【新刊速递】《国际政治经济学评论》(RIPE), Vol. 32, No. 2

题目：On the limits of economic activity: bridging degrowth and modern monetary theory for socio-ecological sustainability and justice

作者：Ellen Helker-Nygren，渥太华大学环境研究所环境可持续性专业硕士研究生；Ryan Katz-Rosene，渥太华大学政治学院和环境研究所副教授。

摘要：本文旨在深化对两大政治经济学流派——“去增长”与现代货币理论——之间协同与张力的探讨，并指出国际政治经济与环境研究者应当给予更多关注。迄今为止，“去增长”政策多以政府财政约束为前提；而现代货币理论为财政空间提供了更为宽泛的视角，然其对生态维度的论述相对薄弱。本文反思两派关于经济活动边界的基本假设，考察它们如何相互启发各自的行动框架。研究发现，尽管两种经济哲学在根本理念上存在差异，但仍有可观的交叉互补空间。具体而言，现代货币理论可借鉴“去增长”关于生态极限与全球社会生态正义的视角，以评估经济体“可承受”的范围；同时，“去增长”理论亦可借助现代货币理论对财政与货币创造的洞见，将议题从“支付何种成本”转向“如何调配资源”，并在资源充裕与生态极限之间重新平衡。另一方面，国际政治经济与环境研究则可通过阶级与权力的物质分析，为这一融合过程提供更具实证性的支撑。总之，本文认为，“去增长”与现代货币理论的交融不仅能够为国际政治经济与环境研究在地球承载范围内满足物质需求提供新的规范指引，也为构建更具正义性的社会生态转型道路提供了理论基础。

This paper advances recent work exploring synergies and tensions between two schools of political-economic thought—degrowth and modern monetary theory (MMT)—and posits that this synergy warrants closer attention from International Political Economy and Environment (IPEE) scholars. Thus far, degrowth policies have largely been proposed upon the assumption that governments are limited in budgetary terms. MMT theorists have offered an alternative perspective on fiscal policy space but generally provide insufficient ecological considerations. This paper asks how each school’s underlying assumptions about the limits of economic activity might inform the other’s framework of action. We find that while there are tensions between the two schools’ economic philosophies, there are possibilities for cross-fertilization, which ought to interest IPEE scholars. MMT could engage degrowth’s perspective of ecological limits and global socio-ecological justice in its discussions about what economies can ‘afford’, whereas degrowth could use MMT insights to shift from a ‘pay for’ to a ‘resource’ frame, while centering abundance before limits. Meanwhile, IPEE can provide insights to an MMT-informed degrowth transition by grounding this debate in material analyses of class and power. Our findings suggest that degrowth and MMT could provide a normative direction for IPEE research centered around meeting material needs within planetary boundaries.

题目：Solving the problem of abundance: venture capital and the making of asset-driven inequalities

作者：Nils Peters，伦敦政治经济学院经济社会学研究员。

摘要：本世纪第二个十年期间，尽管投资者掌握了前所未有的巨额资本，其用于创造利润的可行渠道却异常有限。本文追溯了将大量现金转化为增值资产这一“资源过剩问题”的历史脉络，并将美国风险投资家置于其中枢地位。通过梳理风险投资在20世纪50年代的萌芽、60年代的制度化推进以及70年代的全面制度化进程，本文揭示了早期风险投资家如何构建了一套确保其资产持续增值的金融基础设施。随着大型机构投资者（作为资金提供方）和初创企业员工（作为被投资方）相继融入这一网络，并将自身行为导向其运作逻辑，风险投资家的影响力不断扩大。本文认为，正是在他们应对“资源充裕”挑战的过程中，资产驱动型不平等被系统性地建构并不断加深。从实证视角看，本文强调巨额个人财富的早期积累在此过程中的决定性作用，且这一不平等格局早于新自由主义浪潮或量化宽松政策便已初见端倪；从概念层面，本文指出，风险投资家对自身“过剩资本”的应对策略，如何在更大范围内转化为塑造经济与社会结构的普适范式。本文主张，应将风险投资家对“资源过剩”的解决视作依托于精英财富积累与专属金融基础设施可及性的历史产物。

The 2010s were an era of abundant capital for investors but limited opportunities to put it to profitable use. This paper traces the origins of dealing with the ‘problem’ of having to convert large accumulations of cash into appreciating assets. It puts venture capitalists in the US at the center of this history. Charting venture capital’s 1950s emergence, 1960s formalization, and 1970s institutionalization, I show how early venture capital investors built a financial infrastructure that safeguarded the appreciation of their assets. Venture capitalists’ influence increased as institutional investors (as funders) and startup employees (as investees) became enrolled in this infrastructure and oriented their actions toward its imperatives. I argue that in their handling of abundance, venture capitalists constructed and deepened asset-driven inequalities. Empirically, the paper makes a contribution by demonstrating that vast accumulations of (personal) wealth played a decisive role in this process and highlights the importance of stark inequality well before the neoliberal turn or quantitative easing. Conceptually, I show that venture capitalists’ solution to a personal problem became useful at a much larger scale. The paper argues that we should read this influence as conditioned on elite surplus and access to a financial infrastructure.

