Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:46:34.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speed, law and the global economy: How economic acceleration contributes to inequality and precarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

Nicolás M. Perrone
Nicolás M. Perrone*
Affiliation:
Universidad Andres Bello. Facultad de Derecho. Campus Viña del Mar, Chile
*
Email: nicolas.perrone@unab.cl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The law is implicated in many of the relations that produce inequality and precarity in the global economy. It contributes in different ways to the unequal bargaining power between states, capital, and labour. One way that has attracted less attention so far relates to how the law accelerates economic relations. This article examines the role of law in the global economy not by focusing on the international economic institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the European Union (EU) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but on the transactions that plug maquila workers and freelancers into the global economy. The argument is that the speed of these economic relations favours those who command international production, creating what Hartmut Rosa calls a ‘frenetic standstill’. Importantly, the law can also contribute to changing these bargaining dynamics by slowing down some of these transactions and facilitating their territorial re-embedding. This strategy, however, requires a better understanding of the role of law in transnational networks of contracts as well as more state and non-state international co-ordination: The opposite of nationalist attitudes, such as Brexit and Trump’s trade policy.

Keywords

critical theoryglobal value chainsinternational economic lawpolitical economytransnational law
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 557 - 576
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Andrew Lang, David Schneiderman, Robert Schütze, William Lucy, John Linarelli, Nicole Selamé Glena, and the participants of the IEL Collective Inaugural Conference for their comments and suggestions. All errors remain mine only.

References

2 As Linarelli, Salomon and Sornarajah explain, the reasons for inequality and precarity relate to predistribution and not just redistribution. The former, however, is rarely at the forefront of international trade, foreign investment and global finance discussions. J. Linarelli, M. E. Salomon and M. Sornarajah, The Misery of International Law: Confrontations with Injustice in the Global Economy (2018), 35–6.

3 Gerbaudo, P., ‘The populist era’, (2017) 65 Soundings: A journal of politics and culture 46Google Scholar, at 56–7.

4 B. Milanovic, Global Inequality: A New Approach For The Age Of Globalization (2016), at 4, 56, 155.

5 C. Cutler, Private power and global authority: Transnational merchant law in the global political economy (2003). Also, Chimni, B., ‘International Institutions Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making’, (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 E. N. Luttwak, Turbo-capitalism: Winners and losers in the global economy (1998).

7 T. Piketty, Capital In The Twenty-First Century (2014); see Milanovic, supra note 4.

8 See Piketty, supra note 7, at 10; Milanovic, supra note 4, at 86.

9 Grewal, D. S., ‘Book Review: The Laws of Capitalism’, (2014) 128 Harvard Law Review at 626Google Scholar, 628, 652, 654–5, 658.

10 J. Butler, Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? (2010), 14. As Singer explains, in whose specific hands is also a relevant question: ‘We worry about institutional roles because we are concerned about the illegitimate concentration of power in the hands of persons who are not sufficiently accountable to those affected by their decisions.’ Singer, J. W., ‘The reliance interest in property’, (1988) 40 Stanford Law Review 611CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 745.

11 Perrone, N. M. and Schneiderman, D., ‘International Economic Law’s Wreckage: Depoliticization, Inequality, Precarity’, in Christodoulidis, E., Dukes, R. and Goldoni, M. (eds.), Research Handbook on Critical Legal Theory (2019), 446, at 446CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Kennedy, D., ‘The stakes of law, or Hale and Foucault’, (1991) 15 Legal Studies Forum 327Google Scholar, at 329.

13 Mnookin, R. H. and Kornhauser, L., ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce’, (1979) 88 The Yale Law Journal 950, at 950CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Gerbaudo, supra note 3, at 47.

15 In the wake of the twentieth century, George Bernard Shaw observed ‘Independence? That’s middle class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth.’ Cited in Singer, supra note 10, at 632.

16 Under a traditional view ‘property and sovereignty are inherently intertwined – and thus international property law cannot exist’. J. G. Sprankling, The International Law of Property (2014), 3.

17 See Perrone and Schneiderman, supra note 11, at 461; Koskenniemi, M., ‘It’s Not the Cases, It’s the System’, (2017) 18 Journal Of World Investment & Trade 343CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 J. W. Singer, No Freedom Without Regulation: The Hidden Lesson of the Subprime Crisis (2015), at 5, 9, 160.

19 R. Baldwin, ‘Globalisation: the great unbundling(s)’, 2006, Economic council of Finland, available at repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/15561/files/Baldwin_06-09-20.pdf, at 5–8; R. Baldwin, The Great Convergence: Information Technology And The New Globalization (2016), 9.

