International political economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International relations theory
Realism
Liberalism
Constructivism
Rational choice
Marxism
Other theories
Classifications
Other approaches
Scholars
Categories
A coloured voting box.svg Politics portal
  • v
  • t

International political economy (IPE), also known as global political economy (GPE), is the study of how politics shapes the global economy and how the global economy shapes politics.[1] It is a subfield of economics, political science and international relations. IPE is most closely linked to the fields of macroeconomics, international business, international development and development economics. A key focus in IPE is on the distributive consequences of global economic exchange. It has been described as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."[1]

The substantive issue areas of the global economy are frequently divided into four broad areas: 1. International trade, 2. The international monetary system, 3. Multinational corporations, and 4. Economic development.[2] IPE scholars are at the center of the debate and research surrounding globalization, international trade, international finance, financial crises, microeconomics, macroeconomics, development economics, (poverty and the role of institutions in development), global markets, political risk, multi-state cooperation in solving trans-border economic problems, and the structural balance of power between and among states and institutions.[3]

In trying to understand the foreign economic policies of states, IPE scholars tend to focus on the interests and preferences of relevant actors, as well as the ways in which political institutions aggregate, reconcile or transform these interests into policies.[4][5] Preferences of actors may be the result of material interests or ideas about what is desirable.[4]

Definition[]

Thomas Oatley defines IPE as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."[1] Benjamin Cohen describes it as the study of the "complex interrelationship of economic and political activity at the level of international affairs."[6] Helen Milner defines IPE as "the interaction of economic and political variables in the international system."[7]

The substantive issue areas of the global economy are frequently divided into four broad areas: 1. International trade, 2. The international monetary system, 3. Multinational corporations, and 4. Economic development.[2] IPE frameworks have also been used to study migration.[8][9]

History[]

Political economy was synonymous with economics until the nineteenth century when they began to diverge. A separation between political science and economics was apparent in the early 20th century, although there were exceptions, such as the works of John Maynard Keynes and Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, which both emphasized the relationship between the political and the economic.[10]

The modern study of International Political Economy can be traced to the late 1960s and early 1970s.[11] Influential figures in the discipline were Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye and Robert Gilpin in the United States, as well as Susan Strange in the United Kingdom.[12][13] IPE became a key pillar in political science departments, but continued to be neglected in economics departments.[14]

Two major events motivated early IPE scholarship: (1) Deepening economic interdependence which was prompted by the success of the post-WWI Bretton Woods institutions (International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade), and (2) the political instability associated with these economic institutions (the end of the gold standard, the 1973 oil crisis, and calls for greater trade protection).[11]

International Finance[]

International finance is a major topic in IPE. To IPE scholars, it is impossible to disentangle economics and politics on the subject of international finance.[15][16][17][18] According to Jonathan Kirshner, "the management of money is always and everywhere political."[17] The IPE of international finance is characterized by network effects and externalities,[19][20][21] such as beggar-thy-neighbour effects[22] and contagions.[23]

A key concept in IPE literature on international finance is the impossible trinity (derived from the Mundell–Fleming model) which holds that it is impossible to simultaneously have all of the following three (only two out of three can be held simultaneously):[24][25]

Another key dilemma in monetary policy is that governments have to balance the inflation rate (the price of money at home) and the exchange rate (the price of money outside the home market).[17]

There is no agreement in the economics literature on the optimal national exchange rate policy.[15] Rather, national exchange rate regimes reflect political considerations.[15] National exchange rate policies can be 1. fixed, floating, or a hybrid of the two, and 2. entail a strong or weak currency.[15] Different groups benefit disproportionately depending on the national exchange rate policies that is chosen.[15]

The liberal view point generally has been strong in Western academia since it was first articulated by Smith in the eighteenth century. Only during the 1940s to early 1970s did an alternative system, Keynesianism, command wide support in universities. Keynes was concerned chiefly with domestic macroeconomic policy. The Keynesian consensus was challenged by Friedrich Hayek and later Milton Friedman and other scholars out of Chicago as early as the 1950s, and by the 1970s, Keynes' influence on public discourse and economic policy making had somewhat faded.

After World War II, the Bretton Woods system was established, reflecting the political orientation described as Embedded liberalism.[26] In 1971 President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of gold that had been established under the IMF in the Bretton Woods system.[27] Interim agreements followed. Nonetheless, until 2008 the trend has been for increasing liberalization of both international trade and finance. From later 2008 world leaders have also been increasingly calling for a New Bretton Woods System.

