Heyets V.M. “Why is it time to start over again?” – At the break of millennia, a transition in the countries with predominance of planned determinism to market system of management is somewhat more than just an economic experiment, as this transition is a transformation of social life including all its social and political structures. As a result of the market revolution, the consequences turned out to be catastrophic. In many respects this also applies to Ukraine, whose economy for a quarter of the century never recovered its 1990 level. At the same time, the Western world, whose market principles of functioning we were guided by in the course of the reforms, embraced a systemic crisis. The consequence of this became, first of all, the dominance, in the final sense, of the paradigm of global corporatism which mane ideology is market fundamentalism that leads to ever increasing social inequality.
Today the rise to power of the new US president and declared his country’s development strategy largely mean the beginning of a new turn in the world policy, especially the economic one. The consequences of the policy can, in case of its successful implementation, significantly change the situation primarily in world markets, but not only there. Corresponding changes are also taking place in the EU.
Ukraine must also join the solution of existing contradictions, since many countries are already searching for an adequate response to the expected changes. We must respond to these challenges that cause a corresponding reaction in economic policy – “to start all over”. With this in mind, the Institute of Economics and Forecasting of NAS of Ukraine carries out the necessary researches, since starting the reforms and moving towards European choice, we, according to existing rules, must take for granted the existing approaches in the EU. Grytsenko A.A. “Logical and historical bases of cardinal economic changes and transition to reconstructive development” – The logical and historical bases of changes in trade policy and other cardinal economic change are revealed. These foundations lie in deploying the internal contradictions of jointly divided labor. At the present stage of the development of society, this has incarnated in contradictions between globalization, which is carried out through information, technological, financial and economic mechanisms and is subjectively represented by multinational corporations, and localization, which is carried out through spatial territorial forms and is subjectively represented by national states.
The forms of manifesting this contradiction are analyzed. It is shown that for its solution it is necessary to coordinate global and local reproduction cycles at all levels from the largest TNC to the settlement of the poorest country. Incoordination of such cycles generates uncontrolled migration flows of labor, material and financial resources, which, in turn, generates crisis phenomena of a various nature.
Overcoming of these contradictions is possible on the way of transition to a reconstructive type of development and search for adequate mechanisms of
management. It is concluded that the solution of problems of stable equilibrium development should be based not on purely economic approaches with their principles of rationality and efficiency, but on economic ones, which give priority to not rationality and efficiency (although they are not excluded), but to the integrity of the reproduction of the country’s economic life.
The characteristic of the essence and general mechanisms of reconstructive development is given, as well as their relationship with local mechanisms. It is shown that the mechanism of reconstructive development combines planned reflection (mutual disclosure of a need and an object of its satisfaction), neoclassical and Keynesian instruments of influence on supply and demand on the basis of institutional means of correction of conformity of needs and demand (on the one hand) and resources and supply (on the other).
Sidenko V.R. “New US trade policy: global intermission” – Considering the latest changes in U.S. trade policy, the author refutes the loss of international competitiveness by the U.S. economy, stressing the country continues to be a major world center for the generation of new knowledge and the development of high tech (new) economy.
The author emphasizes the globalization causes significant changes in the format of the territorial organization of production owing to the spread of global value chains, while transnational corporations become key economic actors that are guided by global (or macro regional) rather than purely national criteria. Global criteria often do not coincide with the national ones; thus optimization processes within U.S. TNCS have a direct consequence of sub optimal national trends in the U.S. economy.
The new U.S. trade policy means the oncoming of a period when globalization is to be decelerated, and national economic regulative instruments needed to eliminate global imbalances and asymmetries are to be relatively strengthened. As a result, it will face serious resistance and active opposition from the global financial capital and related international organisations, political parties and it’s controlled media. However, a return to the policy of far reaching liberalization of goods, services, capital and labour now appears unrealistic, because it would produce critical political contradictions within the United States. Most likely, there will be a search for a compromise between champions of globalization and transnationalisation, on the one hand, and those supporting a priority revival of production capacity within the U.S., applying for this purpose a set of stimuli and appropriate protective measures.
The author comes to the general conclusion that neoliberal globalization is depleted and, therefore, cannot effectively evolve further on. However, the globalizing process is to revive in future in a significantly modified form, and a search for this new format determines the onset of a sort of “global intermission”. Bilorus O.G. “Introvert geo(economic u(turn of the United States and its potential global consequences” – Since the second half of the twentieth century, internationalization and globalization of the processes of reproduction and formation of the world capital have caused a dramatic evolution of the American
economic system. Transformation of industrial corporate system of the United States into a post industrial corporate and financial system has become the engine of the formation of a system of financial globalism. Dramatic structural shifts in the US economy, which were caused by intensive financialization and hyperfinancialization of the reproduction processes and rapid growth of the share of banking industry in the economic system, gave impetus to the chronic world financial crisis. Deformation of the reproduction processes in direction of increasing the share of financial capital in the overall structure of American global capital has become the pattern of the world development. Global corporate and financial monopolies go out of control of national states and their governments and become the basic “locomotives” for the formation and expansive development of the world system of post industrial globalism with its specific regularities and laws of development. The formation of these global corporate and financial monopolies acquires a malignant character and a worldwide scale.
Perhaps the most important long term strategic imperative for the United States in the XXI century has become a reverse reorientation of economic development in the direction of advancing the development of the real economy and braking the overproduction of bogus money. In this case, given the particular complexity of the problems, the strategy of a radical strategic u turn of the economy and introvert orientation cannot be successfully implemented in the medium term. In the long term the global economic interest of the United States, obviously, is to really enter the markets of transition countries, where the relative level of competitiveness and saturation is the most favorable for American long term programs and investments.
