2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Zygmunt Janiec, Ph.D
Assistant Professor
Lazarski University
Warsaw, Poland
POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAST FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS
Emergence and development of new, regional centres of the world economy
The financial crisis and consequential economic recession had its origin in the United States
in 2007 and it has spread over Europe quite fast. From the geographical point of view, the crisis
covered in fact the North Atlantic area. It is worth noting that at the age of globalization, the crisis
has not spread over the economies of other regions of the world. During a two-year period of a
considerable decrease in production in the USA and Europe, the economies of other regions of the
world showed high or very high pace of development. An exception was the Mexican economy due
to its considerable dependence on export to the American market. An inevitable consequence of
parallel presence of both phenomena (recession in the North Atlantic area and fast development of
the so-called rest of the world) is a phenomenon referred to as a migration of economic power from
the North America and Europe to Asia, South America and partly Africa (table 1). In a three-year
period of the crisis, a share of Asian countries in the Gross World Product increased by as far as 2%
(from 35.2% to 37.2%). Countries of the Latin America did not show a decrease in its share (8.5%),
which at the age of fast changes and considerable dependence of the Mexican economy on the
American economic situation, should also be assessed positively. African countries, underestimated
by some politicians and economists, increased their share in the Gross World Product from 3.8% to
4.0%. North America and Europe are the only regions whose share in the world economy fell
considerably. The share of the North America decreased by 0.9% (a change from 23.2% to 22.3%),
and of Europe by 1.1%. Asian countries become more important in the world economy. This
phenomenon should not be, however, interpreted one-sidedly as an economic collapse of the North
America and Europe which, as should be noted, still produce more in total than all Asian countries
(41.8% and 37.2%).
Table 1
Change indexes on the world economic map ( share in the Gross World Product)
Item
Year 2007
Year 2009
North America
23,2%
22,3%
21,3%
20,5%
35,2%
37,2%
11,2%
13,0%
West Europe
20,6%
19,5%
India
4,5%
5,1%
Latin America
8,5%
8,5%
Africa
3,8%
4,0%
- including the USA share
Asia
- including the China share
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
1/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
Source: T. Paavonen, A New World Economic Order. Overhauling the Global Economic Governance as a Result
of the Financial Crisis, 2008-2009. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Report 24/2010, p.44, table 3
and p.79-81.
Diagram 1
Change indexes on the world economic map in terms of geography
Source: T. Paavonen, A New World Economic Order. Overhauling the Global Economic Governance as a Result
of the Financial Crisis, 2008-2009.The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Report 24/10, p.44, diagram 3
and p.79-81.
The crisis also accelerated the pace of changes on the economic map of Asia. According to
initial data for 2010, last year Japan lost its position of the economically strongest country in Asia
and the second world manufacturer of materials goods and contractor1. Its position has been taken
over by the People’s Republic of China, shortly called China, which is, not without reason, referred
to as the contemporary world factory. The change is often excessively interpreted as a sign of
ruthless domination of China in Asian economy, as well as a harbinger of near Chinese leadership in
the world economy. As a matter of fact, it means only that after many years, the most populous state
in the world (1 338 612 968 citizens in the mid 2009)2 achieved a manufacturing potential slightly
higher than island and small Japan. It can be concluded that at the end of the crisis, a temporary
balance of powers developed between Japan, being until mid nineties a model dynamic modern
economy and China – a new Asian hypertiger.
As a consequence of the crisis, an economic position of India, the second most populous
state in Asia (1 156 897 766 citizen in mid 2009)3 has also strengthened in Asia. At the peak of the
crisis, i.e. in 2008-2009, the India share in the Gross World Product rose by 0.6% (an increase from
4.5 to 5.1%)4. Despite a fast pace of development of Indian economy, Hindi state did not manage to
diminish a distance separating it from the Chinese economy. During the same period, China
1
2
3
4
A.Back and J.Dean, China's GDP growth fuels concern, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 21-23.01.2011.
See. China People 2011, http://www. theodora.com/wfbcurrent/china/china_people.html/.
See. India People 2011, http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/india/india_people.html/.
T. Paavonen, op. cit,,. s. 44, chart 3.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
2/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
developed even faster, increasing its share in the Gross World Product from 11.2 to 13.0%, that is,
by 1.8%5. African countries, the second biggest continent in terms of population and area
(1 033 043 000 citizen in 2010, i.e. 14.95% of the total world population)6, managed to increase its
share in the Gross World Product by 0.2% (an increase from 3.8% to 4.0%). The share index of
Latin America remained on the same level as before the crisis and was 8.5%. Only developed
economies of the countries from Euroatlantic area showed a distinct regress. During the crisis
period, a share of West Europe in the Gross World Product fell by 1.1% (from 20.6 to 19.5%). The
United States, contrary to widespread opinions, lost less than West Europe – only 0.8% of the share
(decrease from 21.3 to 20.5%)7.
The economic power is still one of the main factors determining a country’s position in the
international arena, that is, the world political system. For this reason, changes in the economic
system accelerated by the crisis, affected directly the political map, that is, accelerated changes in
the world political system. The most important sign of changes in the political sphere is the fact that
China, apart from the United States, has gained the position of the world politics main player. It
happened so although China is not equal with the United States in many respects. The Chinese total
production value in 2010 is estimated to be USD 5.88 trillion. In the same year the American
production value amounted to USD 14.62 trillion8, that is, twice as much as the Chinese production
volume. China still lags behind the United States within the area of research. According to some
estimates, China spends on research only 1.5% of GDP recently. The same index for the much
bigger economy of the USA is 2.5%9. Americans still play a leading role within the scope of
economic innovativeness. It is due to both unique features of American society (individualism,
creative and critical thinking, risk taking tendency which is higher than anywhere else, high
mobility), as well as a developed system of supporting innovative entrepreneurship)10. Designing
the fastest computer in the world, constructing the fastest train in the world or demonstrating a
stealth aircraft in China does not mean that the Chinese economy is already equal with the
American one. Lightning progress of China in the world political system was decided by a series of
factors which resulted in synergy effect. During the period of financial system instability of the
United States and many European countries, as well as considerable decrease in production in the
North Atlantic area, China became an oasis of stability and continuous, fast economic growth. It
considerably strengthened both prestige of that country and self-confidence among Chinese
politicians. At the same time, a number of European and American politicians noticed in China a
chance of stimulating their own economic growth by means of dynamizing export to continuously
developing Chinese market and intensifying bilateral cooperation with Chinese companies on third
markets. It mainly guided many European politicians and a new president of the United States
Barack Obama to invite leading Chinese politicians to their countries and pay visits in China. The
best example of such thinking and acting was the last year’s visit of Prime Minister David Cameron
to China and very ceremonial visit of President Chin Hu Jintao to the United States. Before his trip
to China, D. Cameron did not hide he was going there to get multi-billion export contracts. He did
not hide either he was not going to make a problem about the restriction of Tibetans’ national rights
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ibidem
World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, UN Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social
Afairs, http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_continent.aspx.
