D. (1993). Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: Where are the pollution havens? Journal of Environment & Development, 2(1), 137–147.
  • Blackman, A., & Wu, X. (1999). Foreign direct investment in China’s power sector: Trends, benefits and barriers. Energy Policy, 27(12), 695–711.
  • Brechin, S. R. (1999). Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: Evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 80(4), 793–809.
  • Bruvoll, A., & Medin, H. (2003). Factors behind the Environmental Kuznets Curve: A decomposition of the changes in air pollution. Environmental & Resource Economics, 24(1), 27–48.
  • Cao, X., & Prakash, A. (2010). Trade competition and domestic pollution: A panel study, 1980–2003. International Organization, 64, 481–503.
  • Cao, X., & Prakash, A. (2012). Trade competition and environmental regulations: Domestic political constraints and issue visibility. Journal of Politics, 74(1), 66–82.
  • Caves, R. E., Frankel, J. A., & Jones, R. W. (2002). World trade and payments: An introduction. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
  • Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(3), 439–458.
  • Chudnovsky, D., & Lopez, A. (2003). Diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies by multinational corporations in developing countries. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 2(1), 5–18.
  • Cole, M. A. (2004). Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the linkages. Ecological Economics, 48(1), 71–81.
  • Cole, M. A., & Elliott, R. J. R. (2003). Do environmental regulations influence trade patterns? Testing old and new trade theories. The World Economy, 26(8), 1163–1186.
  • Cole, M. A., Elliott, R. J. R., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2006). Endogenous pollution havens: Does FDI influence environmental regulations? Journal of Economics, 108, 157–178.
  • Congleton, R. D. (1992). Political institutions and pollution control. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 412–421.
  • Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (1994). North-south trade and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 755–787.
  • Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2004). Trade, growth, and the environment. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(1), 7–71.
  • Culas, R. J. (2007). Deforestation and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: An institutional perspective. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 429–437.
  • Damania, R., Fredriksson, P. G., & List, J. A. (2003). Trade liberalization, corruption, and environmental policy formation: theory and evidence. Journal of environmental economics and management, 46(3), 490–512.
  • Dasgupta, P., & Mäler, K.-G. (1995). Poverty, institutions, and the environmental resource-base. In Jere Behrman & T. N. Srinivaan (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (Vol. 3A, pp. 2371–2463). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
  • Dasgupta, S., Hemamala, H., & Wheeler, D. (1998a). What improves environmental performance? Evidence from Mexican industry. World Bank Development Research Group: Policy Research Working Paper No. 1877.
  • Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., & Mamingi, N. (1998b). Capital market responses to environmental performance in developing countries. World Bank Development Research Group: Working Paper No. 1909.
  • Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., & Wheeler, D. (2002). Confronting the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(1), 147–168.
  • Deacon, R. T. (2009). Public goods provision under dictatorship and democracy. Public Choice, 139(1–2), 241–262.
  • Deacon, R. T., & Norman, C. S. (2006). Does the Environmental Kuznets Curve describe how individual countries behave? Land Economics, 82(2), 291–315.
  • Dean, J. M., Lovely, M. E., & Wang, H. (2009). Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? Evaluating the evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 90(1), 1–13.
  • Dietz, S., & Adger, W. N. (2003). Economic growth, biodiversity loss and conservation effort. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 23–35.
  • Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. International Studies Review, 3(1), 53–78.
  • Du, B., Li, Z., & Yan, J. (2014). Visibility has more to say about the pollution-income link. Ecological Economics, 101, 81–89.
  • Dunlap, R. E., & York, R. (2008). The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. The Sociological Quarterly, 49(3), 529–563.
  • El-Ashry, M. (1993). Balancing economic development with environmental protection in developing and lesser developed countries. Air & Waste, 43(1), 18–24.
