The "new economy," which was pioneered in the United States, has created a flurry of activity by developed and developing countries in order to harness its economic potential. The industrialized countries are searching for ways to further develop the infrastructure needed to participate and succeed in this technological revolution. Discourse on the regulation of this "new economy" has also drawn attention, the most notable and dominant initiative regarding regulation coming from the United States; the U.S.-proposed (3-year) moratorium on new taxation on electronic commerce being upheld by developed countries for the time being. At first glance, this may seem to be a very positive first-step in ensuring the open nature of an emerging and important market; the principle of open trade something which the G8 (and most other countries who are members of the World Trade Organization) are nominally in support of. However, maintaining a moratorium on new taxes without an in-depth discourse would be a mistake leading to a loss of new sources of revenue for states, damage to other sectors of the economy through lack of regulation and "tax bias", a potential deterioration of state sovereignty, and a resultant breakdown in cooperation among states. Rather than a moratorium on new taxes and tariffs on the "new economy", the current high level of international cooperation should be harnessed in order to insure, not only proper infrastructure, but also a proper framework for the new economy. A proper framework is necessary to guarantee fruitful interaction between the "new economy" and older sectors or markets, as well as to provide and maintain the political and social structures necessary to maintain order. The expansion of technology does not mean inevitability of use and lack of control; markets are opened and managed by political factors and not just the invisible hand (which has grown beyond Adam Smith's imagination).

These various issues will be touched upon by using the current debate on internet taxation as a jumping-off point. Motives for embracing certain policies will be questioned and broader political, social and economic issues of interest to state politics will be considered. To remain focussed solely on specific issues and concerns coming from tax law would require expertise and an in depth investigation beyond the scope of this paper. However, by initially considering the issue of taxation on electronic commerce, other related issues can be discussed. By going over American proposals and the temporary moratorium, the discussion can then develop and branch out to ask the broader questions mentioned above. Hopefully, the thoughts presented here could add to what seems to be a discussion limited in looking at economic gains for the near future.

Though a strictly economic outlook seems to be commonly held by states involved in this new economy, an outlook this paper holds to be insufficiently broad, the focus on the economic benefits of electronic commerce is not surprising, the position of the U.S. administration illustrating this:

The dramatic growth of the Internet and electronic commerce is creating jobs and economic growth, expanding customer choice, and making U.S. firms more competitive in global markets. We would not want duplicative, discriminatory or inappropriate taxation by 30,000 different state and local tax jurisdictions to stunt the development of what President Clinton has called the "most promising new economic opportunity in decades."¹

Lawrence Summers, deputy secretary of the department of the Treasury, goes on to expand upon the potential benefits of this "new economy" in his statement before the "Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Communications" (U.S. Senate). Summers states that the internet and electronic commerce will "provide an integrated collection of low-cost, reliable services to handle tremendous volume of business and technical transactions and to amass, analyze and control large quantities of data."² He also goes on to describe how the internet will increase firm efficiency, facilitate its re-engineering and increase overall productivity as well as allowing smaller firms to enter into markets previously unopen to them. As a result:

In order to encourage the growth of this technology and the resulting social and economic benefits, it is crucial that government take a responsible role toward regulating and taxing the internet. In the realm of international taxation, the Administration's key objectives are: no new Internet taxes, neutrality in taxing electronic commerce as compared with economically similar transactions and above all, no tax rules at the international, federal, or subfederal levels which inappropriately impede the full developments of these exciting new technologies.³

Of course, the U.S. administration's position does not imply no taxation whatsoever, but rather that old tax laws be adapted to work on the new electronic economy.

