世界经济不均衡加剧与美国经济复苏

当前美国经济正出现好转,新一轮世界经济扩张是否到来?下面几篇文章主要从金融的角度,分析世界经济深层已极度失衡,美国通过不合理的全球金融体制和美元霸权,强制性地持续地使世界资金和资源流向美国,美国以损害世界经济维持自己的经济优势,在这种背景下的美国经济复苏是不可持续的。世界经济仍未摆脱危机。     

二十国集团机制化 适应时代发展潮流

二十国集团（G20）峰会仓促登场并匆忙机制化,直接导因是美国华尔街金融风暴引发的国际金融危机与全球经济大衰退,深层原因在于世界经济发展、国际力量格局、国际关系发生巨大变化,全球发展失衡仅为表象,上层建筑（全球治理架构）与经济基础（世界经济结构）严重脱节是根本原因。G20机制化是二战后全球治理转型的标志性事件,为重塑国际秩序提供契机,预示一个新时代正在提前降临。     

关于全球金融经济危机的若干思考

由美国次贷危机引发的世界金融危机和经济危机表明了美国金融霸权的衰落。这是美国经济霸权的危机,也是美国大力推行的市场原教旨主义即新自由主义的危机。这场经济危机显示出当代资本主义的最新特点,即金融产业脱离实体经济片面畸形发展,全球经济过分金融化,因而被称作“全球金融市场资本主义”。目前经济危机还在持续,与此同时,世界政治也开始进入一个动荡不安的高风险的历史阶段。     

次贷危机与世界资本主义危机

英刊《国际社会主义》2008年春季号刊登了克里斯·哈曼题为《从信贷吃紧到全球危机的幽灵》的文章,认为当前由美国蔓延到全球的次贷危机是20世纪70年代中期以来世界资本主义利润率持续低迷的最新恶果。美国曾先后利用广场协定向德、日,利用新自由主义向原苏东社会主义国家和第三世界,利用金融化向全球转嫁这一利润率危机。现在面临次贷危机,美国可能在国内依靠高额的军事支出,在国外加强对有战略地位的国家的意识形态、经济和军事进攻来应对这一场危机。文章主要内容如下。     

关于当前世界经济的政治经济学分析

2004年10月美共经济委员会发表了题为《关于世界和美国的政治经济学》的报告(主要由瓦迪·哈拉比起草,由哈拉比提供给本刊发表),对当前世界和美国资本主义做了政治经济学分析。报告认为当前威胁世界经济的五大因素即美国急剧上升的贸易赤字、美国失控的联邦预算赤字、美国贸易保护主义的抬头、石油价格飙升和中国经济可能遭遇硬着陆都根源于美国:前三点都直接是美国的经济问题,第四点油价大涨正是美国垄断集团操作的结果,第五点也与美国有关,因为中国的社会主义本来是世界经济的稳定因素,但是在美国为首的世界资本主义危机的压力下,中国抵御风险的能力下降。总之,美国成为世界经济不稳定的总根源。报告主要内容如下。     

现代美国保守主义运动简史

20世纪70年代末以来,美国霸权一改此前的颓势,经济军事力量大增,政治上也日趋保守,并开始在全球大力推行新自由主义经济制度和自由主义民主制度。本期下面两篇文章分析了美国政治的日益保守倾向和美国经济繁荣背后的深刻危机倾向,这对于我们认识当前世界资本主义的真实面貌将有所帮助,并使我们看清危机和战争仍然是资本主义的重要本性。     

2010年世界经济形势回顾与展望

2010年的世界经济，在后次贷危机的调整和转型中，在欧债危机风险频现和流动性泛滥的环境中，脆弱但缓慢地复苏着。     

艰难的复苏—美国当前经济形势分析与展望

当前美国经济呈现诸多好转企稳迹象,美国政府高层官员也轮番表态,认为经济复苏指LI可待。但美国经济企稳的基础仍不稳固,还面临就业市场依旧严峻、财政赤字屡创新高、居民消费疲弱不振、金融业隐患犹存等不稳定因素。美国民众刚刚挺过了一场金融系统面临整体崩溃的危机,现在面对的可能是一场漫长而痛苦的“无就业”复苏。     

