Pub Date : 2021-12-08DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.43
Leslie Johns
This chapter examines how scholars use formal models to study International Political Economy (IPE). This small, but important, body of research revolves around three substantive research questions. First, scholars have asked: how do states promote international trade by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers? Second, they ask: how do states encourage foreign investment by making binding pledges to protect foreign investors? Finally, scholars have studied: how do states stabilize and grow their economies? For each of these topics, the chapter looks back at past findings from formal models. It then discusses how IPE scholars can profitably move forward in their future research on these important topics.
{"title":"Formal Models of International Political Economy","authors":"Leslie Johns","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.43","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines how scholars use formal models to study International Political Economy (IPE). This small, but important, body of research revolves around three substantive research questions. First, scholars have asked: how do states promote international trade by reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers? Second, they ask: how do states encourage foreign investment by making binding pledges to protect foreign investors? Finally, scholars have studied: how do states stabilize and grow their economies? For each of these topics, the chapter looks back at past findings from formal models. It then discusses how IPE scholars can profitably move forward in their future research on these important topics.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114053539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.30
A. Jakobi
Informal markets have often been conceived primarily as a problem in developing countries, while they are also a frequent element of developed economies and global economic exchange. This article analyzes informal markets from an International Political Economy (IPE) perspective, examining two substantially different understandings of informal markets and related research: From the first perspective, analyses focus on how informal markets relate to formal markets, how large the informal market is, and what kind of deviation exists between the formal and informal sector. The second perspective analyzes informal markets against the background of illegal markets and crime. In a first step, the article elaborates on the many varieties and definitions of informal markets. In a second step, the article details explanations for the rise of informal markets. Research typically analyzes the local and national level of informal markets, less so international and transnational linkages, and IPE can contribute to this research substantially. In a third step, the article discusses the methodological challenges linked to assessing the existence and size of informal markets, and the fourth section presents different policies on how informal markets are governed. The concluding section outlines areas for further IPE research on informal markets.
{"title":"Informal Markets","authors":"A. Jakobi","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.30","url":null,"abstract":"Informal markets have often been conceived primarily as a problem in developing countries, while they are also a frequent element of developed economies and global economic exchange. This article analyzes informal markets from an International Political Economy (IPE) perspective, examining two substantially different understandings of informal markets and related research: From the first perspective, analyses focus on how informal markets relate to formal markets, how large the informal market is, and what kind of deviation exists between the formal and informal sector. The second perspective analyzes informal markets against the background of illegal markets and crime. In a first step, the article elaborates on the many varieties and definitions of informal markets. In a second step, the article details explanations for the rise of informal markets. Research typically analyzes the local and national level of informal markets, less so international and transnational linkages, and IPE can contribute to this research substantially. In a third step, the article discusses the methodological challenges linked to assessing the existence and size of informal markets, and the fourth section presents different policies on how informal markets are governed. The concluding section outlines areas for further IPE research on informal markets.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121235888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.47
Jeffrey T. Checkel
As a methodological choice, process tracing and qualitative International Political Economy (IPE) would seem a natural fit. These scholars employ case study research designs and theorize in terms of processes and mechanisms—a combination that leads to process tracing as a key method. Yet, in qualitative IPE, one sees little process tracing; or better said, it is there, but only partly operationalized or used implicitly. Surveying the contemporary qualitative IPE literature, this chapter advances two arguments. First, these scholars utilize a narrative style that hides their methods, including process tracing. The result is an empirics–method disconnect, where readers are unsure how data for the narrative was gathered and causal inferences or interpretive understandings gleaned from it. Second, qualitative IPE scholars should do their process tracing better. However, in making this methodological move they should resist the temptation to pull process tracing “off the shelf” and use it. Rather, they should address three cutting-edge issues for process tracers: transparency and formalization; within process-tracing methods; and developing a robust interpretive variant.
{"title":"Process Tracing and International Political Economy","authors":"Jeffrey T. Checkel","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.47","url":null,"abstract":"As a methodological choice, process tracing and qualitative International Political Economy (IPE) would seem a natural fit. These scholars employ case study research designs and theorize in terms of processes and mechanisms—a combination that leads to process tracing as a key method. Yet, in qualitative IPE, one sees little process tracing; or better said, it is there, but only partly operationalized or used implicitly. Surveying the contemporary qualitative IPE literature, this chapter advances two arguments. First, these scholars utilize a narrative style that hides their methods, including process tracing. The result is an empirics–method disconnect, where readers are unsure how data for the narrative was gathered and causal inferences or interpretive understandings gleaned from it. Second, qualitative IPE scholars should do their process tracing better. However, in making this methodological move they should resist the temptation to pull process tracing “off the shelf” and use it. Rather, they should address three cutting-edge issues for process tracers: transparency and formalization; within process-tracing methods; and developing a robust interpretive variant.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"189 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133863837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Liberalization is the removal of barriers to the cross-border movement of capital, goods, and people. Understanding liberalization is central to understanding how governments respond to and shape the global economy. This article reviews the literature on liberalization from a public-goods perspective, where liberalization is seen as benefiting the population as a whole, and from a private-goods perspective, where liberalization benefits a select few. These perspectives are united by questions over who supports liberalization, when liberalization occurs, and how governments liberalize markets. The article further explores the methods and approaches used by American International Political Economy (IPE), represented by articles published in International Organization, and British IPE, represented by articles published in the Review of International Political Economy.
