In the 1970s, global trade splintered, with diversification of trade by developing countries and the emergence of a new trade bloc in East and South-East (E&SE) Asia. The Asian giants, China and India, both emerge into the world economy, but with different trade patterns. While expanding trade in global markets, China is also integrating with the regional trading bloc in E&SE Asia, while no comparable bloc has emerged in South Asia. How can these developments best be understood in theoretical and policy terms? Existing theoretical paradigms are too narrow, and it is necessary to develop holistic approaches which combine various levels of analysis (macro, meso and micro) and various disciplines (e.g. economics, geography, production organisation, political science and international relations). Three different sets of analyses are offered in the building of this holistic approach: macroeconomic trade analyses, a focus on geographical clustering and analysis of global value

This article reflects the combined efforts of the IDS Asian Drivers team, based on discussions; held with collaborators from the South, Europe and the US. As such, there is no single author. It addresses the components of a globally networked developing research programme addressing a series of interrelated theoretical and policy challenges arising from the rapid growth of Asian Driver economies,Focusing on the impact on developing economies, it distinguishes four vectors of impact: production and trade, finance, environmental spillovers and global governance, and explores how these might feed through into a policy-oriented research programme. Issues of methodology are also discussed. For more detail, see www.ids.ac.uk/ids/ globWasiandriversindex.html

This book surveys the current state of industry in sub-Saharan Africa and examines claims that Africa is de-industrialising. It focuses on the challenge for economic policy to find ways to reverse this trend.

The paper examines the neo‐classical case for the export‐orientated industrialisation strategy, questioning not only its representation of what has occurred in the Newly Industrialising Countries, but also raising some doubts about the validity of the analytical model which is implicit in its policy prescriptions. An alternative analytical framework and political economy model is then sketched out. The experience of South Korea and Taiwan is used for illustrative purposes, highlighting areas where further conceptual and empirical analysis is required to give a fully‐blown alternative story. An appendix offers a brief summary and critique of some recent neo‐classical work on the relationship between price distortion and growth.

Development and ChangeVolume 12, Issue 4 p. 601-610 Monopoly Power and Imperialism: Oscar Braun's Theory of Unequal Exchange David Evans, David EvansSearch for more papers by this author David Evans, David EvansSearch for more papers by this author First published: October 1981 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1981.tb00107.xCitations: 3AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL REFERENCES Braun, O. (1973), Commercio Internacional e Imperialismo (Siglo XXI Argentina Editores S.A., Buenos Aires). Braun, O. (1974), ‘ L'Exchange Inegal’ in Echanges Internationaux et Sous-Développement (éditions Anthropos-Idep, Paris). Brown, R. and P. Wright (1978), ‘ Oscar Braun's Theory of Unequal Exchange: A Critical Review’ ( Institute of Social Studies, The Hague; mimeographed). Chichilinsky, G. (1980), ‘Basic Goods, the Effects of Commodity Transfers and the International Economic Order’, in The Journal of Development Economics, 7, 4, 505– 520. Evans, H. D. (1980a), ‘ Emmanuel's Theory of Unequal Exchange: Critique, Counter Critique and Theoretical Contribution’ ( Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Discussion Paper No. 149). Evans, H. D. (1980b), ‘ Unequal Exchange and Economic Policies: Some Implications of the Neo-Ricardian Critique of the Theory of Comparative Advantage’, in I. Livingstone (ed), Readings in Development Studies (George Allen and Unwin, London). Evans, H. D. (1981), ‘ Trade, Production and Self Reliance’, in D. Seers (ed), Dependency Theory: A Critical Assessment (Frances Pinter, London). Mainwaring, L. (1974), ‘A Neo-Ricardian Analysis of International Trade’, in Kyklos, XXVII, Fasc. 3, 537– 553; reprinted in Steedman (1979, Ch. 9). Mainwaring, L. (1977), ‘Monopoly Power, Income Distribution and Price Determination’, Kyklos, XXX, Fasc. 4, 674– 690. Osiatynski, J. (1979), ‘Michael Kalecki's Theory of Income Distribution’, in Oeconomica Polona, 3, 339– 358. Parrinello, S. (1979), ‘ Distribution, Growth and International Trade’, Ch. 14 in Steedman ed. (1979). I. Steedman (ed) (1979), Fundamental Issues in Trade Theory (Macmillan, London). Steedman, I. (1979), Trade Amongst Growing Economies (Cambridge University Press, 1979). Citing Literature Volume12, Issue4October 1981Pages 601-610 ReferencesRelatedInformation

This paper concentrates on a critique of international commodity policy from a non-neoclassical perspective. It is argued that, despite the formulation of international commodity policy in UNCTAD and NIEO in terms of broad perspectives for major structural and institutional change, both the theoretical weakness of the formulation of the proposals and the realities of relatively weak bargaining power of Third World countries have led to negotiation almost exclusively in terms of narrowly defined price objectives. The discussion of the theoretical weaknesses is illustrated with reference to simulation studies of commodity markets and empirical evidence on terms of trade movements. It is argued that the UNCTAD/NIEO policies proposed are unsuitable for and unlikely to achieve the desired ends. The final section of the paper examines briefly and finds in the literature on ‘unequal exchange’ a possible hidden rationale for the indexation aspects of UNCTAD/NIEO policy. The paper concludes that the discussion of international commodity policy to date remains outside the realm of serious appraisal of the operation of the world capitalist system and the possibilities therein for major structural and/or institutional change.