What does the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) mean for a country like Malaysia? This case investigates the far-reaching domestic ramifications of this type of "mega-regional agreement," as well as how international agreements can be an important way to strengthen alliances and global standing. The case asks students to evaluate an important decision facing Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, a long-serving former prime minister who surprised everyone by winning Malaysia's May 2018 election. Having come out of retirement to secure his legacy, Mahathir faces a complicated political choice. The previous administration had signed on to the CPTPP, and signatory countries must now pass the deal through their respective domestic approval processes. But Mahathir's party and government are divided on the deal, which could bring new export and investment opportunities - but also would require Malaysia to make commitments to protect labor rights and intellectual property. These commitments, in turn, could prove politically unpopular at home.

It is March 2019, and Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's newly elected president, is deciding what to do about Brazil's participation in the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change. Bolsonaro must weigh the economic and political costs and benefits of taking drastic action to curb environmentalism and environmental protections in Brazil. Exiting from the Paris Agreement would provide far greater freedom to reboot Brazil's economy, which is one of Bolsonaro's campaign promises. Ignoring climate change would enhance Bolsonaro's ability to roll back fines and regulations aimed at protecting the Amazon Basin, the world's largest carbon sink. This move would likely boost his popularity with the agribusiness sector, but draw ire from social and labor groups in Brazil that have fought long and hard to improve environmental protection throughout the country. And there are broader international considerations: Would leaving Paris mean objections from trading partners and the broader global community?

It is September 2013. The new Chinese President Xi Jinping will soon launch his tour in Central Asia. On this tour, the President is deciding whether to launch a grand investment strategy, which he calls "One Belt One Road" (OBOR). Through this plan, he hopes to achieve a range of economic, domestic, and geopolitical goals. Economically, China needs to transition into a growth model that is sustainable but still delivers high growth rates. Domestically, Xi needs to boost the popularity of the Communist Party and consolidate his power relative to other factions. Geopolitically, China is seeking to gain political leverage in Central Asia. Critics of the plan have raised a variety of concerns, including the profitability of the investments, its impact on the government's efforts to transition to a sustainable growth model, and the potential for backlash to the plan's geopolitical ambitions.

In December 2015, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany and the de facto leader of the EU, faced the challenge of formulating an effective policy response to Europe's migration crisis. Merkel must decide whether Germany can continue to host large numbers of new refugees in 2016, keeping in mind that over a million had arrived in 2015. Merkel could continue Germany's relatively open refugee policy, but would need to decide how many more refugees to accommodate. Alternatively, Merkel could seek to significantly reduce the number of refugees, yet would need to formulate an effective set of international and domestic policy measures in order to achieve this objective. This case introduces students to the complex mix of economic and political considerations that guide policymakers seeking to regulate the cross-border movement of people. Students evaluate the labor-market, fiscal, and economy-wide consequences of different types of immigration flows, analyze how cultural prejudice and xenophobia mediate the political integration of immigrants, and study how electoral competition can give rise to right-wing and anti-immigrant movements that influence the overall direction of policymaking in democracies. This case also highlights the challenges faced by countries seeking to promote international cooperation in the domain of economic policymaking and highlights the role of national security, international law, and human rights norms in explaining policy contestation.

In June 1991, India was in the midst of a currency and balance of payments crisis the likes the country had not seen since independence in 1947. The country's foreign exchange reserves were barely enough to finance 13 days worth of imports. In the face of the crisis, India was forced to consider external help from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was accompanied by market-oriented conditionalities. The prospect of IMF support was a double-edged sword: on the one hand, restoration of finances and a viable path to economic recovery, but on the other, forced trade liberalization that would upend decades of centralized planning and inward-oriented growth. The IMF's adjustment plan would touch nearly every citizen, firm, and industry in the country. Liberalization, in theory, could stimulate long-term growth in the economy, yet it could also impose substantial adjustment costs in the form of firm closures and job losses. These economic reverberations would undoubtedly shake the country's political establishment, potentially jeopardizing the electoral fortunes of those in power. This case introduces students to Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's decision to liberalize the Indian economy. Students must pay attention to the domestic political actors-communist and right-wing parties, voter coalitions, and special interest groups-that played a central role in influencing Rao's policy positions. They must also evaluate the negotiation strategies of international institutions, national governments, and firms and industry groups in the context of trade liberalization. By applying political economy theories of trade and economic policymaking to the decision facing Rao, students learn about the complex linkages between domestic political factors and international economic pressures when developing countries integrate into the global economy.

In November 2012, the Greek economy was on the precipice of collapse. Antonis Samaras, Greece's newly elected Prime Minister, faced a difficult decision regarding the harsh terms of austerity proposed by the European Commission, European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, in exchange for external support in the form of a financial bailout. If accepted, the bailout would prevent the country from defaulting on its sovereign debts, but would create blowback among domestic voters and potentially result in Samaras losing power. On the other hand, Mr. Samaras could reject the austerity demands and take a course of non-action. This would assure a bank crisis, debt defaults, and capital flight, perhaps precipitating Greece's exit from the Eurozone altogether and the resumption of its national currency, the drachma. At stake was a decision with deep ramifications for the political and economic future of both Greece and Europe. This case explores the political economy determinants undergirding Samaras' choice. Students evaluate the causes and consequences of sovereign debt defaults using both historical and comparative evidence, analyze the domestic economic conditions that triggered Greece's crisis, study the role of public opinion and party politics in shaping policy outcomes, and apply theories of international cooperation in order to understand the interests and strategies of Greece's foreign creditors. Overall, the case illustrates the complex manner in which domestic and international factors interact to shape political contestation over financial policymaking.