Suchergebnisse

Challenging the assumptions of 'mainstream' International Political Economy (IPE), this Handbook demonstrates the considerable value of critical theory to the discipline through a series of cutting-edge studies. The field of IPE has always had an inbuilt vocation within Historical Materialism, with an explicit ambition to make sense, from a critical standpoint, of the capitalist mode of production as a world system of sometimes paradoxically and sometimes smoothly overlapping states and markets. Having spearheaded the growth of a vigorous critical scholarship in the 1960s and 1970s, however, Marxism and neo-Gramscian approaches became increasingly marginalized over the course of the 1980s. The authors respond to the exposure of limits to mainstream contemporary scholarship in the wake of the onset of the Global Financial Crisis, and provide a comprehensive overview of the field of Critical International Political Economy. Problematizing socioeconomic and political structures, and considering these as potentially transitory and subject to change, the contributors aim not simply to understand a world of conflict, but furthermore to uncover the ways in which purportedly objective analyses reflect the interests of those in positions of privilege and power.

An anniversary issue provides an inescapably inviting opportunity to reflect on the past, evaluate the present, and contemplate the future. Eschewing the self-congratulatory rhetoric of traditional anniversary celebrations, we have devoted this 20th anniversary issue of RIPE to contributions that critically examine the academic discipline of international political economy, focusing on our collective challenges and limitations as much as on our achievements. As every author knows, it is the thoughtful, constructive, and above all critical review that ultimately pushes us to produce better scholarly work. The global financial crisis mandates such a reassessment, as did the fall of communism that birthed this journal. [First paragraph]

An anniversary issue provides an inescapably inviting opportunity to reflect on the past, evaluate the present, and contemplate the future. Eschewing the self-congratulatory rhetoric of traditional anniversary celebrations, we have devoted this 20th anniversary issue of RIPE to contributions that critically examine the academic discipline of international political economy, focusing on our collective challenges and limitations as much as on our achievements. As every author knows, it is the thoughtful, constructive, and above all critical review that ultimately pushes us to produce better scholarly work. The global financial crisis mandates such a reassessment, as did the fall of communism that birthed this journal. [First paragraph]

The author provides an overview about the field of international political economy (IPE) along metatheoretical lines. The IPE communities in the United States and Western Europe exhibit more differences than commonalities in their ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. While the U.S. perspective is solidly based on a materialist ontology, methodological individualism, and neopositivism as its epistemological foundation, the European IPE community is considerably more heterogeneous in its theoretical, epistemological and methodological approaches. The article ends with a view towards the future introducing three possible scenarios for the IPE sub-discipline.

Der vorliegende Band untersucht die scheinbare Geschlechterneutralität von Wissensgeneration und -verbreitung in Wissensnetzwerken in verschiedenen Bereichen der Internationalen Politischen Ökonomie. Vorgestellt wird das Geschlechterwissen-Konzept, welches von der Annahme ausgeht, dass jede Form von Wissen auf einer spezifischen Form von Geschlechterwissen basiert.Wissen ist Macht und traditionelles Wissen wurde im Interesse der Mächtigen konstruiert, dies kritisierte die feministische Schule von Beginn an. Das Neue an den individuellen Beiträgen in diesem Band ist, dass sie sich weniger mit Gender-Effekten verschiedener Politiken beschäftigen. Vielmehr versuchen sie zu verstehen, was das Schlagwort "Geschlechterwissen" für akademisches Wissen bedeutet, das die Politiken und normativen Annahmen der 'policy community'rechtfertigt und untermauert.Die wissenschaftliche Beschäftigung mit Geschlechterwissen ist schon deshalb wichtig, da der Europäische Rat im Jahr 2000 beschlossen hat, die EU bis 2010 zur weltweit führenden wissensbasierten Wirtschaftsmacht zu machen. Die Kernfrage lautet: Was ist die erkenntnistheoretische und philosophische Grundlage der Wissensökonomie und durch welche Kanäle und Netzwerke wird wissenschaftliches Wissen verbreitet? Wer entscheidet, was Wissen ist, wo Wissen produziert wird und wer sind die Wissensproduzenten?Mit Beiträgen von: Marina Blagojevic, Ulrich Brand, Gülay Çağlar, Rosalind Cavaghan, Pia Eberhardt, Rachel Kurian, Elisabeth Prügl, Christoph Scherrer, Helen Schwenken, Diane Stone, Thanh-Dam Truong, Eleni Tsingou, Brigitte Young

International political economy (IPE) originated in the early 1970s. For almost 20 years it has been dominated by separate, largely non-communicating schools, one centred on scholarly institutions in Britain, the other associated with the US journal, International Organization (IO). In terms of the evolving norms of both economics and political science, both schools are surprisingly heterodox. Rather than developing strong systematic data collections and systematic theory, the IO school has been characterised by a shifting set of conceptual and metatheoretical debates. The British school, which has tended to take a deliberately critical position, has been characterised by an ever widening set of concerns topical concerns fuelled by a desire to include more and more voices in the study of IPE. These outcomes are explicable only by tracing the specific historical developments of the two schools.

'Conventional' models of how the field of international political economy should engage with ethics have proposed or assumed the normative primacy of ethical principles and often sought to add reliable empirical economic analysis so that political perspectives on economic systems, institutions and practices can result. James Brassett and Christopher Holmes (2010) have criticized such approaches for overlooking the potentially violent character of ethics as a constitu- tive discourse like any other. The present article defends the conventional method against Brassett and Holmes's critique. Focusing especially on Thomas Pogge's ethics of world poverty as Brassett and Holmes's main conventionalist target, the article argues that: (i) Brassett and Holme s's understanding of 'ethics' is seriously inadequate; (ii) Pogge's 'negative duty not to harm' principle should be maintained against Brassett and Holmes's troublingly 'political' account and facile relativist critique of Pogge's ethics; (iii) Brassett and Holmes, while conceivably critical of Pogge's global level reformist solution as superficially 'neo liberal', cannot see that their own arguably valuable proposal of radical local forms of 'resistance' can coherently complete Pogge's poverty ethics and thus confirms, rather than undermines, the conventional method. Ultimately, Brassett and Holmes's post structural attempt risks being 'violent' itself for implying a renewed international moral skepticism.