Introduction
Prior to the 1970s, political science for the most part happily ignored questions of production, exchange, consumption, and investment. The new prominence of Marxist and neo-Marxist scholarship in that decade as well as the transformation of many institutions, trends and premises of the post-World War II order (including the collapse of Bretton Woods, the rise of OPEC and Third World liberation movements, the advent of détente, and the first global recession since the Great Depression) ushered many innovative themes and methodologies into our discipline. Political economy was the most direct result of both these trends, taking its place as one of the first of a wave of “inter-” or “multidisciplinary” fields of study.
Today political economy lives two dramatically separate lives in American colleges and universities, however. In economics and a few political science departments strongly oriented toward quantitative approaches, the field is defined exclusively as “positive political economy”—rational choice, formal modeling, and neoclassical economics. The predominant approach to the field in political science, however, eschews formal modeling in favor of case studies; compels rational choice and the methodologies of neoclassical economics to share the spotlight with rival theoretical approaches, particularly structuralist approaches from realism to Marxism; and sidelines core themes of positive political economy such as political business cycles, uncertainty or institutional voting rules in favor of analyses of state power, structural change, and systemic outcomes.
At the same time, one cannot be too smug in praising the broadness with which political economy is taught in political science. Despite claims of multi-disciplinarity, both international political economy (IPE) and comparative political economy (CPE) remain largely the creatures of their disciplinary origins in international relations and comparative politics respectively. Within IPE in particular, most courses incorporate readings from economics and economic history, but there is little evidence to suggest that political economy as it is studied and taught in sociology, geography, anthropology, law—or even Canadian and European departments of political science—has found its way into American classrooms. CPE continues to show its debt to sociology and the doyens of social theory, and in the classroom remains—as does comparative politics writ large—strongly defined by questions and texts of 15–25 years ago.1
Kurzer 2003.
These conclusions are based upon my review of thirty-six recent political economy syllabi in departments of political science at both public and private universities and colleges throughout the United States. Twenty-seven syllabi are from courses in international political economy while nine are in comparative political economy. Approximately half of the syllabi were provided to me by the editors of Perspectives on Politics; I added or more often substituted equivalents (e.g., in cases of outdated syllabi) for nearly twenty others. All but three are from undergraduate courses and all but two date from 2004 to the present (all exceptions are in CPE).
After an initial review of political economy in U.S. political science classrooms, this article devotes the bulk of its attention to IPE. A shorter section on CPE follows, with comments restricted to courses focused upon the political economy of the advanced industrialized world. The article concludes with a discussion of how IPE and CPE can influence and strengthen each other, and the beneficial effects that globalization is having and will hopefully continue to have in fulfilling political economy's multi-disciplinary potential.
Political Economy in Political Science: IPE and CPE
In courses on both international and comparative political economy, instructors generally describe their subject matter as either the combination of or relationship between politics and economics (42 percent), or as “the politics of” international or global economic relations (28 percent). Thus a clear majority conceptualize the field as an academic crossroads of politics and economics, often rendered in CPE as the mutual interaction between states (as the site of politics) and markets (as the site of economics). A notable minority, however, conceive of political economy as the study of an integrated empirical phenomenon rather than as a disciplinary intersection. Some define their focus as “globalization” or “interdependence” (11 percent), emphasizing the ongoing dissolution of nation-state borders and the growing integration of national social systems. One is bold enough to invoke “capitalism” (Balaam) and another the “world economic order” (Almeida), identifying political economy as the study of a broadly integrated global social system.
The primary dividing line between IPE and CPE is geographic scale. In CPE, political economy is said to be the intertwining of politics and economics “[with]in” particular nation-states (Iversen, Swank, Way, Zysman) while in IPE the scalar location of this relationship is taken to be “between” them. However, a few IPE syllabi intentionally emphasize the globalization of economic processes, markets, etc. and self-consciously lodge their analyses at the global scale.