T. Paavonen, op. cit., p. 44 ,table 3.
Estimates of International Monetary Fund quoted in publications: A. Back and J. Dean, op. cit.
D.J. Van Den Berg, EU must share knowledge with China, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 8-10. 10.2010.
D.J. Van Den Berg, EU must share knowledge with China, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 8-10. 10.2010.
See P. W. Tam and C. Tuna, Tech's new wave helps to remake Silicon Valley, The Wall Street Journal Europe ,
25.10.2010.
See A. Segal, Software of Innovation is Crucial for Maintaining the U.S. Competitive Advantage Over Asia, SSTI
Weekly Digist, Vol.11, Issue 1, January 5, 2011, Web Version, www:ssti.org/Digest/2011//010511.htm#research.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
3/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
by the Chinese government, which the European Parliament dealt with more or less at the same
time11. The new British prime minister gave everybody clearly to understand that he had taken
almost a fifty-person group of British businessmen, people of science and culture not to restrict the
effectiveness of business talks with reproaching the Chinese government for breaking humans
rights12. Also President B. Obama, having the President Chin Hu Jintao stay in the USA, sought
new, big contracts for American companies. We are witnessing a kind of a race between
governments, as well as American and European companies for a wider access to the Chinese
market.
Other factors increasing international position of China at the age of financial crisis and
recession in the North Atlantic Area were considerable Chinese foreign exchange reserves estimated
at 2.4 and even 2.6 billion USD (about 1/3 world reserves). Owing to those funds, China could
credit export of their goods and develop foreign investments on all continents13, including the
United States. It is interesting that the USA government, not by coincidence during the recession
period changes, changed very radically its attitude towards Chinese portfolio investments in the
USA. A few years ago, Foreign Investment Commission, formally operating within the American
Treasury Department, effectively counteracted some Chinese investments in the USA. For instance,
in 2005 as a results of the Commission’s stand, Cnooc Ltd., a Chinese state-owned company
withdrew from their efforts to take over Unocal Corp., an American company. Almost five years
later, the same Chinese company co-finances and implements a project of joint extracting crude oil
and gas from shale in Texas together with Chesapeake Energy Corp., an American energetic
company, without any problems. The financial share of Cnooc company in the implementation of
this enterprise is to amount to 2 billion dollars14. According to its American business partners,
currently, the Chinese company is to contribute to create 20,000 workplaces and reduce the USA
dependency on foreign crude oil supplies. A change of the American attitude towards Chinese
investments in the USA still does not cover telecommunications companies and other companies,
which could impair combat capacity of the USA military forces.
In 2010, three small Chinese banks, including the government-controlled Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China Ltd., obtained a consent of the American Central Bank for opening its
branches in the USA, which should additionally favor Chinese investments in the United States. In
fact, China has been a prominent foreign investor only for a few years. Against sometimes alarming
reports on the expansion of Chinese investors to Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia, the
Chinese share in world investments at the end of the previous decade was only around 6%15.
The Chinese share in American and European market of governmental bonds has also been a
factor strengthening the political position of China in the world, however, its significance should
not be overestimated. Nothing indicates that Chinese investments in the European market of
11
12
13
14
15
On November 25, 2010, the European Parliament pass a resolution (European Parliament resolution of 25
November 2010 on Tibet - plans to make Chinese the main language of instruction) containing, among others, a
summons of the EU member states for the protection of Tibetans’ national rights, including the right to use own
language at schools and offices. See www:europarl.europa/en/meetdocs/2009-2014/documents/droi/dv/p7_taprov/2010/0449_en/pdf
See D. Cameron, Building British Cooperation with China, The Wall Street Journal Europe of 09.11.2010, Ch.
Giles and G. Dyer, UK urges political change in Beijing, Financial Times ,10.11.2010.
Data on Chinese foreign exchange reserves were quoted based on: Yu-Wei Hu, Management of China' exchange
reserves: a case study on the state administration of foreign exchange in: European Economy, Economic Papers
421/ July 2010, p.16. For instance, according to the data of the International Monetary Fund, in 2010, China gave a
loan of 13 billion dollars to the government of Ghana. See S. Childress, IMF raises outlook for African growth, The
Wall Street Journal Europe of 26.10.2010 and J. Dean, A. Browne and S. Oster, State capitalism' in China spur
round of global backlash, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 17.11.2010.
A. Gonzalez, Cnooc returns to U.S. energy with gas deal, The Wall Street Journal Europe z 12.10.2010.
See China buys up the world. And the world should stay open for business, The Economist, 11.11.2010, A.Moshes
and M.Nojonen (eds.), Russia- China relations. Current state ,alternative futures, and implications for the west,
FIIA Report 30, pdf.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
4/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
treasury bonds will be significant for maintaining financial liquidity of the Eurozone weakest
countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy). In this case, most important players are Germany and
the International Monetary Fund. The share of Chinese investors on the American market of
treasury bonds is only 11.7% (1.2 billion dollars). According to some estimates last year (2010)
Japan again became the main investor on the American market of treasury bonds, beating up the
Chinese government16. One must admit that despite being the second world economy for some
months, the first exporter for not a long time as well, and the biggest foreign exchange reserve
administrator, the above data is not of extraordinary significance and political meaning.
Additional factors strengthening the political position of China in the world during the crisis
include:
1. A Chinese economy development forecast prepared still in 2001 by Goldman Sachs Bank,
according to which China is to dethrone the USA as the greatest world manufacturer and
service provider in 2027. American bank forecasters will probably add to a considerable
number of failed long-term forecasts of economic development, but it was hot news for the
media. Spreading this type of information gave rise to a false conviction that China has
already been the world most powerful country in terms of economy. An American opinion
poll conducted at the end of 2009 by Pew Research Center showed that at the time as many
as 44% Americans were convicted that China, and not the United States, had the most
powerful economy in the world. Only 27% Americans were aware of a considerable
American advantage17. It is hard, obviously, to deny a thesis that fast developing China with
its population four times as big population as the United States will soon produce more than
the USA. It is worth noticing, however, that production output itself cannot be the only
factor deciding on the position of a given economy in the world. Such variables as
technological advancement, production structure, innovativeness, etc. play a significant role
in the assessment. In this area, Chinese have still a lot to do. It does not change the fact that
earlier optimistic forecasts about an increase in the Chinese economy during the crisis have
considerably strengthened the prestige of China in the world.
2. Implementation of great infrastructural projects in China and organization of two important,
prestigious international events in that country at short intervals. It was the Olympic Games
in Beijing in 2008 and Expo 2010 International Economic Exhibition, organized in the
capital city of Chinese business – Shanghai. It should be noted that it is hard to repeat soon
such an advantageous system supporting the prestige of China.