20 R. Rajan, The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind (2019), 173.

21 See Cutler, supra note 5, at 254.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Wai, R., ‘Transnational Private Law and Private Ordering in a Contested Global Society’, (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 471Google Scholar.

25 Zumbansen, P., ‘Transnational Private Regulatory Governance: Ambiguities of Public Authority and Private Power’, (2013) 76 Law and Contemporary Problems 117Google Scholar, at 134.

26 D. Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (1991), at 284–307. See also B. Warf, Time-Space Compression (2017).

27 Just-in-time manufacturing, also known as just-in-time production is a methodology aimed at reducing times within the production process as well as response times from suppliers and to customers. T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production (1988), 4.

28 The importance of speed in economic relations is discussed in the work of Paul Virilio, e.g., P. Virilio, Speed and Politics (2006); P. Virilio, The Information Bomb (2000). Also, Armitage, J. and Graham, P., ‘Dromoeconomics: Towards a Political Economy of Speed’, (2001) 7.1Parallax 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 H. Rosa, Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity (2013), 283.

30 Different strands of economic thinking consider transactions as the basic unit of the economy. See J. Commons, Institutional Economics (1934), 4–8; O. E. Williamson, The economic institutions of capitalism firms, markets, relational contracting (1985), at 3 (citing Commons). Similarly, Baldwin recognizes that the nation and corporations are no longer ideal units of analysis, see Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 144.

31 For a discussion of this claim see Tzanakopoulos, A., ‘The Right to Be Free from Economic Coercion’, (2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International Law and Comparative Law 616CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See Gerbaudo, supra note 3, at 47–54.

33 Philip Jessup already highlighted the relevance of these four levels of analysis in Transnational Law (1956).

34 S. Sassen, Losing Control?: Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization (1996), at 23–32.

35 S. Sassen, A Sociology of Globalization (2007), 45–96; S. Sassen, Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages (2009), 168–203.

36 Catá Baker, L., ‘Regulating Multinational Corporations — Trends, Challenges and Opportunities’, (2015) 22 Brown Journal of World Affairs 1Google Scholar, at 153; G.-P. Calliess and P. Zumbansen, Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law (2010), 27–35.

37 Loughlin, M., ‘The erosion of sovereignty’, (2016) 45 Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 66. Loughlin refers to co-ordinating domestic groups as a key function of governments. The question is whether and how government can fulfil this function at the global level.

38 Zumbansen, P., ‘Transnational Law’, in Smits, J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (2006)Google Scholar, at 738; Catá Baker, L., ‘Are Supply Chains Transnational Legal Orders?: What We Can Learn From the Rana Plaza Factory Building Collapse’, (2016) 1 University of California Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law 11Google Scholar. For an argument favouring the corporation as a site of intervention see Danielsen, D., ‘How corporations govern: Taking corporate power seriously in transnational regulation and governance’, (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 411Google Scholar.

39 See Gerbaudo, supra note 3, at 56.

40 See Baldwin (2006), supra note 19, at 5.

41 R. B. Reich, The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st-century Capitalism (1992), at 23–48, 186, 268.

42 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 47–77.

43 S. Beckert, Empire of cotton: A global history (2015), at 196, 383–9. See also K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political And Economic Origins Of Our Time (2001[1957]).

44 See Beckert, ibid., at xxi. See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 142–54, 168–70, 202, 236–7.

45 See Baldwin, ibid., at 7; ibid., at 5.

46 Ibid., at 7.

47 Ibid., at 47–78.

48 Ibid., at 5.

49 Ibid., at 7.

50 US Department of Commerce, Multinational corporations a compendium of papers submitted to the Subcommittee on International Trade of the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973, 42.

51 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 5.

52 See also K. Pomeranz, The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy (2000).

53 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 5, 19, 81–2.

54 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 145, 161, 203, 236–7; see also Baldwin ibid., at 26, 184–8.

55 Ibid. Also, H.-J. Chang, Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective (2002), at 13, 69.

56 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 171–4, 332; Baldwin (201), supra note 19, at 55–62.

57 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 171–2; Pomeranz, supra note 52, at 285–97.

58 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 160–5, 196.

59 A. Anghie, Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law (2007), 86. See also A. Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, property and empire, 1500–2000 (2014). Alvarez highlights that ‘for centuries, international law has prioritized the protection of property and associated it with sovereignty itself’; Alvarez, J. E., ‘Review Essay: The International Law of Property’, (2018) 112 AJIL 771, at 779CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 C. Lipson, Standing guard: Protecting foreign capital in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (1985), 3–8.