题目：Who funds whose infrastructure? Country dyadic analysis of global project finance loans

作者：来瑞霖（Lai Ruilin），圣路易斯华盛顿大学政治学博士生；Ilker Karaca，美国爱荷华州艾姆斯市·金融学讲师·爱荷华州立大学；Ji Yeon Hong，密歇根大学政治学副教授兼韩国国际交流基金会韩国研究教授。

摘要：全球项目融资投资在过去几十年已成为全球大型基础设施项目的主要融资机制之一。本文利用DealScan数据库中报告的所有项目融资交易数据，考察了1981年至2018年全球项目融资贷款的国家层面动态。分析显示，大多数国际项目融资贷款源自发达民主国家的银行和金融机构，而受援国在政权类型和经济发展水平上差异巨大。通过系统化的可视化和统计分析，本文发现基础设施项目的跨国资本流动更可能发生在政治制度相似的国家之间，也可能发生在政体截然不同的国家之间。该发现表明，完全民主国家与封闭独裁国家之间存在大量借贷关系——自由民主国家筹集的投资使一些最封闭的独裁政权得以为其基础设施建设融资。研究指出，封闭且高压的政权可能大幅受益于全球化的项目融资体系，这一现象值得国际政治经济学者进一步关注全球项目融资市场的政治影响。

Global project finance investments have become one of the primary funding mechanisms for large infrastructure projects worldwide over the past few decades. This paper examines the country-level dynamics of global project finance loans from 1981 to 2018, using data from all project finance deals reported in the DealScan database. Our analysis reveals that most international project finance loans originate from banks and financial institutions in advanced democracies, while the recipient countries vary widely in terms of regime type and economic development. Through systematic visualization and statistical analysis, we find that transnational capital flows for infrastructure projects are more likely to occur between countries with similar political systems or between those with starkly different regimes. This finding indicates significant lending and borrowing between full democracies and closed autocracies, suggesting that investments raised in liberal democracies enable some of the most closed dictatorships to finance their infrastructure development. The study suggests that closed and repressive regimes might substantially benefit from the globalized project financing system, warranting increased attention from scholars in International Political Economy on political implications of the globalized project finance market.

题目：Who’s afraid of cryptoization? Evidence from a survey experiment in Finland

作者：Anton Brännlund，乌普萨拉大学政府系研究员；Lauri Rapeli，芬兰全国选举研究首席研究员。

摘要：本文通过在芬兰开展的一项随机调查实验，考察了公众对加密货币广泛应用所引发的经济与政治后果的态度。研究旨在评估有关加密货币政治影响的信息如何影响个人的投资倾向，以及他们对监管措施与技术废止的看法。本文采用因果推断的实验设计，向受访者呈现关于加密货币普及可能带来的经济、货币、财政及地缘政治影响的引导性信息。结果显示，引导性信息对受访者关于政府是否应干预加密货币市场的观点未见显著影响；但在个人投资意愿方面，部分受访者因担忧潜在的经济与政治风险而表现出更大的投资谨慎。虽不主张此结论具备普适性，本文仍期望为学界在加密货币采纳议题上提供新的视角，并强调在利益集团与监管机构的博弈中，倾听公众态度与利益诉求的重要性。

This study examines attitudes toward the economic and political outcomes of widespread cryptocurrency adoption in a survey experiment conducted in Finland. Its goal is to assess how information on the political implications of cryptocurrencies influences individuals’ investment tendencies and their views on regulation and technology abolishment. Utilizing a survey experiment design for causal inference, it explores reactions to the perceived economic, monetary, fiscal, and geopolitical impacts of wider cryptocurrency adoption. Although priming messages had no significant effect on opinions about government intervention in crypto markets, a slight influence on personal investment decisions was noted, with some participants showing increased reluctance to invest due to potential economic and political repercussions. While our findings are not claimed to be universal, we aim to inspire further scholarly engagement with the topic of crypto adoption, a process currently influenced by negotiations between powerful interest groups and regulators. We argue for the importance of considering public attitudes and interests in these discussions.