An altered tax policy applied to electronic commerce, both international and national, must not allow the internet to become a tax haven that drains the sales tax and other revenues that our states and cities need to educate our children and keep our children safe. In conjuntion with this moratorium, we need to establish a commission that will explore the longer-term tax issues raised by electronic commerce, and develop a policy framework that is fair to states and localities while allowing the Internet to earn its fair place in the everchanging business world.⁴

Though the U.S. administration does not advocate new taxes, it states that the developed tax policy must address several issues which are relevent to take note of. The White Paper does a good job of touching upon the economic and tax issues which are relevant. The first issue is adherence to the principle of neutrality which rejects the imposition of new or additional taxes on electronic transactions but rather has the tax system treat similar income equally, regardless of its source of earning. Dealing with digital money is another issue which tax policy must address; not only the forces of electronic money and their value but also tracing transactions using said money and establising a basis for taxation. Also, taxation policy must take into consideration the fact that this "new economy" is "radically decentralized [having] no central control;"⁵ users and intermediaries have no real control over whether the information they seek, use or send travels within or across national boundaries, including the information making up commercial transactions. Further, because of the increased ease to leave out banks and other financial intermediaries through electronic business dealings, the lack of intermediaries in transactions eliminates some use of "reporting requirements" which are used as information for taxation. Another concern is that the physical location of a user and their computer can be quite different than the domain or address of their website or address. A further concern mentioned is the lack of registration regulation (anyone can register) or central control in allowing new users on to the internet. Another issue or concern is that contents of messages or transactions are unknown until deciphered from binary form, essentially implying that a letter is indistinct from a monetary transaction. Following the identification of these issues, most of the discussion in the white paper was regarding U.S. policy and the ascendancy of residence-based taxation over service-based taxation, and the important role that international treaties play in making this principle consistent.

The U.S. Treasury White paper should be given merit for being one of the first serious attempts at addressing some concerns and issues arising out of this new economy. Reuven Avi-Yonah, an assistant-professor at Harvard Law School and writing on "International Taxation of Electronic Commerce" stated:

Treasury should be commended for undertaking the extremely important task of being the first tax administration to set forth its views on the tax policy implications of global electronic commerce. Published in November 1996, the White Paper represents the best summary so far of the international tax issues raised by electronic commerce. It provides fewer answers than questions, but that is natural in a document officially labelled a "discussion paper," and given the current state of the scholarship on this issue. As a framework for discussion, it is excellent. ⁶

One should focus on the last portion of Avi-Yonah's statement, that the White paper is a discussion paper, a framework for discussion, meaning that most of the issues are still unresolved and implying that much of the proposals can and should be challenged in seeking a legal framework for the "new economy." It would be a mistake to accept the proposals put forth by the U.S. administration without serious questioning. Charles McLure Jr., of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University points out that it may not be easy to acccomplish the objective of no new taxes/tariffs on electronic commerce. Laws would have to be "rethought" in order to properly apply to electronic commerce. McLure continues by stating that current tax laws which could be applied are nonsensical even without the added dimension of electronic commerce. Further, McLure states that "no new taxes" is not the right answer, especially considering that unilateral action will not be enough but have to involve international cooperation and treaties as well as intra-national cooperation (i.e. among states in the United States) for practical taxation to take place.⁷

McLure discusses many of the issues which are mentioned by the Treasury White paper and potential ways of addressing them from a perspective of tax law. For example, McLure discusses the necessity of tax neutrality, how differentiated taxation among sources delivering the same end results (information or more tangible products) would help to bias markets against one method over another and thereby denying a level playing field. However, McLure goes further by stating that electronic commerce makes providing a level playing field more difficult because of jurisdictional issues which arise, going back to the questions aired on who collects taxes, who pays, and on what materials or basis must this payment occur. The point raised at one point by McLure is that using the current standard for taxation (the U.S. standard which uses nexus or physical presence) would actually make it difficult for small businesses to comply, the complications of interpreting the tax laws (if based on current standards) creating a bias towards larger corporations able to afford tax departments which could make sense of various tax jurisdictions, or in general create a problem of compliance for smaller business.⁸ This last point must be taken into consideration together with the fact that much of these issues, concerns, and features of the "new economy" will be cross-border in nature, especially since the current technology will facilitate the spread of production over various locations making jurisdictional questions more problematic. It would seem, therefore, that "it is essential that actions taken to address the taxation of electronic commerce be multilateral"⁹ and aware of the limitation of current standards and methods.