{"title":"Liberalization","authors":"Timm Betz, Amy Pond","doi":"10.4324/9780429459450-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429459450-5","url":null,"abstract":"Liberalization is the removal of barriers to the cross-border movement of capital, goods, and people. Understanding liberalization is central to understanding how governments respond to and shape the global economy. This article reviews the literature on liberalization from a public-goods perspective, where liberalization is seen as benefiting the population as a whole, and from a private-goods perspective, where liberalization benefits a select few. These perspectives are united by questions over who supports liberalization, when liberalization occurs, and how governments liberalize markets. The article further explores the methods and approaches used by American International Political Economy (IPE), represented by articles published in International Organization, and British IPE, represented by articles published in the Review of International Political Economy.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128380928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1215/9781478007197-059
Elisabeth van Lieshout
Large and expanding flows of goods across borders are one of the core features of globalization. This article surveys the literature on the causes and effects of these international trade flows. It examines first the underlying economic drivers of these flows, next the ways in which geography, geopolitics, and trade policy shape the costs and uncertainty firms face in making their export decisions, and lastly the self-perpetuating but inequality-creating impact of international trade flows on domestic politics. The article points out both existing connections and opportunities for further integration between the literatures in international political economy, economics, and comparative politics.
{"title":"Trade","authors":"Elisabeth van Lieshout","doi":"10.1215/9781478007197-059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478007197-059","url":null,"abstract":"Large and expanding flows of goods across borders are one of the core features of globalization. This article surveys the literature on the causes and effects of these international trade flows. It examines first the underlying economic drivers of these flows, next the ways in which geography, geopolitics, and trade policy shape the costs and uncertainty firms face in making their export decisions, and lastly the self-perpetuating but inequality-creating impact of international trade flows on domestic politics. The article points out both existing connections and opportunities for further integration between the literatures in international political economy, economics, and comparative politics.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123939586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-10DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.12
Mark Copelovitch, James J. Anderson
As the economic and financial crises of the last decade have highlighted, monetary issues sit at the heart of nearly every major political debate and policy issue in the world economy today. This makes the study of the politics of money perhaps the single most important topic in International Political Economy (IPE). This article surveys the IPE literature on money over the last two decades, highlighting outstanding scholarship on the political economy of central banking, exchange rates, and the international monetary system, as well as the persistent problem of “non-engagement” between scholars of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. In taking stock of the field, the article seeks to identify the many important contributions of each camp, to note outstanding work and scholars that have recently begun to bridge this gap, and to highlight key empirical and theoretical topics where further constructive engagement would enrich our understanding of the politics of money.
{"title":"Money","authors":"Mark Copelovitch, James J. Anderson","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.12","url":null,"abstract":"As the economic and financial crises of the last decade have highlighted, monetary issues sit at the heart of nearly every major political debate and policy issue in the world economy today. This makes the study of the politics of money perhaps the single most important topic in International Political Economy (IPE). This article surveys the IPE literature on money over the last two decades, highlighting outstanding scholarship on the political economy of central banking, exchange rates, and the international monetary system, as well as the persistent problem of “non-engagement” between scholars of different theoretical and methodological perspectives. In taking stock of the field, the article seeks to identify the many important contributions of each camp, to note outstanding work and scholars that have recently begun to bridge this gap, and to highlight key empirical and theoretical topics where further constructive engagement would enrich our understanding of the politics of money.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133444779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-11DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.34
Jordan Branch, Tim Turnbull
The concept of territory has rarely been directly interrogated in International Political Economy (IPE) literature. Territory involves more than geography or space; instead it invokes a set of ideas and practices of political authority and control. While there are research programs in IPE that deal with spatial scale—including the study of global cities, regionalism, the size of states, offshoring, and special economic zones—there are important ways that IPE can draw on work from other fields that explicitly focuses on territory. Importantly, the literature on territory lays bare some of the territorial assumptions of common IPE models which, if further explored, have the potential to lead to better model specification and the opening up of new and fertile areas of research.
