Globalization

Outside the United States and the United Kingdom, large corporations usually have controlling owners, who are usually very wealthy families. Pyramidal control structures, cross shareholding, and super-voting rights let such families control corporations without making a commensurate capital investment. In many countries, a few such families end up controlling considerable proportions of their countries' economies. Three points emerge.

Does country transparency affect international portfolio investment? We examine this question by constructing new measures of transparency and by making use of a unique microdata set on portfolio holdings of emerging market funds around the world. We distinguish between government and corporate transparency. There is clear evidence that funds systematically invest less in less transparent countries. Moreover, funds have a greater propensity to exit nontransparent countries during crises.

In Europe, Procter & Gamble and Henkel appear to follow significantly different brand positioning strategies for laundry detergents. Procter & Gamble tends to use pan-European brand positions while Henkel tends to use brand positions that vary by country. Why would Procter & Gamble and Henkel pursue different brand positioning strategies and both be correct? The answer is that their competitive situations differ and they would answer the questions posed in this article differently.

One of the most controversial aspects of globalization is capital-market liberalization - not so much the liberalization of rules governing foreign direct inveestment, but those affecting short-term capital flows, speculative hot capital that can come into and out of the country. In the 1980s and 1990s, the IMF and the U.S.

The development focus of the Doha Round emerged from a renewed spirit of responsibility for the challenges faced by poor countries and the perceived inequities generated by previous rounds of trade negotiations. This study presents an alternative way forward for the Doha Round based on principles of social justice and economic analysis.

In recent years there have been enormous changes in our technology, our economy, and our society. But has there been progress? From most economists the first reaction to this question is: Of course there must have been progress! After all, the growth of new technologies expands opportunity sets, what we can do, the amount of output per unit input. We can choose either to have more output, more goods and services, or to work less. However we make the choice, surely we are better off. But what, then, about the sweeping changes we associate with the phenomenon of globalization?

The purpose of this panel is to make significant headway in assessing and developing multilateral strategies to promote democracy. Throughout, we will focus on constructive avenues for change rather than on critique and lamentation. We begin with two diagnostic questions: What is the state of democratization in the world today? How have strategies for the promotion of democracy changed since September 11, led by the transformed U.S. agenda of war on terror? Here we will discuss recent interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as new developments in other parts ofthe world.

A strand of recent literature shows that a reform of import tariff (export tax) and consumption tax (production tax) that keeps consumer (producer) price unchanged enhances welfare and increases revenue under plausible conditions. It has been argued that the results provide an ex post justification for the widely implemented reform policies in developing countries that reduce trade taxes and increase consumption tax like VAT for revenue.