61 See Anghie, supra note 59, at 68, 252.

62 K. Marx, Capital – Volume 1 (1976), at 873, 927.

63 A. A. Berle and M. Gardiner, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (2017[1932]); Coase, R., ‘The nature of the firm’, (1937) 4 Economica 386CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 T. Veblen, Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: The Case of America (2009[1923]), at 50–68; see also Commons, supra note 30.

65 Meek, J., ‘Somerdale to Skarbimierz’, (2017) 39:8London Review of Books 3Google Scholar.

66 Cohen, M. R., ‘Property and sovereignty’, (1927) 13 Cornell Law Quarterly 8Google Scholar; Hale, R. L., ‘Coercion and distribution in a supposedly non-coercive state’, (1923) 38 Political Science Quarterly 470CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Singer, J. W., ‘Sovereignty and property’, (1991) 86 Northwestern University Law Review 1Google Scholar, 51.

68 Cohen explains that ‘[i]t may well be that compulsion in the economic as well as the political realm is necessary for civilized life. But we must not overlook the actual fact that dominion over things is also imperium over our fellow human beings’. See Cohen, supra note 66, at 13.

69 Ibid. Also see Hale, supra note 66, at 471, 474–6.

70 See Singer, supra note 18.

71 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 388.

72 See Hale, supra note 66, at 493.

73 See Anghie, supra note 59.

74 See T. Sagafi-Nejad and J. H. Dunning, The UN and Transnational Corporations: From code of conduct to global compact (2008), at 41–123.

75 L. Boltanski and E. Chiapello, The new spirit of capitalism (2005), at 70–86, 223.

76 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., ‘Five-Year Financial Summary’, 2017, Exhibit 13 submitted to the Security Exchange Commission, available at www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104169/000010416917000021/wmtars-1312017.htm.

77 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 153–76; Boltanski and Chiapello, supra note 75, at 223.

78 Robé, J.-P., ‘Conflicting Sovereignties in the World Wide Web of Contracts – Property Rights and the Globalization of the Power System’, in Teubner, G. (ed.), Soziologische Jurisprudenz (2009), 691Google Scholar. See also, Boltanski and Chiapello, supra note 75, at 11.

79 I am grateful to Scott Nova for his insights on the garment sector and GVCs.

80 ILO, ‘Purchasing practices and working conditions in global supply chains: Global Survey results’, (2017) INWORK Issue Brief No.10, available at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_556336.pdf.

81 Ibid., at 3-9.

82 Ibid., at 4, 6.

83 Ibid., at 6.

84 K. Raworth, ‘Trading away our rights: Women working in global supply chains’, (2004) Oxfam Policy and Practice: Private Sector, 38; R. Willoughby and T. Gore, ‘Ripe for Change: Ending human suffering in supermarket supply chains’, (2018) Oxfam Report, at 10, 40, 101.

85 See Raworth, ibid., at 33.

86 Ibid., at 35.

87 Ibid., at 34.

88 Ibid., at 35.

89 Ibid., at 38.

90 Ibid.

91 I am grateful to Jessica Lucio for numerous discussions about the translation industry.

92 Abdallah, K., ‘Translators Agency in Production Networks’, in Kinnunen, T. and Koskinen, K. (eds.), Translators’ Agency (2010), 11Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., at 20.

94 Ibid., at 42.

95 Ibid., at 35.

96 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 105–8.

97 In addition to the reports from the ILO, Oxfam and the University of Tampere see Meek, supra note 65.

98 See Gerbaudo, supra note 3, at 50.

99 Q. Slobodian, Globalists: the end of empire and the birth of neoliberalism (2018), 222–3.

100 M. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at The Collège de France, 1978–1979 (2010), 282–3; Slobodian, ibid., at 224–51, 270.

101 See G. Shaffer and T. Halliday, ‘With, Within, and Beyond the State: The Promise and Limits of Transnational Legal Ordering’, (2016) UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2016, at 59.

102 See Sassen, supra notes 34 and 35.

103 See Foucault, supra note 100, at 295. Foucault notes that now a government ‘manages civil society, the nation, society, the social’, at 296.