3. A temporary, as it should be perceived, fascination of some developing countries with the
Chinese development model. It is a plan economy model with an economic domination of
state-owned banks and companies, investment high rate and state support for some fields of
entrepreneurship. It is hard to unanimously assess the effectiveness of such a policy in the
long run. Currently, the Chinese is impressive, especially when compared with “a free
market” American model requiring considerable corrections. Fascination with the Chinese
model infected even some American business managers. It is worth noting that the Chinese
government itself makes every effort to propagate its own model of economic development
in developing countries. Every year, the Chinese government trains around 15,000 foreign
politicians and businessmen interested in the Chinese economic policy18. Confrontation of
various economic policy models, booming as a result of the crisis, will facilitate searching
16
17
18
See N. Ferguson, In China's Orbit, The Wall Street Journal Europe of 22.11.2010.
See U.S. Seen as Less Important , China as More Powerful, The Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press,
Survey Report, December 3, 2009, http://www.people-press.org/report/569/americas-place-in-the-world. Cf.
D.W.Drezner, ...And China Isn't Beating the U.S., publication in the collection: Unconventional Wisdom-An FP
Special Report, http://www.foreignplicy.co/articles/2011/01/02/unconventional_wisdom?page=0,4
See J.Kurlantzick, The Asian Century? Not Quite
www:cfr.org/publication/23794/asia_century_not_quite_yet.html
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
Yet,
Council
of
Foreign
Relations,
5/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
for new solutions in the world business activity, unburdened with dogmatic economic
thinking.
An increase in the role of the biggest countries until not long ago ranked among the
developing South is an important, although not entirely new, phenomenon in the international
political system, which intensified as a result of the crisis in the Euroatlantic region. Regarding
China as an exceptional case, it is impossible not to notice a considerably increased significance,
but not always prestige, of some developing countries, in particular India, Brazil, Republic of South
Africa, Indonesia, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Each of those countries operate its own economic
policy. They have two features in common: despite the crisis in the Euroatlantic zone, they
maintained a high pace of economic development and they are in favor, although not to the same
extent, of the modification of world regulating institutions established by the Euroatlantic zone
member countries19. None of them, however, worked out proposals of changes alternative to
existing ones. The said group of countries is, to a large extent, quite an artificial and ephemeral
creation. There are no permanent institutional links among them. What joins them is a temporary
mechanism of cooperation in discussion over the modification of the operation of the current
regulation system of the world trade and the UN.
An increase in the international role of some developing countries during the crisis
strengthened pluralistic tendencies in the political world structure. The best proof of it is fast growth
of a largely informal international forum represented by a group of countries referred to as G-20. It
is interesting that it is not the elite club of old economic powers, referred to as G-7, became the
forum of economic policy coordination of countries during the crisis, but a new, considerably more
numerous, G-20 group. The new group consisting of G-7+1 (Russia despite numerous weaknesses
of its economy is currently a full member of the former G-7, that is G-8) and China, South Korea,
India, Indonesia, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Republic of South Africa, Turkey and Saudi
Arabia. The twentieth member of G-20 is the European Union as a separate entity. The above
mentioned countries of the former South as G-20 members influence the arrangements worked out
at this forum, but we should be disillusioned as to what countries have the greatest influence on G20 decisions. It is still the United States and the second entity – China. An initiator of making G-20
group into a new, informal forum of financial and economic policy coordination was the United
States and it is this country which gives a tone to the work of this new, informal group.
Another informal group, established during the last crisis, refereed to as BRIC before the
crisis, does not play any greater role in developing the international financial and economic policy.
The group was formally founded only in 2009, that is, at the end of the crisis cycle. Its members
are: Brazil, Russian Federation, India and China. Recently South Arfrica joined it. BRIC is nothing
but an informal forum of dialogue and cooperation of four (now five) big countries occupying
together over ¼ world land area and inhabited by more than 40% of the whole globe population.
The dialogue within the BRIC group favors the extension of bilateral cooperation member countries
within the scope of economy and research20.
As the crisis deepened in the North Atlantic region, some Asian countries, bearing in mind
the Asian financial crisis 1997-1998, made another attempt to establish their own, regional
monetary fund. Originally, it was to be the Asian Monetary Fund – an institution entirely
independent of the International Monetary Fund. The talks among ASEAN countries regarding this
19
Cf. Global Risks 2011. Sixth Edition, World Economic Forum, January 2011, http://riskreport.weforum.org/globalrisks-2011.pdf, Wu Xinbo, Understanding the Geopolitical Implications of Global Financial Crisis, in: The
Washington Quarterly , October 2010, s.157, R. Penttila, Multilateralism light: The rise of informal international
governance, Centre for European Reform. EU 2020 essay, www: cer.org.uk/pdf/penttila_essay_july09.pdf.
20
See O.Moncharmont, Rebuilding global governance with the BRICs, part 4 of the compilation European Council on
Foreign Relations Geopolitics on Chinese Term: How does China think it should deal with Europe and the World,
http://www.ecfr/content/programmes/C11/.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
6/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
matter, initiated still before the Asian crisis, were held at a very slow pace mainly due to fears
expressed by some countries that it could be dominated by China and actually became an
instrument of implementation of the Chinese Monroe Doctrine. Only the last financial crisis in the
Euroatlantic zone encouraged Asian countries constituting ASEAN+3 group (the additional three is
China, Japan and South Korea) to take more decisive actions. In February 2009, they concluded an
initial agreement on establishing a regional stabilization fund referred to as the Chiang Mai
Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM). The fund was to dispose of the sum of 120 billion dollars.
A year later, in March 2010, the fund was initiated. Its institutional shape largely departs from the
structure of the International Monetary Fund. Neither new bank nor headquarters were established.
Although funds (mainly Chinese, Japanese and Korean) were allotted
towards
a common goal, they are at the disposal of national central banks and are to merely supplement the
funds of the International Monetary Fund. Eventually, a proposal of establishing an institution
competing with the IMF was abandoned21.
A new phenomenon in the world political system is an increasing process of mutual
consultations among developing countries, which after an embarrassment of the American market
self-regulation myth became confirmed that they could work out independent solutions within the
scope of economic policy, which turn out to be better that those imported from the USA. In some
publications, the process is referred to as South-South dialogue. A relatively, but not entirely new
phenomenon are investments of companies from developing countries in other countries ranked
among the same group. We live in the era of globalization and emergence of entirely new
connections and solutions. Large international companies are founded not only in developed
countries, but also in India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. Intensification of this phenomenon
should be expected. The process of capital accumulation does not omit developing countries.
