| Contemporary disputes over economic globalization have reopened the charged normative postwar debates of the 1940s. The central issue is whether the world economy should become more open. By definition, the world economy expands as market forces pry open new areas within domestic economies. Hence, the old question of whether the international system will permit states to pursue domestic goals is raised once again. At the heart of the matter is the conflict between pursuing wealth maximization as an end in itself under economic liberalism, and using wealth as the means to attain social ends through policies of economic nationalism. Viewing the 'open versus closed' debate in this way has certain advantages. Primarily, it allows for an historical comparison to see the timeless nature of the issue and also points to the appropriate analytic tools. I argue that for material and ideational reasons, the U.S. is inclined to support an open world economy and urge the adoption of domestic arrangements in other countries consistent with this international structure and consistent with its own. (Abstract shortened by UMI.). |