题目：Non-trade issues in preferential trade agreements and global value chains

作者：Ida Bastiaens，福特汉姆大学政治学系副教授；Lisa Lechner，因斯布鲁克大学政治学方法论助理教授；Evgeny Postnikov，墨尔本大学国际关系副教授。

摘要：近年来，劳工与环境条款——通常被称为“非贸易问题”——正日益成为优惠贸易协定的重要组成部分。本文探讨这些非贸易条款的设计方式以及贸易伙伴本地的监管环境如何共同影响全球价值链中的投资模式与生产地理分布。本文基于1948年至2018年间478份优惠贸易协定的非贸易条款设计数据及跨国并购数据，采用双重差分法，评估劳工与环境条款对全球价值链的具体影响。在法律和商业研究文献的基础上，本文提出并验证如下观点：当国家加入优惠贸易协定时，具有可执行性的非贸易条款会与该国国内的监管环境发生互动，从而促使全球价值链发生结构性变化，尤其在“全球北方”国家中更为显著。研究结果为理解贸易协定设计、国内监管政策与跨国企业垂直整合生产活动之间的复杂联系提供了新的视角，也丰富了有关全球治理与跨国生产网络互动关系的实证研究。

How do labor and environmental provisions (also known as non-trade issues) that are increasingly part of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) affect investment patterns within global value chains (GVCs)? In this article, we explore how the design of these provisions and the local regulatory environments of trading partners influence the geography of production. By employing a difference-in-difference analysis of quantitative data on the design of non-trade issues in 478 PTAs and mergers and acquisitions between 1948 and 2018, we assess the influence of labor and environmental provisions in PTAs on GVCs. Building on the legal and business studies literatures, we expect and empirically find that when countries join PTAs, enforceable non-trade clauses interact with domestic regulatory environments and induce changes in GVCs, especially in Global North hosts. Our findings provide nuance to our current understanding of the interconnections across trade agreement design, domestic regulations, and vertically integrated multinational production.

题目：Trading off climate: how conventional trade interests shape climate discussions at PTA committees

作者：Alexandra Bögner，萨尔茨堡大学欧盟研究中心博士生。

摘要：近年来，关于贸易政策在应对气候变化中所起作用的争论日益激烈。其中一项被提出的可能改善气候成果的机制，是通过优惠贸易协定及其设立的委员会，这些委员会可能为具有雄心的参与方提供一个平台，以推动更高的气候标准。然而，学界对于这类推动是否存在、何时发生，以及其具体机制的了解仍然有限。本文指出，在优惠贸易协定的执行阶段，由于公众监督已大幅减弱、气候导向的行动者处于相对弱势地位，主导各方在委员会中气候议题讨论的，往往是传统贸易利益，而非真正的气候关切。通过对欧盟与19个贸易伙伴签署的优惠贸易协定下委员会会议纪要的系统分析并辅以访谈证据，本文发现，尽管各方定期且广泛地讨论气候问题，但在与主要贸易伙伴的讨论中，欧盟主要将气候议题与贸易利益联系起来，优先关注市场准入的推进与保障，尤其是为欧盟企业争取利益。相比之下，只有在与规模较小的贸易伙伴进行的讨论中，气候议题才更频繁地被“单独”作为一个独立议题提出和处理。通过揭示优惠贸易协定委员会的实际运作情况，本文为学界有关贸易协定中不同议题之间如何关联，以及传统贸易目标与气候或社会目标之间的张力提供了新的实证视角。

Debates over the role of trade policy in addressing climate change have gained steam in recent years. One proposed mechanism that might lead to improved climate outcomes runs through preferential trade agreements (PTAs) and their committees, which may provide a forum for ambitious actors to promote higher standards. So far, we know little about whether and when such promotion occurs at PTA committees. The paper argues that at the PTA implementation stage, where public scrutiny has largely subsided and climate-minded actors are in a weakened position, conventional trade interests, rather than genuine climate concerns, shape discussions of climate issues between the parties. An analysis of minutes from committee meetings under 19 European Union PTAs, supported by interview evidence, shows that the parties discuss climate issues routinely and extensively, but that especially with its major trade partners, the EU discusses climate issues primarily in connection to, and prioritizes, trade interests, notably the advancement and safeguarding of market access for EU companies. Only with smaller trade partners is climate more often discussed ‘in its own right’. Opening the black box of PTA committees, the paper speaks to debates about issue linkages and tensions between conventional trade and other interests in trade agreements.

