Download MA in Global Political Economy

School of Global Studies--Department of International Relations
Contemporary Theories in Global Political Economy
936M1
Autumn term 2010
MA in Global Political Economy
Course convenor: Kees van der Pijl
Course information and requirements
Aims and Objectives
The course aims to familiarise students with some of the key conceptual and
theoretical debates in global and international social theory, with special
reference to the broad field of Global Political Economy which is understood here
as the post-disciplinary re-integration of social science dealing with relations of
production, exchange, and power.
Although the labels in practice are used interchangeably, GPE is preferred to
International Political Economy because the latter is often taken as a sub-field of
International Relations (IR) whereas this course seeks to transcend such narrow
disciplinary divisions. At stake is the possibility of a truly post-, or ‘trans-‘
disciplinary approach that can illuminate in principle all other angles from which
the evolving global social reality can be understood.
The opening session will be devoted to outlining the main structure of the
course, and the different philosophical positions from which social theory and
GPE in particular, can be constructed.
We then look at the main strands of GPE thinking: neoclassical/Rational
Choice, positivist sociology, hermeneutics/constructivist, institutionalist,
systems theory in its various guises, as well as Marxist/Gramscian, and poststructuralist approaches (since all theories are also contemporary theories, the
prefix ‘neo’ has been omitted). In all cases, the readings help us to elucidate a
particular method. The theory is what concerns us: what is the underlying
ontology (the assumptions about the constitutive elements of which we consider
our ‘world’ is made up), epistemology (the assumptions about the origins of ideas
and knowledge and the possibility of understanding the world), and
methodology (by which criteria are findings ordered and assessed). Of course the
subject matter of the particular text is what allows us to make statements about
these aspects, but otherwise the subject matter covered by the different authors
under one approach is often too varied to really be compared. Also, readings are
not necessarily themselves exemplars of the approach; they also can be
insightful critiques or sociologies of knowledge that are pertinent to it. The status
of readings in this respect has been indicated, but otherwise students are
encouraged to use the library actively as a means of gaining a sense of what is
available and which unexpected combinations are possible as well.
The course relies on the accompanying A Survey of Global Political Economy, the
latest version of which (2.1) has been posted under a new address and is
hyperlinked from here. Just in case the direct address is
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/research/gpe/gpesurvey
2
Every week’s readings will be prefaced by those readings that can be accessed
straight from the corresponding chapter of the Survey. Students are also strongly
encouraged to use the print readings in the Library. Library use is itself a way of
discovering unexpected sources by browsing.
The readings in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories
(London, Routledge) [2000] are a key print source.
Several print readings have been taken from R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of
Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New
York, Palgrave) 2001
A useful aid for those students who feel they need some introduction to the
field of International Relations generally is Scott Burchill et al., Theories of
International Relations (Basingstoke, Palgrave) 1996, 2nd edition 2001
Course Summary
Week
1
Theory and Global Political Economy
2
Rational Choice
3
Positivism and Sociology
4
Hermeneutics and the Weberian Paradigm
5
Pragmatism and Institutionalism
6
Weak Systems: Regulation and Regime Theory
7
World Systems and Long Cycles Theory
8
Historical Materialism
9
Gramscian Class Analysis
10
Post-Structuralism
Teaching and Learning
Seminars
Teaching is by seminars of three hours each, one per week.
 The first hour of the seminar will be used for a presentation by students (the
number depending on the number of participants, and beginning with week
3) of the readings, with questions and comments by the tutor and the other
students.
 The second hour will be used for a general discussion of the subject matter on
the basis of written replies to the seminar questions in the course outline.
Everybody is expected to have at least read the required readings.
 The third hour is used by the tutor to make a presentation on the subject
matter of the following week, in order to support reading and preparation
3

The corresponding chapter of the course web-text, A Survey of Global Political
Economy, supports the lecture and serves as source of e-readings and
background to the print readings.
Essay
The essay requirement for each student is a 2,000 word non-contributory essay to
be submitted during the Autumn term. The convenor will fix submission
deadlines at the beginning of the term—in principle, in week 5 or 6, depending
on the requirements for the parallel core course in GPE. Since the aim of the
course is to gain an overview of theories and develop the ability to classify them
and recognise them in a given reading, ‘contrast and compare’ titles are
especially recommended.
Examination
The course is examined by means of a three-and-a-half-hour unseen examination
in the first week of the Spring term of 2010.
Contact
Kees van der Pijl’s office phone 877452; e-mail [email protected]
Office hours are in room Arts C 354 (exact hours announced at the first meeting).
Topics and Readings
Week 1: Theory and Global Political Economy
Global or International Political Economy is one of the ways to approach International Relations.
Originally the term political economy referred to the ‘householding’ of the state, the ‘polis’,
rather than of the actual household from which the term ‘economy’ derives (from the Greek
‘oikos’, house—also used in ‘ecology’). Marx wrote his ‘Capital’ as a critique of political economy,
arguing that the surface level of exchange of equivalents hides a reality of exploitation and
unequal exchange. It is this critical approach to political economy, which aims to discover the
deep structure from which both politics and economics derive their particular configurations,
with which the term itself most often has become associated. There is also a political economy
that takes the opposite angle by applying neoclassical economics to the field of politics (e.g. as a
field of consumer preferences).
Questions:
Questions give an indication of the type of exam questions that can be expected and may help to
bring some order to the subject matter of the particular week. Every student is expected to have
prepared the questions for the second hour of each meeting.
4
*What are the grounds on which in the late 19th century, a distinct ‘economics’
was lifted out of classical political economy?
