Three Models of the Future

International Organization

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 1975, Pages 37-60

  Gilpin, Robert ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84972319984     PISSN: 00208183     EISSN: 15315088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300017896     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Edward Hallet Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939 (London: Macmillan and Co., 1951), p. 117.
2. This theme is developed in Robert Gilpin, “The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations, ” International Organization 25 (Summer 1971): 398-419.
3. This article was part of a special issue of the journal, entitled “Transnational Relations and World Politics, ” which was edited by Robert O. Keohane and Josheph S. Nye, Jr., and was subsequently published under the same title as a book by Harvard University Press in 1972.
4. Ernest Preeg, Traders and Diplomats (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1970), p. 1.
5. C. Fred Bergsten, “The New Economics and U.S. Foreign Policy, ” Foreign Affairs 50 (January 1972): 199-222.
6. Raymond Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay (New York: Basic Books, 1971)
7. Harry G. Johnson, International Economic Questions Facing Britain, the United States, and Canada in the 70's, British-North American Research Association, June 1970, p. 24.
8. Samuel Huntington, “Transnational Organizations in World Politics, ” World Politics 25 (April 1973): 361.
9. Edward Morse, “Crisis Diplomacy, Interdependence, and the Politics of International Economic Relations, ” World Politics 24, supplement (Spring 1972): 123-50.
10. Keohane and Nye.
11. Hans Morgenthau, “Western Values and Total War, ” Commentary, October 1961, p. 280
12. Quoted in New York Times Magazine, 29 October 1972, p. 58.
13. John Diebold, “Multinational Corporations — Why be Scared of Them?, ” Foreign Policy, 12 (Fall 1973): 79-95.
14. “The Future of International Business, ” The Economist, 22 January 1972
15. Diebold, p. 87.
16. One of the better statements of this thesis is Osvaldo Sunkel, “Big Business and 'Dependencia': A Latin American View, ” Foreign Affairs 50 (April 1972): 517-31.
17. For an excellent and critical view of the dependencia thesis, see Benjamin J. Cohen, The Question of Imperialism — The Political Economy of Dominance and Dependence (New York: Basic Books, 1973), chapter 6.
18. “The Multinational Corporation and the Law of Uneven Development, ” in Economics and World Order-From the 1970's to the 1990's, ed. Jagdish Bhagwati (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1972), p. 113 and passim.
19. Quoted in Cohen, pp. 190-91.
20. Monopoly Capital — An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966).
21. Constantine Vaitsos, “Transfer of Resources and Preservation of Monopoly Rents, ” Economic Development Report No. 168, Development Advisory Service, Harvard University, 1970. (Mimeographed.)
22. See, for example, David Calleo and Benjamin Rowland, America and the World Political Economy (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1973).
23. Mercantilism is also the real theme of Ernest Mandel's Europe vs. America-Contradictions of Imperialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).
24. For an analysis of this debate, see Philip Boffey, “Technology and World Trade: Is There Cause for Alarm?, ” Science, 2 April 1971.
25. See also the reflections of Simon Kuznets, Modern Economy Growth (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966).
26. Ernest Mandel, in his Europe vs. America, is more malevolent mercantilist than Marxist in his argument.
27. Calleo and Rowland.
28. For a recent analysis of this issue, see Ernest Preeg, Economic Blocs and U.S. Foreign Policy (Washington, D.C.: National Planning Association, 1974).
29. This paradox is analyzed by Eugene Staley, World Economy in Transition (New York Council on Foreign Relations, 1939), chapter 6, especially p. 15.
30. For an excellent examination of this relationship, see Huntington.
31. See C. Fred Bergsten, “The Threat From The Third World, ” Foreign Policy, no. 11 (Summer 1973): 102-24.
32. See, for example, A. E. Safarian, Foreign Ownership of Canadian Industry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973).
33. This point is developed in US Congress, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, The Multinational Corporation and the National Interest (report prepared for the Committee), 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 1973, Committee print.
34. Karl Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India, ” in Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization, ed. Shlomo Avineri (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968), pp. 125-31.
35. Cohen, chapter 6.
36. This distinction is developed by Keith Griffin, Underdevelopment in Spanish America (Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1969), p. 117.
37. For a more detailed analysis of the distinction, see J. D. Gould, Economic Growth in History (London: Methuen and Co., 1972), chapter 1.
38. A forceful statement of this position is Raymond Vernon's “Rogue Elephant in the Forest: An appraisal of Transatlantic Relations, ” Foreign Affairs 51 (April 1973): 573-87.
39. See Helmut Schmidt, “The Struggle for the Global Product, ” Foreign Affairs 52 (April 1974): 437-51.