Consolidation of pluralistic tendencies during the last financial crisis did not lead to greater
changes in the world regulating system. One of the pillars of that system, the United Nations, did
not change its organizational structure or nature at all. The North Atlantic crisis, excessively
referred to as the world crisis, covered the financial and economic sphere. In this situation, the
problem of reforming the UN, which is a stricte political organization, receded into the background.
Large countries of the already former South have quite divergent political interests and also
compete for a better position in the world political system. It is interesting that they do not call for
the liquidation of a privileged position of five countries in the UN Security Council (mainly power
of veto). The discussion is rather about how big the Security Council should be and which countries
should take advantage of the privilege of permanent membership in this exclusive body. A list of
pretenders is long. The following countries can be found on it: India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, South
Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria. The European Union is not on the list due to obvious reasons.
France and Great Britain do not want to be deprived of permanent membership in the UN Security
Council in favor of the European Union. Opponents of changes to the UN Charter have an easier
task to do. The authors of UN Charters, that is, an international agreement under which the UN was
established, already at the initial stage of founding this organization hedged around their interests
that no change to this agreement (charter) is possible without their approval. An additional
argument is a thesis of the symmetry of right and duties which is harder to be debated about. The
UN privileges justified with particular responsibility for keeping peace do cost. Table 2 and 3 shows
the data on participation of individual countries in financing UN expenditures, including military
21
W.J. Yuan, M.Murphy, Regional Monetary Cooperation in East Asia. Should the United States Be Concerned? A
Report of the CSIS Freeman Chair in China Studies,November 2010, p. 5,
http://csis.org/files/publication/101129_Yuan _ RegionalCoop_WEB.pdf
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
7/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
missions. Only the USA, Great Britain and France rank among the first five payers. China and
Russia occupy distant position on this list. Important payers are two countries which lost the war,
that is, Japan and Germany. Main pretenders to the privileged group of permanent members of the
UN Security Council are on the list far behind the United States, which still contribute the most.
Table 2
Country
The percentage share of individual countries
in financing the UN fixed expenditures (2008-2009)
% share
Country
% share
United States
22,00
China
2,66
Japa
16,62
Mexico
2,29
Germany
8,58
Russia
1,20
Great Britain
6,64
Brazil
0,87
France
6,30
India
0,45
Italy
5,07
Republic of South Africa
0,29
Canada
2,97
Nigeria
0,04
Spain
2,96
Source: K.C. McDonald and S.M. Patrick, UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests,
Council on Foreign Relations ,Council Special Report No.59, December 2010, p. 40
Table 3
Country
The percentage share of individual countries
in financing the UN peace operations (2008-2009)
% share
Country
% share
The United States
25,96
Canada
2,98
Japa
16,62
Spain
2,97
Germany
8,58
South Korea
2,17
Great Britain
7,84
Russia
1,41
France
7,44
Brazil
0,18
Italy
5,07
India
0,09
China
3,15
Republic of South Africa
0,06
Source: K.C. McDonald and S.M. Patrick, UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests,Council on
Foreign Relations, Council Special Report No.59, December 2010, p.40.
The world trade regulating system, negotiated at the united nations economic conference in
American Bretton Woods in 1944 and then supplemented a few times (e.g. establishment of OECD,
G-7, G-20) and amended (departure from fixed foreign exchange rate policy, projects: ITO, GATT,
WTO) has been modified once again under the influence of 2008-2009 crisis events. Last changes
which will have been completed by January 2014 were initiated already in 2006, that is, still before
the crisis. The final consequence of the discussion held on this subject within G-20 are the
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
8/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
following decisions22:
a) a conception of a new distribution of country contributions to the IMF will have been
developed by January 2013, so that the new allotment of obligatory financial
contributions and voting rights reflects current economic potential of member countries;
b) developing countries will be assigned such places in the 24-person Board of the IMF,
that will reflect their new position in the world economy;
c) the number of votes of developing countries will be increased in the World Bank by
3.13% so that they jointly have 47.19% votes;
d) a review of the IMF Board composition will be conducted every 8 years in order to
adjust the composition of that body to the changing position of countries in the world
economy.
Table 4
Country
Distribution of votes in the IMF Board as of 26.04.2010
% share
Country
% share
United States
16,47
Russia
2,69
Japa
6,01
Holland
2,34
Germany
5,87
Belgium
2,08
Great Britain
4,85
India
1,88
France
4,85
Mexico
1,43
China
3,65
Spain
1,38
Italy
3,19
Brazil
1,38
Canada
2,88
Source: O.Moncharmont, Rebuiding global governance with the BRICs, part 4 of the compliation European
Council on Foreign Relations, Geopolitics on Chinese Terms, http://www.ecfr/content/programmes/C11/.
So far, a sometimes stormy discussion on the establishment of an entirely new regulating
system of the world economy and trade has not resulted in new solutions alternative to existing
ones. An American conception of improvement and development of already existing institutions is
in fact being implemented. Agreed modifications regarding vote assignment in the IMF and World
Bank do not undermine a dominant role of the USA and European countries in those institutions.
Still the United States have an informal power of veto on a change to the IMF Charter (the change
requires 85% of votes and Americans still have 16.47% votes). After 2010, only in the World Bank,
China became the third most important member country23.
In March 2009, that is, in an advanced stage of the financial crisis in the North Atlantic
zone, China publically expressed its opinion on the role of American dollar as the main world
reserve currency. On March 23, 2009, Zhou Xiaochuan, president of the People’s Bank of China
(Chinese Central Bank), published his statement on the above matter. It contained a summons for
replacing dollar with a new supranational currency, which would fulfill two basic conditions dollar
does not meet. Firstly, it would be an authentically world currency, that is, not being a national
22
23
See G-20 Seoul Summit Leader's Declaration November 11-12, 2010, http:/ www.g20org/pub_communiques.aspx
O.Moncharmont, comp..cit., p. 11, footnote 11, W.Xinbo, comp.cit., 157, M.Murphy and W.J.Yuan,
compilation.cit., p.5.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
9/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
currency of any country (super sovereign reserve currency). Secondly, the currency would be able
to remain stable in the long run24. So far, the Chinese proposal, nota bene referring to the project of
John M. Keynes from 1944, has not been considered on the International Monetary Fund forum or
within G-20. There is no evidence that the Chinese government is forcing it through. So one may
suppose that this not so fully original idea expressed Chinese dissatisfaction with American dollar
playing the role of the main world reserve currency. However, it appeared that despite the criticism
of American dollar as the reserve currency, during the crisis, China cooperated more closely with
institutions acting for strengthening the world finance, joined the Financial Stability Board, a new
elite international forum (see table 5) which is to promote and strengthen stability of the
international financial turnover; they also became members of the Basel Committee on Banking
Supervision.
