Embedded Liberalism in the Global Era
| Author | Matthew Mendelsohn,Robert Wolfe |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200405900202 |
| Published date | 01 June 2004 |
| Date | 01 June 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ROBERT
WOLFE
&
MATTHEW
MENDELSOHN
Embedded
liberalism
in
the
global
era
Would
citizens
support
a
new
grand
compromise?
THE
"COMPROMISE
OF
EMBEDDED
LIBERALISM"'
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
metaphors
in
international
relations,
offering
a
compelling
story
about
the
political
foundations
of
international
organization
in
the
second
half
of
the twentieth century.
We
understand embedded
liberalism
as
a
story
about
the
basis
for
a
multilateral
international
order,
rather
than the
overlapping comparative
politics
story
about
domestic
institutions
aimed
at
facilitating
adjustment
to
economic
change.
2
The
compromise
between
free
trade
abroad
and
the
welfare
state
at
home
was
one
made
by
states
in
their
own interests,
but
it
was
also
made
by
citizens
in
industrial
democracies
prepared
to
accept
the
constraints
of
multilateralism
in
return
for
a
more
prosperous and
peaceful
world.
Many
scholars
are
concerned
that
the
existing
com-
promise
as
a
constitutive
rule for global
governance
is
unsustainable
in
this
era
of
globalization.
John
Ruggie
worries,
in
contrast,
that
it
may
not
be
possible
to "take
embedded
liberalism
global" in
order to
integrate
a
Robert
Wolfe
is
associate
professor
in
the
school
ofpolicy
studies
at
Queen
s
University.
Matthew
Mendelsohn
is
associate
professor
in
the
department
ofpolitical
studies
at
Queen's
University,
and
is
currently
on
leave
serving
as
deputy
minister
and
head
of
the
Democratic
Renewal
Secretariat,
Government
of
Ontario.
1
John
G.
Ruggie,
"International
Regimes,
Transactions,
and
Change:
Embedded
Liberalism
in
the Postwar
Economic
Order,"
in
Krasner, Stephen
D.
(ed.),
International
Regimes
(Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
1983), 195-231.
2
On
the
latter,
see
Blyth, Mark,
Great
Transformations:
Economic Ideas
and
Institutional
Change
in
the
Twentieth
Century
(New York:
Cambridge
University
Press,
2002).
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Spring
2004
Robert
Wolfe
&
Matthew
Mendelsohn
wider
range
of
countries,
institutions,
and
social
actors.
3
In
this article,
we
draw on public opinion
analysis
to make
inferences
about
whether
the compromises embedded
liberalism
requires
are
still
legitimate,
and
therefore
if
a
new
grand
compromise
for global
governance
is
possible.
The
compromise
of
embedded
liberalism
was
not
a
grand
decision
sealed
by
a
treaty,
but
an
ongoing
process
first evident
in
the
actions
of
state
officials
during
the
1940s.
This
postwar
international order may
have
been
negotiated
at
the
outset,
but
its
continuing
reproduction
depends
on
the
social
interaction
shaped
by
the
compromise
itself,
which
influences
the
attitudes
of
citizens
towards
global
governance
that
are
a
necessary
if
not
sufficient
condition
for
the
maintenance
of
strong international
institutions. Embedded
liberalism
is
not
a fixed
bargain
about
levels
of
social
spending
or
tariff
bindings
but
a
dynam-
ic
commitment
to
allowing
countries
to
be
different
within
a
multilat-
eral
framework.
It
is
a
compromise
between
the
needs for
universality
on
which
a
strong
order
must
rest,
and
the
needs
for
particularity
that
are
inevitable
in
a
plural
world
order.
If
it
continues,
it
should
shape
how
citizens
understand
their
relations
with
the
world,
and
that
under-
standing
should
be
observable
in
the
responses citizens
give
in
answer
to
survey
questions
about
free
trade,
globalization,
and
the work
of
international
institutions.
As
described
more
fully below, we
conduct-
ed
an
opinion
survey
designed
to
probe
how
Canadians
understand
the
political compromise
between
the
efficiency
of
open
markets
and
the
security
of
the
welfare
state.
The
usual
narratives
about
the
public's
response
to
globalization
are
problematic
because
they
focus
on
individuals'
self-interest.
4
But then
why
do
privileged
people
in
rich
countries
seem
to
protest the
process
that
has
made
them
wealthy?
The
dozens
of
articles
that
have
speculat-
ed
on the
origins
and
political
significance
of
the anti-globalization
protests
of
the
past
few years
mostly
ignore formal
research
on
public
opinion.
Many
observers
of
the
wave
of
street
demonstrations
take
public protest
as
an
indicator
that
citizens
are
hostile
to
trade,
to
trade
agreements,
to
multilateral
institutions
and
to globalization
generally,
3
John
G.
Ruggie,
"Taking
Embedded
Liberalism
Global,"
in
Bernstein, Steven
and
Pauly,
Louis
W.
(eds.),
Global
Governance:
Towards
a
New
Grand
Compromise
(in
progress).
4
Kenneth
F.
Scheve
and
Matthew
J.
Slaughter,
Globalization
and
the
Perceptions
of
American
Workers
(Washington:
Institute
for
International
Economics),
2001;
also
Matthew
J.
Gabel,
Interests and
Integration:
Market Liberalization,
Public
Opinion,
and
European Union
(Ann
Arbor:
University
of
Michigan
Press,
1998).
262
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
Spring2004
To continue reading
Request your trial