  • Eliste, P., & Fredriksson, P. G. (2002). Environmental regulations, transfers, and trade: Theory and evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(2), 234–250.
  • Elliott, R. J. R., & Shimamoto, K. (2008). Are ASEAN countries havens for Japanese pollution-intensive industry? The World Economy, 40(1), 121–137.
  • Eriksen, J., & Hansen, M. (1999). Environmental Aspects of Danish Foreign Direct Investment in Developing Countries. Managing the Environment in an Open Economy. Occasional Paper. Cross Border Environmental Management Project, CHP: Copenhagen Business School.
  • Eskeland, G. S., & Harrison, A. E. (2003). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of Development Economics, 70(1), 1–23.
  • Esty, D. C. (2001). Bridging the trade-environment divide. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 113–130.
  • Esty, D. C., & Geradin, D. (1998). Environmental protection and international competitiveness: A conceptual framework. Faculty Scholarship Series: Paper 445.
  • Farzin, Y. H., & Bond, C. A. (2006). Democracy and environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics, 81(1), 213–235.
  • Fordham, B. O., & Kleinberg, K. B. (2012). How can economic interests influence support for free trade? International Organization, 66(2), 311–328.
  • Frankel, J. A. (2003). The environment and globalization. NBER: Working Paper No.10090.
  • Frankel, J. A., & Rose, A. K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85–91.
  • Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219–234.
  • Gallagher, K. P., & Zarsky L. (2007). The enclave economy: Foreign investment and sustainable development in Mexico’s Silicon Valley. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Gentry, B. S. (1998). Private capital flows and the environment: Lessons from Latin America. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Press.
  • Grey, K., & Brack, D. (2002). Environmental issues in policy-based competition for investment: A literature review (Vol. 11). OECD Report: Working Party on Global and Structural Policies.
  • Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.
  • Hainmueller, J., & Hiscox, M. J. (2006). Learning to love globalization: Education and individual attitudes toward international trade. International Organization, 60(02), 469–498.
  • Hao, F. (2016). A panel regression study on multiple predictors of environmental concern for 82 countries across seven years. Social Science Quarterly, 97(5), 991–1004.
  • Harbaugh, W., Levinson, A., & Wilson, D. (2002). Reexamining the empirical evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(3), 541–551.
  • He, J. (2006). Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 228–245.
  • Heil, M. T., & Selden, T. M. (2001). Carbon emissions and economic development: Future trajectories based on historical experience. Environment and Development Economics, 6(1), 63–83.
  • Hettige, H., Huq, M., Pargal, S., & Wheeler, D. (1996). Determinants of pollution abatement in developing countries: Evidence from South and Southeast Asia. World Development, 24(12), 1891–1904.
  • Hettige, H., Mani, M., & Wheeler, D. (2000). Industrial pollution in economic development: Kuznets revisited. Journal of Development Economics, 62(2), 445–476.
  • Hoffmann, R., Lee, C.-G. Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2005). FDI and pollution: A Granger causality test using panel data. Journal of International Development, 17(3), 311–317.
  • Holtz-Eakin, D., & Selden, T. M. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57, 85–101.
  • Inglehart, R. (1995). Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics, 28(1), 57–72.
  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Ivarsson, I., & Alvstam, C. G. (2005). Technology transfer from TNCs to local suppliers in developing countries: A study of AB Volvo’s truck and bus plants in Brazil, China, India and Mexico. World Development, 33(8), 1325–1344.
  • Jaffe, A. B., Peterson, S. R., Portney, R. R., & Stavins, R. N. (1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33(1), 132–163.
  • Javorcik, B. S., & Wei, S.-J. (2004). Pollution havens and foreign direct investment: Dirty secret or popular myth? Contributions to Economic Analysis and Policy, 3(2), 1–32.
  • Jayadevappa, R., & Chhatre, S. (2000). International trade and environmental quality: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 175–194.
  • Jorgenson, A. K., & Givens, J. E. (2014). Economic globalization and environmental concern: A multilevel analysis of individuals within 37 nations. Environment and Behavior, 46(7), 848–871.
  • Kearsley, A., & Riddel, M. (2010). A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 69, 905–919.