*Which fields no longer covered by economics, arose as a consequence, and
which specific areas did they deal with?
*What is meant by ‘economism’ and what is the connection with a materialist
ontology?
*Why not just settle for a separate political science and an economics, each
with their solid academic traditions, instead of possibly confusing the two?
E-READINGS in Chapter 1 of the Survey (all e-readings are also accessible
alphabetically in the References of the Survey)
Note that the references of classic e-versions are often incomplete and should not be used for
referencing in this way.
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Jessop, Bob, and Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2001. ‘Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary
Perspectives’. New Political Economy, 6 (1) 89-101.
Michie. Jonathan, Oughton, Christine and Wilkinson, Frank. 2002. ‘Against the
New Economic Imperialism: Some Reflections’. American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, 61 (1) 351-365. (cf. et al., 2002)
Garnsey, Elizabeth. 1981. ‘The Rediscovery of the Division of Labor.’ Theory &
Society. 10 (3) 337-358.
(Classic works/fragments)
Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations
Ricardo, David. 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Marx, 1847. The Poverty of Philosophy, method section.
Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital
Marx, Karl. 1894. Capital, vol iii, Chapter 27.chapter in M-E Archive
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. ‘Principles’of Political Economy, section on value.
Spinoza, Baruch de. 1675. Ethics (theses).
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method, 1635
5
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Chattopadhyay P. 1974. ‘Political Economy: What’s in a Name’, Monthly
Review 25 (11).
Origins of the term and resulting confusions
The editors, S.D. Krasner, G.M. Hodgson. 1994. ‘The Nature of International
Political Economy’ , Review of International Political Economy 1 (1)
Strange, Susan. 1988. ‘The Study of International Political Economy’ pp. 7-42
of States and Markets, London, Pinter.
Tooze, Roger. 1987. ‘International Political Economy and International
Relations’ Millennium 16 (2)
Strange, Susan. 1994. ‘Wake up, Krasner! The world has changed’, Review of
International Political Economy 1 (2)
On the inadequacies of state-centric ‘realism’
Palan, Ronen. 2000. ‘New Trends in Global Political Economy’ in R. Palan (ed.)
Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Neufeld, Mark. 1995. ‘International Relations Theory and the Aristotelian
Project’ ch. 1 in The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge,
CUP)
Cox, R.W. 1995. ‘Critical Political Economy’ in B. Hettne et al., International
Political Economy. Understanding Global Disorder (London, Zed)
(books)
Therborn, Göran. 1976. Science, Class and Society. On the Formation of Sociology
and Historical Materialism (London, Verso) .
Key study on the origins of modern social science
Rosenberg, Justin. 2000. The Follies of Globalization Theory. Polemical Essays
(London: Verso), Introduction
Dangers of taking globalisation in a naturalised sense, as a causal factor
Week 2: Rational Choice
The approach which extends the models of neoclassical economics to political economy. It
proceeds on the assumption of subjective rationality and methodological individualism. This
implies the separation of the knowing subject from the social context (just as it assumes the
capacity of the subject, be it an individual or a collective, to act independently in society). Action
serves to maximise certain preferences on the part of actors; knowledge is likewise centred on the
subject, who/which learns by experience. Game theory is the mathematical representation of
6
how subject’s preferences are totalised: in the economy, those of individuals; in IR/GPE, of states
and other collective actors.
Questions:
*How can the concept of the rational subject be traced back to the marginalist
revolution in the late 19th century?
*In which way did Keynes both confirm and reject the assumptions of
marginalism?
*Compare and contrast the arguments of the original marginalism, and the
neoliberal revolt against Keynesianism.
*Why is game theory a logical solution to the claim, famously made by
Margaret Thatcher, that ‘there is no such thing as society’?
E-READINGS in Chapter 2 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Hausken, Kjell, and Plümper, Thomas. 1997. ‘Hegemons, Leaders and
Followers: A Game-Theoretic Approach to the Postwar Dynamics of
International Political Economy ‘, Journal of World-Systems Research, 3 (1) .
Hausken and Plümper, 1997
(others under
--Classic works/fragments)
Jevons, Stanley. ‘pleasure and pain’ (fragment).
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics
Böhm- Bawerk, E. von. 1896. Marx and the Close of His System
Keynes, J. M. 1970 [1936]. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
esp. chapters 2, 18, 24
Chapters on classical economic theory, summary of his own, and the
‘euthanasia’ argument
Robinson, Joan. 1972. ‘The Second Crisis of Economic Theory’. The American
Economic Review, 62 (1/2) 1-10.
Hayek, F. A. 1958. ‘Freedom, Reason, and Tradition’. Ethics, 68 (4) 229-245.
7
Simon, Herbert. 1955. ‘A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice’ .The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 69 (1) 99-118
Becker, Gary S. 1962. ‘Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis’.
The Journal of Political Economy, 70 (5) part 2, 9-49.
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Gill, Stephen, and Law, David. 1988. ‘Economic Liberalism and Public Choice’
pp. 41-54 in The Global Political Economy (New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf)
Frey, B.S. 1997. ‘The public choice view of international political economy’, in
G.T. Crane and A. Amawi (eds) The Theoretical Evolution of International
Political Economy, 2nd edition. A Reader (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Explaining and Understanding International
Relations (Oxford, Oxford University Press) chapters 6, 8
Chapters on games
Gowa, Joanne. 1986. ‘Anarchy, egoism and the third images: the evolution of
cooperation and international relations’ International Organization 40 (1)
Gowa, Joanne. 1989. ‘Bipolarity, multipolarity and free trade’, American
Political Science Review 83 (4)
Carlson, Lisa J. 2000. ‘Game theory: international trade, conflict, and
cooperation’ in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary Theories
(London, Routledge)
Argument concerning ‘two-level games’
Carling, Alan. 1986. ‘Rational Choice Marxism’, New Left Review 160.
