Unit Four: Historical Materialism & IPE

1. Unit Four:Historical Materialism & IPE Dr. Russell Williams

2. Required Reading: • Cohn, Ch. 5. • Class Discussion Reading: • Robert W. Cox, “Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order,”Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 3-28. • Shaun Breslin, “Power and production: rethinking China’s global economic role”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 2005), pp. 735-53. • Outline: • Introduction & Key Concepts • Marxist Economics • Historical Structuralism and IPE • Modern Approaches • Conclusions

3. 1) Introduction & Key Concepts a) Same origins as liberal approaches – focus on economic relations under capitalism and globalization • “Possibilities of cooperation” (liberalism) replaced with “structural imperatives” of capitalism • E.g. Class Conflict b) Interested in issues “discursively excluded” by Liberalism and Realism • E.g. Exploitation and Inequality

4. c) Key Concepts (derived from Marx): • “Mode of Production”:Basic system of production  Impacts all other social relations • “Relations of Production”:Society’s laws, politics, culture and ideology • The “social superstructure” • Determined by mode of production (?) • Importance of history: • Specific historical & geographical settings have different modes/relations of production

5. Class: • Each mode of production organizes individuals into classes A )Those who own and control the means of production; and b) Those who sell their labour • Class Struggle • Struggle between these classes “drives” history

6. 2) Marxist Economics: a) Labor the basis of all value . . . • Total direct & indirect labor in production determines “true price” of product b) Profits based on “surplus value” . . . • Capitalism always exploitative c) Increases in profit only achieved by increasing extraction of surplus value d) Capitalism was dynamic – would spread

7. 2) Marxist Economics cont. . . . Key analytical claim - Capitalism based on fundamental “tensions”: 1) Economic concentration: Competitive markets produced “concentration” • E.g. monopolies 2) “Falling rate of profit”: As the ratio of indirect labour (machinery) grew in relation to direct labour, there would be a steady decline in the rate of profit. 3) Growing exploitation of workers: • Produced “crisis of under-consumption” • Recessions and unemployment Bottom Line: Capitalism prone towards crises and collapse (David Harvey on the Financial Crisis)

8. 3) Historical Structuralism and IPE: Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? a) Theory of Monopoly Capitalism: • When capitalism became “monopolistic”, corporations could force the state to support their activities. • Prevent collapse of system • Required consideration of the role of the state . . .

9. Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? b) State-Capital relations . . . . Two theories: • “Instrumental Marxism”: State run by, or run in the direct interest of, capitalists. • State must be captured by proletariat • “Structural Marxism”: State serves interests of capitalists over the long term.Has relative autonomy in the short term. • E.g. Post war “class compromise” • Overcame problem of under-consumption • Either way . . . State protects capitalism

10. Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? c) “Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism”: • Argued: • Monopoly Capitalism led to imperialism – overcome domestic falling rate of profit . . . . • Lead to “New Imperialism”, nationalism and WAR! • Implications: • Capitalism must be violently overthrown – imperialism and conflict, inevitable, and good for capitalism • Impact on non-colonial societies . . . ?

11. 4) Modern Approaches: a) “Dependency Theory”: • (Gunder-Frank and Cardosso and Faletto) • Popular in Latin America and Canada • Sources: 1) Marxists: Argued MNC’s from north prevented development in south for “super-exploitation” 2) Latin American Structuralism (Prebisch): Argued free trade didn’t work for South • Problem of “Declining Terms of Trade” • Claims: • Developing nations exploited by powerful capitalist states • Capitalism uneven: “core and periphery” = underdevelopment • South dominated by “Comprador Classes”

12. “Dependency Theory” implications: • Radicals recommended socialist revolutions = Breakout of global capitalism! • Moderates recommended “economic nationalism” – autonomy • “Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI)”: Tariffs to protect development of local industries • Situation could be changed . . . • Problems? • Unclear concepts - economic nationalism vs. Marxism • Importance of state power? • Empirical problems – Success of East Asian “NIC’s” thought to disprove theory • Dependencistas do not accept this!

13. 4) Modern Approaches: b)“World Systems Theory”: (Wallerstein) • Derived from “Dependency Theory” but focuses on geographic exploitation of capitalism • Argues: • Single world capitalist system – power comes from position in system • States organized hierarchically (Core, semi-periphery and periphery) • Logic of Marxist exploitation applied to states • E.g. Periphery are exploited for their surplus value • Problems: • Vague, not widely applied • Marxists criticize lack of class analysis • IR scholars criticize under-theorization of state power

14. 4) Modern Approaches: c) Regulation Theory: (Lipietz – “regulation school”) • Very “Structural Marxist” approach to IPE Argues: • States create different “regimes of accumulation” to adapt to changing “labour process” • After WWII = “Fordism” and “Taylorism” • Required Keynesianism • Since 1980s= “Post-fordism” • Profit squeeze requires Neo-liberalism • Political struggle not as important as needs of capitalism • However, problem of “economism”/“economic-determinism”

15. 4) Modern Approaches: d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory: • (Gramsci, Cox, Gill and others . . .) • Global politics understood through a Neo-Marxist class analysis • Rejects economism of Regulation Theory • Concepts: a) Interrelationship of “material capabilities”, “institutions” and “ideas” – all impact class struggle b) “Hegemony”: Seen as class domination - economic and ideological domination of elite class c) “Organic Intellectuals”: Ideological organizers of class politics – Pro business groups

16. 4) Modern Approaches: d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory: • Leads to different views of how global relations will evolve . . . . =E.g. Cooperation driven by the interests of MNC’s and their global networks of production =E.g. Cooperation driven by the programmatic replacement of the state • E.g. The “New Constitutionalism” (Gill)

17. Further Reading: • Dependency Theory: • Joseph L. Love, "The Origins of Dependency Analysis," Journal of Latin American Studies, 22 (February, 1990), pp. 143-68. • World Systems Theory: • Christopher Chase-Dunn and Peter Grimes, “World-Systems Analysis,”Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1995), pp. 387-417. • Regulation Theory: • Michael Dunford, “Globalization and Theories of Regulation,” in Ronen Palan, ed., Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories, (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 143-167. • Gramscian Methods: • Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,”Millennium, 12-2 (1983), pp. 162-175.

18. Conclusions: • Strengths? • Focus on concepts ignored by realism and liberalism (Exploitation and inequality) • Central emphasis on capitalism and globalization • Weaknesses? • Lack of “prescription” – What is to be done? (E.g. Regulation Theory) • Confusing concepts, not widely applied • Role of state power often obscured • Is this a problem?

19. For Next Time: Unit Five: Contemporary Approaches - Feminism and Constructivism (October 8 & 10) • Required Reading: • Cohn, Ch. 5. Class Discussion Readings: • Penny Griffin, “Refashioning IPE: What and how gender analysis teaches international (global) political economy,”Review of International Political Economy, Oct2007, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 719-736. • Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, and Craig Parsons, “The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy,” in Constructivist Political Economy (Unpublished manuscript: http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/archive/documents/ABP.pdf)