Search results

This article investigates the recent 'New Materialisms' turn in social and political thought and asks what the potential theoretical and methodological significance might be for the study of International Relations (IR). To do so we return to debates about the theoretical status of discourse in IR as it is in this context that the question of materiality - particularly as it relates to language - has featured prominently in recent years. While the concept of discourse is increasingly narrow in IR, the 'New Materialisms' literature emphasises the political force of materiality beyond language and representation. However, a move to reprioritise the politics of materiality over that of language and representation is equally problematic since it perpetuates rather than challenges the notion of a prior distinction between language and materiality. In response, we draw on earlier poststructural thought in order to displace this dichotomy and articulate an extended understanding of what analysing 'discourse' might mean in the study of IR. Adapted from the source document.

One: The Determinants of Productive Investment -- Industrial Investment in the European Community -- Investment, Output and Labor Constraints and Financial Constraints: the Estimation of a Model with Several Regimes -- A Unified Framework for Firm's Decisions Theoretical Analysis and Empirical Application to Italy 1970–1980 -- Econometric Analysis of Sectoral Investment in Belgium (1956–82) -- Two: Policy Implications -- Aggregate Investment and Output in the United Kingdom -- Investment or Employment Subsidies for Rapid Employment Creation in the European Economic Community? -- Three: Foreign Investment and Factor Mobility -- Macroeconomic Adjustment under Foreign Investments -- A Comparative Study of the Inter-Industry Determinants and Economic Performance of Foreign Direct Investments in France and Canada -- Capital and Labour Movements in the European Community -- Four: Measurement of Capital Utilisation and Rates of Return -- The Theory and Measurement of Capital Utilisation and Its Role in Modelling Investment -- Capital Utilisation and Investment in a "Mixed" Economy -- Equity Rates of Return in the U.K. — Evidence from Panel Data.

This article summarizes the findings of this special issue focusing on five questions: (1) who studies Japanese politics and international relations in China, Japan and the Republic of Korea?; (2) what is being studied in each of these countries?; 3) how are Japanese politics studied in each of these countries?; (3) what determines the nature of the study of Japanese politics and international relations?; and 4) what is the impact of the study of Japanese politics in each of these three countries? The findings on the first questions are that most scholars in each of these countries are concentrated in their forties and fifties, but their educational backgrounds are considerably varied. On the second question, the topics of study are becoming more wide-ranging in recent years, although in China, government policy still puts a constraint on the range of topics studied. Regarding the third question, the approaches that are used are becoming more varied, especially in Japan and South Korea. Concerning the fourth question, domestic politics in each of these countries matter, and financial constraints are a problem in China. Finally, it seems that Korean scholars in this area may have greater impact on the government than in the other two countries. Adapted from the source document.