That being said, specific subject matter is not always clearly differentiated between the two fields. For example, nearly all IPE syllabi incorporate economic development in the Global South, and a majority also discuss the influence of domestic politics on state policymaking. These are, of course, pillars of comparative political economy. Some prominent voices in IPE even consider the “impact of domestic institutions and interests on international interaction, and vice versa” to be the “frontier of research in IPE,” further blurring the fields.2
Frieden and Martin 2002, 6.
International Political Economy
The state-centric approach familiar to traditional international relations research dominates international political economy pedagogy. Questions of policy-making, state power, and the disciplinary border between domestic and international relations drive this predominant attitude, one that has established itself as the “consensual approach to IPE” in the United States especially through its control since the early 1970s of the prominent journal International Organization.3
Ibid., 1; Katzenstein, Keohane, and Krasner 1998.
Murphy and Nelson 2001.
Veseth 2002.
Despite potentially significant differences, these approaches nonetheless share a common empirical core and define the content of international political economy in broadly similar ways. In fact, a common thematic template structures nearly all the IPE syllabi reviewed here, the same one used in the popular reader International Political Economy (2000) edited by Jeffrey Frieden and David Lake. Frieden and Lake open with sections on both theory and history; move through the substantive empirical themes of multinational corporations (MNCs), finance, trade and development; and conclude with a discussion of “current problems” such as the environment and globalization. Most IPE syllabi adopt this same framework. International trade, international finance, foreign investment and MNCs, and economic development constitute the core of IPE teaching. Common topics within these essential themes include international organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; the domestic politics of trade; regional economic blocs such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Area; monetary regimes including Bretton Woods; financial crises; developing country debt; development strategies; and environmental politics. This template is, as Murphy and Nelson have shown, the characteristically American approach to the field.6
Murphy and Nelson 2001, 396.
The theme of hegemony is especially prevalent in such discussions. One-third (9 of 27) of the IPE syllabi explicitly devote part or all of one class session to working through “hegemonic stability theory” (HST) and its evolving offspring, a cornerstone of the IO school and perhaps its signature contribution to the field. Hegemonic stability theory's importance is considered so central that three instructors (Mertha, Montero, Walker) are still assigning Robert Keohane's After Hegemony (1984). Those that do not mention hegemony or HST explicitly in their syllabi nevertheless cover much the same territory under the rubric of “regimes” or through the historical work of Charles Kindleberger, the economic historian considered the theory's founder. Those instructors using Thomas Oatley's (2006) International Political Economy (26 percent), the Frieden and Lake reader (22 percent), or Robert Gilpin's Global Political Economy (15 percent) also get extended discussions of the theory. All told, 16 of 27 IPE syllabi (59 percent) give special consideration to hegemony as understood by the IO school.
To put the prominence of HST in its proper light, consider the concomitant lack of success of an alternative Gramscian understanding of hegemony. Despite the prominence of the so-called Gramscian school of international relations and particularly of its leading scholar Robert W. Cox, not one syllabus out of twenty-seven assigns a reading from anyone in the Gramscian school. Even Mark Rupert—who has contributed much himself to the field from a Gramscian perspective—fails to include Cox or any other scholar using this rival understanding of hegemony in his course.
Hegemonic stability theory is not the only example of the strong liberal tenor of many IPE syllabi. It also appears in discussions of trade policy. Fifteen IPE syllabi (56 percent) cover the domestic politics of trade, with ten of those (37 percent of the total) using excerpts from Ronald Rogowski's (1989) Commerce and Coalitions, essentially an extended political science rendering of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem. The theme of “protectionism” also features prominently in these syllabi as a master frame for understanding the overlap between domestic politics and IPE, thus privileging free trade as both an analytic and social norm while deploying political science for an explanation of deviations from it. Of these fifteen syllabi, twelve use the Oatley textbook or the articles on trade from present and past editions of the Frieden and Lake reader, texts which also privilege interest group pluralism.