104 See IMF, ‘Fiscal Monitor: Tackling Inequality’, October 2017, available at www.imf.org/en/Publications/FM/Issues/2017/10/05/fiscal-monitor-october-2017; G. Pinkus, J. Mankiya and S. Ramaswamy, ‘We can’t undo globalization, but we can improve it’, (2017) Harvard Business Review January 10; Rajan, supra note 20, at 318.

105 Pistor, K., ‘From Territorial to Monetary Sovereignty’, (2018) 18 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 491Google Scholar; Perrone, N. M., ‘Neoliberalism and economic sovereignty: property, contracts, and foreign investment relations’, in Brabazon, H. (ed.), Neoliberal legality: Understanding the role of law in the neoliberal project (2016), 55Google Scholar.

106 Muir Watt, H., ‘Empire through Contract: A Private International Law Perspective’, in Cutler, C. and Dietz, T. (eds.), The Politics of Private Transnational Governance by Contract (2017), 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 164.

108 See Perrone, supra note 105.

109 See Beckert, supra note 43, at 383–8.

110 A. Grice, ‘Theresa May missed an opportunity to tackle corporate governance, but she can’t afford to do the same with the gig economy’, The Independent, 30 November 2016.

111 A. Hill, ‘Bolts from the blue test our fragile systems’, Financial Times, 4 June 2018.

112 J. K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (1998[1958]), at 11–15.

113 Quiggin, J., ‘Globalization and economic sovereignty’, (2001) 9 Journal of Political Philosophy 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 62–3, 78.

114 D. Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace (2006), 206–9.

115 Ruggie, J. G., ‘International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order’, (1982) 36 International Organization 379CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 393.

116 Quiggin, supra note 113, at 63–4, 78.

117 G. Schwarzenberger, ‘The Province and Standards of International Economic Law’, (1948) 2 The International Law Quarterly 402, at 403.

118 Ibid., at 420.

119 P. Lamy, ‘Looking Ahead: The New World of Trade - Jan Tumlir Lecture’, (2015) ECIPE, Brussels, 9 March, available at ecipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PLamy-Speech-09.03.15.pdf.

120 See Slobodian, supra note 99, at 218–62.

121 Raustiala, K., ‘Rethinking the sovereignty debate in international economic law’, (2003) 6 Journal of International Economic Law 841CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 See Boltanski and Chiapello, supra note 75.

123 M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (2010), 54.

124 J.-J. Servan-Schreiber, The American Challenge (1969).

125 See Baldwin (2016), supra note 19, at 6–7, 237.

126 Bergsten, F., ‘Coming investment wars’, (1974) 53 Foreign Affairs 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127 See Sagafi-Nejad, supra note 74.

128 See US Department of Commerce, supra note 50, at 59.

129 Ibid., at 42.

130 Perrone, N. M., ‘UNCTAD’s World Investment Reports 1991-2015: 25 Years of Narratives Justifying and Balancing Foreign Investor Rights’, (2018) 19 Journal of World Investment & Trade 1Google Scholar, at 26, 32.

131 See Perrone and Schneiderman, supra note 11, at 471.

132 ‘The president and corporations: How Donald Trump is changing the rules for American business’, The Economist, 10 December 2016; J. Cassidy, ‘What Is Donald Trump’s Trade Policy? Nobody Knows’, The New Yorker, 1 May 2018.

133 G. Alexander and E. Peñalver, An Introduction to Property Theory (2012), 2.

134 See Singer, supra note 18.

135 In the 1980s, the business guru Herb Cohen became famous after publishing his book You can negotiate anything (1980). As Kennedy explains, the law then was expected to mimic ‘what market actors would do in the absence of transaction costs, while holding all the other rules constant’. Kennedy, D., ‘Some caution about property rights as a recipe for economic development’, (2011) 1.1Accounting, Economics, and LawGoogle Scholar, Article 3.

136 See Harrison, J.et al., ‘Governing Labour Standards Through Free Trade Agreements: Limits of the European Union’s Trade and Sustainable Development Chapters’, (2019) 57 Journal of Common Market Studies 260CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

137 See Rajan, supra note 20, at xiv, xx, 331, 392.

138 See Wai, supra note 24, at 473.

139 In the field of international arbitration, for instance, judges and arbitrators developed a notion of transnational public policy. This notion facilitates the enforcement of arbitral awards. See Kossuth, L., ‘Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration’, in Sanders, P. (ed.), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration, ICCA Congress Series (1987)Google Scholar, at 258, 274–5.

140 Mohamadieh, K., ‘A legally binding instrument on business and human rights to advance accountability and access to justice’, (2019) Columbia FDI Perspectives 255Google Scholar.