世界システムと貿易

世界システム論

抄録

There are two types of world-system theory. One is a wave theory which includes Kondratieff's theory of long waves and Modelski's theory of long cycles. The other is a structural theory represented by the theory of hegemonic stability presented by Kindleberger, Gilpin, Krasner, and Keohane. The purpose of this study is to examine various implications of these theories for trade flows and trade policy.
There is an interesting relationship between Kondratieff's long waves and international trade. During Kondratieff's upswing, trade growth rate increases while it decreases during the downswing. In other words, price movements and trade flows draw similar curves, as demonstrated by French trade statistics during the 1850-1895 period. It may be that during the upswing one sees greater economic activities and greater productivity, stimulating expansion of foreign trade. It is also important to note that the trade expansion period for France (1850-1875) corresponds with the period of trade liberalization in Europe, symbolized by the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty concluded between England and France in 1860.
Modelski's “world power” is a lead economy which sets rules for international economic transactions. But not every world power necessarily promotes free trade. 16th-century Portugal, 17th-century Netherland, and 18th-century England as world powers resorted to monopolistic practices, tending to constrain intercontinental trade flows. Modelski implies that only those powers which emerged after the Industrial Revolution-England during Pax Britanca and the United States during Pax Americana-have actually promoted free trade. The second English world power did promote free trade, particularly during its “delegitimation” phase (1948-73) which coincided with an upswing period defined by Modelski as well as by Kondratieff. During the next upswing (1914-46), however, England became increasingly protectionist. After the 1870s, in fact, one sees substantial discrepancy in periodization between Kondratieff's and Modelski's upswings and downswings. The present period corresponds with Modelski's upswing and delegitimation phase, but one sess the United States as world power becoming less economically competitive, facing serious domestic protectionist pressures. Kondratieff would have referred to the present as a downswing period.
A “hegemonic power” promotes free trade more directly than Modelski's world power, though they largely overlap in the 19th century and in the post-World War II period. Modelski himself associates a “hegemonical” power with a world empire pursuing only selfish interests, not necessarily producing collective goods such as an open international economic system. The theory of hegemonic stability helps us explain the steady shift toward protectionism in English trade policy in the early 20th century as it was replaced by the United States as hegemonic power. But it does not satisfactorily explain the American trade policy today. Despite its declining hegemonic status, the United States (especially its executive branch of government) has not turned markedly protectionist, though increasingly under protectionist pressure at home. Moreover, the theory somewhat runs counter to the fact that the United States in the postwar period (up to the mid-1960s) had largely subordinated its trade policy to foregin policy, promoting “free trade for the free world” for the sake of greater cohesion of the western coalition against communist expansionism. The “bipolar system” theory, which calls one's attention to the impact of the changing East-West relationship on U. S. trade policy, sheds more light in this respect. It may be worthwhile to note that, according to Wallerstein, the hegemonic theory applies only to the capitalist world, with the decline of the hegemonic power occurring during Kondratieff's downswing.
The free trade regime has not yet