Table 5
Countries belonging to the Financial Stability Board
Argentina
Mexico
Australia
Holland
Brazil
Russian Federation
Kanada
Saudi Arabia
China (PRC)
Singapore
France
Republic of South Africa
Germany
Spain
Hong Kong Special Administration Zone
Switzerland
India
Turkey
Indonesia
Great Britain
Italy
United States
Japa
European Union (Commission + European
South Korea
Central Bank)
Source:
Financial
Stability
Board
http://www.financialstabilityboard.org.
Charter,
Annex
A.
List
of
FSB
Members,
It is hard to assess whether attempts at stimulating regional economic cooperation of Asian
countries and Pacific area countries, undertaken during the crisis, will appear long-lasting. After
2007, the main subject of cooperation among Asian countries was to create a regional system of
monetary cooperation within ASEAN+3 group. The financial and economic crisis in the North
Atlantic revived those countries’ interest in establishing their own financial stability system. In new
conditions, an old idea of establishing an Asian financial stability system in the region became even
more topical. Eventually, as it has already been mentioned, they managed to build a substitute for
the regional monetary fund linked with the IMF. At the end of the crisis, there was a heated
discussion within another, regional group, i.e. Asia-Pacific Economic Partnership. Negotiations are
under way aiming at the extension of Trans Pacific Partnership composition – an initiative aiming at
full liberalization of trade on both sides of the Pacific. Attempts at stimulating cooperation in the
Pacific region prove the progress of international cooperation regionalization process. The process
24
See the English version of the stance: Zhou Xiaochuan,s Statement on Reforming the International Monetary
System, published by the American Council on Foreign Relations within the series of Essential Document,
http://www.cfr.org/china/zhou-xiaochuans-statement-reforming-international-monetary-system/p18916.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
10/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
is parallel to the globalization phenomenon25.
Position of the United States in the multipolar world
The last financial and economic crisis had its origin in the United States and quickly covered
Europe. Other world regions felt negative impact of the American-European crisis on their own
economic development to a small extent or did not feel it at all. Some people call it autonomisation
of the Asian, South American and partly African region. One of main, short-term consequences of
the financial and economic crisis in the North Atlantic zone is a relative rise in the international
position of many developing countries and at the same time a growing decrease in the position of
the USA and Europe. This phenomenon, normal in developmental process, initiated in the United
States and later also in other countries an ongoing discussion on the future shape of the world
political system, called by some people a Post-American system. Not engaging in polemics with a
thesis of the existence of an American and Post-American world, the actual position of the United
States in the post-crisis world has been assessed.
Quoting an old, Polish saying “the more you get into it, the more complicated it becomes”,
in the real economic world where folk wisdom also appears advantageous, it means nothing but an
inevitable slowdown of pace of development of developed countries. An annual increase in the
gross national income by 8-10% is possible in underdeveloped countries which thanks to a wellthought-out, appropriate government economic policy are quickly catching up with those ones
which have already achieved high development level. Almost all Asian tigers and the only
European tiger known as Celtic tiger - Republic of Ireland could demonstrate impressing or very
high development markers. However, having achieved a certain level, growth pace, sooner or later,
falls down. That was the case in Ireland still before the last crisis. Current growth forecasts of one
of the main Asian tigers – South Korea, unambiguously indicate the slowdown of the pace of
development of its economy in the nearest future26. The United States and Western Europe entered
the stage of a development slowdown long ago. Hence, mechanical comparison of the current pace
of development of some strongest economies of countries no so long ago ranked among the
developing South against the developed North is pointless. Drawing far-reaching conclusions from
long-term country development forecasts is even more pointless. Such a mistake is committed by
those who compare forecasts of American and Chinese economy growth.
Table 6
Development forecast of selected countries by 2030 (share in the Gross World Product)
Country or group of countries
1995
2007
2020
2030
The United States
21,7
19,4
18,3
16,6
China (PRC)
5,5
10,1
17,7
22,7
EU – 27
24,5
20,8
18,6
15,6
Japa
8,3
6
4,6
3,6
25
26
See Y.Hayaski, Japanease leader launches trade push, The Wall Street Journal Europe of 8.11.2010.
The period of fast development of Irish economy may be divided into two sub-periods. During the first oe (19942003), the Irish gross domestic product grew at a pace of 8-9 % per year. In 2004- 2007 the Irish GDP grew at a
pace of 4.95 % per year. See. R. MacSharry., P. White, The Making of the Celtic Tiger. The Inside Story of the
Ireland's Boom Economy, Mercier Press, Cork 2001, Ireland Vital statistics, December 2008, IDA Ireland,
www.idaireland.com/news-media/publications/library-publications/ida-ireland-publications (Vital Statistics,
Dec.2008 pdf). See also: E. Ramstad, The Miracle Is Over. Now What?, The Wall Street Journal Europe of
8.11.2010.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
11/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
India
3,1
4,3
6,9
8,7
Russia
2,8
2,9
3,1
2,7
Germany
5,3
3,9
3,2
2,5
France
3,6
3
2,5
2,1
Great Britain
3,4
3,1
2,9
2,5
Source: Ch. Grant and K. Barysch, Can Europe and China Shape a New World Order?, Centre for European
Reform, May 2008, http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/p_837.pdf.
The forecasts (table 6) show that already in the late twenties of this century, China will
become the strongest economic country in the world. One should not, however, identify the value of
global output with the power of economics. The author of the article does not share
a view that America is in decline. It is other big and populous countries which accelerated
the pace of development, which should be positive, among others, due to the fact that these are the
countries in which standard of living in still low whereas the birth rate is high. Nobody has a
monopoly on the best economic ideas and leadership in every sphere of life.
The United States are still and in many years’ time will remain the best, the biggest and the
most innovative world economy. The Gross Domestic Product of the United States is still almost
three times bigger that the GDP of China – the second world economy. American economy belongs
to the most modern and innovative ones in the world. Americans show greater tendency for
supporting novel ideas and taking risk27. The biggest advantage of Americans is law and order, as
well as a system of values rewarding talent and authentic achievements. Americans have created
continuously improved system of supporting entrepreneurship and innovativeness of which the
symbol is famous Silicon Valley, that is, a kind of a laboratory of creativity and fast transfer of
novel ideas into production. It is not Americans, but others who are trying to create their own
Silicon Valley more or less successfully. It should be reminded here that there was an idea of
creating Polish Silicon Valley in 2005-2006 between Kraków and Wrocław. Recently, the British
Prime Minister D. Cameron has been promoting an idea of creating a British Silicon Valley in
London within the framework of undertakings aiming to revive entrepreneurship and
innovativeness in Great Britain28. It is interesting that the Premier Cameron is not seeking new
original ideas for the development of innovative economy in Great Britain, but is trying to transfer
the best, well-tried American models to Great Britain. American have a whole network of
universities ranked among the best ones in the world. An American model of cooperation between
state authorities, universities and companies is unrivalled. Still a half of the biggest companies in
the world (600 out of 1000) are American companies29. An advantage of the American society is a
high degree of tolerance and openness. Taking into account those features, one can admit that
Americans who are seeking now ways “to put their affairs in order”, will find and implement
effective remedies. They are already doing it within a new strategy of stimulating export and
creating new workplaces. Contrary to some opinions, the crisis did not embarrass the American
model of economy. The crisis merely ridiculed, which is not a surprise to some people, an
excessive, unjustified belief of some politicians and economists in miraculous, self-regulating role
of market. The crisis also helped many Americans notice the existence of other, non-American,
27
28
29
See valuable remarks of American State Science and Technology Institute on the subject of the latest book of A.