Application of RC to Marxist concepts like exploitation etc.
(books)
Hayek, Friedrich von. 1976 [1944]. The Road to Serfdom (London, Routledge &
Kegan Paul, esp. chapter 3, 8, and 11
The chapters in which the core argument most relevant for our aims is developed
Bukharin, Nikolai. 1972 [1927]. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. [intro. D.
Harris, trans. from the Russian]. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Week 3: Positivism and Sociology
This method began as a progressive movement intended to remove radical conflict from society
by orienting it towards the application of proven scientific insight. It predicted that after an age
8
of religion, one of metaphyics (abstract philosophy not dealing with empirical reality), a golden
age of society organised on sound scientific principle would emerge (Comte). This was still a
metaphysical philosophy itself. In the years before and right after the First World War, neopositivism sought to remedy this deficiency by concentrating entirely on method, formally by
testing hypotheses against observed facts. Like Rational Choice, it is a subjectivist theory but
without the assumption of rationality. By assuming the capacity to make sound statements about
observables and ultimately, to verify/falsify statements, this approach tends to concentrate on
the rules to which valid statements must conform, and to problems of correspondence between
language and events.
Questions:
*What does ‘positive’ in positivism refer to?
*In which sense was the original positivism a philosophy of history and how
did neo-positivism strip the method from this philosophical baggage?
*Which problems arise when we want to make statements strictly empirically
testable and what was the solution offered by Wittgenstein?
*How has the connection between managerialism and sociology/ positivism
been argued?
E-READINGS in Chapter 3 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Turner, Bryan S. 1990. ‘The Two Faces of Sociology: Global or National?’,
Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 343-358.
Giddens, Anthony. 1976. ‘Classical Social Theory and the Origins of Modern
Sociology’. The American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4) 703-729.
Urry, John. 1973. ‘Thomas S. Kuhn as Sociologist of Knowledge’. The British
Journal of Sociology, 24 (4) 462-473.
Roscoe, Paul B. 1995. ‘The Perils of “Positivism” in Cultural Anthropology’.
American Anthropologist, 97 (3) 492-504.
(Classic works/fragments)
Saint-Simon, Henri de. 1807. ‘letter’
Schlick, Moritz. 1925. Epistemology and Modern Physics
Carnap, Rudolf. 1966. Philosophical Foundations of Physics
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
9
Friedman, Milton. 1953. ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, in Essays in
Positive Economics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press)
Classical statement of the positivist methodology as applied to economics
Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. ‘Explaining’ ch. 3 in Explaining and
Understanding International Relations (Oxford, Clarendon).
Neufeld, Mark. 1995. ‘Defining Positivism’ ch 2 and ‘IR Theory and Social
Criticism’ ch 5 in The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge,
CUP)
Passmore, John. 1967. ‘Logical Positivism’ in The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
(New York, Macmillan,), vol. 5, 52-57
Kaplan, M.A. 1968. ‘Traditionalism versus Science in International Relations’
in Kaplan, ed. New Approaches to International Relations (New York,)
Behaviourist critique of ‘international society’ approach of Hedley Bull
Singer, J.D. 1969 ‘The Behavioral Science Approach in International Relations:
Payoff and Prospects’ chapter 7 in J.N. Rosenau, ed. International Politics and
Foreign Policy, rev. ed (New York, Free Press)
(books)
Benton, Ted. 1977. Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies (London,
Routledge,) chapters 2-5.
Discusses the positivism of Comte, Durkheim, and the question whether positivism is rightly
the methodology of choice in the natural sciences
Ayer, A.J. 1971 [1936]. Language, Truth and Logic. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley), especially chapters 2, ‘Laws and Theories’ and 4, ‘Political
Structures’
Paradigmatic contemporary formulation of the application of the neo-positivist method to IR.
delineates the different steps that must be taken if we are to arrive at a sound theory of IR that
is not based on a metaphysical ‘first principle’ (as the ‘quest for power’ in the classical Realism
of a Morgenthau)
Holsti, K. 1985.The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International
Theory (Boston, Allen & Unwin)
Argues the case for a realism based on positivism
Week 4: Hermeneutics and the Weberian Paradigm
This set of approaches still belong to subjective rationalism but abandons the strict criterion of
observability to include, e.g., introspection (‘hermeneutics’). It is to be found in policy-oriented
approaches, such as classical political realism in IR, or (neo-) mercantilism in economics/GPE. Its
relation to positivism is one of exception; whilst usually acknowledging that positivism is the
10
valid approach to natural phenomena, it claims that the phenomena of the social world are
elusive by the standards of a natural-science approach and have to be tackled by methods proper
to a human-made world (the world as ‘social construction’, hence ‘constructivism’ as a strand
within this broader approach). The separation of the subject from the object is less strictly
adhered to by allowing for environmental influences both in the knowing subject and in the
acting subject (the state) which again is different from our relation to external nature (e.g. the
moon will not blush when observed for longer than an hour). The readings include examples of
how ideas and political conceptions structure the arena of global political economy.
Questions:
*Why must a distinction between natural and social science precede the
application of a hermeneutic approach?
*How is Weber’s analysis of the relation between Protestantism and capitalism
related to his own political programme?
*How do values and meaning impinge on the perception of social facts?
*Which different shades of constructivism can be distinguished and on which
grounds?
E-READINGS in Chapter 4 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International
Relations’. European Journal of International Relations, 6 (2) 147-182.