The necessity of multilateral agreement on these issues, on internet taxation, is basically an extension and direct result of the changing economic system among developed states. Thomas Lairson and David Skidmore offer a useful and in depth description of these changes, centred around five major developments of ongoing change: rapid growth in financial transactions, rapid growth in trade among transnational firms, rapid growth in foreign direct investment, decline in market segmentation, and the global diffusion of technology and ideas - essentially the broader systemic transformation in which electronic commerce finds itself. Changes in markets and methods of production have meant production lines have spread out globally or across multinational corporations' "operating zones"; as well, one sees the tendency of Post-Fordist methods of production such as just-in-time and small-batch production rather than mass-production. This has therefore meant greater integration of economies among states, implying greater cooperation (one could argue the current cooperation on internet taxation is a part of this). However, an equal effect is that more and more states and their respective economies are competing for the same markets, and competition and conflict also follow from this process. As Lairson and Skidmore state in regards to financial markets: the movement towards liberalization was prompted mostly by competition for foreign capital and attracting it rather than seeking efficiency and smoothness of the system.¹⁰ One must keep in mind, therefore, that states' motivations for economic openness and cooperation are for self-gain, and the choices made should reflect this by obtaining a beneficial result for all.

Cooperation on internet taxation and electronic commerce in general is needed to create benefit for all states involved, but there is the possibility of squandering this cooperative attitude if certain issues and possibilities are overlooked. To the credit of the leading economies, multilateral cooperation on this aspect has truly taken off; govern- ments are seeking ways to facilitate the growth of the IT-based economy. As mentioned by McLure and Avi-Yonah, and explained by the WTO's Electronic Commerce and the Role of the WTO, the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) has set forth guidelines for internet taxation:

1. The system should be equitable: tax-payers in similar situations which carry out similar transactions should be taxed in the same way.

2. The system should be simple: administrative costs for the tax authorities and compliance costs for the taxpayers should be minimized as far as possible.

3. The rules should provide certainty for the taxpayer so that the tax consequences of a transaction are known in advance: taxpayers should know what is to be taxed and when - and where the tax is accounted for.

4. Any system adopted should be effective: it should produce the right amount of tax at the right time and minimise the potential for tax evasion and avoidance.

5. Economic distortions should be avoided: corporate decision-makers should be motivated by commercial rather than tax considerations.

6. The system should be sufficiently flexible and dynamic to ensure that the tax rules keep pace with technological and commercial developments.

7. Any tax arrangements adopted domestically and any changes to existing international taxation principles should be structured to ensure a fair shairing of the Internet tax base between countries, particularly important as regards division of the tax base between developed and developing countries.¹¹

However, while at the same time that the OECD makes these suggestions, the OECD acknowledges problems which will face taxation of electronic commerce, especially in the area of value-added taxes across borders and the difficulty of assigning responsibility to the party who must pay. The OECD has found that services traded between countries have led to either no taxation or double taxation, implying that if new methods or new taxes are not devised, worse could happen under the spread of electronic commerce. Solutions have been proposed and attempted in light of the agreed moratorium on new taxes. The UN commision on International Trade Law is working on a "model law" for electronic commerce in order to strengthen the framework for electronic commerce;¹² self-regulation and model contracts have also been proposed.¹³ Whatever the solution, it must be one which not only meets the called for requirements of helping the new economy of electronic commerce to grow, but one which has a broader look to the future. In other words, states must not get caught up in the rhetoric and exitement of untold growth and lose sight of their sovereignty, healthy social and political development, and the health of the old economy and traditional engines of growth.

