Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Winecoff Y669 Spring2018short
Winecoff Y669 Spring2018short
course description
This seminar provides an overview of theoretical and empirical work in
International Political Economy (IPE). IPE is an interdisciplinary field –
drawing from international relations, comparative politics, economics, so-
ciology, history and other areas – concerned with the interaction of poli-
tics and economics in the global system. In addition to providing a broad
survey of the development of thought in IPE, we will explore substantive
topics including the politics of trade, investment, and development. In
so doing, this course will mix classic theoretical works with contempo-
rary empirical analyses, for the purpose of laying a foundation for future
research into the global political economy. Students will be expected to
write a seminar paper exploring an IPE topic in some depth, as well as
shorter analyses of assigned readings.
requirements
This is a seminar course. Attendance at each meeting is mandatory and
absences will not be excused barring truly unfortunate circumstances. I
expect you to come to each meeting having read the assigned material
1
2
approach
International Political Economy (IPE) is both old and new. As a distinct
academic subdiscipline IPE has only existed since around 1970, the time
when the postwar Bretton Woods system was fraying, and to this day IPE
exists almost exclusively in the Anglophone world. But IPE is concerned
with the things that all the old “worldly philosophers” were concerned
with: the wealth of nations, the power of capital, the development and
evolution of societies. IPE became necessary because both economics
(post-“marginal revolution”) and international relations neglected these
topics of critical importance. 99% of world politics is about butter, not
bombs, and domestic politics cannot be understood without reference to
the global context within which it occurs. So IPE is important, but in its
current form it is also somewhat immature. In many ways it is not well-
connected to its historical antecedents: Smith, Mill, Marx, Schumpeter,
Keynes, Polanyi, etc. Unfortunately we do not have the time to read all
these folks, but hopefully we’ll be able to connect some dots back to them
over the course of the semester.
4
Contemporary IPE has two general “schools”: the British and the Amer-
ican. The British tends to be historical, interpretivist, and critical. The
American tends to be materialist, quantitative, and neopositivist. This di-
vision mostly has to do with IPE’s origins: in the U.S., the original IPE
scholars came from international economics (e.g. Kindleberger, Cohen)
or international relations (e.g. Keohane); in Britain the pioneer was a
journalist with little formal academic training. We will read material from
both schools, as well as some hybrids of them and debates between them.
Within these schools have existed paradigms that loosely map onto the
so-called “grand” theoretical traditions in international relations: neoreal-
ism, neoliberalism, and neo-Marxism. We will not be reading much of this
stuff, as the discipline has moved on from the big debates, but in terms
of contextualizing readings it is worth remembering that these theoretical
traditions have informed various approaches in IPE.
For these reasons the course may seem a bit disjointed: a little of this,
a little of that. In some ways this is unfortunate, but the alternatives – only
assign material from the past ten years, squeeze in bits from every impor-
tant theoretical tradition, etc. – are even worse. As such, consider this
class as a base for future study. I strongly encourage you to read widely
inside the subdiscipline and outside of it. You will find relevant material
written by sociologists, anthropologists, comparative political scientists,
economists, journalists, normative theorists, historians, physicists, geog-
raphers, and many others. What distinguishes IPE from all others is its
focus on the global system rather than any of its sub-units.
Finally, we will approach IPE differently from you would at many other
places. Instead of taking things topically – a week on foreign direct in-
vestment, then one on interest group lobbying over trade policy, etc. – we
will try to think of the IPE systemically. Thus, we will focus on approaches
to this system rather than topics. I believe this is more interesting and
educational than the traditional approach.
readings
The articles will all be posted on the course website. If you can’t find
something let me know right away. If you do not have much background
in IPE or modern economic history, I recommend the following as optional
resources (in this order, any edition of these is fine):
5
There are plenty of other great books on economic and political econ-
omy history. (Karl) Marx, (Angus) Maddison, (Deidre) McCloskey, and
(Barrington) Moore just on the ‘M’s. Much can be learned from Gregory
Clark, Jared Diamond, David Graeber, Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, David
Landes, and Karl Polanyi, even if they have their flaws. I can give many
more recommendations if you like. Old (i.e. cheap) editions of any of
these are fine. Unfortunately, given the constraints of the class, we will be
spending almost all of our time in the post-World War II era and almost all
of it in the post-Bretton Woods era.
