Location of Repository

American unilateralism, foreign economic policy and the 'securitisation' of globalisation

By Richard A. Higgott


This paper traces the ‘securitisation’ of US foreign economic policy since the advent of the Bush administration. It does so with reference to US economic policy in East Asia. It argues that in the context of US economic and military preponderance in the world order, the US has been unable to resist the temptation to link foreign economic and security policy. While there was evidence of the securitisation of economic globalisation in US policy from day one of the Bush administration, it was 9/11 that firmed up this trend. For the key members of the Bush foreign policy team, globalisation is now seen not simply in neo-liberal economic terms, but also through the lenses of the national security agenda of the United States. Economic globalisation is now not only a benefit, but also a ‘security problem’. 9/11 offered the opportunity for what we might call the ‘unilateralist-idealists’, in the Bush Administration, to set in train their project for a post-sovereign approach to American foreign policy. The paper identifies some intellectual contradictions in current US strategy and raises a series of questions about the implications for world order of the consolidation of the trends identified in the paper

Topics: JZ, E151
Publisher: University of Warwick. Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation
Year: 2003
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:1997

Suggested articles



  1. (2001). A Costly Pursuit of Free Trade’, doi
  2. (2003). A Sorry Spectacle: The WTO Trade Negotiations’, The World Today,
  3. (2002). America’s Imperial Ambition’, Foreign Affairs, September-October: doi
  4. (2003). American Exceptionalism and International Organisations: Lessons from the 1990s’, doi
  5. (2000). ASEAN and the Asian Crisis: Theoretical Implications and Practical Consequences’, The Pacific Review, doi
  6. (2003). Bilateral Treaties are a Sham’, The Financial Times,
  7. (2004). Building the Normative Foundations of a Global Polity’, doi
  8. (1992). Capitalism versus Capitalism, doi
  9. (2002). Critical Liberalism in International Relations’, Working Paper,
  10. (2001). Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a New Diplomacy for the 21 st Century, doi
  11. (2002). E.H.Carr: A “Historical Realist” approach for the Globalisation Era’, doi
  12. (1999). Economics, Politisc and (International) Political Economy: The Case for a Balanced Diet’,
  13. (1977). Endgames: Questions in Late Modern Political Thought, doi
  14. (2003). Exploring Alternative Theories of Economic Regionalism: From Trade to Finance in Asian Co-operation’, doi
  15. (2002). Globalisation and Its Discontents, doi
  16. (2002). Hegemonic Constraints: the Implications of September 11 for American Power, doi
  17. (2001). Ideas that Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy and Free Markets in the Twenty-First Century Mastanduno, doi
  18. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: doi
  19. (2003). Instrumental Unilateralism in US Foreign Policy’ in Foot et. al, (eds) US Hegemony and International Organisations, doi
  20. (1970). International Relations and International Economics: A Case of doi
  21. (1999). Internationalism: Intact or in Trouble?’ in Wittkopf, Eugene and Jones, Christopher (eds) The Future of American Foreign Policy,
  22. (2002). Introduction’ in John G Ikenberry (ed) America Unrivalled: The Future of the Balance of Power, doi
  23. (2002). Kimberly an Hufbauer, doi
  24. (2000). Legalization as a Strategy: The Asia Pacific Case’, doi
  25. (2000). Promoting the National Interest’, doi
  26. (2002). Remarks by the President at the 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy’,
  27. (2003). Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions, doi
  28. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy, doi
  29. (2002). Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World, doi
  30. (2002). Taming Economics, Emboldening International Relations: The Theory and Practice of International Political Economy in an Era of Globalisation’, in Stephanie Lawson (ed) The New Agenda for International Relations,
  31. (2003). The American Contract’, doi
  32. (1998). The Asian Financial Crisis: A Case Study in the Politics of Resentment’, doi
  33. (1990). The Borderless World, doi
  34. (2003). The Caravan to Cancun’, doi
  35. (2003). The Imperial Logic of Bush’s Liberal Agenda, doi
  36. (1977). The Long Boom: A History of the Future, doi
  37. (2002). The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September. www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html Waever, Ole,
  38. (2000). The New Sovereigntists: American Exceptionalism and its False Prophets’, doi
  39. (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone, doi
  40. (1985). The Persistent Myth of Lost Hegemony’, International Organisation Thurow, doi
  41. (1977). The Politics of International Economic Relations, doi
  42. (1977). The Social Limits to Growth, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. doi
  43. (1994). The Sovereign State and its Competitors, doi
  44. (1998). The Story of American Freedom, doi
  45. (1988). Trading Places, doi
  46. (2001). Undermining the WTO: The Case Against Open Sectoralism’, Asia Pacific Issues,
  47. (2002). US Power in a Liberal Security Community’,
  48. (2002). US Unilateralism: A European Perspective’,
  49. (2003). Washington et le Monde: Dilemmes d’un Superpuissance, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.