  • Kelemen, R. D. (2001). The limits of judicial power trade-environment disputes in the GATT/WTO and the EU. Comparative Political Studies, 34(6), 622–650.
  • Kellenberg, D. K. (2009). An empirical investigation of the pollution haven effect with strategic environment and trade policy. Journal of International Economics, 78(2), 242–255.
  • Kelly, T. (2003). The WTO, the environment and health and safety standards. The World Economy, 26(2), 131–151.
  • Kim, M. H., & Adilov, N. (2012). The lesser of two evils: An empirical investigation of foreign direct investment-pollution tradeoff. Applied Economics, 44(20), 2597–2606.
  • Kleemann, L., & Abdulai, A. (2013). The impact of trade and economic growth on the environment: Revisiting the cross-country evidence. Journal of International Development, 25, 180–205.
  • Koubi, V., Böhmelt, T., & Bernauer, T. (2015). Economic globalization and the environment. CIS ETH Zurich: Working Paper.
  • Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American economic review, 45(1), 1–28.
  • Lan, J., Kakinaka, M., & Huang, X. (2012). Foreign direct investment, human capital and environmental pollution in China. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(2), 255–275.
  • Lantz, V. A., & Martínez-Espiñeira, R. (2008). Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis with bird populations as habitat-specific environmental indicators: Evidence from Canada. Conservation Biology, 22(2), 428–438.
  • Levinson, A. (2009). Technology, international trade, and pollution from U.S. manufacturing. American Economic Review, 99(5), 2177–2192.
  • Levinson, A. (2010). Offshoring pollution: Is the U.S. increasingly importing polluting goods? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(1), 63–83.
  • Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2006). Democracy and environmental degradation. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 935–956.
  • Li, Q., & Reuveny, R. (2009). Democracy and economic openness in an interconnected system: Complex transformations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
  • Li, X., & Yeung, Y. (1999). Inter-firm linkages and regional impact of transnational corporations: Company case studies from Shanghai, China. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 81(2), 61–72.
  • Li, Z., Xu, N., & Yuan, J. (2015). New evidence on trade-environment linkage via air visibility. Economics Letter, 128, 72–74.
  • Lin, C. Y. C., & Liscow, Z. D. (2013). Endogeneity in the Environmental Kuznets Curve: An instrumental variables approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 95(2), 268–274.
  • Managi, S., Hibiki, A., & Tsurumi, T. (2009). Does trade openness improve environmental quality? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 58(3), 346–363.
  • Manderson, E., & Kneller, R. (2012). Environmental regulations, outward FDI and heterogeneous firms: Are countries used as pollution havens? Environmental & Resource Economics, 51(3), 317–352.
  • Mani, M., & Wheeler, D. (1998). In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy, 1960–1995. Journal of Environment and Development, 7(3), 215–247.
  • Mansfield, E. D., & Mutz, D. C. (2009). Support for free trade: Self-interest, sociotropic politics, and out-group anxiety. International Organization, 63(3), 1–34.
  • Maxwell, J. W., & Reuveny, R. (2005). Trade and environment: Theory and policy in the context of EU enlargement and economic transition. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishers, Ltd.
  • Mayda, A. M., & Rodrik, D. (2005). Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others? European Economic Review, 49(6), 1393–1430.
  • McPherson, M. A., & Nieswiadomy, M. L. (2005). Environmental Kuznets Curve: Threatened species and spatial effects. Ecological Economics, 55(3), 395–407.
  • Millimet, D. L., List, J. A., & Stengos, T. (2003). The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Real progress or misspecified models? Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 1038–1047.
  • Neumayer, E. (2001). Do countries fail to raise environmental standards? An evaluation of policy options addressing “regulatory chill.” International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(3), 231–244.
  • Nordstroem, H., & Vaughan, S. (1999). Trade and environment. Special Studies 4. Geneva, Switzerland: World Trade Organization.
  • O’Rourke, K. H., & Sinnott, R. (2001). The determinants of individual trade policy preferences: International survey evidence. Brookings Trade Forum, 2001(1), 157–196.
  • Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 465–484.
  • Paudel, K. P., Zapata, H., & Susanto, D. (2005) An empirical test of Environmental Kuzents Curve for water pollution. Environmental & Resource Economics, 31(3), 325–348.