题目：The national life of transnational models: macroprudential policy and the politics of translation in Germany and the UK

作者：Nick Kotucha，华威大学政治与国际关系系的博士后研究员。

摘要：目前关于宏观审慎政策的研究，多将其视为一种通过跨国知识建构过程而逐步形成的相对统一的政策路径。本文以德国和英国为案例，展示即使在金融治理传统迥异的国家之间，也在一套经国际认证的核心理念、模型、脚本与政策工具上展现出高度趋同。然而，出人意料的是，这种话语层面的趋同，往往伴随着对具体政策工具运用上的显著差异。为解释这些持续存在的差异，本文提出，必须关注央行决策者如何在引入这些外来理念与政策框架之前，通过一套“翻译”过程加以本土化使用。在这一过程中，对跨国经验所倡导的模型与指标进行“内生化”与“语境化”，成为关键所在。通过揭示政策“翻译”的机制，本文强调了即便是被全球广泛接受和验证的理念，其在本国的具体落地依然深受政治过程的影响。这种对跨国政策理念的“本地转译”，不仅是技术性的适配，更本质上体现了权力、制度路径与国家利益间的再调和。由此，本研究所揭示的转化机制，对于更广泛的政策领域与国家亦具有重要启示意义。

Most scholarship to date has treated macroprudential policy as a relatively coherent approach developed through transnational processes of knowledge construction. Using Germany and the UK as a case study, this article shows that there was indeed a remarkable level of convergence on an internationally validated set of key ideas, models, scripts, and policy tools even in countries with otherwise widely diverging traditions of financial governance. Surprisingly, however, similarities in discourse are often still accompanied by very different uses of individual policy tools. This article argues that to make sense of these persistent differences, we have to pay attention to the ways in which central bankers tend to subject imported ideas and scripts to a process of translation before using them in the actual policy process. Of particular importance in this regard are attempts at endogenization and contextualization of models and indicators imported from the transnational realm. In drawing attention to these processes of policy translation, the article also reaffirms the inherently political nature of the operationalization of transnationally validated ideas. It will be argued that the processes of translation thus uncovered are likely to be relevant to a much broader array of policy domains and countries.

题目：When fear matters: varied foreign economic cooperation preferences in the face of conflict

作者：David J. Bulman，约翰·霍普金斯大学高等研究院中国研究和国际事务助理教授。

摘要：感知到的安全威胁如何影响个体对国际经济合作的偏好？现有关于个人贸易与投资偏好的研究结论不一，部分研究表明安全外部性引发担忧，而另一些则认为人们希望借助经济合作防止未来冲突的发生。本文通过在中国（样本数为1140人）、印度（样本数为1435人）与美国（样本数为1397人）开展的互补性调查实验，聚焦中美及中印双边关系中的安全紧张局势，探讨在显著安全恐惧背景下公众对双边贸易与投资的支持态度。研究结果表明，安全恐惧以复杂多元的方式塑造个体对经济合作的偏好：一方面，激发安全恐惧会提升个体对广义经济合作与贸易举措的支持；另一方面，却也会促使人们更加倾向于支持狭义的经济保护主义政策，包括对内与对外投资的限制以及有针对性的出口管制。这一发现具有多重意义。首先，它深化了我们对个体经济合作偏好形成机制的理解，揭示了安全恐惧如何以不同方式作用于经济政策态度。其次，研究为“商业和平”现象背后的公众舆论机制提供了新视角，并指出，随着经济合作越来越呈现安全化趋势，该机制的重要性正在逐渐减弱。

How do perceived security threats shape individual preferences for international economic cooperation? Existing literature on individual trade and investment preferences reaches inconsistent conclusions, with evidence that individuals are alternately motivated by concerns about security externalities and hopes that economic cooperation will thwart future conflict. Using complementary survey experiments conducted in China (N = 1,140), India (N = 1,435), and the United States (N = 1,397), and focusing on security tensions in the US–China and China–India bilateral relationships, the article analyzes public support for bilateral trade and investment in the context of salient security fears. Results suggest that security fears motivate individual preferences for economic cooperation in complex ways: priming security fears increases individual support for broad measures of cooperation and trade, but also leads respondents to become more supportive of narrow measures of economic protectionism, including inward and outward investment restrictions and targeted export controls. These findings have several important implications. First, they add depth to existing theories of individual economic cooperation preferences, identifying the varied ways in which security fears affect economic preferences. Additionally, the results shed light on potential public opinion mechanisms behind the commercial peace phenomenon and suggest that this mechanism has declined in relevance as economic cooperation has become increasingly securitized.

