New Imperialists : Ideologies of Empire

194 The New Imperialists
NOTES
1. Deepak Lal, In Praise of Empires: Globalization and Order (New York: Palgrave,
Macmillan, 2004).
2. Ibid., p. 212.
3. Ibid., p. 207.
4. Deepak Lal and H. Myint, The Political Economy of Poverty, Equity and Growth
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 49.
5. Ibid., p. 38.
6. Lal, In Praise of Empires, p. 206. Lal’s understanding of globalization as the creation of
a common economic space is an important counterpoint to other approaches that
link the question of globalization solely to the extent of national sovereignty. As
Freeman and Kagarlitsky have pointed out, the myth that the era of globalization can
be sequestered by a measurement of sovereignty has long been questioned by Third
World activists who understand that the power of imperialist capital does not stop at
the borders of the nation state. See A. Freeman and B. Kagarlitsky, The Politics of
Empire: Globalisation in Crisis (London: Pluto Press, 2004).
7. Lal, In Praise of Empires, p. 205.
8. Ibid., p. 205. Italics added.
9. Ibid., p. 210.
10. Ibid., p. 211.
11. Ibid., p. 201.
12. Ibid., p. 26.
13. J. Bellamy-Foster, “The New Age of Imperialism,” in Pox Americana: Exposing the
American Empire, ed. J. Bellamy-Foster and R. McChesney (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 2004), p. 169.
14. Christian Palloix, “The Internationalization of Capital and the Circuit of Social
Capital,” in International Firms and Modern Imperialism: Selected Readings, ed. Hugo
Radice (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975).
15. T. Palley, “From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics,” in
Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader, ed. A. Saad-Filho and D. Johnston (London: Pluto
Press, 2005).
16. Deepak Lal, Culture, Democracy and Development (New Delhi: National Council of
Applied Economic Research, 1999), p. 7.
17. E. Hunt, Property and Prophets: The Evolution of Economic Institutions and Ideologies
(New York: Harper & Row, 1976), p. 148.
18. Austrian economists overlook the objection that this perspective is itself an ethical
judgment, one based on acceptance of the normative preferability of the status quo.
19. Lal and Myint, Political Economy of Poverty, Equity and Growth, p. 27.
20. Ibid., p. 28.
21. Lal, In Praise of Empires, p. 147.