Robert O. Keohane. The old IPE and the new. Review of International Political
Economy, 16(1):34–46, 2009.
Leonard Seabrooke and Kevin L. Young. The networks and niches of international
political economy. Review of International Political Economy, 24(2):288–
331, 2017.
Amin Samman and Leonard Seabrooke. International political economy. In Xavier
Guillaume and Pinar Bilgin, editors, Routledge Handbook of International
Political Sociology. Routledge, London, U.K., 2017.
Immanuel Wallerstein. The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist Sys-
tem: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 16(4):387–415, 1974.
Stephen D. Krasner. State power and the structure of international trade. World
Politics, 28(3):317–347, 1976.
Susan Strange. The persistent myth of lost hegemony. International Organiza-
tion, 41(4):551–574, 1987.
Stephen R. Gill and David Law. Global hegemony and the structural power of
capital. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4):475–299, 1989.
2006.
Rawi Abdelal. The multinational firm and geopolitics: Europe, russian energy,
and power. Business and Politics, 17(3):553–576, 2015.
Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman. Brexit, voice and loyalty: rethinking elec-
toral politics in an age of interdependence. Review of International Political
Economy, 232-247(24):2, 232-247 2017.
Qingxin K. Wang and Mark Blyth. Constructivism and the study of international
political economy in china. Review of International Political Economy,
forthcoming, 2013.
Mark Blyth, Oddny Helgadottir, and William Kring. Ideas and historical insti-
tutionalism. In Orfeo Fioretos, Tulia G. Falleti, and Adam Sheingate, edi-
tors, The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK, 2016.
Lucas Linsi and Daniel Mügge. Globalization and the growing defects of interna-
tional economic statistics. University of Amsterdam Working Paper, 2017.
Required
Thomas Oatley. The reductionist gamble: Open economy politics in the global
economy. International Organization, 65(2):311–341, 2011.
Stephen Chaudoin, Helen V. Milner, and Xun Pang. International systems and
domestic politics: Linking complex theories with empirical models in inter-
national relations. International Organization, 69(2):275–309, 2015.
Thomas Oatley. Open economy politics and trade policy. Review of International
Political Economy, 24(4):699–717, 2017.
Stephen Chaudoin and Helen V. Milner. Science and the system: Ipe and in-
ternational monetary politics. Review of International Political Economy,
24(4):681–698, 2017.
W. Kindred Winecoff. How did international political economy become reduction-
ist? a historiography of a subdiscipline. In William R. Thompson, editor,
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK, 2017.
Bibliography
[1] Rawi Abdelal. The multinational firm and geopolitics: Europe, rus-
sian energy, and power. Business and Politics, 17(3):553–576, 2015.
13
[5] Sarah Blodgett Bermeo and David Leblang. Migration and foreign
aid. International Organization, 69(3):627–657, 2015.
[6] Mark Blyth, Oddny Helgadottir, and William Kring. Ideas and his-
torical institutionalism. In Orfeo Fioretos, Tulia G. Falleti, and Adam
Sheingate, editors, The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutional-
ism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2016.
[7] Mark Blyth and Matthias Matthijs. Black swans, lame ducks, and
the mystery of ipe’s missing macro-economy. Review of International
Political Economy, 24(2):203–231, 2017.
[8] Tim Büthe and Helen V. Milner. The Politics of Foreign Direct In-
vestment into Developing Countries: Increasing FDI through Inter-
national Trade Agreements? American Journal of Political Science,
52(4):741–762, October 2008.
[9] Xun Cao. Global networks and domestic policy convergence: A net-
work explanation of policy changes. World Politics, 64(3):375–425,
2012.
[10] Stephen Chaudoin and Helen V. Milner. Science and the system: Ipe
and international monetary politics. Review of International Political
Economy, 24(4):681–698, 2017.
[12] Jeffrey M. Chwieroth and Timothy J. Sinclair. How you stand depends
on how we see: International capital mobility as social fact. Review
of International Political Economy, 20(3):457–485, 2013.
