The Intra and Inter Industry Trade of Cuba (2000-2014)

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-104
Author(s):  
Jorge Alberto Lopez-Arevalo ◽  
Francisco Garcia-Fernandez ◽  
Rafael Alejandro Vaquera-Salazar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Manufactured Goods

The aim of this study is to analyze Cuba’s foreign trade with three main partners during the so-called Special Period, a result from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. With the absence of the Mutual Economic Assistance Council (MEAC), Cuba had to make structural changes in its economy and foreign trade. A center-periphery model of doing business between Cuba and its trade partners was implemented. Under this model, China became Cuba’s main supplier of manufactured goods and Cuba supplied raw materials. Foreign trade in Cuba was limited due to the economic embargo from the United States. Nowadays, the relation between these two countries has become more of a trading collaboration. The United States has turned into one of Cuba’s main food suppliers, while Cuba exports art pieces and antiquities to that country. Russia also became a main exporter of manufactured goods and machinery to Cuba, just as China. In return, Cuba is sending raw materials to both of those countries.

Council for Mutual Economic Assistance

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 988-989 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Hard Coal ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Industrial Equipment ◽  
Mutual Economic ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
International Specialization ◽  
Set Up

The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) held its seventeenth session in Bucharest on December 74–20, 1962, attended by delegates from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union. A communiqué stated that a permanent currency and finance commission had been set up under the Council to develop cooperation in those fields among COMECON member countries, that international specialization and “socialist division of labor” among members had increased, and that during the first nine months of 7962 over-all trade among member countries had risen by 15 percent and trade in machinery and industrial equipment by 24 percent. The communiqué noted that the COMECON countries were now largely self-sufficient in certain raw materials, manufactures, etc., notably lignite, hard coal, oil and oil products, fertilizers, grain, machinery and industrial equipment, and timber.

Globalization and its implications for the sovereignty of the State

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Ayad Rashid Mohammed Al-Karim
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Environment ◽  
Political Borders ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Political Economic

The term globalization was commonly used in the last decade of the 20th century, especially at the end of the Cold War, the resulting collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, as well as the absence of ideological competition. Structural changes in the international environment were the opening of political borders and the unilateralization of the United States The United States as a superpower, which led to the reformulation of its policies towards the countries of the world in such a way that devotes the political, economic and cultural subordination of these countries.

The Alliance for Progress and Chile's “Revolution in Liberty,” 1964-1970

1976 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-99
Author(s):  
Albert L. Michaels
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Peace Corps ◽  
The United States ◽  
South Vietnam ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Alliance For Progress ◽  
Made In

In retrospect John F. Kennedy's foreign policy has become more and more controversial. Recent studies have stressed the dichotomy between Kennedy's idealistic rhetoric and the moves he made in carrying out an interventionist, counter-revolutionary foreign policy. He acted not only to check his two great socialist adversaries but also to stifle nationalistic revolutions in the underdeveloped world (Walton, 1972; Fitzsimmons, 1972). Under Kennedy, the United States launched a great offensive on real and imagined enemies. This offensive led to intervention in Laos, South Vietnam, Cuba, Guyana, and the Congo as well as to international confrontations over Berlin and missiles in Cuba. Idealistic-sounding programs like the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress were launched but they were coupled with counter-insurgency studies and the formation of the Green Berets. All had the same aims: to retrieve the deteriorating economic and worldwide political situation inherited from Eisenhower. Above all, although the United States might have to learn to live with the Soviet Union and China, she could not afford to lose the markets, raw materials, and investment opportunities in the underdeveloped world.

CoCom, Comecon, and the Economic Cold War

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Libbey
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Economic Dimension ◽  
Technology Transfers ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractThe economic dimension to the Cold War often focused on two blocs of nations, each led by one of the opposing superpowers. In 1949, the Soviet Union sponsored the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance or Comecon in Eastern Europe; the United States founded the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls or CoCom in Western Europe. Both soon expanded. On one level, the two groups were quite distinct. Comecon resembled a common market; CoCom restricted technology transfers. The article below, however, presents a series of arguments that suggest these dissimilar economic groupings possessed to an extraordinary degree a common pattern in their history. They frequently mirrored each other in the contentious relations shared by the U.S. and U.S.S.R.

Interpreting the Soviet subsididzation of Eastern Europe

1988 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 639-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef C. Brada
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
The Other ◽  
Economic Assistance ◽  
Gains From Trade ◽  
East European ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Mutual Economic Assistance ◽  
Trading Scheme

In trade among the members of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), prices of raw materials are lower and those of manufactured goods higher than comparable world prices. Because the Soviet Union is a net exporter of raw materials to, and net importer of manufactures from, the other CMEA countries, it benefits less from CMEA trade than it would from trading with the rest of the world, and the other CMEA members benefit more. This redistribution of the gains from trade is generally seen as a form of subsidization. One explanation of these subsidies is that they represent Soviet payments for political and military benefits provided by East European regimes; another is that the subsidies compensate Eastern Europe for the economic burden imposed by central planning and extensive economic ties to the Soviet Union. I argue that neither of these explanations is consistent with the type of economic and political relations that one would expect of the Soviet and East European regimes. In their place I offer an alternative explanation based on the Heckscher-Ohlin model of comparative advantage. The distribution of CMEA subsidies is shown to reflect the distribution of gains from trade that would arise among any group of economies forming a preferential trading scheme. I also argue that the willingness of members to belong to CMEA, even at the expense of paying subsidies, is that CMEA can be viewed as a club that provides benefits to members while imposing costs that may to some extent be unequal and unpredictable.

Utopias of One

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Kotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World War I ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The Soviet Union

This book is a new account of utopian writing. It examines how eight writers—Henry David Thoreau, W. E. B. Du Bois, Osip and Nadezhda Mandel'shtam, Anna Akhmatova, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, and J. H. Prynne—construct utopias of one within and against modernity's two large-scale attempts to harmonize individual and collective interests: liberalism and communism. The book begins in the United States between the buildup to the Civil War and the end of Jim Crow; continues in the Soviet Union between Stalinism and the late Soviet period; and concludes in England and the United States between World War I and the end of the Cold War. In this way it captures how writers from disparate geopolitical contexts resist state and normative power to construct perfect worlds—for themselves alone. The book contributes to debates about literature and politics, presenting innovative arguments about aesthetic difficulty, personal autonomy, and complicity and dissent. It models a new approach to transnational and comparative scholarship, combining original research in English and Russian to illuminate more than a century and a half of literary and political history.

Trust, but Verify

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
East West

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document