The need for a broader outlook is mentioned because it appears at times that other developed countries feel the need to catch up to the United States and not let the American-led IT-bandwagon ride away without them. This is partially reflected in the ready-agreement to American sponsored ideas of freer competition; programs which expand the use of IT and keep the emerging economy from being taxed or subject to tariffs. A further example is given by Thierry Vedel writing about "information Superhighway" policy in France. Vedel states there is a noteable difference between the American and European approach to the information superhighway (the infrastructure necessary for the "new economy"): the American view professes to take into consideration social and democratic considerations (or improvements emerging from it - though not offering real analysis of detriments) than the more commercially oriented European view. Also, the process in Europe has been more closed and technocratically driven. The closed nature of this program was exemplified by the fact that during a G7 meeting in Brussels in February 1995, a counter-summit was convened by labour organizations and some political parties denouncing the lack of democratic input, the social costs which could result, and to protest the way future decisions would be made and who the people (technocrats, large business and industry) influencing those decisions would be. Vedel concludes correctly that "the diffusion of information services depends not only on technical infrastructure but also on social infrastructures."¹⁴ It is under these considerations which discussions such as the taxation of electronic commerce must take place. The issue of internet taxation not only determines the economic biases which will affect the development of e-commerce, but also whether the economy will have regulation or the regulation will be imposed on us by the economy; the latter in the sense of further limiting individual states' political and social actions.

Individual states must ask themselves serious questions in terms of how to pursue the goals of this new economy. As the Kahin and Wilson book National Information Infrastructure Initiatives explains, government must provide or facilitate the construction of the infrastructure necessary for the new IT-based economy, and aside from the private sector's direct participation, this infrastructure building must receive funding to some extent. Where does this funding come from? Ultimately, government initiatives depend on tax revenue, but without effective (and potentially new) taxation on electronic commerce, the "old economy" will be providing much of that funding. Though politicians and technophiles may state the "old economy" will only benefit and be integrated into the IT-based economy, such a gurantee is not certain, and one can assert that this represents a potential and troubling bias against more traditional economic sectors.

Taking these considerations and the properties of possible consequences a step further, in most literature on economic development and growth-seeking economic policy, increases in technological content and the resulting increasing in productivity do not necessarily equate into an increase in employment opportunities. As seen in developing countries which increased their manufacturing productivity through new technology, productivity increased per unit but lowered the amount of labour needed; would such a scenario manifest itself under an IT economy? What does the new economy and the accompanying tax proposals mean for the individual welfare state and its maintenance? If the welfare state is still considered a valid choice (it would be difficult to see some of the European states relinquishing this idea), the framework of the new economy must be developed in such a way which still preserves the ability of individual states to determine domestic policy (integration without further disempowerment?). Would new taxation or altered taxation be needed for maintaining these social and political goals which fall under government responsibility?

One could also argue, under the subject of states responsibility, that it is up to states to maintain stability of the economy as much as is within their power under current and future systemic circumstances. The growth of the IT-economy challenges this ability in a very direct way. Ellen Frost discusses this to an extent when describing Information Technology in financial markets by citing the Thailand banking crisis in 1997 which negatively affected financial markets worldwide. Frost paraphrases U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan who acknowledges that "the new technology increases ‘systemic risk' be creating the mechanism for mistakes to ‘ricochet' throughout the global financial system."¹⁵ A further example of market instability made easier (though in the guise of econo-democratic access to markets) comes from South Korea. On-line day-trading in the ROK has taken-off to an incredible extent, in many cases undercutting stock brokers, but is seen not as business transactions but rather taken in the attitude of video-gaming or gambling.¹⁶ The problem is not so much that more people are participating in the market, but that more uninformed people are participating, making profits more uncertain, speculation more likely and the stockmarket "herd mentality" more likely to cause peaks and falls. Would a new tax on stockmarket transactions or financial market capital-transactions, which could either create a fund for compensation or at least more stable activity, not be justified? Leaving the national economy vulnerable to the whims of internet day-traders and financial speculators around the world in order to maintain maximum market openness does not seem like the wisest choice in the long-run.