题目：Rediscovering the multinational enterprise: the rise and fall of ‘corporate escape’ studies

作者：Matti Ylönen，赫尔辛基大学芬兰科学院研究员；Rasmus Corlin Christensen，哥本哈根商学院政治经济学博士后。

摘要：近年来的研究揭示，跨国企业（MNEs）自20世纪80年代以来，其在企业税收规避和避税天堂使用方面的迅猛扩展、巨大规模及其所带来的社会经济后果引发广泛关注。然而，社会科学界为何直到2010年代才系统性地研究这一现象？这一问题在国际政治经济学（IPE）领域尤为突出，因为早期国际政治经济学研究在20世纪70年代就已以跨国企业及其税务事务为核心进行分析，当时的研究框架为查尔斯·金德尔伯格（Charles Kindleberger）提出的“企业逃逸”（corporate escape）。本文借助前人的口述访谈、历史文献与文献计量分析所构建的集体口述历史，指出两个关键因素解释了企业逃逸研究的兴起（20世纪70年代）、衰落（世纪末）以及再度复兴（2010年代）：其一，是研究者对跨国企业相关跨学科技术知识的参与程度；其二，是与跨国企业政治化过程之间的互动关系。本文进一步阐明，学界在20世纪80至90年代逐步放弃了“企业逃逸”研究议程，从而失去了源自相邻学科与相关制度机构的重要技术洞见，并转向以经济主义与宏观结构主义为主导的研究路径。这些因素同样有助于解释，为何相关研究直到2010年代才在政治顺风与跨学科方法的新投入下重新获得活力。本文的发现不仅为国际政治经济学的历史与研究路径提供了重要补充，也重新确立了跨国企业作为关键中观层级制度性主体的研究地位，并强调了在研究企业（不当）行为与全球不平等问题时保持历史意识的重要性。

Recent scholarship has revealed the rapid post-1980s growth, dramatic scope, and socio-economic consequences of multinational enterprises’ (MNEs) corporate tax avoidance and tax haven use. But why did social scientists only start systematically studying these dynamics in the 2010s? This is especially puzzling for International Political Economy (IPE) given that early IPE, in the 1970s, centered analyses of MNEs and their tax affairs under a rubric that Charles Kindleberger called ‘corporate escape’. Drawing on a collective oral history from pioneer interviews, historical documents, and bibliometric analysis, we identify two factors that explain the 1970s origins, the late-century fall, and the recent rise, of corporate escape studies: engagement with transdisciplinary technical knowledge of MNEs, and interaction with the politicization of MNEs. We explain how researchers abandoned the corporate escape agenda in the 1980s–1990s, losing technical insights from cognate disciplines and institutions, and refocusing around economistic and macro-structural analyses. These factors also elucidate why corporate escape studies only fully reinvigorated in the 2010s with political tailwinds and renewed investments in transdisciplinarity. These insights contribute to debates on IPE history and research, reintroduce MNEs as key meso-level institutions, and underscore the importance of historical awareness for studying corporate (mis)conduct and global inequalities.

题目：Taxes on top incomes and financialisation

作者：Lukas Haffert，日内瓦大学政治学与国际关系系比较政治学副教授；David Hope，伦敦国王学院政治经济学系政治经济学高级讲师；Julian Limberg，伦敦国王学院政治经济学系公共政策高级讲师。

摘要：在过去半个世纪中，金融化已成为发达民主国家最显著的经济发展趋势之一。尽管现有文献普遍强调金融放松监管与自由化是推动金融化的关键政策变革，本文则主张税收政策同样发挥着重要作用。具体而言，本文指出，削减高收入群体税负对金融部门的影响尤为深远，因为该部门不仅支付着异常丰厚的薪酬，而且雇佣着高度流动的劳动力，遍布国内与国际市场。因此，相较于其他行业，金融行业从高收入税减免中获得的利益更为显著。本文运用双重差分法，分析了1970年至2019年间经济合作与发展组织（OECD）20个成员国的数据，结果提供了有力证据：削减高收入者所得税率会显著扩大金融部门的（相对）规模。此外，一项补充性的时间序列横截面分析进一步表明，在金融全球化程度较高的经济体中，这一效应更为显著。

Financialisation is one of the most prominent economic developments of the past half century in the advanced democracies. While the existing literature focuses on financial deregulation and liberalisation as the key policy changes driving financialisation, this paper contends that tax policy also plays a crucial role. More specifically, we argue that cuts to taxes on top incomes disproportionately benefit the financial sector, as it pays unusually high salaries and employs a highly mobile labour force, both domestically and internationally. As a consequence, the finance industry gains more from top income tax cuts than other industries. A difference-in-differences analysis covering 20 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from 1970 to 2019 provides strong evidence that cuts in top income tax rates increase the (relative) size of the financial sector. A complementary time-series cross-sectional analysis finds that these effects are even greater in more financially globalised economies.