Topics such as the International Monetary Fund, Financial Crises (see Financial crisis of 2007–2008 and 1997 Asian financial crisis), exchange rates, Foreign Direct Investment, Multinational Corporations receive much attention in IPE.

International Trade[]

There are multiple approaches to trade within IPE.[28] These approaches seek to explain international bargaining between states, as well as the foreign economic policies that states adopt. In terms of domestic explanations for the foreign economic policies of states, the two dominant approaches are the factor model and sector model,[29] both of which build on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.[30]

The factor model (which has been called the H-O-S-S model) is shaped by the Heckscher-Ohlin model and the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] According to the Heckscher-Ohlin model of trade, the comparative advantage of countries in trade stems from their endowments of particular factors of trade (land, labor, capital). This means that a country abundant in land will primarily export land-intensive products (such as agriculture), whereas a country abundant in capital will export capital-intensive products (such as high-technology manufacturing) and a country abundant in labor will export labor-intensive products (such as textiles).[38] Building on this model, the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem holds that groups that possess the factors will support or oppose trade depending on the abundance or scarcity of the factors. This means that in a country which is abundant in land and scarce in capital, farmers will support free trade whereas producers in capital-intensive manufacturing will oppose free trade.[38][33] The factor model predicts that labor in developed countries will oppose trade liberalization (because it is relatively scarce), whereas labor in developing countries will support free trade (because it is relatively abundant).[35][39][40] Building on these insights, influential research by Ronald Rogowski argued that factor endowments predicted whether countries were characterized by class-conflict (capital vs. labor) or urban-rural conflict.[41][31][42][32] Similarly, an influential study by Helen Milner and Keiko Kubota argues that factor endowments explain why developing countries liberalize their trade after they democratize (the abundant factor, labor, supports trade liberalization).[43] Research has substantiated the predictions of the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem, showing that trade openess tends to reduce inequality in developing countries, but exacerbate it in advanced economies.[44]

The sectors model of trade, the Ricardo–Viner model (named after David Ricardo and Jacob Viner), challenges the notion that factors are key to understanding trade preferences.[31][33][35][36] Factors can be highly immobile, which means that capital-owners and labor who work in a particular sector may have similar interests. As a consequence, trade preferences are better understood by examining which economic sectors win or lose on trade liberalization. Whereas the factor model assumes that capital-owners in different sectors have similar trade preferences and that labor across different sector have similar trade preferences, the Ricardo-Viner model holds that in sectors where factors are immobile, labor and capital-owners in one sector may have the same trade preferences.[32][45][30][46] As a result, the Ricardo-Viner model predicts that class conflict over trade is more likely when factors are highly mobile, but that industry-based conflict is more likely when factors are immobile.[47]

Studies by Dani Rodrik and Anna Mayda, as well as Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter have found support for the factor models, as they show that there is greater support for trade openness in developing countries (where labor is abundant and thus benefits from trade openness).[48][49] Other studies find no support for either model,[50] and argue that the models have limited explanatory value.[51] According to a 2017 assessment by Thomas Oatley, there are "no strong conclusions" in IPE scholarship as to which of these models better characterizes the sources of individual trade policies.[52]

Aside from the sector and factor models, there are firm-specific models of trade preferences (some times described as "New new" trade theory) which predict that large firms support trade liberalization (as well as free movement of capital and labor).[32][53][54][55][56][57][58] Economic geography approaches explain trade policies by looking at the regions that benefit and lose on globalization; it predicts that large cities support trade liberalization and that left-behind regions push back on liberalization.[59][60] Other alternative models to the factor and sector models may explain individual preferences through demographic data (age, class, skills,[61] education,[51] gender[62]), as well as ideology[63][64][65] and culture.[52][66] Some studies have raised questions about whether individuals understand the effects of trade protectionism, which puts doubt on theories that assume that trade policy preferences are rooted in economic self-interest.[67]

Trade may in and of itself alter domestic politics, including the trade preferences of the public. A 1988 study by Helen Milner found that trade openness substantially increased support for free trade by strengthening the position of firms that stand to lose from trade protectionism.[68] Influential studies by David Cameron,[69] Dani Rodrik[70] and Peter Katzenstein[71] have affirmed the insights of the Double Movement, as they show that greater trade openness has been associated with increases in government social spending.[72][73]

In terms of how preferences get aggregated and reconciled into foreign economic policies, IPE scholars have pointed to collective action problems,[36][33] electoral systems,[74][75] regime types,[43][76] veto points,[77] the nature of the legislative trade policy process,[78][79] the interaction between domestic and international bargaining,[80] and the interactions between political elites and epistemic communities.[81] Some IPE scholarship de-emphasizes the role of domestic politics and points to international processes as shapers of trade policy.[82][83][84][85] Some scholars have argued for a "new interdependence" approach, which restores insights from the complex interdependence of the 1970s, but emphasizes network effects, control over central nodes, and path dependence.[86][87][88][89]

Economic development[]

IPE is also concerned with development economics and explaining how and why countries develop. This help in economy of country to develop.