The question which states must ask themselves when dealing with these issues surrounding the IT-economy are distilled into the more basic question of: how much sovereignty is going to be given up for the benefit of developing these economic conditions? Stephen Kobrin takes this question and extrapolates it into a more extreme form by stating that the "new economy" or the "third industrial revolution" (characterized by intensive application of information technology, along with Post-Fordist production) is pushing the international economic system away from the state-dominated system to a neo-medieval, overlapping series of authorities and loyalties. In reference to electronic commerce and globalization, national and domestic laws cannot capture the complexities of fast transactions, digital interaction and cyberspace (which has no real geographical boundaries). In order to cope, Kobrin states we are moving away from a state-centric system (which he calls a historical outlier) to a system along medieval lines where there are overlapping loyalties, a push for some central authority (previously the church, now international organizations), and the emergence of new actors which blur the lines between public and private.¹⁷ Alterations to the international system which weaken the state must be considered by states and weighed against their motivations for embracing as openly as they are the new economy, in a manner which lets it run as free as possible.

The motivations which possibly lie behind the Treasury White paper and the U.S. administration's desire to pursue open and tax-free (in regards to new taxation) electronic commerce are useful to keep in mind, giving a point of inquiry when comparing other nation-states' position on e-commerce. As the WTO publication states (name it) 70% of internet web sites are located in the United States (admittedly their criteria for locational designation is not spelled out), 8% in Canada and 14% in Europe. More interestingly, the report states that 85% of internet generated world revenue in 1996-1997 was generated in the United States (indicating a preliminary and current advantage in e-commerce).¹⁸ Ellen Frost discusses the American trade advantage in high technology products allowing the United States to cut down its trade deficit from other sectors. Further, it seems that "as of 1996, the surplus in U.S. services exports offset about one-third of the deficit in merchandise trade, reducing the overall deficit from U.S. $170.2 billion to U.S. $111 billion."¹⁹ Frost notes that the Internet and its facilitation of commerce, especially in services which the U.S. has advantages in, could help further reduce U.S. deficit. However, these statements by Frost are also accompanied by the observation that U.S. policy in Congress and the administration is more careful in areas which could negatively affect U.S. interests such as copyright laws and security (as in ecryption technology), and U.S. policymakers do not hesitate in at least slowing the process down on these issues. Of course, this national advantage has not prevented conflict within the United States between the state and federal governments over tax jurisdiction. According to an interview with Ira Magaziner, a senior policy advisor to the Clinton administration, the federal government is trying to persuade state governments (who have protested the Internet Tax Freedom Act under the National Association of Governors) from creating new taxes on the internet, the states replying it infringes on their sovereignty. Magaziner's final statement on this question is relevant both specifically and in a broader sense (internationally):

at the federal level we have an easier job because we have an income tax-based system. So basically we have a corporate profit tax already: As electronic commerce grows, companies do more business, they make more money and the government automatically gets its share. But if you have a sales tax or a value-added tax (VAT) system - as states and other countries do - then you need to find some way to develop a uniform, tax-neutral system. ²⁰

The European system of VAT taxes may therefore have larger adjustment costs than the U.S. federal government.

Considering the potential problems addressed above, and therefore the possibility of conflict between states, what is the significance of this? The significance will most likely revolve around the current atmosphere of cooperation surrounding the development of the new economy among industrialized countries. According to a particular vein of behavioural thought and as described by Janice Stein and Louis Pauly, cooperation among nation-states occurs more for fear of loss rather than the potential for gain. Pauly describes this by using the League of Nations and the International Monetary Fund as examples, but the basic point which applies to the current discussion is that loss is felt more strongly and therefore compels cooperation more than gain does.²¹ It is the fear of losing the benefits of electronic commerce and the stifling of this new economy which has prompted current cooperation. If it were not for fear of the loss, one could assume that unilateral activities more overt in seeking competitive advantage, as is done in other sectors of the economy, would be pursued. The need to connect systems and develop a common infrastructure is necessary in order to avoid losing the benefits of the IT economy. However, the current attitude towards the new economy, which only seeks economic growth and maximum stoking of this new economic furnace, may create further problems and concerns as voiced above. The potential consequences of this lack of peripheral vision or broader concerns could in fact squander the current spirit of cooperation. One possibility could be individual countries or small groups of states rejecting the current multilateral agreement on open access and electronic commerce, refusing to cooperate and asserting themselves through unilateral policy; though it may be difficult or self-damaging to penalize electronic commerce through discriminatory taxes or tariffs, this does not mean that a unilateral backlash cannot occur through other sectors of the economy. A second possibility is that through the new facilitation of speculation and market fluctuation, in other words the ease of instability, there would be a general backlash and multilateral overregulation of the new economy which would over-compensate and penalize the positive aspects of the IT economy along with the negative. Again, there is no evidence of this currently happening but the potential is there; look only at the U.S. states' complaints of their sovereignty and the new G8 concerns over a technology gap to see such potential. At the moment there is an atmosphere among the industrialized countries of cooperation on developing this new economy and to harness its potential, in other words to avoid the loss of its full potential if no action were taken. This spirit of cooperation must be tapped and used to its fullest benefit, not only in creating economic growth but in determining the social and political concerns and subsequently installing the necessary systemic remedies.

