No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2009
This article argues that the three volumes of the Macdonald Commission research output devoted to international political economy (vols. 28 to 30) demonstrate a bias toward what might be labeled “neo-realist” analysis. As a result, they nearly all are steeped in a degree of pessimism regarding Canada's place in the evolving international political economy—a pessimism that extends not only to future prospects for the. multilateral trading system, but for the bilateral Canada-US one as well. While this sense of limited options might indeed be justified, this article argues that a serious omission from the set of studies was the relative lack of attention accorded to the security arrangements underpinning the postwar trade and monetary order. That being said, the author finds that the volumes will likely have a lasting significance for scholars, even though their relevance for public policy may not be so great or lasting.
Cet article soutient que les trois volumes des rapports de recherche (vols. 28 à 30) de la Commission Macdonald qui portent sur l'économie politique internationale révèlent une attachement, voire une prédisposition, pour un cadre analytique que l'on pourrait qualifier comme étant de type « néo-réaliste ». En conséquence, ils sont presque tous rédigés en fonction d'une vision pessimiste en ce qui a trait à la position du Canada au sein de l'économie politique internationale en évolution, un pessimisme d'ailleurs, qui se manifeste lorsque le cours futur du système des échanges multilatéraux aussi bien que celui des échanges bilatéraux entre le Canada et les États-Unis sont envisagés. Même en admettant qu'il se pourrait bien qu'une perspective qui agrée des options circonscrites soit justifiée, cet article soutient qu'une omission majeure de l'ensemble des études fût causée par le manque relatif d'attention accordée aux régimes de sécurité internationale qui soutiennent l'ordre commercial et monétaire de l'après-guerre. Ceci étant dit, l'auteur est d'avis que ces volumes constitueront probablement une ressource de valeur permanente pour les chercheurs, même si leur pertinence quant à l'élaboration des politiques gouvernementales pourrait ne pas s'avérer aussi importante ou durable.
1 For instances specific to Canada, see Axel Dorscht et al., “Canada's International Role and ‘Realism,’” International Perspectives, September/October 1986, 6–9; and Axel Dorscht and Gregg Legare, “Foreign Policy Debate and ‘Realism,’” International Perspectives, November/December 1986, 7–10. In a more general context, see the seminal contribution by Ashley, Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (1984), 225–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Finlayson, Jock A., “Canadian International Economic Policy: Context, Issues and a Review of Some Recent Literature,” in RC, 28:10.Google Scholar
3 A flavour of the debate over the “neo-realist” category can be found in Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
4 Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1939).Google Scholar
5 The view that interdependence can connote either “sensitivity” or “vulnerability” is argued in Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), 11–19.Google Scholar But for a qualification of this, see Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 138–60;Google Scholar and Baldwin, David A., “Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis,” International Organization 34 (1980), 471–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Denis Stairs and Gilbert R. Winham, “Selected Problems in Formulating Foreign Economic Policy: An Introduction,” in RC, 30:5 (emphasis added).
7 Quoted in Mallory, J. R., “The Macdonald Commission,” this JOURNAL 19(1986), 598.Google Scholar
8 For the view that voluntarism (or free will) did constitute an important part of the postwar diplomatic tradition, see Hockin, Thomas, “The Domestic Setting and Canadian Voluntarism,” in Hertzmann, Lewis, Warnock, John, and Hockin, Thomas (eds.), Alliances and Illusions: Canada and the NATO-NORAD Question (Edmonton: Hurtig, 1969), 95–139.Google Scholar
9 See Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985), 16–22.Google Scholar
10 The Canadian-American security community as a potential exemplar to the rest of the international community was an animating theme of an extensive project funded by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the 1930s and 1940s. See Berger, Carl, The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English-Canadian Historical Writing, 1900–1970 (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar, chap. 6: “A North American Nation.” On a more modest level, the Canadian-American relationship would provide grist for the mill of early students of “transnational” politics, among them being Annette Baker Fox, Hero, Alfred O., and Nye, Joseph S. (eds.), “Canada and the United States: Transnational and Transgovernmental Relations,” Special Issue, International Organization 30 (Autumn 1974).Google Scholar
11 Byers, R. B., “Canadian Defence and Defence Procurement: Implications for Economic Policy,” in RC, 30:131–95.Google Scholar
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Trade, Overview of Current Provisions of U.S. Trade Law, 98th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1984), 115–18.Google Scholar
13 Stairs, Denis and Winham, Gilbert, “Canada and the International Political/Economic Environment: An Introduction,” in RC, 28:7–8.Google Scholar