冷战结束以来的帝国主义论评析

英刊《国际社会主义》2005年秋季号刊登了英国著名左翼学者亚历克斯.卡里尼科斯题为《帝国主义与全球政治经济学》的文章,认为以美国学者帕尼奇和金丁为代表的学者所持的观点即美国力量超强所以可以调节世界资本主义的矛盾的观点是错误的。因为当前资本主义本质上仍未摆脱20世纪70年代初开始的长波性质的危机:自那时以来利润率危机和过度积累危机一直在深化,这种局面实质上是连最强大的资本主义国家集体合作干预也无法控制和顺利解决的。正是由于危机过于深重,美国开始以破坏世界经济如放纵金融投机或与竞争对手争夺战略资源如伊拉克战争等…     

国际金融体系改革与二十国集团峰会

美国次贷危机引发全球经济动荡,各国经济普遍受累,国际社会要求改革国际金融体系避免危机重演的呼声日盛,2008年11月15日,二十国集团领导人金融市场和世界经济峰会在美国首都华盛顿举行,中国、巴西等发     

国际金融危机背景下对中东欧经济转轨问题的再思考

转轨20年来,中东欧国家已经建立了市场经济体制,经济转轨的任务已经完成。围绕中东欧经济转轨方式的争论,如休克疗法与渐进主义等,在转轨20年后虽然已无现实意义,但仍具有永恒的学术意义。全球化与欧洲化为中东欧国家的赶超创造了有益的条件,但全球经济的波动也给中东欧国家带来了潜在的风险。国际金融危机并不会导致中东欧国家抛弃现有的增长模式,但并不排除中东欧国家对增长模式进行微调。国际金融危机的冲击对"改革疲乏症"敲响了警钟,为中东欧国家进一步加快改革提供了契机。     

Varieties of capitalism and the Estonian economy: Institutions,growth and crisis in a liberal market economy

This article examines Estonia's economic institutions, performance and vulnerability to the global economic crisis in the context of the varieties of capitalism framework. It shows that Estonia shares many characteristics of a liberal market economy, but that there are also some features which do not fit the classical model, notably its corporate governance institutions. It also suggests that the varieties of capitalism framework can account for key features of Estonia's economic performance, including its growth trajectory and adjustment to the global financial crisis. The article also reflects on the broader significance of these findings for understanding post-communist capitalism.     

Nemesis of ‘market fundamentalism’? The ideology,deregulation and crisis of finance

Although the global financial crisis is deepening and becoming increasingly unresponsive to ‘management’, most academic analysts still give priority to the technical aspects of the problem, while governments continue to act as though solutions can be found that will result in a return to ‘normality’. Such functional approaches may be necessary for understanding elements of the crisis and dealing with immediate issues, but are insufficient in the context of what is now revealing itself as a systemic failure: a process that is negatively affecting the economy and society, obliging people to give greater consideration to the kind of world in which they live. This article will seek to address the shift from objective problem to subjective question by examining the political economy of the crisis and the ensemble of factors, ideology, the history of deregulation and politics as well as technical matters, which have led us to this juncture.     

Diagnosing and Explaining the Global Financial Crisis: Central Banks, Epistemic Authority, and Sense Making

This article explores a key facet of the ideational dynamic underlying the politics of the global financial crisis, examining the interpretative and communicative practices through which the two most powerful central banks in the world—the Fed and the ECB—made sense of the events. Drawing on a constructivist neoinstitutional perspective, the study traces and analyzes the diagnoses and causal accounts of the global financial crisis formulated and voiced by these two actors, mapping and examining their evolution from the beginning of the events in the American subprime market in mid-2007 through the peak of the crisis in global financial markets in mid-2009. The analysis assesses the extent to which the two central banks diagnosed and explained the crisis in ways that challenged dominant notions and conceptual assumptions regarding the economic field, particularly the financial realm, or rather in ways that served to ratify them. While in the first stages of the crisis the diagnoses and causal accounts tended to ratify dominant notions and understandings of the financial field, they later evolved as involving a partial, but still significant, reassessment of established truths. These coherent and detailed sense-making plots touched upon some of the most basic attributes of global financial capitalism, carrying with them the potential for helping to open up the political space for a reevaluation of some of its ideational underpinnings.     

