Evolution of International Political Economy: Theories and Issues

1. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/ipe/ripedebates/http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/ipe/ripedebates/ Theories and Issues in International Political Economy Leonard SeabrookeL.Seabrooke@warwick.ac.uk

2. The Birth of International Political Economy • Imagine the early 1970s. • International Relations was primarily concerned with ’high politics’ – with security and the balance of power between the US and the USSR. • Economic concerns were considered ’low politics’. But scholars like Susan Strange pointed out that the politics of international economics was critical to security relations, as well as to everyday life in general (like the development of ’stagflation’).

3. The Evolution of International Political Economy • In the mid-1970s through the 1980s the key concerns were with order. The question that dominated American IPE was: • Who Governs? • The context here was of American hegemonic decline. IPE scholars discussed how the balance of power in the international system was unstable because of American decline. The Japanese were taking over and the Third World was rebelling. Order was needed through American hegemony or through the creation of international regimes. • Dominant theories became neorealism and neoliberalism

4. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: • Common topics included: • US-Japan rivalry in the world economy, over finance, trade, and manufacturing • The growth of international regimes for money, trade, and transport after hegemony • Great Power dynamics and oil politics • The failure of Third World cartels to face Western liberalism

5. The Evolution of International Political Economy • During the 1970s and 1980s a range of scholars questioned the idea of American hegemonic decline. They argued that relative material positions were not all important. It was the structure of the system that continued to give the US clear benefits. • As such, there concern was not with ’who governs?’ but: • Who Benefits? • The focus here was on the negative consequences of the world capitalist system, with a strong focus on themes like dependency between the poor ’South’ on the rich ’North’, imperialism, and exploitation. • This work was closely associated with Structural Marxist thought

6. Structural Marxism and World Systems Theory: • Common topics included: • The New International Economic Order • How world financial and trade systems replicated exploitation and dependency in the Global South • The capacity of Third World cartels to face down Western imperialism

7. The Evolution of International Political Economy • In the 1990s up to the present the focus from neorealists and neoliberals on conflict and cooperation was challenged by scholars working on ideas and norms. Their question was also: • Who Governs? • The context here was how it was possible for elites to socialise others actors into a certain way of behaving. Most of this work has focused on how norm entrpreneurs persuaded and socialised others into agreements, such as policy networks around the European Monetary Union. • John Hobson and I call this work systemic constructivism

8. Systemic Constructivism: • Common topics included: • The emergence of European monetary integration • Spread of ideas about capitalist development • Spread of economic reforms from International Organizations • Creation of national identities in the world economy

9. The Evolution of International Political Economy • During the 1990s up to the present a range of scholars questioned to what extent it was the material structure that decided who benefited the most. They argued that in addition to material constraints imposed by the international political economy, hegemony was also imposed through ideology, by making capitalism natural. But real consent may be possible… • Who Benefits? -> Who Acts? • These scholars also stressed that most thought about how to change the world economy was Eurocentric, that is sought to make non-Western into Western-type states. • This work was closely associated with Gramscian and Postmodern thought

10. Gramscianism and Postmodernism: • Common topics included: • The internal contradictions of European monetary integration • The emergence of private authority as a new yet old form of governance • How international finance assisted US power by changing governance practices • Western states’ use of international organizations to perpetuate dependency among developing states

11. The Evolution of International Political Economy • During the late 1990s and up to the present a new thread of scholarship has emerged that treats ideas and norms seriously within a domestic context. So that norms and ideas were fought over among a population during change in the world economy. Here the idea of uncertainty is important in compelling some actors to make a move • Who Governs? -> Who Acts? • These scholars also stressed how organizations and polities created their own problems, so that a focus on legitimacy and contested norms is important. • This work was closely associated with Social Constructivism

12. Social Constructivism: • Common topics included: • The framing of globalization • The importance of ambiguity in allowing actors to express politics, rather than impose transparency • Social responses to economic crises like the Great Depression • The legitimacy of state-society relations underpinning power in the world economy

13. Towards an Everyday International Political Economy • In Everyday Politics of the World Economy, John Hobson and I argue that the key question for understanding most change is not: • Who governs? or Who Benefits? • But to ask: • ‘Who acts and how do their actions transform the world economy?’

14. Towards an Everyday International Political Economy • This is especially important given that IPE has an overwhelming bias towards examining: • The top ten percent of the population (the powerful, the ‘winners’) from the question ‘who governs?’ • The top bottom percent of the population (the powerless, the exploited) from the question ‘who benefits?’ • Assessing what is going on in the middle range, 80 percent of the population may then tell us something about how everyday politics can change the world economy. • But why should we care about the middle?

15. Towards an Everyday International Political Economy • It leads to a range of new topics and questions instead of primarily discussing the international architecture of trade and finance. • It also leads to an investigation of different kinds of change in the world economy rather than those made by ‘power-makers’ and those taken by ‘power-takers’. • It also leads to a stronger focus on legitimacy and identity as contested rather than coerced, proclaimed, or seen as given.

16. Towards an Everyday International Political Economy But what is everyday politics? The notion that defiance and resistance need not be organised in advocacy groups to be effective. Rather, it may also occur incrementally and provide impulses for those governing to reform institutions to be in line with economic and social conventions. For Benedict Kerkvliet everyday politics provides a ‘way for the relatively powerless to venture claims and put some pressure on more powerful people to take them into account’

17. Table 1: Regulatory vs. Everyday Types of Action in the World Economy