It was a pleasure to be part of this conversation. My contribution focuses on investment liberalization, but the argument has broader implications
Thread 1/10
Thread 1/10
My starting point is the observation that the US is pursuing diverse and partially inconsistent objectives in relation to investment liberalization. 2/10
The US seeks to encourage and discourage outward US FDI in different contexts; it seeks to encourage and discourage inward FDI in different contexts. These competing objectives are layered with ad hoc claims about investment, national security, and technological dynamism. 3/10
Many existing accounts seek to explain US conduct by reference to underlying material *interests*. My central argument is that such accounts are incomplete. US conduct depends on how questions of investment liberalization are framed in relation to wider problems. 4/10
Drawing on constructivist political economy, I argue that US conduct illustrates deep uncertainty about the nature of the ‘problem’ of investment liberalization, the relevant categories of costs and benefits at stake, and the relationship between those costs and benefits. 5/10
Some theoretical implications: State conduct depends on how states understand their own interests – on the concepts and causal models that define phenomena as ‘problems’ and imply certain types of solutions. 6/10
Comparisons between different fields reveal the importance of such interpretative frameworks. For example, the trade and investment regimes are based on different and partially inconsistent assumptions about where states’ material interests lie. 7/10
Some practical implications: We should be particularly cautious of *realist* accounts of international economic relations – e.g. #geoeconomics. 8/10
To be useful as explanatory theory, realist accounts would have to clarify basic concepts—for example, the relevant material capabilities that constitute power—and propose causal models that link these material capabilities to concrete prescriptions for economic policy. 9/10
Nevertheless, framing economic relations as a contest between states for relative power can legitimize and naturalize a particular set of policy prescriptions – for example, those that characterize international economic linkages as a threat to national security. 10/10