Many of the other twelve syllabi (44 percent) offer a structural approach to the politics of trade, emphasizing North-South inequalities, class politics, and state power rather than domestic sectoral competition. Four courses (15 percent) use David Balaam's and Michael Veseth's textbook Introduction to International Political Economy in their discussions of trade, suiting a more structural approach, and several instructors include work by Dani Rodrik, Adrian Wood, or Ethan Kapstein on the class implications of global trade integration.
Interest in the domestic and transnational (rather than strictly state-to-state or international) politics of trade is longstanding in international political economy, and most IPE syllabi give due attention to it. Unfortunately, immersion in a similar politics for money and finance is often lacking. Part of the cause appears to be time limitations. Although twenty-five of the IPE syllabi reviewed here (93 percent) give explicit attention to global finance, instructors usually spend much less class time on it than on trade. Measurement is imperfect, of course, but Tamar London of Penn State, Robert Walker of Dartmouth and Monica Arruda de Almeida of UCLA are exceptional in spending over one-third of their substantive class sessions (excluding exams) on financial topics; the median is less than half that (16 percent). With only two weeks or less devoted to money and finance (including financial topics related primarily to development), much of the time is taken up by basics such as the IMF, exchange rate regimes and debt. In turn, the class or sectoral politics of money are sidelined.
An additional limitation on a more vibrant political take on global finance is the state-centric approach. The wide influence upon American IPE of hegemonic stability theory and international regimes means that discussions of money will naturally emphasize technical and purportedly national goals (such as exchange rate stability) and focus on state policy-making. This is quite unlike the treatment of trade. Those instructors spending the most time on finance rely strongly on the work of Jeff Frieden to offer an important domestic and transnational (rather than simply international) political angle. The Oatley textbook is also helpful in offering an entire chapter on “a society centered approach to monetary and exchange rate policies.” That being said, whereas a majority discuss the domestic or transnational politics of trade, a distinct minority of the IPE syllabi do the same for finance.
Finally, international political economy incorporates economic development in its core subject matter. While there is clear overlap here with comparative political economy, IPE approaches the topic through the global effects on development in the South, particularly via Northern political-economic agents. Five syllabi (19 percent) incorporate poverty and global inequality into their discussions of development, and six (22 percent) cover structural economic reform in post-communist countries, both under-represented topics in the broader theme of development. Capital investment and multinational corporations figure prominently here, as does debt and financial crises that concern both global finance and economic development. With regard to readings, there exists an unfortunate over-reliance on some very dated articles in the Frieden and Lake collection. Seven of the syllabi (26 percent) assign its chapters on production, three of those chapters predating the creation of NAFTA and the WTO and thus unreflective of the newer and quite dramatic limitations on host country abilities to control foreign capital investment. More current writings by popular academic economists William Easterly, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Jagdish Bhagwati, and Dani Rodrik often compensate for these older works, as well as a few from more radical activist critics such as John Cavanaugh or the Dollars and Sense consortium. Students are barely exposed at all, however, to more systematic and intellectual work from a critical perspective. Only ten syllabi (37 percent) spend any class time explicating Marxist or critical theory and just twelve (44 percent) include even one Marxist or critical author in the entire empirical portion of their courses—with four of those twelve relying on a single Foreign Policy article in the Frieden and Lake reader.7
Broad, Cavanaugh, and Bello 1990–91.
The rejection of Marxist or critical academic work is a symptom of a broader failure to present undergraduates with rival theoretical explanations of the international political economy. Some courses are indeed especially attuned theoretically, devoting an entire class session to a single tradition (e.g., Aggarwal, Balaam, Gustafson, Martín, Mertha, Oakes, Stewart-Ingersoll, Weir). However, twelve syllabi (44 percent) give no extended attention to competing theoretical explanations at all, appearing to operate wholly within the “consensual” melange of liberalism and realism which notably ignores, in Frieden and Martin's own words, “much European scholarship” in the field—including critical work from North American scholars.8
Frieden and Martin 2002, 8.