Historical IPE approaches[]

Historically, three prominent approaches to IPE were the liberal, economic nationalist (mercantilist),[90][91] and marxist perspectives.[92][93]

Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but support government intervention to protect property rights and resolve market failures.[94] Economic liberals commonly adhere to a political and economic philosophy which advocates a restrained fiscal policy and the balancing of budgets, through measures such as low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimized government debt.[95]

To economic nationalists, markets are subordinate to the state, and should serve the interests of the state (such as providing national security and accumulating military power). The doctrine of mercantilism is a prominent variant of economic nationalism.[90] Economic nationalists tend to see international trade as zero-sum, where the goal is to derive relative gains (as opposed to mutual gains).[96] Economic nationalism tends to emphasize industrialization (and often aids industries with state support), due to beliefs that industry has positive spillover effects on the rest of the economy, enhances the self-sufficiency and political autonomy of the country, and is a crucial aspect in building military power.[96]

Modern IPE approaches[]

There are several prominent approaches to IPE. The dominant paradigm is Open Economy Politics.[11][97][98] Other influential approaches include dependency theory, hegemonic stability theory, and domestic political theories of IPE.[11]

Early modern IPE scholarship employed a diversity of methods and did both grand theory and middle range theory, but over time, the scholarship has become more quantitative and focused on middle-range theories.[99][100][52][101][102][103][104][105] Robert Jervis wrote in 1998, "the IPE subŽfield, after a marvelous period of development in the 1970s and 1980s seems to be stagnating."[106]

The first wave of IPE scholarship focused on complex interdependence and the evolution of global systems of economic exchange.[101] This scholarship focused on hegemonic stability theory, complex interdependence, and regimes.[31] The second wave sought to explain the domestic sources of global economic cooperation or explain how global processes influence domestic policy-making.[101] The third wave increasingly focused on explaining the micro-foundations of policy.[101] According to Benjamin Cohen, "in terms of theory, consensus is often lacking on even the most basic causal relationships" in IPE scholarship.[6]

Open Economy Politics[]

Open Economy Politics (OEP) can be traced to domestic political theories of IPE; OEP emerged in the late 1990s.[11][107] OEP adopts the assumptions of neoclassical economics and international trade theory.[11][108] It strongly emphasizes microfoundations.[109] It has been characterized as employing rationalism, materialism and liberalism.[83] According to David Lake,[11][52][102][109]

  1. Interests: "OEP begins with individuals, sectors, or factors of production as the units of analysis and derives their interests over economic policy from each unit’s position within the international economy."
  2. Domestic institutions: "It conceives of domestic political institutions as mechanisms that aggregate interests (with more or less bias) and structure the bargaining of competing societal groups."
  3. International bargaining: "It introduces, when necessary, bargaining between states with different interests. Analysis within OEP proceeds from the most micro- to the most macro-level in a linear and orderly fashion, reflecting an implicit uni-directional conception of politics as flowing up from individuals to interstate bargaining."

Thomas Oatley has criticized OEP for an overemphasis on domestic political processes and for failing to consider the interplay between processes at the domestic level and macro processes at the global level: in essence, OEP scholarship suffers from omitted variable bias.[83][110][52][111] According to Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane and Stephen Krasner, scholarship in this vein assumes that actors' preferences and behavior are derived from their material position, which leads to a neglect of the ways in which variation in information may shape actor preferences and behaviors.[112] Mark Blyth and Matthias Matthijs argue that OEP scholarship essentially black boxes the global economy.[111] Stephanie Rickard has defended the OEP approach, writing in 2021:[97]

OEP has matured and developed over the past decade. As a framework, it has proven to be enormously productive and adaptable—integrating diverse economic phenomena under a common theoretical umbrella and providing a framework flexible enough to react to significant events in the global economy... The accumulating body of scholarship in the OEP tradition has moved our understanding of world politics decisively forward. Critics of OEP have yet to offer an alternative, more empirically powerful theory and as a result, OEP continues to progress as the dominant paradigm in IPE research

Scholars have questioned the empirical validity of the models derived from OEP scholarship on money[102] and trade,[83][52] as well as questioned the ability of OEP scholarship to explain momentous events in global political economy.[111] Challengers to the OEP framework include behavioral approaches (which do not necessarily accept that individual interests stem from material incentives), and economic geography approaches.[97] According to Stephanie Rickard, OEP scholars have modified their models to incorporate incomplete information (which affects how individual preferences are formed) and economies of scale (which affects the distribution of gains and losses).[97] Erica Owen and Stephanie Walter similarly argue that "second-generation" OEP frameworks incorporate both material and ideational preferences.[109]

Dependency theory[]

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system". This theory was officially developed in the late 1960s following World War II, as scholars searched for the root issue in the lack of development in Latin America.[113]

Dependency theory and world systems theory are not mainstream economic theory.[114]

Hegemonic stability theory[]

Early IPE scholarship was focused on the implications of hegemony on international economic affairs. In the 1970s, US hegemony appeared to be on the decline, which prompted scholars to consider the likely effects of this decline.[115] Robert Keohane coined the term Hegemonic stability theory in a 1980 article for the notion that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power, or hegemon.[115] Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony, used insights from the new institutional economics, to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon.[116]

American vs. British IPE[]

Benjamin Cohen provides a detailed intellectual history of IPE identifying American and British camps. The Americans are positivist and attempt to develop intermediate level theories that are supported by some form of quantitative evidence. British IPE is more "interpretivist" and looks for "grand theories". They use very different standards of empirical work. Cohen sees benefits in both approaches.[117] A special edition of New Political Economy has been issued on The 'British School' of IPE[118] and a special edition of the Review of International Political Economy (RIPE) on American IPE.[119]

One forum for this was the "2008 Warwick RIPE Debate: 'American' versus 'British' IPE" where Cohen, Mark Blyth, Richard Higgott, and Matthew Watson followed up the recent exchange in RIPE. Higgott and Watson in particular, queried the appropriateness of Cohen's categories.[120] The contemporary view is that IPE is composed of niche groups for research while teaching follows a common tradition with distinct leanings towards explanations that favor economic theory or political and sociological insights.[121]

Journals[]

The leading journal for IPE scholarship is the generalist international relations journal International Organization.[122] International Organization played an instrumental role in making IPE one of the prominent subfields in IR.[123] The leading IPE-specific journals are the Review of International Political Economy and New Political Economy.[122][124]

Professional associations[]

Notes and references[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b c Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  2. ^ Jump up to: a b Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  3. ^ Paquin, Stéphane (2019). "International Political Economy" (PDF). The SAGE Handbook of Political Science. 3: 1256–1271.
  4. ^ Jump up to: a b Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 39–41. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  5. ^ Frieden, Jeffry; Martin, Lisa (2003). "International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions". Political Science: The State of the Discipline. W.W. Norton.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  7. ^ Milner, Helen V. (2004). "Formal Methods and International Political Economy". Models, Numbers, and Cases.
  8. ^ Peters, Margaret E. (2017). "Immigration and International Political Economy". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.271. ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7.
  9. ^ Mosley, Layna; Singer, David A. (2015). "Migration, Labor, and the International Political Economy". Annual Review of Political Science. 18 (1): 283–301. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-094809. ISSN 1094-2939.
  10. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 17–19. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Lake, David A. (2009). "Open economy politics: A critical review". The Review of International Organizations. 4 (3): 219–244. doi:10.1007/s11558-009-9060-y. hdl:10.1007/s11558-009-9060-y. ISSN 1559-744X. S2CID 62831376.
  12. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  13. ^ Brown, Chris (1999). "Susan Strange—a critical appreciation". Review of International Studies. 25 (3): 531–535. doi:10.1017/S0260210599005318.
  14. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 38–41. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  15. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry A. (2001). "The Political Economy of International Monetary Relations"". Annual Review of Political Science. 4 (1): 317–343. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.317. ISSN 1094-2939.
  16. ^ Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry A. (2008). Wittman, Donald A; Weingast, Barry R (eds.). "The Political Economy of Exchange Rates". The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-954847-7.
  17. ^ Jump up to: a b c Kirshner, Jonathan (2003). "Money Is Politics". Review of International Political Economy. 10 (4): 645–660. doi:10.1080/09692290310001601911. ISSN 0969-2290. JSTOR 4177480. S2CID 153878859.
  18. ^ Kirshner, Jonathan (1995). Currency and Coercion: The Political Economy of International Monetary Power. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-03768-4. JSTOR j.ctv173f2mk.
  19. ^ Bauerle Danzman, Sarah; Winecoff, W Kindred; Oatley, Thomas (2017). "All Crises are Global: Capital Cycles in an Imbalanced International Political Economy". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (4): 907–923. doi:10.1093/isq/sqx054. ISSN 0020-8833.
  20. ^ Winecoff, William Kindred (2020). ""The persistent myth of lost hegemony," revisited: structural power as a complex network phenomenon". European Journal of International Relations. 26: 209–252. doi:10.1177/1354066120952876. ISSN 1354-0661.
  21. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2021). "Weaponized International Financial Interdependence". The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Brookings Institution Press.
  22. ^ Eichengreen, Barry; Sachs, Jeffrey (1985). "Exchange Rates and Economic Recovery in the 1930s". The Journal of Economic History. 45 (4): 925–946. doi:10.1017/S0022050700035178. ISSN 1471-6372.
  23. ^ Oatley, Thomas; Winecoff, W. Kindred; Pennock, Andrew; Danzman, Sarah Bauerle (2013). "The Political Economy of Global Finance: A Network Model". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (1): 133–153. doi:10.1017/S1537592712003593. ISSN 1537-5927.
  24. ^ Thompson, Nicholas (2020). "Open economy monetary politics". The Routledge Handbook to Global Political Economy. Routledge. pp. 129–145. doi:10.4324/9781351064545-11. ISBN 978-1-351-06454-5. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  25. ^ Copelovitch, Mark S.; Pevehouse, Jon C. W. (2015). "Bridging the Silos". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-6. In recent years IPE scholars have reached a broad consensus on the use of the Mundell-Fleming "trilemma"... as the workhorse framework for analyzing the political economy of monetary policy and exchange rate regime choice in an open economy
  26. ^ Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order". International Organization. 36 (2): 379–415. doi:10.1017/S0020818300018993. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706527.
  27. ^ Diebold, William; Gowa, Joanne (1984). "Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods". Foreign Affairs. 63 (1): 190. doi:10.2307/20042113. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20042113.
  28. ^ Madeira, Mary Anne (2018). "The Politics of International Trade". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.598. ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7. Retrieved 15 August 2021.
  29. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2010). "Making global markets: Historical institutionalism in international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 17 (4): 609–638. doi:10.1080/09692291003723672. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 153647117.
  30. ^ Jump up to: a b Leamer, Edward; Levinsohn, James (1995). "International trade theory: The evidence". Handbook of International Economics. 3: 1339–1394. doi:10.1016/S1573-4404(05)80006-1. ISSN 1573-4404.
  31. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Milner, Helen V. (1999). "The Political Economy of International Trade". Annual Review of Political Science. 2 (1): 91–114. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.91. ISSN 1094-2939.
  32. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Martin, Lisa L. (2015). "Introduction". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. pp. 5–10. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-20.
  33. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Alt, James E.; Frieden, Jeffry; Gilligan, Michael J.; Rodrik, Dani; Rogowski, Ronald (1996). "The Political Economy of International Trade: Enduring Puzzles and an Agenda for Inquiry". Comparative Political Studies. 29 (6): 689–717. doi:10.1177/0010414096029006004. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 153695085.
  34. ^ Milner, Helen V.; Kubota, Keiko (2005). "Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries". International Organization. 59 (1): 107–143. doi:10.1017/S002081830505006X. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 8879830.
  35. ^ Jump up to: a b c Owen, Erica (2015). "Labor and Protectionist Sentiment". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-14.
  36. ^ Jump up to: a b c Alt, James E.; Gilligan, Michael (1994). "The Political Economy of Trading States: Factor Specificity, Collective Action Problems and Domestic Political Institutions". Journal of Political Philosophy. 2 (2): 165–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.1994.tb00020.x. ISSN 1467-9760.
  37. ^ Frieden, Jeffry A.; Rogowski, Ronald (1996), Milner, Helen V.; Keohane, Robert O. (eds.), "The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytical Overview" (PDF), Internationalization and Domestic Politics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–47, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511664168.003, ISBN 978-0-521-56587-5, archived from the original on 2021
  38. ^ Jump up to: a b Hiscox, Michael (2011). "The Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policies". Global Political Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-957081-2.
  39. ^ Rogowski, Ronald (1990). Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02330-4.
  40. ^ O'Rourke, Kevin H.; Taylor, Alan M. (2007). "Democracy and Protectionism". The New Comparative Economic History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey G. Williamson. MIT Press.
  41. ^ Rogowski, Ronald (1987). "Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade". The American Political Science Review. 81 (4): 1121–1137. doi:10.2307/1962581. ISSN 0003-0554.
  42. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  43. ^ Jump up to: a b Milner, Helen V.; Kubota, Keiko (2005). "Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries". International Organization. 59 (1): 107–143. doi:10.1017/S002081830505006X. ISSN 1531-5088.
  44. ^ Dorn, Florian; Fuest, Clemens; Potrafke, Niklas (2021). "Trade openness and income inequality: New empirical evidence". Economic Inquiry. doi:10.1111/ecin.13018. ISSN 1465-7295.
  45. ^ Borkakoti, J. (1998), Borkakoti, J. (ed.), "The Ricardo-Viner Model", International Trade: Causes and Consequences: An Empirical and Theoretical Text, London: Macmillan Education UK, pp. 168–176, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-27014-9_12, ISBN 978-1-349-27014-9, retrieved 25 July 2021
  46. ^ Hiscox, Michael J. (2002). International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08855-6.
  47. ^ Hiscox, Michael J. (2001). "Class versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factor Mobility and the Politics of Trade". International Organization. 55 (1): 1–46. ISSN 0020-8183.
  48. ^ Mayda, Anna Maria; Rodrik, Dani (2005). "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?". European Economic Review. 49 (6): 1393–1430. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.01.002. ISSN 0014-2921. S2CID 5100362.
  49. ^ Scheve, Kenneth F.; Slaughter, Matthew J. (2001). "Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences over Immigration Policy". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 83 (1): 133–145. doi:10.1162/003465301750160108. ISSN 0034-6535. JSTOR 2646696. S2CID 527279.
  50. ^ Rho, Sungmin; Tomz, Michael (2017). "Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?". International Organization. 71 (S1): S85–S108. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000394. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 157320270.
  51. ^ Jump up to: a b Mansfield, Edward D.; Mutz, Diana C. (2009). "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety". International Organization. 63 (3): 425–457. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090158. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 2134093.
  52. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Oatley, Thomas (2017). "Open economy politics and trade policy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (4): 699–717. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1325766. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 157673205.
  53. ^ Kim, In Song; Osgood, Iain (2019). "Firms in Trade and Trade Politics". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 399–417. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063728. ISSN 1094-2939.
  54. ^ Flaherty, Thomas M.; Rogowski, Ronald (2021). "Rising Inequality As a Threat to the Liberal International Order". International Organization. 75 (2): 495–523. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000163. ISSN 0020-8183.
  55. ^ Plouffe, Martin (2015), Martin, Lisa L. (ed.), "Heterogeneous Firms and Policy Preferences", The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.13, ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5
  56. ^ Osgood, Iain (2018). "Globalizing the Supply Chain: Firm and Industrial Support for US Trade Agreements". International Organization. 72 (2): 455–484. doi:10.1017/S002081831800005X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 158659236.
  57. ^ Baccini, Leonardo; Pinto, Pablo M.; Weymouth, Stephen (2017). "The Distributional Consequences of Preferential Trade Liberalization: Firm-Level Evidence". International Organization. 71 (2): 373–395. doi:10.1017/S002081831700011X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 157951602.
  58. ^ Kim, In Song (2017). "Political Cleavages within Industry: Firm-level Lobbying for Trade Liberalization". American Political Science Review. 111 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000654. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 8029341.
  59. ^ Flaherty, Thomas M.; Rogowski, Ronald (2021). "Rising Inequality As a Threat to the Liberal International Order". International Organization. 75 (2): 495–523. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000163. ISSN 0020-8183.
  60. ^ Schonfeld, Bryan (2021). "Trading Places, Trading Platforms: The Geography of Trade Policy Realignment". International Organization. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000217. ISSN 0020-8183.
  61. ^ Walter, Stefanie (2017). "Globalization and the Demand-Side of Politics: How Globalization Shapes Labor Market Risk Perceptions and Policy Preferences*". Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (1): 55–80. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.64. ISSN 2049-8470.
  62. ^ Brutger, Ryan; Guisinger, Alexandra (2021). "Labor Market Volatility, Gender, and Trade Preferences". Journal of Experimental Political Science. doi:10.1017/XPS.2021.9. ISSN 2052-2630.
  63. ^ Hainmueller, Jens; Hiscox, Michael J. (1 April 2006). "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade". International Organization. 60 (2): 469–498. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.407.4650. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060140. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 152381282.
  64. ^ Mutz, Diana; Mansfield, Edward D.; Kim, Eunji (2021). "The Racialization of International Trade". Political Psychology. 42 (4): 555–573. doi:10.1111/pops.12714. ISSN 1467-9221.
  65. ^ Guisinger, Alexandra (2017). American Opinion on Trade: Preferences Without Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-065183-1.
  66. ^ Kuo, Jason; Naoi, Megumi (2015). "Individual Attitudes". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199981755-e-16.
  67. ^ Rho, Sungmin; Tomz, Michael (2017). "Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?". International Organization. 71 (S1): S85–S108. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000394. ISSN 0020-8183.
  68. ^ Milner, Helen V. (1988). Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01074-8.
  69. ^ Cameron, David R. (1978). "The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis". The American Political Science Review. 72 (4): 1243–1261. doi:10.2307/1954537. ISSN 0003-0554.
  70. ^ Rodrik, Dani (1998). "Why do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?". Journal of Political Economy. 106 (5): 997–1032. doi:10.1086/250038. ISSN 0022-3808.
  71. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J. (2015). Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-0036-1.
  72. ^ Rudra, Nita (2002). "Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed Countries". International Organization. 56 (2): 411–445. doi:10.1162/002081802320005522. ISSN 1531-5088.
  73. ^ Garrett, Geoffrey (1998). "Global Markets and National Politics: Collision Course or Virtuous Circle?". International Organization. 52 (4): 787–824. doi:10.1162/002081898550752. ISSN 1531-5088.
  74. ^ Chang, Eric C. C.; Kayser, Mark Andreas; Linzer, Drew A.; Rogowski, Ronald (2010). Electoral Systems and the Balance of Consumer-Producer Power. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49218-8. majoritarian electoral arrangements should empower consumers relative to producers
  75. ^ Rickard, Stephanie J. (2015). "Electoral Systems and Trade". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.11. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5.
  76. ^ Milner, Helen V.; Mukherjee, Bumba (2009). "Democratization and Economic Globalization". Annual Review of Political Science. 12 (1): 163–181. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.110507.114722. ISSN 1094-2939.
  77. ^ O’Reilly, Robert F. (2005). "Veto Points, Veto Players, and International Trade Policy". Comparative Political Studies. 38 (6): 652–675. doi:10.1177/0010414004274379. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 154937146.
  78. ^ Goldstein, Judith; Gulotty, Robert (2021). "America and the Trade Regime: What Went Wrong?". International Organization. 75 (2): 524–557. doi:10.1017/S002081832000065X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 234364920.
  79. ^ Goldstein, Judith; Gulotty, Robert (2014). "America and Trade Liberalization: The Limits of Institutional Reform". International Organization. 68 (2): 263–295. doi:10.1017/S0020818313000490. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 154497001.
  80. ^ Putnam, Robert D. (1988). "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games". International Organization. 42 (3): 427–460. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706785.
  81. ^ Farrell, Henry; Quiggin, John (2017). "Consensus, Dissensus, and Economic Ideas: Economic Crisis and the Rise and Fall of Keynesianism". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (2): 269–283. doi:10.1093/isq/sqx010. ISSN 0020-8833.
  82. ^ Simmons, Beth A.; Elkins, Zachary (2004). "The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy". American Political Science Review. 98 (1): 171–189. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001078. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 13872025.
  83. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Oatley, Thomas (2011). "The Reductionist Gamble: Open Economy Politics in the Global Economy". International Organization. 65 (2): 311–341. doi:10.1017/S002081831100004X. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 23016814. S2CID 9478051.
  84. ^ Greenhill, Brian (2021). "Diffusion Processes in International Political Economy". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198793519-e-1.
  85. ^ Bush, Sarah Sunn; Prather, Lauren (2020). "Foreign Meddling and Mass Attitudes Toward International Economic Engagement". International Organization. 74 (3): 584–609. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000156. ISSN 0020-8183.
  86. ^ Ba, Heather (2021). "The Evolving State of the State in International Political Economy". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198793519-e-19.
  87. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham (2016). "The new interdependence approach: theoretical development and empirical demonstration". Review of International Political Economy. 23 (5): 713–736. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1247009. ISSN 0969-2290.
  88. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2014). "Domestic Institutions Beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach". World Politics. 66 (2): 331–363. ISSN 0043-8871.
  89. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2019). "Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion". International Security. 44 (1): 42–79. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351. ISSN 0162-2889.
  90. ^ Jump up to: a b Helleiner, Eric (2021). The Neomercantilists: A Global Intellectual History. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-6014-3.
  91. ^ Helleiner, Eric (2021). "The Diversity of Economic Nationalism". New Political Economy. 26 (2): 229–238. doi:10.1080/13563467.2020.1841137. ISSN 1356-3467.
  92. ^ Gilpin, Robert; Gilpin, Jean M. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02262-8. JSTOR j.ctt19wcct3.
  93. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 33–38. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  94. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 25, 34–35. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7. Archived from the original on 21 July 2021. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  95. ^ Simmons, Beth A.; Dobbin, Frank; Garrett, Geoffrey (2006). "Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism". International Organization. 60 (4): 781–810. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060267. ISSN 1531-5088.
  96. ^ Jump up to: a b Gilpin, Robert (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. pp. 31–34. ISBN 978-0-691-02262-8.
  97. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Rickard, Stephanie J. (2021). Pevehouse, Jon C. W; Seabrooke, Leonard (eds.). "Open Economy Politics Revisited". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.40. ISBN 978-0-19-879351-9. Retrieved 17 July 2021.
  98. ^ Paul, Darel E. (2010). "Liberal Perspectives on the Global Political Economy". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.32. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6.
  99. ^ Farrell, Henry; Finnemore, Martha (2009). "Ontology, methodology, and causation in the American school of international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 58–71. doi:10.1080/09692290802524075. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 145230528.
  100. ^ McNamara, Kathleen R. (2009). "Of Intellectual Monocultures and the Study of IPE". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 72–84. doi:10.1080/09692290802524117. ISSN 0969-2290. JSTOR 27756144. S2CID 145476039.
  101. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Winecoff, W. Kindred (2017). "How Did American International Political Economy Become Reductionist? A Historiography of a Discipline". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.345. ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7.
  102. ^ Jump up to: a b c Cohen, Benjamin (2017). "The IPE of money revisited". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (4): 657–680. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1259119. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 33868682.
  103. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J. (2009). "Mid-Atlantic: Sitting on the knife's sharp edge". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 122–135. doi:10.1080/09692290802524158. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 154587700.
  104. ^ Drezner, Daniel W.; McNamara, Kathleen R. (2013). "International Political Economy, Global Financial Orders and the 2008 Financial Crisis". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (1): 155–166. doi:10.1017/S1537592712003660. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 143476037.
  105. ^ Drezner, Daniel (2021). "Power and International Relations: a temporal view". European Journal of International Relations. 27 (1): 29–52. doi:10.1177/1354066120969800. ISSN 1354-0661.
  106. ^ Jervis, Robert (1998). "Realism in the Study of World Politics". International Organization. 52 (4): 971–991. doi:10.1162/002081898550707. ISSN 1531-5088.
  107. ^ Lipscy, Phillip Y. (2020). "COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis". International Organization. 74: 98–127. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000375. ISSN 0020-8183.
  108. ^ Lake, David A. (2009). Wittman, Donald A.; Weingast, Barry R. (eds.). International Political Economy. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0042.
  109. ^ Jump up to: a b c Owen, Erica; Walter, Stefanie (2017). "Open economy politics and Brexit: insights, puzzles, and ways forward". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 179–202. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1307245. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 152185426.
  110. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2021). "Regaining relevance: IPE and a changing global political economy". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 34 (2): 318–327. doi:10.1080/09557571.2021.1888880. ISSN 0955-7571. S2CID 233235562.
  111. ^ Jump up to: a b c Blyth, Mark; Matthijs, Matthias (2017). "Black Swans, Lame Ducks, and the mystery of IPE's missing macroeconomy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 203–231. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1308417. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 157518024.
  112. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J.; Keohane, Robert O.; Krasner, Stephen D. (1998). "International Organization and the Study of World Politics". International Organization. 52 (4): 645–685. doi:10.1017/S002081830003558X. ISSN 1531-5088.
  113. ^ Ahiakpor, James C. W. (1985). "The Success and Failure of Dependency Theory: The Experience of Ghana". International Organization. 39 (3): 535–552. doi:10.1017/S0020818300019172. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706689.
  114. ^ Norrlof, Carla (2010). America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 9. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676406. ISBN 978-0-521-76543-5.
  115. ^ Jump up to: a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 66–68. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  116. ^ Keohane, Robert O. (2020). "Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050918-042625. ISSN 1094-2939.
  117. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press.
  118. ^ New Political Economy Symposium: The 'British School' of International Political Economy Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2009
  119. ^ "Not So Quiet on the Western Front: The American School of IPE". Review of International Political Economy, Volume 16 Issue 1 2009
  120. ^ The 2008 Warwick RIPE Debate: ‘American’ versus ‘British’ IPE
  121. ^ "The networks and niches of international political economy." Review of International Political Economy, Volume 24 Issue 2 2017.
  122. ^ Jump up to: a b Pepinsky, Thomas (2020). "Is International Relations Relevant for International Money and Finance?". Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations. Georgetown University Press.
  123. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  124. ^ Seabrooke, Leonard; Young, Kevin L. (2017). "The networks and niches of international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 288–331. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1276949. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 152218180.

Further reading[]

Library resources about
International political economy
Retrieved from ""