|
|
|
International Political Economy: An Intellectual History |
|
reviewed by Mustafa Kutlay |
|
|
Author: Benjamin J. Cohen |
ISBN:
978-0-691-12212-4 |
|
Publisher:
Princeton University Press |
Page:
210 |
|
Type:
Paperback |
Price:
$ 26,95 |
|
|
|
Review: |
International Political Economy (hereafter, IPE) emerged after the 1970s as a distinct academic discipline. The emergence of the field can be regarded as a reaction to the separation between economics and politics. As known, after the Marginalist Revolution in 1870s, economics consolidated its position as the "most scientific" field in the social sciences and started to be regarded as a separate field of study from other social disciplines. The long and "harmful separation of economics and politics," if we quote Strange, started with the Marginalist Revolution and lasted up until the collapse of the Bretton Woods System at the beginning of 1970s.
The developments over the 1970s have paved the way for spectacular changes in the world's social, economic and political order. At first, President Nixon declared the collapse of the fixed exchange rate system and the U.S. closed the gold window. Immediately after this significant change in the world financial structure, the oil crisis in 1973 hit the world economy and the sky-rocketing oil prices changed the balance of payments in favor of the Third World Countries. The political repercussions of this economic change were of vital importance for the academic world not only in Europe, but also in the US: One hundred years later, political economy has come to the forefront again!
Benjamin Cohen, in his latest book, International Political Economy: An Intellectual History, "aims to tell the story of the modern field of IPE" as a separate field of study with special reference to the influential individuals in the field, whom he calls the "magnificent seven." The most influential people who shaped the discipline, according to Cohen, are Robert Keohane, Robert Gilpin, Stephen Krasner, Peter Katzenstein, Robert Cox, Charles Kindleberger, and finally Susan Strange. Moreover, Cohen tries to show the dividing lines between different schools within the field and offers solutions in search for the missing middle between these schools of though.
The book is composed of seven chapters and an introduction. The first two chapters describe the American and British way of "doing IPE" and deftly underpin the epistemological and ontological differences between the two schools. As Cohen shows, the American School (PIER School) uses methodological individualism, which assumes the full rationality of individuals; regards IPE as a narrow field in principle; puts special emphasis on the state; and concentrates mainly on the study of U.S. Hegemony, especially during the 1980s. The actors and the issues, in this school, are analyzed within the context of a "taken for granted" approach. On the other hand, the British School (The New IPE School) is more inclusive in scope and critical in rhetoric. It takes the non-state actors into consideration and does not give priority to the state. The structures, not issues, are studied within the context of "historical relativism" in British School. By putting emphasis on the ideas, consent, and institutions, it defines hegemony in a broader sense than the U.S. School does. Most important of all, British IPE rejects the positivist object/subject separation and fact/value dichotomy. In this regard, as Cohen aptly says, it has common grounds with constructivist approaches.
After framing the American and British schools in the emergence phase of IPE, Benjamin Cohen goes on to deal with the major problematiques in contemporary IPE. In this regard, chapters three, four, and five offer a comprehensive account on Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) and systemic transformation, control gap, and the transformation in the role of the state, respectively.
The third chapter tracks down the history of the first genuine theory, Hegemonic Stability Theory, in IPE. As known, HST has turned out to be the most prominent theory in IPE for almost two decades. HST was revised and updated in time, yet, the basic assumptions have remained the same. According to the proponents of the idea of Hegemonic Stability, the health of the global economy is somehow dependent on the presence of a single dominant power. The original establishers of this theory are one economic historian, Charles Kindleberger, and two prominent Realists, namely Robert Gilpin and Stephen D. Krasner. They argue that the hegemonic power structures are most conducive to establish and maintain the international regimes whose norms are precise and binding. In Kindleberger "for the world economy to be stabilized there has to be a stabilizer, one stabilizer."
