International Political Relations as Distinct Academic Discipline
International Political Relations as Distinct Academic Discipline
Alt and Alesina’s “Political Economy:An Overview” and Gil’s “Reorienting the New (International) Political Economy” provides an overview on the importance of studying political economy, which relates to the political economy of institutions and public policy.. Political Economy, is described as a research which attempts to answer two central questions: how do institutions evolve in response to individual incentives, strategies and choice, and how do institutions affect the performance of political and economic systems? Political Economy has rejected the exogeneity of institutions and discussed the rejection of the dichotomization of economics and politics, which are in inextricably interconnected. For example, the implementation of laws is not possible without a given budget. Currently, the research agenda in IPE is being driven by a number of factors and forces that are often collectively labeled globalization. Gil’s described that globalization has little to do with the traditional state-centered concerns of International Relations, which is one reason some IPE scholars have now begun to think of IPE as distinct academic discipline, not just a sub-field of IR. There lies a challenge to re-invent the current discipline in order to make it more distinct. “The science of economics presupposes a given political order, and cannot be profitably studied in isolation from politics.” (E.H. Carr)
What we cannot have (again!) is economics without politics, and politics without economics. Economics is intrinsically political, thus economics and politics are interrelated, whereas the foreign economic policies that governments adopt emerge from the interaction between societal actors’ interest and political institution.(Oatley). International Political Economy opens up several new research agendas, some of which move away from IR as traditionally understood. The main strength of international political economy is that it raises the problems of development and change of sovereign statehood. The “development” problems are at the centre of the discipline, which focuses on the realities of global inequality, global / social polarization, and global income… The new international political economy also attempts to move away from the single western Eurocentric view, to change to a global discipline which will teach people something about the common, intellectual, material and spiritual culture and history of humanity and therefore about our common feature. The national economy is crucially important resource basis for the nation state. The borders of markets are dynamic, transparent, and porous; they rarely coincide exactly with the borders of states and a few markets today are even global in their reach. When trade within a market involves buyers and sellers in different nation-states, it becomes international trade and the object of political scrutiny. The main weakness of international political economy is that in its attempt to find a “global view of the discipline, international political economy ignores cultural differences, as well as internal class differences. Countries are grouped as 'core' and 'periphery,' but their cultures are ignored, and this makes the theory too simplistic as a holistic view. International Political Economy fails to incorporate internal class difference into research, which detracts from its credibility. It is also impossible to have a “global view” of the discipline that promotes the common interest of the humanity, because nation-states defined themselves by population and geography which causes “global tension”, as the countries are deemed to be nationalistic. It is difficult in globalization, to implement a global view, because there is a contradiction of views and adaptability. It would be difficult to remove the “culture centrism” since the countries would not think about the global goals of nations, instead they would first concentrate on the improvement on their own state, domestically. States, therefore, do care about the where (what countries would I or not transact with) and the who (who will they will be transacting with) and this creates a tension between the economic and the political analysis of trade. Globalization, a process that seems to defy easy definition, it breaks down barriers whether these barriers separate nation-states, cultures, labor markets, national economies and academic disciplines, creating a New IPE in the process. In so doing, IPE has perhaps carved out for itself an unexpected role: the academic discipline that studies the results of the creative destruction of modern society. Implementing political economy must be reformed, innovative, and reinvented, in order for it to become a distinct academic discipline devoid of infinite concepts..
Sources:
· Alt, James E & Alesina, Albero. (September 1998). Chapter 28. Political Economy: An Overview. A New Handbook of Political Science, pp. 645-675(31) Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs
· Gills, Barry K. (2001). Re-orienting the New (International) Political Economy New Political Economy, Volume 6, Issue 2 July 2001 , pages 233 - 245
· E.H. Carr, THE TWENTY YEARS' CRISIS
· Michael Veseth. (2004) What is IPE?
· Jackson, Robert H. et al. Introduction to international relations
· Oatley, Thomas, International Political Economy. Interest and Institutions in the Global Economy.
· New International Political Economy: Debates and Criticisms
Leave a Reply