Bastiaan van Apeldoorn

Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle over European Integration

1. Theoretical Perspective: Social Forces and the Struggle Over European Order 2. Global Restructuring, Transnational Capitalism and Rival Projects for European Order 3. The European Roundtable: an Elite Forum of Europes Emergent Transnational Capitalist Class 4. The Roundtables Changing Strategic Project and the Transnational Struggle over European Order 5. Transnational Class Agency, the Rise of Embedded Neo-Liberalism and the Evolving European Order References

Transnational Class Agency and European Governance: The Case of the European Round Table of Industrialists

This article analyses the political and ideological agency of an emergent European transnational capitalist class in the socioeconomic governance of the European Union (EU) by examining the case of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). It seeks to show that the ERT‐as an elite forum mediating the interests and power of the most transnationalise d segments of European capital‐has played a significant role in shaping European governance in as much as it has successfully articulated and promoted ideas and concepts thathave at critical times set the political agenda and, beyond, have helped to shape the discourse within which European policy making is embedded. Here, the increasingly neoliberal orientation of the ERT reflects, and at the same time is a constitutive element within, the construction of a new European order in which governance is geared to serve the interests of a globalising transnational capitalist elite, and hence the exigencies of global competitiveness. Although in recent year...This article analyses the political and ideological agency of an emergent European transnational capitalist class in the socioeconomic governance of the European Union (EU) by examining the case of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). It seeks to show that the ERT‐as an elite forum mediating the interests and power of the most transnationalise d segments of European capital‐has played a significant role in shaping European governance in as much as it has successfully articulated and promoted ideas and concepts thathave at critical times set the political agenda and, beyond, have helped to shape the discourse within which European policy making is embedded. Here, the increasingly neoliberal orientation of the ERT reflects, and at the same time is a constitutive element within, the construction of a new European order in which governance is geared to serve the interests of a globalising transnational capitalist elite, and hence the exigencies of global competitiveness. Although in recent years some detailed work has been done on the role of the ERT in the internal market programme, there has as yet been little attention paid to (and thus interpretation of) the content of the ideas promoted by the ERT and hence to the ideological power that this forum of transnational capitalists exercises. The article is divided into four main parts. The first briefly elaborates the theoretical framework that informs my analysis. Drawing upon what has come to be labelled the neo-Gramscian school in International Relations (IR), I willadvance a historical materialist understanding of the dynamics of European integration, emphasising in particular the role of transnational social forces‐as engendered by the capitalist production process‐in the political and ideological struggles over European order. The second part introduces the case of the European Round Table. I will claim that the ERT is neither a simple business lobby nor a corporatist interest association, but must rather be interpreted as having developed into an elite platform for an emergent European transnational capitalist class from which it can formulate a common strategy and‐on the basis of that strategy‐seek to shape European socioeconomic governance through its privileged access to the European institutions. It is this latter role of the ERT that will be the focus of the final two parts. As such, the third presents an analysis of the evolution of ERTs strategic project and the initiating role the Round Table played in the relaunching of the integration process from Europe 1992 to Maastricht. Following this, the fourth part will analyse the ideological orientation and strategic outlook of todays Round Table and its current role in shaping what I will call the neoliberal discourse of competitiveness which, I argue, increasingly underpins European governance.

Capital Unbound? The Transformation of European Corporate Governance

This article represents a first attempt to analyse the forces at work in the transformation of European corporate space, at both the national and supranational levels. In doing so, it consciously combines a comparative with an international political economy perspective and argues against analyses which minimize the role of domestic institutions and understand the contemporary transformation of European capitalism solely in terms of globalization-driven, neo-liberal convergence. After discussing the existing variety of Europes national capitalisms, we argue that a number of mechanisms are inducing change- competitive pressures on producers; the liberalization and integration of financial markets; the growing role of international actors; and the equally potent role of non-economic domestic actors in internalizing external pressures. We analyse their effects in three critical areas: corporate governance, especially in terms of the balance of power between stakeholders and shareholders; the relationship ...