Going South: capitalist crisis,systemic crisis,civilisational crisis

This article argues that the current protracted and severe financial and economic crisis is only one aspect of a larger multidimensional set of simultaneous and interacting crises on a global scale. The article constructs an overarching framework of analysis of this unique conjecture of global crises. The three principal crisis aspects are: an economic crisis of (over) accumulation of capital; a world systemic crisis (which includes a global centre-shift in the locus of production, growth and capital accumulation), and a hegemonic transition (which implies long term changes in global governance structures and institutions); and a worldwide civilisational crisis, situated in the sociohistorical structure itself, encompassing a comprehensive environmental crisis and the consequences of a lack of correspondence and coherence in the material and ideational structures of world order. In these ways, the global system is now `going south'. All three main aspects of the global crisis provoke and require commensurate radical social and political responses and self-protective measures, not only to restore systemic stability but to transform the world system.     

Recasting the Power Politics of Debt: structural power,hegemonic stabilisers and change

The 2007–08 financial crisis exposed and exacerbated the debt pathologies of the West. This paper examines whether the new global debt relations that have been generated by this crisis have transformed global power politics, changing the way in which the global South and the global North interrelate and interact. To do so the paper analyses the G20 advanced and emerging economies, examining a number of key indicators related to debt, indebtedness and financial leverage. This research leads to two main findings. First, the crisis has indeed given rise to new global debt relations. As a result, any reforms in the post-crisis global political economy will take place in an environment that favours the rising powers. Second, the USA maintains its capacity to control the parameters of this new global debt politics and economics, but cannot directly impose the terms of a solution to the existing ‘global/hegemonic imbalances’ on the rising powers.     

The Return of Political Risk: Foreign-Owned Banks in Emerging Europe

Political risk—risk that investments are damaged by policy action of authorities—increased during the financial crisis due to controversies about the distribution of accumulated losses among stakeholders. Authorities interconnected by cross-border banks considered unilateral policies that minimised losses for domestic stakeholders at the expense of their foreign counterparts. This is at odds both with the assumption behind financial integration which presumes multilateral responses to cross-border shocks and with the typical definition of political risks that ignores the fact that not only host-country, but also home-country authorities can create such risks. This paper recasts the definition of political risk and reviews instances when political risk materialised within the EU banking market between 2007 and 2011. The analysis reveals that the EU regulatory framework needs to be enhanced to contain resurgent political risks systematically rather than through ad hoc interventions of the EU and international bodies.     

Perhaps this time it's different: ideas and interests in shaping international responses to financial crises

The experience of the recent two decades of financial crises shows that donor countries and international financial institutions (IFIs) can respond to a crisis in a peripheral open economy by either of two crisis management strategies: either they can impose harsh conditionality to fix the domestic economy and prevent future moral hazard problems, or they can provide last-resort credit to restore market confidence. In some cases, the crisis management strategy changes as the crisis evolves. What are the factors that determine the choice of key donor countries and IFIs? This article traces the processes by which the USA and the International Monetary Fund designed the crisis management strategy in respect to the Asian crisis, and how Germany and the European Central Bank designed the response to the eurozone crisis, in order to understand how ideas regarding the causes and solutions of a financial crisis interact with the interests of key donor countries. The article argues that in both cases ideas and interests are mutually constituted, but in each case the mechanism that linked ideas and interests was different: whereas in the Asian case US interests led to policy innovation and experimentation and to a change in the crisis management strategy, in the European case ideas played a greater role in shaping German interests. The article explains this difference on the basis of the lessons learned by IFIs from the Asian crisis, which were then implemented in the eurozone case.     

中俄能源合作的现状、问题及前景

全球金融危机及其引发的后果使众多国家越来越认识到能源对经济发展的重要作用。中国和俄罗斯均属经济转型国家,国内经济发展需外力拉动。能源合作是加强两国战略伙伴关系和经贸合作的重要内容。多年来,中俄能源合作取得一些进展,但能源实力及其战略上的差异使两国能源合作尚存在一些问题,需要双方在各自国家发展战略层面上,按市场经济规律加以协调和解决,方可取得有效成果。