Subject. The article considers cyclical changes of economic policy by U.S. presidents, based on either the neoclassicism concept or the postulates of neomercantilism. This struggle has become especially acute and dramatic for the economies of the rest of the world since 2016, after the election of D. Trump as President of the United States. Objectives. The aim is to evaluate the impact of the economic policy pursued by U.S. presidents according to the methods of various economic schools, on the dynamics of GDP. Methods. The study rests on classification of methods for the American economy over the past hundred years and their comparison with statistical data on U.S. GDP growth rates for this period, calculation of correlation coefficient between these economic indicators. Results. The correlation coefficient between the economic policy pursued by U.S. presidents and the GDP growth rate was equal to 0.87. This is indicative of significant influence of economic policy on the U.S. GDP dynamics. The highest rates of economic growth were observed, when the U.S. economy was managed according to mercantilist principles. Conclusions. The probability of a new return to the mercantilist methods of managing the U.S. economy and final rejection of globalization policy is quite high. The theoretical understanding of this process will help make adequate decisions in the practice of interstate relations, taking into account the uneven economic growth rates of developed liberal and developing mercantilist countries.
Keywords: mainstream, neoclassical theory, neomercantilism, international economic relations, economic growth
References:
Jacobs M., Laybourn-Langton L. Paradigm Shifts in Economic Theory and Policy. Intereconomics, 2018, vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 113–118. URL: Link
Keynes J.M. Obshchaya teoriya zanyatosti, protsenta i deneg [The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money]. Moscow, Direkt-Media Publ., 2014, 405 p.
Ivanchenko I.S. [Optimization of Russia’s international reserves structure: Theoretical approaches, practical implementation]. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2017, no. 1, pp. 64–80. (In Russ.) URL: Link
McDermott J. Mercantilism and Modern Growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 1999, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 55–80. URL: Link
Dequech D. Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox, and Heterodox Economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2015, vol. 30, iss. 2, pp. 279–302. URL: Link
Lawson T. What Is This “School” Called Neoclassical Economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2013, vol. 37, iss. 5, pp. 947–983. URL: Link
Davis J.B. The Turn in Economics: Neoclassical Dominance to Mainstream Pluralism? Journal of Institutional Economics, 2006, vol. 2, iss. 1, pp. 1–20. URL: Link
Gee T. The World System is Not Neo-Liberal: The Emergence of Structural Mercantilism. Critique, 2009, vol. 37, iss. 2, pp. 253–259. URL: Link
Smith A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Ed. by S.M. Soares. MetaLibri Digital Library, 2007, 754 p.
Warlouzet L. The EEC/EU as an Evolving Compromise between French Dirigism and German Ordoliberalism (1957–1995). Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS), 2019, vol. 57, iss. 1, pp. 77–93. URL: Link
Barth J. Reconstructing Mercantilism: Consensus and Conflict in British Imperial Economy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. The William and Mary Quarterly, 2016, vol. 73, iss. 2, pp. 257–290. URL: Link
Robinson J. Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment. The Economic Journal, 1980, vol. 90, iss. 359, pp. 623–625. URL: Link
Uzunidis D., Laperche B. The New Mercantilism and the Crisis of the Global Knowledge Economy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2011, vol. 2, iss. 3, pp. 373–392. URL: Link
Chijioke O., Aloysius A., Obi D. Mercantilism in Perspective: A Historic Review. Global Economy Journal, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 1, pp. 1–17. URL: Link
Cwik P.F. The New Neo-Mercantilism: Currency Manipulation as a Form of Protectionism. Economic Affairs, 2011, vol. 31, iss. 3, pp. 7–11. URL: Link
Reinert E.S., Reinert S.A. Mercantilism and Economic Development: Schumpeterian Dynamics, Institution Building, and International Benchmarking. Oikos, 2011, vol. 10, iss. 1, pp. 8–37. URL: Link
Halsmayer V., Hoover K.D. Solow's Harrod: Transforming Macroeconomic Dynamics into a Model of Long-Run Growth. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2016, vol. 23, iss. 4, pp. 561–596. URL: Link
Lianos T. Domar's Growth Model and Marx's Reproduction Scheme. Journal of Macroeconomics, 1979, vol. 1, iss. 4, pp. 405–412. URL: Link90032-6
Munguía R., Davalos J., Urzua S. Estimation of the Solow-Cobb-Douglas Economic Growth Model with a Kalman Filter: An Observability-Based Approach. Heliyon, 2019, vol. 5, iss. 6, e01959. URL: Link
Ivanchenko I.S. [New neomercantilism as a challenge for a globalized economy]. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2021, no. 9, pp. 132–148. (In Russ.) URL: Link
Losev A.V. [Neomercantilism, neomodernism or neo-imperialism?]. Rossiya v global'noi politike = Russia in Global Affairs, 2017, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 34–50. URL: Link (In Russ.)