Theorizing the transnational: a historical materialist approach

Although transnational relations is a frequently employed phrase in international relations (IR) since the early debates of the 1970s, the literature in fact still shows surprisingly little theorization of the concept. Seeking to theorize ‘the transnational’ beyond what is currently on offer in mainstream IR discourse, this article argues that the field of transnational relations has in fact much to gain from the insights articulated by the transnationalist perspective elaborated within ‘transnational historical materialism’, and in particular by the ‘Amsterdam Project’ in International Political Economy. After presenting a critical review of what are interpreted as liberal, ahistorical and actor-centred perspectives on transnational relations dominating the mainstream, this article elaborates and builds upon this alternative transnationalist perspective by showing how it is grounded in a historical materialism emphasizing the constitutive power of transnational (economic) structures, while at the same time re-claiming the role of class agency. Briefly sketching on this basis the development of transnational relations in the global political economy, the article examines the theoretical implications of such a historical (materialist) analysis for a theory of transnational relations. Rather than viewing transnational relations as moving us beyond international relations altogether, it is concluded that the question is rather how the former gives content to the latter. Critical here, it is argued, is the process of transnational class formation and the role of capitalist class strategy beyond national borders in restructuring global capitalist social relations.

Contradictions and Limits of Neoliberal European Governance: From Lisbon to Lisbon

Introduction: Towards a Critical Political Economy of European Governance PART I: THE NATURE AND LIMITS OF THE EUROPEAN NEOLIBERAL PROJECT The Contradictions of Embedded Neoliberalism and Europes Multi-level Legitimacy Crisis: the European Project and its Limits B.van Apeldoorn Neoliberal European Governance and the Politics of Welfare State Retrenchment: A Critique of the New Malthusians M.Ryner Geopolitics and Neoliberalism: U.S. Power and the Limits of European Autonomy A.Cafruny PART II: CASE STUDIES OF EUROPEAN SOCIO-ECONOMIC REGULATION Global Finance and the European Economy: The Struggle over Banking Regulation H.-J.Bieling & J.Jager New Europeans for the New European Economy: Citizenship and the Lisbon Agenda S.Hager Organic Intellectuals at Work? The High Level Group of Company Law Experts in European Corporate Governance Regulation L.Horn PART III: THE WIDENING OF NEOLIBERAL GOVERNANCE: TRANSNATIONAL CAPITALISM IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE Corporate Tax Reform in Neoliberal Europe: East Central Europe as a Template for Deepening the Neoliberal European Integration Project? A.Vliegenthart & H.Overbeek Race to the Bottom? Transnational Companies and Reinforced Competition in the Enlarged European Union D.Bohle The Rise of the Competition State in the Visegrad Four: Internationalization of the State as a Local Project J.Drahokoupil PART IV: CONTESTING NEOLIBERAL GOVERNANCE: RESISTING RESTRUCTURING IN NATIONAL AND TRANSNATIONAL ARENAS A National Case-study of Embedded Neoliberalism and its Limits: The Dutch Political Economy and the No to the European Constitution B.van Apeldoorn Globalization and Regional Integration: The possibilities and Problems for Trade Unions to Resist Neo-liberal Restructuring in Europe A.Bieler

Neoliberalism in crisis

Introduction: The Life Course of the Neoliberal Project and the Global Crisis B.van Apeldoorn & H.Overbeek PART I: BEYOND NEOLIBERAL REGULATION? The Unfolding Contradictions of Neoliberal Competition Regulation and the Global Economic Crisis. A Missed Opportunity for Change? A.Wigger & H.Buch-Hansen After Shareholder Value? Corporate Governance Regulation, the Crisis, and Organized Labour at the European Level L.Horn Investment Bank Power and Neoliberal Regulation: From the Volcker Shock to the Volcker Rule S.Hager Price Wars: the Crisis and the Future of Financialized Capitalism J.Perry & P.Lewis PART II: AFTER NEOLIBERAL WORLD ORDER? The Rise of the B(R)IC Variety Of Capitalism: Towards a New Phase of Organized Capitalism? A.Nolke Sovereign Wealth Funds in the Global Political Economy: the Case of China H.Overbeek The Rise Of National Oil Companies: Transformation of the Neoliberal Global Energy Order? N.De Graaff The End of Neoliberalism in Contemporary Latin America? A.Tsolakis Beyond Neoliberal Imperialism? The Crisis of the American Empire B.van Apeldoorn & N.De Graaff

Capitalism versus Capitalism in Western Europe

Globalisation and European integration are having a profound impact on Europe’s socio-economic order. Other chapters in this volume discuss the implications of these developments for macroeconomic management and welfare states. This chapter focuses more precisely on their consequences for Europe’s ‘models’ of capitalism. It argues that while there is still considerable diversity among the national ‘capitalisms’ in western Europe, both globalisation and integration are eroding national particularities, if not — as yet — pitching them towards full convergence. Their relative strengths provide them comparative advantage in different sectors; they therefore remain in competition and the outcome of that contest is yet to be determined. But opposition between competing models of capitalist development is also manifested at the transnational level where opposing forces pursue similarly diverse strategies. After examining the diversity of European ‘capitalisms’ below, we consider the arguments and evidence concerning their contemporary transformation. But beyond the changes occurring in national ‘capitalisms’, there is also a question of what kind of socio-economic order, or ‘model of capitalism’ is emerging within the supranational regime of the European Union (EU).

