The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
Global Economy and Finance Programme
English Summary
Chatham House’s Global Economy and Finance Programme argues that independent, policy-oriented analysis can improve international economic decision-making when it is tightly connected to real-world policymakers and practitioners. Its reasoning rests on a three-part operating model: original research on emerging global finance issues, convening expert dialogues across academia, government, and business, and running private briefings for senior decision-makers. The programme’s topic coverage, from G7/G20 governance and trade to debt, climate economics, and monetary system reform, indicates a systems-level approach to interconnected global risks. Strategically, this implies policymakers should prioritize cross-border coordination, use evidence-led forums to build consensus, and translate technical analysis into actionable policy pathways quickly.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）全球經濟與金融計畫主張，若能與第一線政策制定者及實務工作者緊密連結，獨立且以政策為導向的分析可提升國際經濟決策品質。其論證建立於三部分運作模式：針對新興全球金融議題進行原創研究、召集學術界與政府及企業之間的專家對話，以及為高階決策者提供非公開簡報。該計畫涵蓋議題橫跨 G7／G20 治理、貿易、債務、氣候經濟學與貨幣體系改革，顯示其以系統層次處理彼此連動的全球風險。從策略意涵看，政策制定者應優先推動跨境協調，運用以證據為基礎的論壇建立共識，並迅速將技術分析轉化為可執行的政策路徑。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that current market borrowing costs are rising independently of the Federal Reserve's policy stance, challenging the assumption that the Fed controls all rates. Evidence shows significant increases in key rates—such as 2-year Treasuries and mortgages—even while the effective federal funds rate remains steady. This divergence occurs because market rates reflect complex factors like inflation expectations, credit risk, and geopolitical volatility, which are outside the central bank's direct control. Policymakers should therefore recognize that sustainable rate moderation requires credible disinflation and disciplined government budgets, rather than relying solely on Fed intervention.
-
3.
Despite recent trade setbacks, the U.S. retains fundamental structural economic leverage over China, particularly in high-tech sectors and intermediate goods. While Beijing can temporarily weaponize specific resources like rare earths, these chokepoints are vulnerable to diversification efforts by the West. The article argues that the most effective strategy is not unilateral action but coordinated multilateral pressure from U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Washington must therefore coordinate its economic statecraft with partners to maximize damage to China’s export-dependent model.
-
4.
The article argues that bond market behavior is not driven by an 'addiction' to tariff revenue but rather by the government’s overall fiscal health, growth prospects, and debt servicing capacity. Key evidence shows that customs duties generate a fraction of total federal receipts compared to core tax streams, meaning tariffs are too small to fundamentally alter the nation's fiscal trajectory. Furthermore, market reactions were dictated by the aggregate economic damage caused by large tariffs (inflation/growth concerns), not merely the revenue generated. Policymakers should recognize that the real concern for bond investors remains persistent budget deficits and high interest costs, issues that require comprehensive structural reform rather than reliance on tariff income.
-
5.
The author argues that the new 'Section 301' tariffs, ostensibly targeting forced labor, are not a genuine human rights measure but rather an attempt to re-establish a broad, punitive tariff wall. Key evidence supporting this claim includes the rushed nature of the investigation (98 pages for 60 economies), the lack of specific economic harm analysis, and the imposition of disproportionately high tariffs that far exceed any proportional response. Strategically, the use of human rights language to generate revenue sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future administrations to bypass legislative processes and misuse trade law. The article concludes by urging Congress to reform these laws before they cause further damage to international trade frameworks.