Elkins and Simmons, 2005: Elkins, Zachary, and Simmons, Beth. 2005. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 33-51.
Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1997. ‘International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging
the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide’. European Journal of International
Relations, 3 (4) 473-495.
Palan, 2000: Palan, Ronen. 2000. ‘A world of their making: an evaluation of
the constructivist critique of International Relations’. Review of International
Studies, 26 (4) 575-598.
(Classic works/fragments)
Kant, Immanuel. critique of Hume.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1883. Introduction to the Human Sciences (fragments)
Mead, George Herbert. 1938. Science and the Objectivity of Perspectives
Heidegger, Martin. 1949. Existence and Being
11
Gadamer, H.-G. 1971. ‘The Idea of Hegel’s Logic’
Habermas, Jürgen.
Habermas Archive
Weber, Max. 1905. The Protestant Ethic
Weber, Max. 1921. Economy and Society
Weber, Max. 1897. Sociological Writings
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. ‘Understanding’ ch. 4 in Explaining and
Understanding International Relations (Oxford, Clarendon)]
Jenkins, Keith. 2000. ‘An English Myth? Rethinking the Contemporary Value
of E.H. Carr’s What is History?’ in M. Cox (ed.) E.H. Carr. A Critical Appraisal.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wendt, A. 1992. ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of
power politics’ International Organization 46 (2), 391-425
Key statement of constructivism in IR
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. ‘Ideas do not float freely: transnational
coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war’, International
Organization 48 (2)
Cerny, Ph. 2000. ‘Structuring the political arena. Public goods, states and
governance in a globalizing world’, in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy.
Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Palan, R. 2000. ‘The constructivist underpinnings of the new international
political economy’ in Palan, ed., Global Political Economy: contemporary theories
(London, Routledge)
Teschke, B. and Heine, C. 2002. ‘The Dialectic of Globalisation. A Critique of
Social Constructivism’ in M. Rupert and H. Smith (eds) Historical Materialism
and Globalization (London, Routledge)
Compares and contrasts Constructivism with Marxism
Goldstein, J. 2000. ‘The United States and World Trade: Hegemony by Proxy?’
in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C. Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the
parameters of international relations and international political economy (Aldershot,
Ashgate)
12
Helleiner, E. 2000. ‘Still an Extraordinary Power, but for how much Longer?
The United States in World Finance’ in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C.
Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and
international political economy (Aldershot, Ashgate)
Krugman, Paul. 1994. ‘Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession’, Foreign
Affairs 73 (2)
(books)
Benton, Ted. 1977. Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies (London,
Routledge,) chapters 6-7.
Discusses the neo-Kantian separation of natural from human sciences and Weber’s
philosophy
Week 5: Pragmatism and Institutionalism
Institutionalism as an approach to GPE has its founding father in Thorstein Veblen, who argued
at the beginning of the 20th century that social and economic behaviour is guided by habits
prevailing in a given society rather than by general principles. It is anchored in the prevailing
philosophies of early 20th-century America: pragmatism, and (to a lesser degree) social
darwinism, which notably affects its ideas of survival of the fittest economy. Its contemporary
representatives stress the varied ways in which the capitalist economy is imbricated with a
concrete society. They look at subtle differences which make the same economic system function
differently in different societies, thus fine-tuning the general categories used to analyse the
political economy. The most influential thinker in the institutionalist tradition today is Karl
Polanyi, best known for his 1944 work The Great Transformation.
Questions:
*How does pragmatism relate to positivism—both in terms of the sociology of
knowledge and in actual method (epistemology)?
*Which changes in the development of capitalism are articulated in Veblen’s
concept of business preying on industry?
*What are, according to Polanyi, the limits of the self-regulating market? How
does this give rise to a ‘double movement’?
*How many capitalisms can be distinguished and which are the defining
criteria for each?
E-READINGS in Chapter 5 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Hodgson, Geoff. 1996. ‘Varieties of capitalism and varieties of economic
theory’, Review of International Political Economy 3 (3) 380-433.
13
Nitzan, 1998, Jonathan. ‘Differential Accumulation: Towards a New Political
Economy of Capital’. Review of International Political Economy, 5 (2) 189-216.
Bichler and Nitzan 2004. ‘Dominant Capital and the New Wars’, Journal of
World-Systems Research 10 (2).
. Scully, Gerald W. 1988. ‘The Institutional Framework and Economic
Development’. The Journal of Political Economy, 96 (3) 652-662.
Hall and Gingerich, 2009: Hall, Peter A. and Gingerich, Daniel W. 2009.
‘Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Political
Economy: An Empirical Analysis’. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 449482.
(Classic works/fragments)
Peirce, Charles. 1878. How to Make Our Ideas Clear
Durkheim, Emile. 1914. ‘critique of pragmatism
James, William. ‘What pragmatism means’
Dewey, John. 1933. The Quest for Certainty (chapter).
Veblen, T. 1906. critique of Marx
Taylor, Frederick W. 1911. Scientific Management
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Leander, Anna. ‘A nebbish presence. Undervalued contributions of
sociological institutionalism to IPE’ in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy.
Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) [2000]
Note that ‘institutionalism’ here is seen as covering several approaches we look at here under
different labels, e.g. ‘rational choice institutionalism’ etc.
Spruyt, H. 2000. ‘New Institutionalism and International Relations’ in R. Palan
(ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Nitzan, J. and Bichler, S. 2000. ‘Capital accumulation. Breaking the dualism of
‘economics’ and ‘politics’, in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy.
Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Davies, Matt, and Niemann, Michael 2002.‘The Everyday Spaces of Global
Politics: Work, Leisure, Family’, New Political Science, 24 (4) 557-77.