[17] Christopher Farrands and Owen Worth. Critical theory in global po-
litical economy: Critique? knowledge? emancipation? Capital &
Class, Spring:43–61, 2005.
[18] Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman. Brexit, voice and loyalty: re-
thinking electoral politics in an age of interdependence. Review of
International Political Economy, 232-247(24):2, 232-247 2017.
[19] Henry Farrell and John Quiggin. Consensus, dissensus and economic
ideas: The rise and fall of keynesianism during the economic crisis.
International Studies Quarterly, 61(2):269–283, 2017. Working Pa-
per.
[22] Jeffry A. Frieden. Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twenti-
eth Century. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, NY and London,
2006.
[23] Stephen R. Gill and David Law. Global hegemony and the structural
power of capital. International Studies Quarterly, 33(4):475–299,
1989.
[25] Judith Goldstein. Ideas, Institutions, and American trade policy. In-
ternational Organization, 42(1):179–217, 1988.
[27] Joanne Gowa. Alliances, market power, and postwar trade: explain-
ing the gatt/wto. World Trade Review, 9(3), 2010.
[28] Julia Gray and Philip B.K. Potter. Trade and volatility at the core and
periphery of the global economy. International Studies Quarterly,
56(4):793–800, 2012.
[30] Stephan Haggard and Sylvia Maxfield. The Political Economy of Fi-
nancial Internationalization in the Developing World. International
Organization, 50(1):35–68, 1996.
[32] Iain Hardie, David Howarth, Sylvia Maxfield, and Amy Verdun. Banks
and the false dichotomy in the comparative political economy of fi-
nance. World Politics, 65(4):691–728, 2013.
16
[34] Eric Helleiner. Still an extraordinary power after all these years: Us
and the global financial crisis of 2008. In Randall D. Germain, editor,
Susan Strange and the Future of Global Political Economy: Power,
Control and Transformation. Routledge, London, U.K., 2016.
[35] Kosuke Imai, In Song Kim, and Steven Liao. Measuring trade profiles
with two billion observations of product trade. Working Paper, 2017.
[37] Robert O. Keohane. The old IPE and the new. Review of International
Political Economy, 16(1):34–46, 2009.
[38] Andrew Kerner. What we talk about when we talk about foreign
direct investment. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4):804–815,
2014.
[44] David A. Lake. Open economy politics: A critical review. The Review
of International Organizations, 4(3):219–244, 2009.
17
[45] Lucas Linsi and Daniel Mügge. Globalization and the growing de-
fects of international economic statistics. University of Amsterdam
Working Paper, 2017.
[46] Xiaobo Lu, Kenneth Scheve, and Matthew J. Slaughter. Inequity aver-
sion and the international distribution of trade protection. American
Journal of Political Science, 56(3):638–654, 2013.
[50] Stephen C. Nelson and Peter J. Katzenstein. Uncertainty, risk, and the
financial crisis of 2008. International Organization, 68(2):361–392,
2014.
[53] Thomas Oatley. Open economy politics and trade policy. Review of
International Political Economy, 24(4):699–717, 2017.
[57] Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin. Capitalist crises and the crisis this time.
Socialist Register, 2011.
[58] Thomas B. Pepinsky. The politics of capital flight in the global eco-
nomic crisis. Economics and Politics, 26(3):431–456, 2014.
[60] V. Spike Peterson. How (the meaning of) gender matters in political
economy. New Political Economy, 10(4):499–521, 2005.
[64] Leonard Seabrooke and Kevin L. Young. The networks and niches
of international political economy. Review of International Political
Economy, 24(2):288–331, 2017.
[69] William R. Thompson and Kentaro Sakuwa. Was wealth really deter-
mined in 8000 bce, 1000 bce, 0 ce, or even 1500 ce? Cliodynamics,
4(1), 2013.
[70] Immanuel Wallerstein. The Rise and Future Demise of the World
Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis. Comparative
Studies in Society and History, 16(4):387–415, 1974.
[71] Qingxin K. Wang and Mark Blyth. Constructivism and the study of
international political economy in china. Review of International Po-
litical Economy, forthcoming, 2013.