Segal, Software of Innovations is Crucial for Maintaining the U.S. Advantage Over Asia, op.cit.
See L.Norman, Cameron turns to creating jobs and P. Jones, Unreasonable Ambitions, The Wall Street Journal
Europe of 25.10 and 15.11.2010.
See the publication China buys up the world. And the world should stay open for business, The Economist of
11.11.2010.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
12/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
development centres with which cooperation should be established. Attempts made by China very
cautiously at weakening the position of dollar as the main reserve currency, are not effective. Still
over 50% of the world trade is settled in American dollars30.
A big threat to the American economy is increasing national debt. One should think that
Americans will also deal with this problem.
In the military sphere, despite the crisis, the United States unquestionably retain the position
of the only, truly world superpower. The United States military budget is higher that the budget of a
few next countries with the highest military expenditures after the USA.
Table 7
Military expenditures of selected countries in 2009
Country
Expenditures in bln. dollars
USA
661,0
China (PRC)
100,4
France
63,9
Great Britain
58,3
Russia
53,3
Japan
51,0
Germany
45,6
Saudi Arabia
41,3
India
36,3
Italy
35,8
Source: A. MacDonald, Cameron unveils defense cuts, The Wall Street Journal Europe of 20.11.2010
(official British data).
The following details prove the military power and operational capacity of the military
forces of the United States:
1. Relative advantage in the control of outer space, which to a large extent facilitates
conducting military operations on Earth.
2. Having, as the only country, bases and military systems on all continents and oceans, except
for demilitarized Antarctica.
3. The biggest atomic weapon arsenal, limited only as a result of START bilateral treaty with
Russian Federation. Currently, the United States and Russia have over 90% of the world
atomic arsenal31.
4. Overwhelming advantage over seas and oceans. According to the previous American
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (May 2011), the U.S. navy is bigger than navies of 13
30
31
D.Mcdowell, The Dollar Will Survive Russia- China Trade Deal, World Politics Review, 24 December 2010.
See Revitalizing the United Nations and Multilateral Cooperation: The Obama Administration's Progress, remarks
Esther Brimmer,, Assistant Secretary , Bureau of International Organization Affairs, February 1, 2011, Washington
D.C., in : U.S. Department of State Weekly Digest Bulletin, 30.01.2001. In accordance with the latest START treaty
signed in 2010 in Prague, the United States and Russian Federation reduced the number of strategic nuclear
warheads to 1550. The maximum number of strategic rocket launcher has been reduced to 800. The level of means
carrying nuclear warheads was agreed to be 700 pcs. See Special Briefing, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary ,
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department from State Weekly Digest Bulletin of
23.12. 2010. See also B.W. McDonald, China, Space Weapons ,and U.S. Security,Council on Foreign Relations,
CRS No. 38, September2008,www.cfr.org/publication/1670/china-space-weapons-and-us-security.html
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
13/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
next biggest marine superpowers put together, including 11 American allies32.
5. The biggest expenditures on armaments, including research an development (the USA
spends on military research six times more money than all European Union countries put
together; in 2009, 55 billion and 8 billion euro, respectively)33.
6. Own, modern anti-missile defense system.
As a result of an arbitrary – later events confirmed it entirely – wrong decision of the
president G.W. Bush on the Iraqi war, the United States gradually started losing international
prestige. Apart from that, the crisis revealed the weaknesses of the American economic policy
(excessive consumption, artificial creation of demand for durable goods, fast, excessive increase in
the national debt, too big industrial production offshoring) and economic thought. In the country
boasting of the biggest number of Nobel Prize winners in economics, no system of controlling
consequences of introducing novel, but disastrous financial instruments to the market came into
being. American, allegedly sensational, financial instruments turned out to be pointless ideas.
Automatic market regulators did not reveal their presence and power. Moreover, it appeared that
countries operating their own economic policy, not based on American solutions, could maintain
high pace of development even during the crisis in the North Atlantic zone. All those phenomena
and processes lead to relative weakening of the American dominating position in the world and
strengthened pluralistic tendencies in the world political system. They were not, however, so strong
as to deprive the United States of its world leader role. American politicians quite quickly drew
conclusions from mistakes made in the foreign policy. A new administration of the president Barack
Obama dissociated itself from unilateralism of the previous administration, accentuating a factor of
partnerships and cooperation in the American foreign policy. As a result of those changes, the
international prestige of the USA has grown considerably34. The United States managed not to
allow a slump in international finance, which still in 2008 seemed probable35. During the period of
increasing crisis, no one else, but the United States initiated a mechanism of cooperation of
countries within G-20 whose aim was to counteract protectionist tendencies and strengthen
mechanism stabilizing the world economy system. The federal government of the USA stabilized
the American financial system as far as possible and prepared American development strategy.
Currently, the United States again want and in fact must play the role of the world political leader.
They justify it with their own, but also common interests. There is no other entity in the
contemporary world which could replace the United States in that role36.
The second entity of the world politics after the United States, which lost its importance as a
result of the crisis is the European Union. The crisis revealed weak points of institutional solutions
in the Euro zone, drawing attention of EU member states mainly to the fight for maintaining
common European currency. The fight for the resumption of the financial balance within the
common currency zone weakened the European Union’s international activity, which was not high,
either. It appeared that the EU coordination mechanism of member state foreign policy was not of
great practical significance. The Union’s diplomacy, established at the final stage of the crisis, being
32
33
34
35
36
Quote after N. Hodge, Northrop Grumman redeploys as U.S. budget ax nears, The Wall Street Journal Europe of
16.11.2010
See C.M. O'Donnell, A transatlantic defene market, forever elusive?, Centre for European Reform, Policy brief,
www.cer.org.uk/pdf/pb_transatlantic_defence_july10.pdf
See the research The Pew Research Center, Obama at 100 Days: Strong Job Approval, Even Higher Personal
Ratings. Better Ratings for Foreign Policy than Domestic Issues, The Pew Research Center for the People and the
Press, Survey Reports, April 23, 2009, http://people-press.org/report/509/obama -at-100-days
Cf. Ph. Whyte, How to restore financial stability, Centre for European Reform, January 2010, p.1
Recently published documents of the Department of State, for instance, prove it .See, for example: The Department
of State Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Washington D.C., July, 2009,
http:/www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125956.htm, Leading Through Civilian Power. The First Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review, 2010, http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/qdrr/153139pdf
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
14/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
in fact a continuator of the previous diplomatic service of the EU Commission and Council has not,
so far, much strengthened efficiency of external, common activity of the European Union. Crisis
phenomena decisively strengthened national tendencies in foreign policy of the main member states
of which the best example was a kind of race for export contracts in China and Russia.