‘Everyday life’ as an aspect of anthropological GPE.
14
Jessop, Bob. 1993. ‘Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State? Preliminary
Remarks on Post-Fordist Political Economy’ , Studies in Political Economy, 40
(books)
Hodgson, Geoff. 1993. Economics and Evolution. Bringing Life Back into
Economics (Cambridge, Polity).
Veblen, T. 1994 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, Dover)
Introductory & ch. 8
General argument and Darwinist understanding of industry
Polanyi, Karl. 1957 [1944]. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic
Origins of Our Time (Boston, Beacon) chapters 4/6, 11/14
Classic of GPE/IPE Institutionalism
Albert, Michel. 1992. Capitalism versus Capitalism (New York, Four Walls Eight
Windows)
Contrasts neo-American (neo-liberal) and Rhineland (corporate liberal) capitalism
Schwartz, Herman. 1994. ‘The Rise of the Modern State: From Street Gangs to
Mafias’, ch.1, and ‘The Industrial Revolution and Late Development’, ch. 4 of
States Versus Markets. History, Geography, and the Development of the International
Political Economy (New York, St. Martin’s)
Week 6: Weak Systems: Regulation and Regime Theory
Regime and regulation are both examples of a systems approach. We speak of a systems theory
when the actions of a given set of agents (be they states, corporations, or individuals) are seen as
objectively cohering towards a common outcome irrespective of their motives, and/or derive
their meaning from the patterned interaction. Rationality is no longer principally subjective;
subjects rather act out a rationality that somehow resides in the whole (objective rationalism, the
classical expression of which was Hegel’s philosophy). In a system, the actions of the units are
expressions of, or at least coordinated by the workings of the principles of that system, which can
be weak (a set of rules) or strong (historical forces). In GPE, the ‘regime’ approach assumes that
rules are put in place by states and are adhered to by the force of a hegemonic state or by the
force of habit; it is derived from a realist/mercantilist approach and shares many of its
assumptions. The ‘regulation’ approach assumes that capitalist development places agents in a
temporarily fixed, systemic arrangement; it stems from the 1950s left mercantilism of F. Perroux
and obtained a Marxist reformulation in the 1970s (Aglietta and others).
Questions:
*Compare and contrast systems theory with subjective action theories. Why is
‘functionalism’ a characteristic of systems thinking and not of subjectivist
approaches?
15
*How can it be that Regime theory has been classified as a public choice
approach by some and as a systems theory by others?
*What is implied by the claim that Regulation theory is a weak system theory
(whereas others would class it as a Marxist theory)?
*How do social struggles impact on a given regulatory structure?
E-READINGS in Chapter 6 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Wildavsky, 1966, Aaron. ‘The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit
Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting’. Public Administration
Review, 26 (4) 292-310.
Jessop, 1995, Bob. ‘The regulation approach, governance, and post-Fordism:
Alternative perspectives on political and economic change?’ Economy &
Society, 24 (3) 307-333.
Kohler, Gernot. 1999. ‘Global Keynesianism and Beyond’, Journal of WorldSystems Research , 5 (2).
Whiteneck, Daniel. 1996 ‘The Industrial Revolution and Birth of the AntiMercantilist Idea: Epistemic Communities and Global Leadership’. Journal of
World-Systems Research, 2 (1).
Trubek et al., 2000: Trubek, David M., Mosher, Jim, and Rothstein, Jeffrey S.
2000. ‘Transnationalism in the Regulation of Labor Relations: International
Regimes and Transnational Advocacy Networks’. Law & Social Inquiry, 25 (4)
1187-1211.
(Classic works/fragments)
Bertalanffy, 1950: Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1950. ‘An Outline of General
System Theory’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1 (2) 134-165.
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Aglietta, M. 1976. ‘Introduction: The Need for a Theory of Capitalist
Regulation’ pp. 9-36 in A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience,
(London, Verso)
Aglietta, Michel. 1998. ‘Capitalism at the Turn of the Century: Regulation
Theory and the Challenge of Social Change.’ New Left Review [1st series] 232,
November/December
Compares regulation approach to rational micro-economics and institutionalism
16
Jessop, B. 1990. ‘Regulation Theories in Retrospect and Prospect’, Economy &
Society, 19 (2)
Dunford, M. 2000. ‘Globalization and theories of regulation’, in R. Palan (ed.)
Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Strange, S. 1982. ‘Cave! Hic Dragones: a critique of regime analysis’,
International Organization 36 (2)]
Adler, E. and Haas, P. M. 1992. ‘Conclusion: epistemic communities, world
order, and the creation of a reflective research program’ International
Organization 46 (1)
Haas, P.M. 1992. ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International
Policy Coordination’, International Organization 46 (1)
Krasner, S. 1985. ‘Third World Goals and Successes’ ch 3 of Structural Conflict.
The Third World Against Global Liberalism (Berkeley. Univ of California Press) []
Book as a whole key statement of the Regime approach
Lipietz, A. 1982. ‘Towards Global Fordism?’, New Left Review 132 32-47
van Tulder, R. and Ruigrok, W. 1995. ‘The Elusive Concept of post-Fordism’
pp. 12-36 of The Logic of International Restructuring (London, Routledge)
Lipietz, A. 2001. ‘The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Post-Fordism’, in R.
Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and
Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave)
(books)
Piore, M.J. and Sabel, Ch. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide (New York, Basic
Books)
Study of how industry went back to small-shop skilled production under neo-liberalism
Week 7: World Systems Theory and Long Cycle Theories
The protagonists of this strand of thought adhere to a view of history which is an example of a
comprehensive systems theory. This comprehensiveness gives rise to the often-noted problem of
functionalism (structures exist because they serve the purposes defined by the system) . World
Systems Theory has also been termed neo-Smithian because it concentrates on the effects of
exchange rather than production. History in Wallerstein’s major work, The Modern World System
(first volume 1974), is the process by which the elements for the system (the capitalist world
th
economy) were put in place in the 16 century; after that, the system begins to operate in the
sense that behaviour of component parts acquires its functional quality—successful if it conforms
to the requirements of the system, doomed if not. As long as states remain sovereign entities antisystemic movements according to Wallerstein will be absorbed into them (and duly made part of
the world system).
17
Questions:
*What is systematic about World System Theory?
*What are the pitfalls of functionalist analysis—of the world economy, the
state, and war?
*How do exchange and production relate in World Systems Theory?
*Why is ‘chaos theory’ not about random disorder but systemic? Give an
example relating to the current crisis.
E-READINGs in Chapter 7 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Frank, 2000, André Gunder. ‘Immanuel and Me With-Out Hyphen’, Journal of
World-Systems Research 6 (2).
Goldfrank, 2000, Walter. ‘Paradigm Regained? The Rules of Wallerstein's
World-System Method’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 6 (2) .
Burch, 1995, Kurt. ‘Invigorating World System Theory As Critical Theory:
Exploring Philosophical Foundations And Postpositivist Contributions’,
Journal of World-Systems Research, 1 (1) .
Chase-Dunn, 1999, Christopher. ‘Globalisation: A World-Systems Perspective’,
Journal of World-Systems Research, 5 (2)
Rennstich, 2005, Joachim K. . ‘Chaos or ReOrder? The Future of Hegemony in
a World-System in Upheaval’, Journal of World-Systems Research , 11 (2).
(Classic works/fragments)
Wallerstein, 1995, Immanuel. ‘The Modern World System and Evolution’,
Journal of World-Systems Research , 1 (1) .
Modelski, 2005, George. ‘Long-Term Trends in Global Politics’, Journal of
World-Systems Research, 11 (2).
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Arrighi, G. 1993. ‘The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism’ in S. Gill
(ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge,
CUP)
18
Thompson, W.R. 1983. ‘Introduction’ in Thompson, ed. Contending Approaches
to World System Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage)
Frank, A.G. 1998. Preface and Introduction to Real World History vs.
Eurocentric Social Theory, ch. 1 of ReOrient. Global Economy in the Asian Age
(Berkeley, University of California Press)
Brenner, R. 1977. ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of NeoSmithian Marxism’, New Left Review 104
Compares and contrasts World System Theory and Marxism
H.W. Houweling and J.G. Siccama, ‘The Neo-Functionalist Explanation of
World Wars: A Critique and an Alternative’ International Interactions 18 (4)
1993
Arrighi, G. and. Moore, J.W 2001. ‘ Capitalist Development in World Historical
Perspective’ in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms,
Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave)
Arrighi, G. 1990. ‘Marxist Century, American Century: The Making and
Remaking of the World Labour Movement’, New Left Review 179
(books)
Wallerstein, I. 1983. Historical Capitalism (London, Verso)
Short book of the author of the 3-volume Modern World System, contains key methodological
argument
Taylor, Peter J. 1996. The Way the Modern World Works. World Hegemony to
World Impasse (Chichester, Wiley)
Applies the WST approach to cultural hegemony, from Dutch genre painting to Doris Day
films.
Rosenau, J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and
Continuity (Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press)
Week 8: Historical Materialism
Historical materialism combines Hegel’s objective idealism and the materialist tradition of Bacon
to Feuerbach. It places political economy, via a critique of what we today call ‘economics’ (in
Marx’s day, ‘critique of political economy’) in a historical context. Successive modes of
production developed out of the contradictions of others (which then survived on the margins of
the new). Thus capitalism is re-interpreted not as the natural form of economics, and all other
practices as illegitimate aberrations, but as one mode of production/historical form. Each mode
of production generates a distinct class antagonism (lord/ slave in the slaver-owning mode of
production, landowner / peasant in the tributary/feudal mode, capitalist / wage labourer in the
capitalist mode). Revolutionary change occurs when the possibility of a new mode comes in view
given advances in the exploitation of nature, and the classes belonging to a new mode rebel
against the old order. Dialectics is seen by Marx primarily in its epistemological aspect, as a
19
critical understanding of reality which is associated with revolutionary change; Hegel and many
Marxists on the other hand saw it (also) as an objective reality, i.e., that the world itself is
contradictory. All theories of imperialism follow this latter interpretation.
Questions:
*How can the development of historical materialism be reconstructed from the
synthesis between Hegel’s objective idealism and the materialism of
Feuerbach?
*How is labour interpreted by Marx as compared to its understanding by
Wallerstein?
*What is the relation between economism and the return to naturalistic
materialism ascribed to Engels, Lenin, and others?
*Compare and contrast the positivist and dialectical epistemologies.
E-READINGS in Chapter 8 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Knafo, Samuel. 2002. ‘The fetishizing subject in Marx’s Capital’. Capital & Class,
76. 145-175., 2002.
Himmelweit, Susan, and Mohun, Simon. 1977. ‘Domestic Labour and Capital’.
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1 (1) 15-31.
Dos Santos, Theotonio. 1970. ‘The Structure of Dependence’. The American
Economic Review, 60 (2) 231-236
Harvey, David. 2006. ‘The Geography of Capitalist Accumulation: A
Reconstruction of the Marxian Theory’. Antipode, 7 (2) 9-21.