A new possible “Marshall Plan” for transitive Eastern Europe (with special emphasis on the recovery and development of the economy of Ukraine, undermined by aggression of Russia) could become a long term strategic program and an intra American “Marshall Plan” for the technotronic re industrialization of the United States and the strengthening of post industrial global leadership of this unique democratic world superpower. The strategic partnership of Ukraine and the United States is a major factor of our country’s integration into the EU and NATO in conditions of global safe co development. Iefymenko T.І. “Reforming and unifying the information space of business
activity” – Globalization processes occur under the influence of evolution of potential threats to market equilibrium and balanced social economy in the monetary, resource and other spheres. Therefore, problems of complicating the manifestations of the crisis are at the focus of developers of strategic directions for the sustainable development of sovereign states.
These issues were also discussed in the course of academic debate on the provisions of the well known Report of the Institute of Economic Policy (USA) on the content and the logical and historical basis for a swift turnaround in the trade policy of this state. Dynamic fundamental changes in the prevailing global value chains cause the need to restructure the algorithms of business processes on
mega , macro and micro levels. The consequences of injustice in the exchange of goods and services, accompanied by distortion of the information space and sectoral dimensions of the world economy, are researched by international organizations of the professional community created recently on a voluntary basis in the forms of pretty influential organizations. Their activities are focused on performing the socially significant tasks in the format of global and national partnerships (primarily in the financial sector of the economy). Particularly successful is the activity of comprehensive public structures dealing with international accounting and financial reporting standards as well as the formation of integrated managerial thinking on the basis of unified indicators of sustainable development, when the obligation to disclose information sources (often confidential ones) is assumed by economic agents that belong to the sphere of both state and corporate governance.
Korablin S.О. “Neoliberal mainstream: when America is against” – Economic reasons and conditions of the attractiveness of neo liberal doctrine in international relations have been analyzed. It is shown that, as a rule, the principles of free competition and self regulating markets are advocated by countries that have obvious competitive advantages on the markets. When these advantages disappear, interest in free competition disappears. It is replaced by some types of protectionism (including strict administrative prohibitions).
In this respect, J. Faux’s Report can be considered as an example of lobbying for US economic interests, which contradicts the modern neoliberal mainstream. At the same time, it reflects real international practice, pursuing not the purity of market competition, but the specific national interests of its participants.
These features lead to the fact that the principles of free competition are used in international politics exclusively for the case of markets for commodity/services and capital, while competition in the global labor market remains beyond the brackets of the neoliberal mainstream. There can be no theoretical justification for such discrimination of the labor market, of course, especially given that it is precisely labor that makes the economy an economy, “animating” all other resources involved in its turnover.
The only explanation for this illogicality can be the fact that the neo liberal doctrine – willingly or unwillingly – focuses only on those markets where the competitive advantages of industrial countries are strong. In the same place, where these advantages are minimal, and the risks for industrial economies are high (in the global labor market), there is no question of free competition – neither in the plane of neoliberal concepts and their practical applications (the Washington Consensus), nor at the level of national policies and charters of international organizations (IMF, World Bank, ILO). Yaremenko O.L. “Global imbalances and new protectionism: an institutional hypothesis” – Part of the causes of current aggravation of trade, financial and geo economic imbalances and conflicts is within the value institutional plane. Over the past 25 years, the space of TNCS’ economic power has rapidly spread through new technologies and innovative financial instruments. Competitive
pressure has forced TNCS to move into a global space, to absorb global human, natural and technological resources. World capitalism attracts to modern technologies huge masses of people with different values, preferences and motives. Different social epochs and civilizations converged on the same resource space: from archaic and traditional societies to post and neo modern, with a variety of their rhythms of social life.
Thanks to global markets, information networks, liberalization of terms of international trade and capital flows, as well as market transformations in countries of state socialism, the number of interacting entities over the past 25 years has increased by an order of magnitude (by a factor of 10); at the same time the complexity of the system could grow by several orders (100 or more times). Institutions of industrial origin are not able to effectively reduce the uncertainty of such a broad and complex financial and economic space. Failures, shocks, crises will accompany the mutual adaptation of the actual complexity of the global economy and the integrating capabilities of its institutional order. “New protectionism” as a change in approaches to assessing the gains and losses of globalization by the US can be the beginning of a reduction in the imbalances in the institutional distribution of responsibility between sovereign states and international institutions in accordance with the actual distribution of resources and economic power in modern society. The new model of globalization will continue the processes of deepening the positive interdependence, but on the basis of adapting the sovereign identity and social responsibility of nation states to new technological and institutional social realities.
Artomova T.І. “Global economic leadership in the context of value analysis” – Under the influence of political and economic initiatives of newly elected US president and his administration, discussions on transforming the existing world order intensified significantly within intellectual circles. A denoted reformatting of forces and centers of global political and economic influence is associated with the strengthening of China’s position in the global economic space. At the same time, the American political elite have no consent on the strategy concerning the Middle Kingdom, and, consequently, a split of views is brewing. In turn, this shows that the positions of the current global leaders are weakening; they are less able to intelligently organize not only the global economic space, but also the system of their own intra economic relations. Under these conditions, the “monolithic” monotonicity of the “Chinese project”, backed by obvious economic achievements, could prove to be very in demand in the world.
However, the strongest argument in favor of the ability of a certain people to come out with a global historical mission is the continuous spiritual work of his outstanding thinkers. In this respect, China has something to rely on, because its value baggage was created during several millennia of civilizational development. At the turn of the XIX–XX centuries, huge intellectual efforts were made to rethink and modernize the historical heritage, crystallize the value doctrine of Chinese society and substantiate the universal significance of Confucian doctrine to the world.