The most important role in the struggle for keeping the Euro zone operating is played by the
German government. Only, big, well-managed German economy could have at its disposal means
necessary to stabilize the Euro zone. During the last crisis, Germans became
the model of a prudent, well-thought-out economic policy37. A distinct increase in the role of
Germany in struggling for maintaining the Euro zone, visible at the second stage of the crisis, that
is, in 2009, caused concern of some politicians and columnists, including German ones. An
expression of this concern was and is a question of future German involvement in the construction
of the united Europe. The question is legitimate, however, one should not excessively worry about
more considerable changes in the nature of German European policy. Every serious attempt at
weakening a pro-European orientation in the German foreign policy will meet with an effective
counteraction in Germany38. One cannot forget that the new German generation was brought up in a
spirit of tolerance and European cooperation. Not by accident, Germans belong to a group of
nations decisively supporting European integration. Another issue is a German share in financing
common EU expenditures. In a worse economic situation, it may give rise to bigger tensions than
earlier. It is not a proof, however, of Germany departing from the pro-integration course in foreign
policy.
B I B LI O GRAPHY
I.
M.Auslin, Why the World Will be Worse Without a Liberal Hegemon, National
Review
Online,
Dec.29.2010,www.cbcnews.com/stories/2010/12/29/opinion/main7194622.shtml.
Asia economy: Key issues in 2011, The Economist Intelligence Unit, December 31st,
II.
2010, http://viewswire.eiu.com/index.asp?
III.
Back A. and Dean J., China's GDP growth fuels concern, The Wall Street Journal
Europe , 21-23.01.2011.
IV.
Barysch K., Germany, the euro and the politics of the bail-out, Centre for European
Reform,
37
38
briefing
note,
June
2010,
http://
www.cer.org.uk/pdf/bn-
Germany are the only G-7 country which already in 2010 had GDP per capita higher than before the financial crisis.
According to the estimates of the IMF, this trend will last also during next 5 years. See Vorsprung durch exports.
Which G 7 economy was the best performer of the past decade? And can it keep it up?, The Economist of 3.02.2011,
K.Barysch, Germany, the euro and the politics of the bail-out, Centre for European Reform, briefing note, June
2010, http:// www.cer.org.uk/pdf/bn-barysch_germanyandeurope_28june10.pdf, M. Matthijas and M. Blyth, Why
Only Germany Can Fix the Euro, in: Foreign Affairs, November 25, 2011,online publication.
See U. Guérot, How European is the new Germany?, http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary-how-european-is-thenew-germany, K. Barysch, Germany, the euro and the politics of the bail-out, Centre for European Reform, briefing
note, June 2010, http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/nb_barysch_germanyandeurope_28june10.pdf, Will Germany now take
centre stage? Its economy is booming, but its strength poses new questions, The Economist of 21.10.2010, U.Guérot
and J.Hénard (eds),What Does Germany Think About Europe? European Council On Foreign Relations, June 2011,
ECFR/36,p.29-34.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
15/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
barysch_germanyandeurope_ 28june10.pdf
V.
Cameron D., Building British Cooperation with China, The Wall Street Journal
Europe , 09.11.2010.
VI.
Childress S., IMF raises outlook for African growth, The Wall Street Journal Europe
, 26.10.2010.
VII.
China buys up the world. And the world should stay open for business, The
Economist , 11.11.2010.
VIII.
China People 2011, http://theodora.com./wfbcurrent/china/china_people.html/.
IX.
Cline R., Renminbi Undrvaluation, China's Surplus and the US Trade Deficit,
Peterson Institute for International Economics, Policy Brief Number P.B.10-20, August
2010, www.iie.com/publications/pb/pb10-20.pdf
X.
Dean J., Browne A. and Oster S., State capitalism' in China spur round of global
backlash, The Wall Street Journal Europe, 17.11.2010.
XI.
Drezner D.W., ...And China Isn't Beating the U.S., publikacja w zbiorze:
Unconventional
Wisdom-An
FP
Special
Report,
http://www.foreignpolicy.co.?articles/2011/01/02/ unconventional_wisdom?page=0,4
XII.
European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2010 on Tibet- plans to make
Chinese the main language of instruction, www:europarl.europa/en/meetdocs/20092014/documents /droi/dv/p7_taprov/2010 /0449_ en/ pdf
XIII.
Ferguson N., In China's Orbit, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 22.11.2010.
XIV.
Giles Ch. and Dyer G., UK urges political change in Beijing, Financial Times ,
10.11.2010.
XV.
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture, National Intelligence Unit,
September 2010, http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
XVI.
Global Risks 2011. Sixth Edition, World Economic Forum, January 2011,
http://riskreport. weforum.org/global-risks-2011.pdf
XVII.
Gonzalez A., Cnooc returns to U.S. energy with gas deal, The Wall Street Journal
Europe , 12.10.2010.
XVIII.
Gros D., Womock B., Voskressenski A.D., The Rise of China: Politics of the EU,
Russia and the US, European Securiy Forum Working Paper No.30, February 2008, www.
ceps.eu/book/rise-china-politics-eu-russia-and-us.
XIX.
Guérot U., How European is the new Germany?, http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/ commentary-
how- european-is-the-new-germany
XX.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
Guérot U. and Hénard J. (eds),What Does Germany Think About Europe?,
16/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
European Council On Foreign Relations, June 2011,ECRF/36.
XXI.
G-20 Seoul Summit Leader's Declaration November 11-12, 2010, http:/
www.g20org/ pub_communiques.aspx.
XXII.
Hayaski Y., Japanease leader launches trade push, The Wall Street Journal Europe ,
8.11.2010.
XXIII.
Hodge N., Northrop Grumman redeploys as U.S. budget ax nears, The Wall Street
Journal Europe , 16.11.2010.
XXIV.
India People 2011, http//www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/india/india_people.html/.
XXV.
Ireland Viital statistics, December 2008, IDA Ireland, www.idaireland.com/news-media/
publications/library-publications/ida-ireland-publications
(Vital Statistics, Dec.2008 pdf).
XXVI.
Jones P., Unreasonable Ambitions, The Wall Street Journal Europe , 15.11.2010.
