>Usually today people use the term when they are writing are the margins
>of
>neo-classical economics (that includes Buchanan).
>Barnet Wagman wrote:
>> The term 'international political economy' is/was used by international
>> political scientists like Susan Strange - their use of the the term is
>> almost entirely unrelated to its use by Smith or Marxians or Buchanan
>> (in case things weren't confusing enought).
>
>> Barnet Wagman
>
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barnet, I agree, but I will make some general comments..
first, there is no general consensus among political or social scientists
(broadly defined) about what "international political economy" means to
begin with. Just as there are "international political scientists" such as
Susan Strange, there are "international economists" such as Paul Krugman,
so I don't see the point (though, I would say, Krugman is much worse than
Strange, may be because of my diciplinary bias). Conceptual problems exist
in every dicipline of social science, including economics, not only in
political science. At a first glance, I should say, we have more "critical
theorists" in political science, sociology, anthropology etc..than people
have in economics. Economics is relatively a more conservative social
science when it comes to discussion of "certain" issues.
second, you are talking about how Susan Strange's use of "international
political economy" is unrelated to its use by Smith, Buchanan etc... This
is true and normal (by virtue of historical facts) because neither Smith
nor Buchanan attempted to formulate an "exact" definition of this concept.
I don't remember Smith writing in 17th century Britain, at a mercantalist
capitalist period, and still mentioning the global dimensions of
capitalism in some systemic way, that some of us do in IPE "today". What
he meant was still packed in classical economic terms. Differently, IPE is
relatively a new dicipline that has aimed to abridge the gap between
economics and politics. Of course, there are different standpoints within
IPE, which is what I am gonna talk about..
Third, what we mean when we mean by "political economy" in "any"
dicipline, I find the term "world system" analytically more useful
than "international political economy" or "political economy" per se. The
reason for that is the latter still assumes that we are living in an
inter-state system, not in a world system. It further expects, given free
trade, all societies will automatically follow the western model of
capitalist development, ignoring global hierarchies within the system.
hence, it is implicitly biased in favor neo-classical economics or free
market orthodoxy. Even, imperialism is seen, in these accounts, preparing
the "conditions" for capitalism, and "westernizing" and "modernizing" the
rest of world. This is not the problem of "political scientists" or other
diciplines of social science, Barnet. the problem stems from the economics
dicipline it self, a dicipline that is "still" less critical and conscious
of its hypothetical assumptions compared to other social sciences, whether
it is Buchanan or Smith type (actually, Lenin was one of the first who saw
the problems with orthodox, free market marxism, together with brilliant
Gramsci around those times)
On the contrary, the concept "world system" (or even "international
political economy") was first invented and heavily used by political
scientists, political economists, sociologists, anthropologists and
historians, not economists per se! Inter-paradigmatic communication is
much stronger within those diciplines in terms of how their
diciplines relate to one another. For economists, on the contary, the
world is always economics "versus" other social sciences, and the rest is
a bunch of cultural sciences. Any serious attempt comes from other
diciplines to abridge the gap between economics and politics. for example,
Wallerstein is not an economist, but he provides one of the most systemic
analysis of modern capitalism, who can at least escape from the "margins"
of neo-classical economy by still being a political economist. I strongly
tend to believe his "sociology" background enriches his understanding of
political economy.
Mine Doyran
Phd Student
Political Science
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
