Browse by title

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 119 items :

  • Politics and Public Policy x
  • International Relations x
  • Social and Political Science 2018 x
Clear All
You do not have access to this content

Edited by Richard Eccleston and Ainsley Elbra

Since the financial crisis the extent of corporate tax avoidance has attracted media headlines and the attention of political leaders the world over. This study examines the ‘new’ politics of corporate taxation and the role of civil society organisations in shaping the international tax agenda and influencing the tax practices of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations. It highlights the complex and multi-dimensional strategies used by activists to influence public opinion, formal regulation and corporate behaviour in relation to international taxation.
You do not have access to this content

Richard Eccleston and Ainsley Elbra

Economic liberalisation and the rise of MNCs in recent decades have been a double-edged sword. With the exception of the 2008 Financial Crisis and its aftermath, the rise of global capitalism has been a key driver of economic growth and technological innovation, but at the same time has undermined state sovereignty and exacerbated inequality (Mikler 2018). Nowhere has this dualism been more apparent than in the realm of corporate taxation, which has become a prime example of what Martin Wolf (2012) describes as a ‘contemporary tragedy of the global commons’. The ‘tragedy’ is such that MNC tax avoidance is now estimated to deny governments over a quarter of a trillion US dollars per year, and after years of ignoring the issue governments and firms are being forced to act (Clausing 2015; OECD 2015).

This content is available to you

Ainsley Elbra and Richard Eccleston

Blatant corporate tax avoidance has attracted the ire of politicians, citizens and consumers the world over in recent years. Since the financial crisis of 2008, international taxation has become a mainstream political issue championed by social justice campaigners and the progressive press the world over. Globally, governments and intergovernmental organisations have announced a range of reforms designed to ensure that MNCs pay their ‘fair share’ of tax, while some of the world’s most powerful and profitable firms have been subjected to multibillion-dollar fines.

You do not have access to this content

Andrew O’Neil

Despite major changes in the security environment in Northeast Asia, including North Korea’s emergence as a nuclear-armed power, the US–Republic of Korea (ROK) alliance has been characterised by several consistent themes since its inception. The most prominent of these has been a tension between entrapment and abandonment fears, and a misalignment between close military-operational ties and uneven political strategic relations. While the alliance has experienced a significant ‘thickening’ of its institutional fabric, it nevertheless remains susceptible to strains regarding the inter-Korean focus of governments in Seoul and the aversion among US policymakers to any accommodation of Pyongyang. Looking ahead, these dynamics will continue to shape the US–ROK alliance as it confronts a new, and increasingly unpredictable, era of strategic uncertainty on the Korean peninsula.

You do not have access to this content

Harsh V. Pant

This chapter examines the evolution of American policies towards India and Pakistan since the end of the Cold War. It argues that structural convergence has led to a strengthening of U.S.–India ties while U.S.–Pakistan relations have come under severe strain due to Pakistan’s dubious role in fighting terrorism. This chapter starts by looking at Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the U.S. in June 2017, his first under the Donald Trump presidency. Subsequently, it maps out the factors that have led to a strengthening of U.S.–India relations. Finally, it examines the challenges confronting America’s ties with Pakistan.

You do not have access to this content

Kerry Brown and Meghan Iverson

China and the US are the contemporary world's two greatest powers. And yet there is a lack of consensus about how far they are able to work with each other, accommodating China's new pre-eminence and the US' need to adapt and change its posture particularly in the Asia Pacific region. In terms of hard power, for the foreseeable future the US will still be overwhelmingly preeminent. And yet in other areas, we are already seeing changes to the role it plays, particularly under Donald Trump, and the ways in which it is trying to craft a new narrative for the region with, and around, China. This chapter attempts to describe how this new narrative might unfold.

You do not have access to this content

Andrew T.H. Tan

The January 2016 elections in Taiwan, which was won by the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), have diminished the prospects for reunification with China. This, together with China’s growing economic and military power, as well as rising confidence and nationalism, have meant that the prospects of China using force to resolve the Taiwan problem has increased. However, any resort to coercion or military force by China would carry grave risks for it, as despite isolationist sentiments that underpinned Trump’s election, there is a high probability that the US would react to any attempt to coerce or attack Taiwan, given the anti-China mood in the US Congress. This could lead to uncertain consequences, such as an uncontrolled escalation into all-out conflict between the two great powers. It is thus in China’s interest to pursue peaceful means towards reunification and avoid any precipitate action that could upset the current order. It is also in the United States’ interest to remain actively engaged in the region in order to maintain stability.

You do not have access to this content

Yee-Kuang Heng

This chapter argues that what appear to be an insurmountable and growing set of constraints may in fact, in some cases, be an opportunity for Washington to extend its influence and further consolidate security relationships in the region. The US defence posture in Asia is characterized by a set of so-called “hub and spoke” relationships and networks with formal treaty allies (Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Australia, the Philippines). In addition, there are also long-standing quasi-allies (notably Singapore), or occasional partner states such as Malaysia and India that either host ad hoc US military deployments or participate in exercises together. This chapter evaluates the constraints and opportunities for the US defence posture through these three sets of US partners – formal treaty allies, quasi-allies and more ad hoc partners.

You do not have access to this content

Axel Berkofsky

Where is the US–Japan security alliance headed? With the US run by President Donald Trump, this is – at least so it seems for now – not always easy to predict in view of Trump’s frequent pathological mood swings and contradictory policies. For now, at least, Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe get along just fine and provide each other with what they want from each other – US guarantees to protect the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea in return for Abe not criticizing Trump’s ill-fated isolationist policies in the Asia-Pacific announced by tweets in the early hours of the day. Day-to-day US–Japan alliance management business in the meantime goes on undeterred and helped by recent development and changes on Japan’s security and defence policy agenda, Washington and Tokyo are on a very well-defined path to increase alliance interoperability, aimed at among others transforming the bilateral alliance from asymmetrical to more symmetrical and equal. The revised version of the US–Japan defence guidelines adopted in 2015 in particular are a fundamental step towards increasing Japanese military contributions in the case of a regional contingency with US involvement. The details, challenges and prospects of increased and deeper US–Japan military cooperation in the context of their bilateral alliance will be analysed in this chapter.

You do not have access to this content

Mark Beeson and Jeffrey D. Wilson

The largely unexpected election of Donald Trump has given trade relations an unaccustomed prominence in policy debates. No development highlighted this more dramatically than the rise, and then abrupt demise, of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP saga highlights the growing importance of ‘geoeconomics’ – the application of economic instruments to advance geopolitical ends – in the external policies of major powers. This chapter examines the geoeconomic logic of the TPP, locating its origins in the Obama administration’s desire to shape the form of Asian economic regionalism. However, the it was not wholly well-received either in the U.S. or the region. Asian governments launched competing trade initiatives to the TPP, and domestic opponents applied pressure that ultimately led to its abandonment by the Trump administration. The demise of the TPP may accelerate prospects for an American-to-Chinese leadership transition in Asia, by providing a space in which new Chinese regionalism initiatives can gain traction.