(Classic works/fragments)
La Mettrie (fragment on man is a machine)
Feuerbach The Essence of Christianity
Feuerbach, Lecture on the Essence of Religion
Althusser on Feuerbach’s role
Kant, section on ‘antinomies’
Hegel, lecture on Kant
Hegel, Science of Logic
20
Marcuse’s Reason and Revolution
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach
Marx, section from the German Ideology
Marx, wood theft article, 1842
Plekhanov, (cf. Archive)
Labriola (Archive)
Kautsky, materialist conception of history, 1903,
Kautsky Archive
Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
Lenin, Imperialism...(the highest stage of capitalism)
Pannekoek, Lenin as a Philosopher
Trotsky. (cf. Archive
Mandel, section on marginalism
Mandel Archive
Hilferding Finance Capital
Hilferding Böhm-Bawerk’s Critique of Marx, 1904,
Hilferding Archive
Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy
Luxemburg, Accumulation of Capital
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Heine, C. and Teschke, B. 1996. ‘Sleeping Beauty and the Dialectical
Awakening: On the Potential of Dialectic for International Relations’
Millennium 25 (2)
21
Rupert, M. ‘Alienation, capitalism and the inter-state system: towards a
Marxian/Gramscian critique’ in S. Gill (ed) Gramsci, historical materialism and
international relations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) 1983
Wood, Ellen. 1981. ‘The Separation of the Economic and the Political in
Capitalism’ New Left Review 124 66-95
Rosenberg, J. 1994. ‘Secret Origins of the State’, ch. 3, and ‘Tantae Molis Erat.
Prospectus for an Alternative History of the International System’, ch. 6 of The
Empire of Civil Society (London, Verso)
Applies the Wood thesis to IR
Mandel, E. ‘Laws of Movement and History of Capital’, ch. 1 of Late Capitalism,
London, Verso [latest edition 2000]
Laffey, M.and Dean, K. 2002. ‘A flexible Marxism for flexible times’ in M.
Rupert and H. Smith (eds.) Historical Materialism and Globalization (London,
Routledge)
Discusses the use of the concept of over-determination (here from Althusser) for GPE
Callinicos, A. 2001. ‘Periodizing Capitalism and Analyzing Imperialism:
Classical Marxism and Capitalist Evolution’ in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases
of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New
York, Palgrave)
Clarke, S. 2001. ‘Class Struggle and the Global Overaccumulation of Capital’,
in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and
Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave)
Kaviraj, S. 1989. ‘On Political Explanation in Marxism’, in K. Bharadwaj and S.
Kaviraj, Eds. Perspectives on Capitalism. Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter and Weber,
New Delhi, Sage]
Benton, T. 1989. ‘Marxism and Natural Limits: An Ecological Critique and
Reconstruction’, New Left Review 178
(books)
M. Löwy, The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development, London, Verso
[1981]
Week 9: Gramscian Class Analysis
This strand within GPE is based on the reassessment made by Gramsci of the original Leninist
theses concerning imperialist rivalry and socialist revolution, which led him to the conclusion
that in developed capitalism, (intellectual) hegemony has to precede any attempt at changing
society beyond capitalism. Gramsci was inspired here by the neo-Machiavellian Italian political
science of the turn of the century (Mosca et al.). Robert Cox has adopted Gramsci’s framework in
22
his historical analysis of international hegemonies rooted in different sets of production relations,
in which Gramsci’s original problematic of Communist party strategy recedes into the
background. Transnational class analysis looks at how national class structures are
interconnected through specific fractions (bank, commercial, industrial capital) involved in
international circuits of capital, interlocking political-economic development in separate
countries. A key area of investigation here is the role of semi-permanent networks or fora of
consultation organised/dominated by the transnational ruling class.
Questions:
*What are the key differences between the definitions of the state of Lenin and
Poulantzas?
*How does Gramsci’s rethinking of the fate of the European revolution lead to
a differentiation of state/society complexes?
*How can the notion of a comprehensive concept of control be traced back to
the neo-Machiavellians of the early 20th century?
*How can interlocking directorates become part of transnational political
processes?
E-READINGS in Chapter 9 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
Morton, Adam David. 2007. ‘Waiting for Gramsci: State Formation, Passive
Revolution and the International’. Millennium. Journal of International Studies,
35 (3) 579-621 .
Germain, Randall D. & Kenny, Michael. 1998. ‘Engaging Gramsci.
International relations theory and the new Gramscians’. Review of International
Studies, 24, 3-21.
Mueller, Tadzio. 2002. ‘Globalization, Gramsci, and the Globalization-Critical
Movement’. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 6 (4).
Gill, Stephen. 1986. ‘Hegemony, consensus and Trilateralism’. Review of
International Studies, 12, 205-221.
Nollert, 2005, Michael. ‘Transnational Corporate Ties: A Synopsis of Theories
and Empirical Findings’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 11 (2).
Carroll and Carson, 2003: Carroll, William K. and Carson, Colin. 2003.
‘Forging a New Hegemony? The Role of Transnational Policy Groups in the
Network and Discourses of Global Corporate Governance’, Journal of WorldSystems Research, 9 (1)
23
Staples, 2006, Clifford. ‘Board Interlocks and the Study of the Transnational
Capitalist Class’, Journal of World-Systems Research 12 (2) .