  • Plassmann, F., & Khanna, N. (2006). Household income and pollution: Implications for the debate about the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Journal of Environment and Development, 5(1), 22–41.
  • Porter, G., Brown, J. W., & Chasek, P. S. (2000). Global environmental politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
  • Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspective, 9(4), 97–118.
  • Potoski, M. (2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 335–342.
  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006a). The voluntary environmentalists: Green clubs, ISO 14001, and voluntary environmental regulations. Cambridge, U. K: Cambridge University Press.
  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2006b). Racing to the bottom? Trade, environmental governance, and ISO 14001. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 350–364.
  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2007). Investing up: FDI and the cross-country diffusion of ISO 14001 management systems. International Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 723–744.
  • Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2017). The EU effect: does trade with the EU reduce CO2 emissions in the developing world? Environmental Politics, 26(1), 27–48.
  • Revesz, R. L. (1992). Rehabilitating interstate competition: Rethinking the “race-to-the-bottom” rationale for federal environmental regulation. New York University Law Review, 67, 1210–1254.
  • Rogowski, R. (2006), Trade, immigration, and cross-border investment. In B. R. Weingast & D. A. Wittman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political economy (pp. 814–828). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J., Debertin, D. L., & Pagoulatos, A. (2004). The Environmental Kuznets Curve for U.S. counties: A spatial econometric analysis with extensions. Papers in Regional Science, 84(2), 407–424.
  • Sattler, T., & Bernauer, T. (2011). Gravitation or discrimination? Determinants of litigation in the World Trade Organization. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 143–167.
  • Schaffer, L. M., & Spilker, G. (2016). Adding another level: Individual responses to globalization and government. Political Science Research and Methods, 4(02), 399–426.
  • Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). What determines individual trade-policy preferences? Journal of International Economics, 54(2), 267–292.
  • Selden T. M., & Song, D. (1994). Environmental quality and development: Is there a Kuznets Curve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27(2), 147–162.
  • Shafik, N. (1994). Economic development and environmental quality: An econometric analysis. Oxford Economic Paper, 46, 757–773.
  • Shafik, N., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (1992). Economic growth and environmental quality: Time-series and cross-country evidence. World Development Report: Working Paper No. 904.
  • Shandra J. M., Leckband, C., & London, B. (2009). Ecologically unequal exchange and deforestation: A cross-national analysis of forestry export flows. Organization & Environment, 22(3), 293–310.
  • Sheldon, I. (2006). Trade and environmental policy: A race to the bottom? Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3), 365–392.
  • Sigman, H. (2002). International spillovers and water quality in rivers: Do countries free ride? The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1152–1159.
  • Sigman, H. (2004). Does trade promote environmental coordination? Pollution in international rivers. Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 3(2), 1–24.
  • Spilker, G. (2012). Helpful organizations: Membership in inter-governmental organizations and environmental quality in developing countries. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 345–370.
  • Spilker, G. (2013). Globalization, political institutions and the environment in developing countries. New York: Routledge.
  • Spilker, G., & Koubi, V. (2016). The effects on treaty legality and domestic institutional hurdles on environmental treaty ratification. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(2), 223–238.
  • Spilker, G., Schaffer, L. M., & Bernauer, T. (2012). Does social capital increase public support for economic globalisation? European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 756–784.
  • Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., & Umaña, V. (2016a). Selecting partner countries for preferential trade agreements. Experimental evidence from Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Vietnam. International Studies Quarterly, 60(4), 706–718.