Systemic remedies are possible and the spirit of cooperation may be used fruifully if one fundamental but often overlooked fact is kept in mind: the current features of the internet and electronic commerce "are not indispensable parts of the operation of the internet, and some or all of them may be changed by government regulation if that is deemed necessary to achieve relevant goals of taxation."²² For example, problems arising from electronic money could potentially be solved if states cooperate and only allow state issued electronic legal tender to be used for the purpose of e-commerce. Further, Eric Helleiner discusses electronic money and IT in financial markets and argues that though liberalization decisions and technological advances have been occurring together, to say that they must exist together is unconvincing and wrong. The sovereign state can and has acted to regulate such markets and done so in ways which seem more effective than the naysayers have granted possible. Helleiner presents the examples of financial market regulation under the 1988 Basle Accord on Capital adequacy standards for the G-10, and the OECD's Financial Action Task Force to regulate cross-border financial flows in order to regulate money-laundering, as evidence. Though these examples were carried out through international cooperation, Helleiner states that it is the sovereign states taking the initiative and using this cooperation to enhance their control over activities within their territory. Helleiner continues by describing how electronic transactions leave more records and traces than do cash transactions because of the use of electronic clearing houses or chokepoints, through which most transactions have to pass. Because of the existence of these chokepoints, effective regulation, along with enforcement, can and does occur under the IT-economy.²³ Finally, another idea which could be implemented through international cooperation and to facilitate tax collection is a mandatory membership, with or without a token payment, to the website or interface where a client would do their "cyber-business"; the process of becoming a member involving the registration of the client's residence or address with official documentation as proof (driver's licence, business licence?).

There are a myriad of potential ideas which could solve or prevent the concerns expressed in this paper. By accepting the "no new taxes, no tariffs" moratorium for e-commerce without hesitation, not only could the problems expressed here become manifest, but the potential default position of "no taxes" (in order to avoid difficulty) may result, benefitting no one. As discussed above, the U.S. administration's initiative deserves merit for putting forth both issues stemming from the new economy and an initial policy stance. However, the initiative should be built upon. Their efforts should consider present technological constraints and abilities for regulation and taxation, weigh the economic, political and social merits of regulation and set up a resulting framework which does justice to one of the most cooperative periods in international relations. Surely the G7/G8, and the leading economies individually, could begin forging the path towards a fruitful, stable, and systemically integrated "new economy."

NOTES

¹letter from Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. draft can be found at http://www.treas.gov/cc/062398.htm

²Lawrence Summers, "Statement of Lawrence H. Summers Deputy Secretary Department of the Treasury before the Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Communications, United States Senate." p. 2, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/pr052297a.html

³Lawrence Summers, Statement, p. 3.

⁴Summers, letter.

⁵Department of the Treasury Office of Tax Policy, "Selected Tax Policy Implications of Global Electronic Commerce." p. 19. Available on U.S. Treasury Department homepage.

⁶Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "International Taxation of Electronic Commerce," Tax Law Review, vol. 52: 1997, p. 523.

⁷Charles E. McLure, Jr., "Taxation of Electronic Commerce: Economic Objectives, Technological Constraints, and Tax Laws," Tax Law Review, Vol. 52, 1997, p. 274.

⁸McLure, p. 295-296.