The fourth and fifth chapters address the system governance problems in the age of globalization. In the fourth chapter, Cohen clearly reveals the distinctive approaches of the two political economy schools and questions whether the states have undergone a significant transformation or not. In chapter five, Cohen decodes the "mystery of the state" by explaining the importance and place of the state in IPE. As known, American IPE has always been more prone to pursue a state-centric methodology. It regards the state as the most important and rational/unitary actor in world affairs (the so-called "black box metaphor").
Cohen also touches upon the great globalization debate from American and British perspectives. American IPE regards globalization as "Globaloney" and thinks that its impact on nation states is not unique from a historical perspective. As Krasner puts it, "globalization is not transforming sovereignty. By creating an imaginary past, many observers have exaggerated the significance of contemporary changes." On the contrary, British IPE looks from a wider perspective and tries to explain the patterns of change regarding the nature and functions of nation-states in the age of globalization. For example, Susan Strange argues that states are not the primary actors in world political economy any more, just one of the parties on the "who-gets-what" game.
Chapter six pinpoints the state of the discipline and tries to answer the question of "what we have learned?" after almost forty years of the emergence of the field. The gap between the American School and British School cannot be overcome. The IPE is still defined as the "question-asking field," since it proves to be much better at asking questions than at providing answers and "the scholars still debate what exactly should be included in the set of questions that defines IPE" (Murphy and Tooze, quoted in p. 143). The American School tends to include the hypothesis that can be quantified and tested within the strict boundaries of positivism and empiricism, whereas the British School tends to include almost everything, since they see the IPE as an inter-disciplinary area instead of being a subfield of IR. Both of the approaches have lacks as Benjamin Cohen writes:
"If the American School can be criticized for leaving too much out, the British School is vulnerable to the charge that it tries to bring too much in... Where the British School, with its grand emphasis on grand historical narratives, threatens to lose us in the forest; the American School, in its preference for reductionism, risks limiting our vision to individual trees." (p. 141)
In the last chapter, chapter seven, Cohen provides a trajectory for the future of IPE. According to him, what IPE needs today are new "bridge builders" in order to position the discipline as problem solving rather than problem posing, the new openings combining the gap between rationalist and constructivist approaches, as well as the open dialogue between the two sides of the Atlantic.
In summary, Benjamin Cohen provides a tour de force of the IPE. He skillfully covers the theoretical history of IPE with special reference to the "Seven Magnificent" of the field. In addition, the author pinpoints the common grounds for both schools and contributes to "bridging the gap" by emphasizing the complementarities of American and British IPE. Although some of his ambitious attempts can be regarded as naive, his aim to search for the missing middle in the field is of course respectful and illuminating. In the final analysis, Cohen claims that his aim is not to write a textbook on the field, yet his book should be at the top of the reading list of IPE courses in universities and should occupy the central place of the libraries of the students of world politics.
Note: This book review was previously published in Review of International Law & Politics, Vol.5 No. 18.
|
|
|
about book: |
The field of international political economy gained prominence in the early 1970s--when the Arab oil embargo and other crises ended the postwar era of virtually unhindered economic growth in the United States and Europe--and today is an essential part of both political science and economics. This book offers the first comprehensive examination of this important field's development, the contrasting worldviews of its American and British schools, and the different ways scholars have sought to meet the challenges posed by an ever more complex and interdependent world economy.
Benjamin Cohen explains the critical role played by the early "intellectual entrepreneurs," a generation of pioneering scholars determined to bridge the gap between international economics and international politics. Among them were brilliant thinkers like Robert Keohane, Susan Strange, and others whose legacies endure to the present day. Cohen shows how their personalities and the historical contexts in which they worked influenced how the field evolved. He examines the distinctly different insights of the American and British schools and addresses issues that have been central to the field's development, including systemic transformation, system governance, and the place of the sovereign state in formal analysis. The definitive intellectual history of international political economy, this book is the ideal volume for IPE scholars and those interested in learning more about the field.
|
|
| |
|
|
Being an
intellectual platform for social sciences, JTW contributes to
this area by promoting new publications in its Book Reviews
section. Publishers can send newly published books to be
reviewed to this section’s
editor. Or else, book reviews are
also welcomed by JTW.
For More Information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