(Classic works/fragments)
Lenin Archive
Lenin, The State and Revolution
Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It
Althusser, Louis , ‘ideological’ Marx and the mature Marx of Capital
______. cf. text
Gramsci Archive
Pareto, Vilfredo. Mind and Society, fragment
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Cox, R. W. 1983. ‘Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in
method’, Millennium 22 (2)
Key statement on Gramscianism in IR
Overbeek, H.W. 2000 ‘Transnational Historical Materialism: theories of
transnational class formation and world order’ in R. Palan (ed) Global Political
Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge)
Schechter, M. 2002. ‘Critiques of Coxian Theory: Backgrounds to a
conversation’, in R.W. Cox, The Political Economy of a Plural World [with M.G.
Schechter] (London, Routledge)
Gill , S.1995. ‘Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary
Neoliberalism’, Millennium 24 (3),
van der Pijl, K. 2001. ‘International Relations and Capitalist Discipline’ in R.
Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and
Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave)
Cox, R.W. 1987. ‘The Formation of Classes and Historic Blocs’, pp. 356-91 in
Production, Power and World Order, New York, Columbia UP
Gramsci, A. 1971. ‘Americanism and Fordism’ in Selections from the Prison
Notebooks (ed. by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith) (New York, Int. Publishers)
24
Robinson, W.I. and Harris, J. 2000. ‘Towards a Global Ruling Class?
Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class’, Science and Society 64 (1)
Holman, O. 1996. ‘Global political economy and the transition to modernity’ ,
pp. 3-32 in Integrating Southern Europe. EC Expansion and the
Transnationalization of Spain (London, Routledge)
Augelli, Enrico, and Murphy, Craig N. 1997. ‘Consciousness, myth and
collective action: Gramsci, Sorel and the ethical state’ in S. Gill and J.H.
Mittelman (eds.) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(books)
van der Pijl, K. 1998. Transnational Classes and International Relations (London,
Routledge)
Week 10: Post-Structuralism
Post-structuralism questions the validity of general theoretical systems (‘grand narratives’) . Its
appearance as a cultural trend (post-modernism) has been related to the rise of flexible
accumulation within capitalism (Jameson, Harvey), or to the requirements of managerial society
to apply flexible arguments to any contingency. From the Freudian understanding of a
fragmented ego is subject to neuroses, and the ‘libidinal’ aspect of work, the re-interpretation of
Marxism by the Frankfurt School opened the way for a general rethinking of the way individuals
are socialised into society. The post-structuralist thinkers, building on Foucault’s idea of
dominant discourses as a vehicle of power, abandon the Freudian family context for a social
analysis of how neuroses and other malfunctions come about. In the early twentieth century, a
powerful anti-modernist current in European philosophy, centred on the figure of Nietzsche, laid
the foundations for a general rejection of history as a linear process of cumulative change, as
well as for a post-rational way of looking at society. On closer inspection, the more radical forms
of constructivism and institutionalism return as strands within post-structuralism, and important
continuities with these currents can be detected.
Questions:
*How does the Freudian theory of the de-centred ego affect the schematic
representation of the Cartesian rupture between subject and object?
*What are the differences between Freud’s original interpretation of libidinal
economy and that by Deleuze and Guattari?
*How can we argue that power relations are shaped by language?
*Is a political economy without or even against history possible?
E-READINGS in Chapter 10 of the Survey:
(in the order of the link appearing in the text)
25
Selby, 2007, Jan. ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the
Limits of Foucauldian IR’. International Relations, 21 (3) 324-345.
Vighi, Fabio, & Feldner, Heiko. 2007. ‘Ideology Critique or Discourse
Analysis? Žižek Against Foucault’. European Journal of Political Theory, 6 (2)
141-159.
Daly, Glyn. 2004. ‘Radical(ly) Political Economy. Luhmann, Postmarxism and
Globalisation’, Review of International Political Economy, 11 (1) 1-33.
Elbe, 2001, Stefan. ‘”We Good Europeans...”: Genealogical Reflections on the
Idea of Europe’. Millennium. Journal of International Studies, 30 (2) 259-283.
(Classic works/fragments)
Freud Archive
Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment(sample chapter)
Marcuse, Eros and Civilisation
Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man
Saussure’s Lectures on General Linguistics
Foucault, first three chapters of The Archaeology of Knowledge
Derrida, ‘What Is Ideology’ from Spectres of Marx
Schopenhauer, (fragments of The World as Will and Representation, 1819)
Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886
Lyotard, chapters of the Postmodern Condition
PRINT READINGS:
(in the order from the general to the specific)
Amin, Ash and Palan, Ronen. 2001. ‘Towards a non-rationalist international
political economy’ Review of International Political Economy, 8 (4) 559-577
Tooze, R. 2000. ‘Ideology, Knowledge and Power in International Relations
and International Political Economy’, in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C.
Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and
international political economy (Aldershot, Ashgate)
26
Harvey, D. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of
Cultural Change (Cambridge Mass, Blackwell), part IV
Analysis of postmodernism as a by-product of flexible capitalism
Saurin, J. 1994.‘Global Environmental Degradation, Modernity and
Environmental Knowledge’, Environmental Politics 2 (4)
(books)
Freud, S. [orig. published 1930]Civilization and Its Discontents [transl. by D.
McLintock] (Harmondsworth, Penguin)
Deleuze , G.and Guattari, F. 1986. Nomadology: The War Machine (New York,
Semiotexte,) Originally in Thousand Plateaus, 1980
Poststructuralist analysis of mobility in political economy
Lyotard, J.-F. 1984 [1979].The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
(Manchester, Manchester University Press)
One of the defining statements of this strand of thought
Brennan, T. 2000. Exhausting Modernity. Grounds for a New Economy (London
and New York, Routledge)
A synthesis of Marxism and psychoanalytical social theory applied to ecology
Bratsis, Peter. 2006. Everyday Life and the State. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
27