⁹McLure, p. 277.

¹⁰Thomas Lairson and David Skidmore, International Political Economy, Toronto: Harcourt Brace Colleg Publishers, 1997, p. 96-105.

¹¹WTO, "Electronic Commerce and the Role of the WTO," p. 40.

¹²WTO, p. 37.

¹³WTO, p. 33. Apparently Canada has been experimenting with private tax collection, wherein it is the responsibility of the delivery or courier service which collects the tax necessary per transaction, claimed to make logistics somewhat simpler. How successful this is was not fully determined from the source.

¹⁴Thierry Vedel, "Information Superhighway Policy in France: The End of High Tech Colbertism?" in Brian Kahin and Ernest Wilson National Information Infrastructure Initiatives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT press, 1997. p. 340.

¹⁵Ellen Frost, "Horse Trading in Cyberspace: U.S. Trade Policy in the Information Age," Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1998, electronic copy, p. 4.

¹⁶"Online, of course," The Economist, June 10 - 16, 2000. p. 85.

¹⁷Stephen Kobrin, "Back to the Future: Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy," Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1998, electronic copy,

¹⁸WTO, p. 25

¹⁹Frost, p. 6.

²⁰Ann Grier Cutter and Len A. Costa, "The Framework for Global Economic Commerce: A policy Perspective. Ira C. Magaziner," Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1998, p. 4.

²¹Janice Gross Stein and Louis Pauly, "Choosing to Cooperate: How States Avoid Loss," special issue of the International Journal, Vol. XLVII, No. 2, spring 1992.

²²Eric Helleiner, "Electronic Money: A Challenge to the Sovereign State?" Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1998, electronic copy, p. 5.

²³Helleiner, p. 5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avi-Yonah, Reuven. "International Taxation of Electronic Commerce." Tax Law Review. Vol. 52, 1997.

Department of the Treasury Office of Tax Policy. "Selected Tax Policy Implications of Global Economic Commerce."

Economist. June 10th -16th, 2000.

International Journal, Vol. XLVII, no. 2 spring 1992. special issue on "Choosing to cooperate.

The following series of articles were taken from the Journal of International Affairs, Spring 1998, electronic version:

Gavin Cameron, "Economic Growth in the Information Age: From Physical Capital to Weightless Economy."

Derrick Cogburn, "Globalization and State Autonomy in the Information Age: Telecommunications sector restructuring in South Africa."

Ann Grier Cutter and Len A. Costa, "The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce: A policy perspective. Ira C. Magaziner."

Ellen Frost, "Horse Trading in Cyberspace: U.S. Trade Policy in the Information Age."

Eric Helleiner, "Electronic Money: A Challenge to the Sovereign State?"

Stephen J. Kobrin, "Back to the Future: Neomedievalism and the Postmodern Digital World Economy."

Minoru Makihara, "The Path Transformed: Redefiningn Japan's Role in the Information Economy."

David J. Rothkopf, "Cyberpolitik: The Changing Nature of Power in the Information Age."

Joseph Yam, "The Impact of Technology on Financial Development in East Asia."

Kahin, Brian and Ernest Wilson, ed.. National Information Infrastructure Initiatives. Cambridge, Mass: MIT press, 1997.

McLure, Charles E. "Taxation of Electronic Commerce: Economic Objectives, Technological Constraints, and Tax Laws," Tax Law Review, Vol. 52, 1997.

Mitter, Swasti and Maria-Ines Bastos, ed. Europe and Developing Countries in the Globalized Information Economy. New York: Routledge press and UNU press, 1999.

Putnam, Robert and Nicholas Bayne. Hanging Together: Cooperation and Conflict in the Seven-Power Suumits. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Summers, Lawrence H. Letter to Speaker of the House, June 23, 1998.
http://www.treas.gov/cc/062398.htm

Summers, Lawrence H. Statement of Lawrence H. Summers Deputy Secretary Department of The Treasury Before the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee on Communications United States Senate.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/pr052297a.html

World Trade Organization. "Electronic Commerce and the Role of the WTO." 1998.