{"title":"Territory","authors":"Jordan Branch, Tim Turnbull","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.34","url":null,"abstract":"The concept of territory has rarely been directly interrogated in International Political Economy (IPE) literature. Territory involves more than geography or space; instead it invokes a set of ideas and practices of political authority and control. While there are research programs in IPE that deal with spatial scale—including the study of global cities, regionalism, the size of states, offshoring, and special economic zones—there are important ways that IPE can draw on work from other fields that explicitly focuses on territory. Importantly, the literature on territory lays bare some of the territorial assumptions of common IPE models which, if further explored, have the potential to lead to better model specification and the opening up of new and fertile areas of research.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116525203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-11DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.37
Randall Germain
Although there is some disagreement, a remarkable consensus exists that IPE as a formal subject of study emerged in the late 1960s or early 1970s, as the Bretton Woods system was dissolving. This chapter interrogates such a consensus by considering why modern IPE failed to materialize as an organized subject of enquiry after World War II, when there was a demonstrable calling for knowledge of the type it provides. To explore this puzzle I establish that an ongoing academic conversation was available through the work of three eminent intellectuals who would today be clearly recognized as IPE scholars: Karl Polanyi, E.H. Carr and David Mitrany. Although they all advanced distinct IPE-centered ways of framing the central problems of the post-1945 world, their work failed to launch a systematic and coherent conversation about IPE because of the absence of key conditions for this to occur. There are two lessons which we may draw from this case: disciplines require institutional homes from which to carry out “conversations,” and, more controversially, these homes might best be assembled within an architecture provided by a single discipline rather than within multi- or inter-disciplinary venues in which few agreed-upon rules exist.
{"title":"Modern IPE","authors":"Randall Germain","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.37","url":null,"abstract":"Although there is some disagreement, a remarkable consensus exists that IPE as a formal subject of study emerged in the late 1960s or early 1970s, as the Bretton Woods system was dissolving. This chapter interrogates such a consensus by considering why modern IPE failed to materialize as an organized subject of enquiry after World War II, when there was a demonstrable calling for knowledge of the type it provides. To explore this puzzle I establish that an ongoing academic conversation was available through the work of three eminent intellectuals who would today be clearly recognized as IPE scholars: Karl Polanyi, E.H. Carr and David Mitrany. Although they all advanced distinct IPE-centered ways of framing the central problems of the post-1945 world, their work failed to launch a systematic and coherent conversation about IPE because of the absence of key conditions for this to occur. There are two lessons which we may draw from this case: disciplines require institutional homes from which to carry out “conversations,” and, more controversially, these homes might best be assembled within an architecture provided by a single discipline rather than within multi- or inter-disciplinary venues in which few agreed-upon rules exist.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130969251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-09DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.31
Erin R. Graham
International relations scholarship on climate change exists primarily in the field of Global Environmental Politics (GEP) and outside the substantive purview of mainstream International Political Economy (IPE). This chapter argues that the climate crisis is fundamentally an IPE problem, and it requires attention from IPE scholars as a primary subject of interest. To facilitate engagement, the chapter reviews a diverse literature at the intersection of IPE and climate across three substantive areas: the global climate regime, trade, and renewable energy transitions. Each section offers avenues for research, and provides ideas on how to put concepts and ideas from IPE to work in climate crisis scholarship.
{"title":"Climate Crisis","authors":"Erin R. Graham","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.31","url":null,"abstract":"International relations scholarship on climate change exists primarily in the field of Global Environmental Politics (GEP) and outside the substantive purview of mainstream International Political Economy (IPE). This chapter argues that the climate crisis is fundamentally an IPE problem, and it requires attention from IPE scholars as a primary subject of interest. To facilitate engagement, the chapter reviews a diverse literature at the intersection of IPE and climate across three substantive areas: the global climate regime, trade, and renewable energy transitions. Each section offers avenues for research, and provides ideas on how to put concepts and ideas from IPE to work in climate crisis scholarship.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125178322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-12DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.39
David H. Bearce
This chapter provides an overview of foreign economic policy. First, it defines the subject as it relates to the discipline of Political Science in order to demonstrate how this discipline’s research on foreign economic policy is problem-centered and what problem is its focus: explaining the variation in policy related to trade, external investment, capital, exchange rates, and immigration. Second, it reviews two major research programs related to this problem: the state-level variation based on political regime type and the individual-level preference variation for different foreign economic policies. Third, this chapter highlights the obstacle to connecting these two research programs: how to explain outcomes at the state-level based on preferences at the individual-level.
{"title":"Foreign Economic Policy","authors":"David H. Bearce","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.39","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides an overview of foreign economic policy. First, it defines the subject as it relates to the discipline of Political Science in order to demonstrate how this discipline’s research on foreign economic policy is problem-centered and what problem is its focus: explaining the variation in policy related to trade, external investment, capital, exchange rates, and immigration. Second, it reviews two major research programs related to this problem: the state-level variation based on political regime type and the individual-level preference variation for different foreign economic policies. Third, this chapter highlights the obstacle to connecting these two research programs: how to explain outcomes at the state-level based on preferences at the individual-level.","PeriodicalId":360159,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124062364","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：