Governing the market: economic theory and the role of government in East Asian industrialization. By Robert Wade and Race to the swift: state and finance in Korean industrialization

Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation

Office of the White House Press Secretary

Purpose: The study aims to empirically estimate the role of public supports for energy efficiency financing and presents the way forward to mitigate the energy financing barriers that incurred during the COVID-19 crisis. Design/methodology/approach: Using the G7 countries data, the study estimated the nexus between the constructs. Generalized method of moments (GMM) and conventional increasing-smoothing asymptotic of GMM are applied to justify the study findings. Wald econometric technique is also used to robust the results. Findings: The study findings reported a consistent role of public support on energy efficiency financing indicators, during the COVID-19 crisis period. G7 countries raised funds around 17% through public supports for energy efficiency financing, and it raised 4% of per unit energy usage to GDP, accelerated 16% energy efficiency and 24% output of renewable energy sources, during COVID-19. By this, study findings warrant a maximum support from public offices, energy ministries and other allied departments for energy efficiency optimization. Practical implications: The study presents multiple policy implications to enhance energy efficiency through different alternative sources, such as, on-bill financing, direct energy efficiency grant, guaranteed financial contracts for energy efficiency and energy efficiency credit lines. If suggested policy recommendations are applied effectively, this holds the potential to diminish the influence of the COVID-19 crisis and can probably uplift the energy efficiency financing during structural crisis. Originality/value: The originality of the recent study exists in a novel framework of study topicality. Despite growing literature, the empirical discussion in the field of energy efficiency financing and COVID-19 is still shattered and less studied, which is contributed by this study. © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited.

Energy financing in COVID-19: how public supports can benefit?

Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies

Learning from Past Pandemic Governance: Early Response and Public-Private Partnerships in Testing of COVID-19 in South Korea.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has played a leading role in shaping the global economic system. While US influence has waned with the reconstruction of Europe and the rise of China, it has remained the leading power in the international system. The election of Donald Trump, however, represents a significant shift in US trade policy. In its first days the Trump administration withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and has since taken specific steps to renegotiate trade agreements and protect US industries. Politicizing the importance to reduce bilateral US trade deficits and to bring manufacturing jobs back home, the Trump administration has also utilized trade remedies in addition to the seldom-used safeguards to advance its “America First” economic agenda. Although trade remedy actions―the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duty based on the US Trade Act of 1974―have been critical instruments for US trade, prioritizing trade deficit reduction in US trade policy has the potential to erode the underlying international system and exacerbate rather than resolve the tensions that have spurred nationalistic economic movements. Against this backdrop, in this article we explore the implications of an abrogation of US global economic leadership for the international trading system and US influence more broadly. We also consider the implications for East Asia and the global economy as a whole as China, the European Union, and Japan take on larger leadership roles within the global trading system.

Trump's America First Policy in Global and Historical Perspectives: Implications for US–East Asian Trade

In an era in which China’s regionalization greatly impacts not only East Asia and also the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, a closer examination of China’s political and economic strategies is necessary. In undertaking this task, Kavalski’s edited volume provides various perspectives on China’s regionalization, through its past, present, and future in various parts of the globe. The book is informative and insightful but nevertheless contains flaws from a policy perspective that must be carefully reviewed for policy implications. The book is divided into two parts; Part I, which outlines the historical, analytical, and comparative contexts of the global politics of China’s regionalization; and Part II, which focuses on insights from the global politics of China’s regionalization. Part I attempts to be a gateway for readers to a broad background of China’s current incentives for globalization linked to its traditions. This part of the book is intuitive in that it is seeking to find China’s drive for regionalization from historical factors, but it creates difficulty in directly linking China’s historical past to its intent behind present-day practices until chapter 7. The first three chapters following the introductory chapter share the common goal of explicating the linkage between China’s historical past to current policy. They are highly informative in historical context, but unfortunately lack in explanations of “how” to go about the task of linking history to current policy-making, as there are hardly any methodologies involved. Chapter 5 attempts to explain how Chinese nationalism impacts the country’s region-building strategies, while chapter 6 states that Beijing has chosen an outward-looking vision in the past three decades for regionalization and that it has grown out of its past as an inward-looking and isolated country. The most debatable chapters in the volume, chapter 7, points out that despite the rhetoric and the politicization, the U.S. and Chinese economic regionalization strategies are strikingly similar and that Sino-U.S. rivalry is inevitable in East Asia. While “saying no to institutions” may apply to China, full J OF CHIN POLIT SCI DOI 10.1007/s11366-011-9183-x

June Park

Papers

Learning from Past Pandemic Governance: Early Response and Public-Private Partnerships in Testing of COVID-19 in South Korea.

Trump's America First Policy in Global and Historical Perspectives: Implications for US–East Asian Trade

Emilian Kavalski, ed. China and the Global Politics of Regionalization