XXVII.
Kurlantzick J., The Asian Century? Not Quite Yet, Council on Foreign Relations,
www:cfr.org/publication/23794/asia_ century_not_quite_yet.html
XXVIII.
Leading Through Civilian Power. The First
Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, 2010, http://www.state.gov/s/dmr/qdrr/153139.pdf
XXIX.
MacSharry R., White P., The Making of the Celtic Tiger. The Inside Story of the
Ireland's Boom Economy, Mercier Press, Cork 2001.
XXX.
MacDonald B.W., China, Space Weapons,and U.S. Security,opracowanie Council on
Foreign Relations, CRS No. 38, September2008, www.cfr.org/publication/1670/chinaspace-weapons-and-us-security.html
XXXI.
MacDonald B.W., China Space Weapons and U.S. Security, Council on Foreign
Relations, CSR No.38, September 2008, www.cfr.org/publication/1670/china_ spac_weapons_ and_
us_ security.html
XXXII.
Mcdowell D., The Dollar Will Survive Russia- China Trade Deal, World Politics
Review, 24 December 2010.
XXXIII.
Military Expenditure of China, SIPRI, http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php.4
XXXIV.
Moncharmont O., Rebuilding global governance with the BRICs, European Council
on Foreign Relations, Geopolitics on Chinese Terms: How does China think it should deal
with Europe and the World, http://www.ecfr/content/programmes/C11.
XXXV.
Moshes A. and Matti N. (eds), Russia-China relations. Current state, alternative
futures, and implications for the West, FIIA Report 30, pdf.
XXXVI.
Norman L., Cameron turns to creating jobs, The Wall Street Journal Europe ,
25.10.2010.
XXXVII. Norman L., U.K aims to cash on its ties with China, The Wall Street Journal Europe ,
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
17/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
8.11.2010.
XXXVIII. Nye J.S., American and Chinese Power after the Financial Crisis, The Washington
Quarterly, October 2010.
XXXIX.
Obama at 100 Days: Strong Job Approval, Even Hgher Personal Ratings, Better
Ratings for Foreign Policy than Domestic Issues, The Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press, Survey Reports, April 23, 2009, http://people-press.org/report/obama-at-100days.
XL.
O'Donnell C.M., A transatlantic defene market, forever elusive?, Centre for
European Reform, Policy brief, www.cer.org.uk/pdf/pb_transatlantic_defence_july10.pdf
XLI.
O'Donnell C.M., The EU finally opens up the defence market, Centre for European
Reform policy brief, June 2009 ,www.cer.org.uk/pdf/policybrief_defencemarket_june09.pdf
XLII.
Overholt W.H., China in the Global Financial Crisis: Rising Influence, Rising
Challenges, w: The Washington Quarterly, January 2010.
XLIII.
Paavonen T., A New World Economic Order: Overhauling the Global Economic
Governance as a Result of the Financial Crisis, 2008-2009, The Finnish Institute of
International Affairs, Report 24/10.
XLIV.
Penttila R., Multilateralism light: The rise of informal international governance,
Centre
for
European
Reform.
EU
2020
essay,
www:
cer.org.uk/pdf/penttila_essay_july09.pdf.
XLV.
Ramstad E., The Miracle Is Over. Now What?, The Wall Street Journal Europe ,
8.11.2010.
XLVI.
Ramzy A., China Flexes Its Muscles with Stealth Fighter Test, TIME, 11.01.2011,
http:// www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2941755,00.html
XLVII.
Revitalizing the United Nations
and Multilateral Cooperation: The Obama
Administration's Progress, uwagi Esther Brimmer,, Assistant Secretary , Bureau of
International Organization Affairs, February 1, 2011, Washington D.C., U.S. Department of
State Weekly Digest Bulletin, 30.01.2001.
XLVIII.
Segal A., Software of Innovation is Crucial for Maintaining the U.S. Competitive
Advantage Over Asia, SSTI Weekly Digist, Vol.11, Issue 1, January 5, 2011, Web Version www:ssti.org/Digest/2011//010511.htm#research.
XLIX.
Shambaugh D., Coping with a Conflicted China, The Washington Quarterly, Winter
2011.
L.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
R.Skidelsky, A golden opportunity for monetary reform, Financial Times
18/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
,10.11.2010.
LI.
Special Briefing, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary , Bureau of Arms Control,
Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department od State Weekly Digest Bulletin ,23.12.
2010.
LII.
Tam P.W. and Tuna C., Tech's new wave helps to remake Silicon Valley,The Wall
Street Journal Europe , 25.10.2010.
LIII.
The Department of State Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,
Washington D.C., July, 2009, http:/www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125956.htm.
LIV.
The Spectre of a Multipolar Europe,opracowanie European Council on Foreign
Relations, http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/the_spectre_of_a_multipolar_europe_publication
LV.
U.S. Seen as Less Important , China as More Powerful, The Pew Research Centre
for the People and the Press, Survey Report, December 3, 2009, http://www.peoplepress.org/report /569/americas-place-in-the-world.
LVI.
USA economy: Uninspiring budget, Economist Intelligence Unit, ViewsWire,
15th,
Februar
2011,http://viewswire.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=VWArticle3&article_id=135781172&VW
NL=true.
LVII.
Whyte Ph., How to restore financial stability, Centre for European Reform, January
2010.
LVIII.
Will Germany now take centre stage? Its economy is booming, but its strenght poses
new questions, The Economist , 21.10.2010.
LIX.
World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, UN Statistics Division, Department
of Economic and Social Afairs, http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_continent.asp
LX.
Wu
Xinbo, Understanding the Geopolitical Implications of Global Financial
Crisis,w: The Washington Quarterly, October 2010.
LXI.
Van Den Berg D.J., EU must share knowledge with China, The Wall Street Journal
Europe , 8-10. 10.2010.
LXII.
Vorsprung durch exports. Which G 7 economy was the best performer of the past
decade? And can it keep it up?, The Economist ,3.02.2011.
LXIII.
Yuan W.J., Murphy M., Regional Monetary Cooperation in East Asia. Should the
United States Be Concerned? A Report of the CSIS Freeman Chair in China
Studies,
November 2010, http://csis.org/files/publication/101129_Yuan _ RegionalCoop_WEB.pdf
LXIV.
Yu-Wei Hu, Management of China' exchange reserves:a case study on the state
administration of foreign exchange w : European Economy, Economic Papers 421/ July
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
19/20
2012 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference
ISBN : 9780974211428
2010.
LXV.
Zhou Xiaochuan's Statement on Reforming the International, Council on Foreign
Relations w ramach serii Essential Document, http:// www.cfr.org/china/zhou-xiaochuansstatement-reforming-international-monetary-system/p1 8916.
June 27-28, 2012
Cambridge, UK
20/20