The marketisation of European corporate control: A critical political economy perspective

As Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner for the Internal Market, emphasises, the European Union (EU) is witnessing a transformation of its regulation of corporate governance – that is, those practices that define and reflect the power relations within the corporation and the way, and to which purpose, it is run. At the heart of corporate governance is the issue of corporate ownership and control. The market for corporate control, where the commodity traded is control rights tied to a company’s shares, is assigned an ever greater role in the external governance of corporations. Yet, at the same time, (cross-border) takeovers are still highly contested, and the envisaged pan-European market for corporate control clashes with national regulations, protective measures and sentiments. Although there has been a steep rise in European merger and acquisition activity, most notably in hostile takeovers, an unfettered European market for corporate control is still far from an economic and legal reality. It is in this context that we see the changes in the regulation of corporate governance in the EU as an attempt, initiated and promoted mainly by the European Commission, to develop an EU-level regulatory framework aimed at the further development of a European market for corporate control. Rejecting the notion that changes in corporate governance regulation can simply be reduced to anonymous market pressures selecting the most efficient arrangements, we argue that it is essential to identify the inherently political and partly contingent underpinnings of this marketisation process. To this end, we develop a critical political economy perspective that draws upon both Marx’s analysis of capital as a social relation and Polanyi’s ‘institutionalist’ insights into the emergence of market society. The point of departure here is that markets are not the result of people’s supposedly innate propensity to ‘barter, truck and exchange’ (pace Adam Smith), but are social and political constructs. New Political Economy, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2007

Corporate elite networks and US post-Cold War grand strategy from Clinton to Obama

This article seeks to explain both the continuity and the changes in US grand strategy since the end of the Cold War by adopting a critical political economy approach that focuses on the social origins of grand strategy-making. Systematically seeking to link agency and structure, we analyse how grand strategy-makers operate within given social contexts, which we define in terms of, on the one hand, elite networks within which these actors are embedded, and, on the other hand, the international structural context in which the US is positioned. After reviewing the grand strategies as pursued by the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and relating them to the structural context in which they evolved, we proceed by offering a Social Network Analysis in which we compare the networks of key officials of the three administrations in terms of: (1) their corporate affiliations, and (2) their affiliations to so-called policy-planning institutions. On this basis we argue that the continuities of post-Cold War US grand strategy � which we interpret as reproducing America�s long-standing �Open Door� imperialism � can be explained in terms of the continuing dominance of the most transnationally oriented sections of US capital. Second, we show that, this continuity notwithstanding, there is significant variation in terms of the means by which this grand strategy is reproduced, and argue that we must explain these variations not only in terms of the continuously changing global context, but also as related to some significant differences in affiliation with the policy-planning network.

Introduction: The Life Course of the Neoliberal Project and the Global Crisis

In the wake of the fall of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008 and the subsequent near-total collapse of the global financial system, many predicted the end of the world of liberal capitalism or at least announced the death of the neoliberal ideology that had helped to constitute the global order over the past decades. The people making these predictions were those who had been leaders in espousing that ideology in the first place. Thus Francis Fukuyama, in October of 2008, declared that the ‘American model’ borne out of the Reagan revolution was ‘the culprit’ that had caused the crisis and worried that it would take many years to restore the damage to the ‘American Brand’ (Fukuyama 2008), while Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf (2009) argued that the ‘era of liberalization contained the seeds of its own destruction’. Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan in a congressional hearing even famously admitted that his free market ideology was apparently ‘not working’, that there was ‘a flaw in the model’ that he had been working with for 40 years.1 The Economist (2008), not quite buying the latter argument, did warn that ‘economic liberty is [now] under attack and capitalism … is at bay’. In addition, the appar-ent failings of financial deregulation and liberalization as premised on the Washington consensus combined with worries about the rise of East Asian ‘authoritarian state capitalism’, producing concerns within Western elite circles regarding the survival of liberal capitalism itself (Bremmer 2010; Rachman 2011).