  • Spilker, G., Bernauer, T., & Umaña, V. (2016b). What kinds of trade liberalization agreements do people in developing countries want? NCCR Trade Regulation Working Paper.
  • Stafford, S. L. (2000). The impact of environmental regulations on the location of firms in the hazardous waste management industry. Land Economics, 74(4), 569–589.
  • Stern, D. I. (2004). The rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439.
  • Taylor, M. S. (2005). Unbundling the pollution haven hypothesis. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 4(2), 1–26.
  • Tevie, J., Grimsrud, K. M., & Berrens, R. P. (2011). Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for biodiversity risk in the U.S.: A spatial econometric approach. Sustainability, 3, 2182–2199.
  • Torras, M., & Boyce, J. K. (1998). Income, inequality, and pollution: A reassessment of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 147–160.
  • Verbeke, T., & De Clercq, M. (2006). The income-environment relationship: Evidence from a binary response model. Ecological Economics, 59(4), 419–428
  • Vogel, D. (1997). Trading up and governing across: Transnational governance and environmental protection. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(4), 556–571.
  • Vogel, D. (2000). Environmental regulation and economic integration. Journal of International Economic Law, 3(2), 265–280.
  • Ward, H. (2006). International linkages and environmental sustainability: The effectiveness of the regime network. Journal of Peace Research, 43(2), 149–166.
  • Ward, H. (2008). Liberal democracy and sustainability. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 386–409.
  • Welsch, H. (2004). Corruption, growth, and the environment: A cross-country analysis. Environment and Development Economics, 9, 663–693.
  • Wheeler, D. (2001). Racing to the bottom? Foreign investment and air pollution in developing countries. The Journal of Environment & Development, 10(3), 263–294.
  • Young, A. R. (2005). Picking the wrong fight: Why attacks on the World Trade Organization pose the real threat to national environmental and public health protection. Global Environmental Politics, 5(4), 47–72.
  • Xing, Y., & Kolstad, C. D. (2002). Do lax environmental regulations attract foreign investment? Environmental and Resource Economics, 21(1), 1–22.
  • You, W-H., Zhu, H-M., Yu, K., & Peng, C. (2015). Democracy, financial openness, and global carbon dioxide emissions: Heterogeneity across existing emission levels. World Development, 66, 189–207.
  • Zarsky, L. (1999). Havens, halos and spaghetti: Untangling the evidence about foreign direct investment and the environment. In Proceedings of OECD Conference: Foreign direct investment and the environment, Paris.
  • Zeng, K., & Eastin, J. (2007). International economic integration and environmental protection: The case of China. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 971–995.
  • Zeng, K., & Eastin, J. (2011). Greening China: The benefits of trade and foreign direct investment. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Posted

in

,

by

SALVADOR

Tags:

, , , , ,

Comments

3 responses to “International Political Economy”

  1. international

    There is no theoretical issue more interesting in contemporary international relations literature than the interplay between politics and economics. Likewise, there is no intellectual theme critiqued more often in popular and scholarly writings today than declining American hegemony and fading liberal international economic order.

    Reply
  2. international

    The entry fits squarely into the synthesis of political and economic study of the international system which has become a hallmark of the Encyclopedia’s interdisciplinary emphasis on public and international affairs. This entry significance for those attempting to understand the increasingly interdependent world of the late twentieth century and the growing interdisciplinary nature of international legal studies and inter- national law practice.

    Reply
  3. international

    There can be no question that the study of international political economy has received insufficient attention in both economics and political science. Yet, this gap has been narrowed by the emergence of a new field from international relations theory, a field commonly known as ‘international political economy. Economists complain that the study of international political economy has been dominated by political science-based scholars who emphasize power, authority, dynamics, and national interest. Economists contend that an economics-based approach, and concepts such as rational behavior, public-goods, incentives and net benefits, among others, ought to be considered.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *