International political economy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 72: Line 72:


=== Open Economy Politics ===
=== Open Economy Politics ===
Open Economy Politics (OEP) can be traced to domestic political theories of IPE; OEP emerged in the late 1990s.<ref name=":0" /> OEP adopts the assumptions of neoclassical economics and international trade theory.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lake|first=David A.|url=http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199548477-e-042|title=International Political Economy|date=2009|publisher=Oxford University Press|editor-last=Wittman|editor-first=Donald A.|volume=1|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0042|editor-last2=Weingast|editor-first2=Barry R.}}</ref> It has been characterized as employing rationalism, materialism and liberalism.<ref name=":3" /> According to [[David A. Lake|David Lake]],<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":12" />
Open Economy Politics (OEP) can be traced to domestic political theories of IPE; OEP emerged in the late 1990s.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lipscy|first=Phillip Y.|date=2020|title=COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/covid19-and-the-politics-of-crisis/CFEB29F225E5238F29C3233E873F0485|journal=International Organization|language=en|volume=74|pages=98–127|doi=10.1017/S0020818320000375|issn=0020-8183}}</ref> OEP adopts the assumptions of neoclassical economics and international trade theory.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lake|first=David A.|url=http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199548477-e-042|title=International Political Economy|date=2009|publisher=Oxford University Press|editor-last=Wittman|editor-first=Donald A.|volume=1|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0042|editor-last2=Weingast|editor-first2=Barry R.}}</ref> It has been characterized as employing rationalism, materialism and liberalism.<ref name=":3" /> According to [[David A. Lake|David Lake]],<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":12" />


# '''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."
# '''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."

Revision as of 17:48, 9 August 2021

International relations theory
Constructivism
Liberalism
Marxism
Realism
Other theories
Classifications
Other approaches
Scholars
Categories
International relations
icon Politics portal

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]

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.[6]

The modern study of International Political Economy can be traced to the late 1960s and early 1970s.[7] 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.[8][9] IPE became a key pillar in political science departments, but continued to be neglected in economics departments.[10]

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).[7]

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."[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.[12][13][14][15] According to Jonathan Kirshner, "the management of money is always and everywhere political."[14]

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):

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).[14]

There is no agreement in the economics literature on the optimal national exchange rate policy.[12] Rather, national exchange rate regimes reflect political considerations.[12]

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.[16] In 1971 President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of gold that had been established under the IMF in the Bretton Woods system.[17] 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. 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,[18] both of which build on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.[19]

The factor model is shaped by the Heckscher-Ohlin model and the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem. 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).[20] 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.[20]

The sectors model of trade, the Richardo–Viner model (named after David Ricardo and Jacob Viner), challenges the notion that factors are key to understanding trade preferences. 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 the same trade preferences.[21][19][22]

Building on these insights, Ronald Rogowski and Jeffry Frieden were behind influential strands of research that pointed to political cleavages as determinants of external trade policy.[23]

Studies by Dani Rodrik and Anna Mayda, as well as Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter have found support for the factor models.[24][25] Other studies find no support for either model,[26] and argue that the models have limited explanatory value.[27] 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.[28]

Aside from the sector and factor models, there are firm-specific models of trade preferences ("New new" trade theory) which predict that large firms support trade liberalization (as well as free movement of capital and labor).[29][30][31] 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.[32] Other alternative models to the factor and sector models may explain individual preferences through demographic data, as well as ideology and culture.[27][28]

Global trade, strategic trade theory, trade wars, the national balance of payment and trade deficits are topics that IPE scholars are interested in.

The post Washington consensus view regards international trade as a win-win phenomenon where firms should be allowed to collaborate or compete depending on market forces. After WWII a notable success story for the developmentalist approach was found in South America where high levels of growth and equity were achieved partly as a result of policies originating from Raul Prebisch and economists he trained, who were assigned to governments around the continent.

Development Studies

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, nationalist (mercantilist) and marxist perspectives.[33][34]

The mercantilist view largely characterised policies pursued by state actors from the emergence of the modern economy in the fifteenth century up to the mid-twentieth century. Sovereign states would compete with each other to accumulate billion either by achieving trade surpluses or by conquest. This wealth could then be used to finance investment in infrastructure and to enhance military capability.[citation needed]

Modern IPE approaches

There are several prominent approaches to IPE. The dominant paradigm is Open Economy Politics.[7][35][36] Other influential approaches include dependency theory, hegemonic stability theory, and domestic political theories of IPE.[7]

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.[37][38][28][39][40][41][42]

The first wave of IPE scholarship focused on complex interdependence and the evolution of global systems of economic exchange.[39] The second wave sought to explain the domestic sources of global economic cooperation or explain how global processes influence domestic policy-making.[39] The third wave increasingly focused on explaining the micro-foundations of policy.[39] According to Benjamin Cohen, "in terms of theory, consensus is often lacking on even the most basic causal relationships" in IPE scholarship.[11]

Open Economy Politics

Open Economy Politics (OEP) can be traced to domestic political theories of IPE; OEP emerged in the late 1990s.[7][43] OEP adopts the assumptions of neoclassical economics and international trade theory.[7][44] It has been characterized as employing rationalism, materialism and liberalism.[45] According to David Lake,[7][28][40]

  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.[45][46][28] 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.[47]

Scholars have questioned the empirical validity of the models derived from OEP scholarship on money[40] and trade.[45][28]

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.[48]

Dependency theory and world systems theory are not mainstream economic theory.[49]

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.[50] 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.[50] 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.[51]

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.[52] A special edition of New Political Economy has been issued on The 'British School' of IPE[53] and a special edition of the Review of International Political Economy (RIPE) on American IPE.[54]

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.[55] 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.[56]

Professional associations

Notes and references

  1. ^ a b c Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  2. ^ 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. ^ 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. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 17–19. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  9. ^ Brown, Chris (1999). "Susan Strange—a critical appreciation". Review of International Studies. 25 (3): 531–535. doi:10.1017/S0260210599005318.
  10. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 38–41. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  11. ^ a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  12. ^ a b c 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.
  13. ^ 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ 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.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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
  22. ^ Hiscox, Michael J. (2002). International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08855-6.
  23. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ Kim, In Song; Osgood, Iain (11 May 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.
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ 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
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ Gilpin, Robert; Gilpin, Jean M. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02262-8. JSTOR j.ctt19wcct3.
  34. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 33–38. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  35. ^ 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  36. ^ Paul, Darel E. (2010). "Liberal Perspectives on the Global Political Economy". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.32.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  37. ^ 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.
  38. ^ 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.
  39. ^ 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.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ 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.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ Lipscy, Phillip Y. (2020). "COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis". International Organization. 74: 98–127. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000375. ISSN 0020-8183.
  44. ^ Lake, David A. (2009). Wittman, Donald A.; Weingast, Barry R. (eds.). International Political Economy. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0042.
  45. ^ a b c 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.
  46. ^ 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.
  47. ^ 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.
  48. ^ 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.
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 66–68. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  51. ^ 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.
  52. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press.
  53. ^ New Political Economy Symposium: The 'British School' of International Political Economy Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2009
  54. ^ "Not So Quiet on the Western Front: The American School of IPE". Review of International Political Economy, Volume 16 Issue 1 2009
  55. ^ The 2008 Warwick RIPE Debate: ‘American’ versus ‘British’ IPE
  56. ^ "The networks and niches of international political economy." Review of International Political Economy, Volume 24 Issue 2 2017.

Further reading

Library resources about
International political economy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_political_economy&oldid=1037957821"