14 Finlayson, “Canadian International Economic Policy,” in RC, 28:9–84.
15 Webb, Michael C. and Zacher, Mark W., “Canadian Export Trade in a Changing International Environment,” in RC, 28:85–150.Google Scholar
16 This theme can be found in a wide variety of sources, but perhaps the best revisionist statement on the postwar order is Williams, William Appleman, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (2nd ed.; New York: Dell, 1972).Google Scholar
17 For a good discussion of the question whether postwar transatlantic harmony is being sundered by growing societal divergence between the United States and the Western European allies, see Ralf Dahrendorf, “The Europeanization of Europe,” in Pierre, Andrew J. (ed.), A Widening Atlantic? Domestic Change and Foreign Policy (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1986), 5–56.Google Scholar
18 The isolation question is thrashed out in some recent exchanges between Tucker, Robert W. and Krauthammer, Charles. See Tucker, Robert W., “Isolation and Intervention,” National Interest 1 (Fall 1985), 16–25;Google Scholar and Krauthammer, Charles, “Isolationism: A Riposte,” Nationalx Interest 2 (Winter 1985/86), 115–18.Google Scholar Also see Ravenal, Earl C., “Europe Without America: The Erosion of NATO,” Foreign Affairs 63 (1985), 1020–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Canada-United States Relations, vol. 2:Google ScholarCanada's Trade Relations with the United States (Ottawa: Queen's Printer June 1978).Google Scholar
20 Granatstein, J. L., “Free Trade Between Canada and the United States: The Issue that Will Not Go Away,” in RC, 29:11–54.Google Scholar
21 Globe and Mail, February 7, 1987.
22 Nossal, Kim Richard, “Economic Nationalism and Continental Integration: Assumptions, Arguments and Advocacies,” in RC, 29:55–94.Google Scholar
23 For the power of this ideal in a non-Canadian economic-nationalist context, see Moran, Theodore H., Multinational Corporations and the Politics of Dependence: Copper in Chile (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
24 Globe and Mail, February 11, 1987.
25 Pentland, Charles, “North American Integration and the Canadian Political System,” in RC, 29:95–125.Google Scholar
26 The definition of subsidies under current US trade law is found in US Department of Commerce, “Study of Foreign Government Targeting Practices and the Remedies Available Under the Countervailing Duty and Anti-Dumping Duty Laws,” Washington, July 1985.
27 See, for this argument, Simeon, Richard, “Federalism and Free Trade,” in Leslie, Peter M. (ed.), Canada: The State of the Federation, 1986 (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, 1987).Google Scholar
28 Finlayson, Jock A., “Canada, Congress and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy,” in RC, 29:127–77.Google Scholar
29 For the argument that Congress has not been as averse to free trade as its liberal critics have implied, see Pastor, Robert A., Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Economic Policy, 1929–1976 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).Google Scholar But for a more recent and differing assessment, see Destler, I. M., American Trade Politics: System under Stress (Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1986).Google Scholar
30 Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Samet, Andrew James, “United States Response to Canadian Initiatives for Sectoral Trade Liberalization: 1983–84,” in RC, 29:179–205.Google Scholar
31 For a rare attempt to come to grips with the question, see Weintraub, Sidney E., “U.S.-Canada Free Trade: What's In It for the U.S.?” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 26 (1984), 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Wright, Gerald, “Bureaucratic Politics and Canada's Foreign Economic Policy,” in RC, 30:9–58.Google Scholar
33 The foremost, if not the first, assault on the rational-actor model is Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971).Google Scholar
34 Boardman, Robert, “The Foreign Service and the Organization of the Foreign Policy Community: Views from Canada and Abroad,” in RC, 30:59–103.Google Scholar
35 Chambers, F. J., “The Emerging Cost Structure of Canadian Firms: Some Implications for International Economic Policy,” in RC, 30:105–29.Google Scholar
36 Byers, R. B., “Canadian Defence and Defence Procurement: Implications for Economic Policy,” in RC, 30:131–95.Google Scholar
37 See, for critical assessments of its utility, Doran, Charles F., Forgotten Partnership: U.S.-Canada Relations Today (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 66–69;Google ScholarDobell, Peter C., “Negotiating with the United States,” International Journal 36 (1980–81), 25;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Holsti, K. J., “Canada and the United States,” in Spiegel, Steven L. and Waltz, Kenneth N. (eds.), Conflict in World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1971), 375–96.Google Scholar For a different view of the merits of linkage, see Clarkson, Stephen, Canada and the Reagan Challenge: Crisis in the Canadian-American Relationship (Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Economic Policy, 1982).Google Scholar
38 Granatstein, “Free Trade Between Canada and the United States: The Issue that Will Not Go Away,” in RC, 29:14.
39 Hufbauer and Samet, “United States Response to Canadian Initiatives,” in RC, 29:180–81.
40 “Trade, Defense Linked,” Journal of Commerce (New York), Feb. 12, 1987, 5.Google Scholar