Comparative Political Economy
While still showing its origins in international relations, IPE has emerged as a distinct subdiscipline within political science, showcased in its own journals such as IO and Review of International Political Economy, and taught widely throughout the American academy. Comparative political economy has experienced a less illustrious trajectory. Most notably, CPE is not widely taught as a free-standing course. Whereas a Google search for “international political economy” and “syllabi” produces 52,200 hits, a search for “comparative political economy” and “syllabus” renders slightly over 900.9
Search conducted on October 4, 2006.
The most prevalent template in comparative political economy follows a “varieties of capitalism” framework. Instructors using this approach either present their students with diverse types of capitalist societies as coherent wholes (Howell, Larsen, Way, Zysman) or employ it in part while organizing their course around a more specific theme such as capitalism and democracy (Swank). Peter Hall and David Soskice's Varieties of Capitalism is not surprisingly a popular text. The alternative template is a thematic one. On the whole, courses opting for a topics framework offer a much more liberal theoretical approach than those working from the varieties of capitalism. In these latter four courses (Boix, Iversen, Stephens and Kitschelt, Wibbels) one finds more attention devoted to elections, political parties, political business cycles, and state monetary policy. One also sees more readings from professional economists and statisticians such as Ben Bernanke or Edward Tufte as well as works from prominent “positive political economy” authors including Alberto Alesina and James Alt.
Despite the two templates, there is an empirical core to CPE composed of relative economic performance and divergent state institutional structure, especially the welfare state. Many courses also end on various renderings of the theme of globalization and the eroding autonomy of national societies and national states, the analytic foundations of comparative politics. A review of these nine syllabi also shows only marginal differentiation from CPE's parent field; comparative politics doyens such as Barrington Moore, Mancur Olson, Gøsta Esping-Andersen, Charles Lindblom, Peter Gourevitch, Douglass North, and Robert Bates appear throughout these CPE courses. Paulette Kurzer noted several years ago in the pages of this journal that comparative politics syllabi today “seldom address traditional political economy issues” any longer.10
Kurzer 2003, 374.
Looking Forward
While there is some topical overlap between IPE and CPE, these two incarnations of political economy in the field of political science could benefit from more mutual exchanges, as well as from a closer engagement with political economy beyond the borders of our own discipline.
International political economy is a vibrant and lively field closely engaged with contemporary political-economic processes and trends. In Susan Strange's ringing words, IPE is an “open range” which lies “still unfenced, still open to all comers.”11
Strange 1984, ix.
Comparative political economy also has many strengths from which IPE can benefit. CPE syllabi are far more attentive to economic history than are their IPE counterparts. The erosion of many national and international institutional supports for both Fordism within states and embedded liberalism between them, points toward the increasing educational relevance for our undergraduates of pre-World War II capitalism. CPE also offers not only a broader but a deeper kind of theoretical engagement than most IPE courses provide. Even the most liberal of the nine CPE syllabi (Boix) nonetheless assigns Robert Wade, while nearly one-third of the IPE syllabi grant no broad historical or theoretical perspective at all. Frankly, American international political economy could benefit from becoming a little less American and a little more international.
If political economy is to embrace the multidisciplinary promise into which it was (re)born in the 1970s, we in political science should not be timid about engaging political economy literatures in geography, anthropology, ecology, law, and even ethics with the same vigor we already pursue those in economics (and to a lesser extent in sociology). Especially for our liberal arts undergraduates, we owe them not only an introduction to theories and themes, but also an opportunity and even a responsibility to wrestle with a field which from its very beginning was concerned with far more than simply explicating the vicissitudes of prices and power. In Marx's words, “political economy—despite its worldy and wanton appearance—is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences.”12
In Tucker 1978, 95.
Syllabi
International political economy
Aggarwal, Vinod K. University of California, Berkeley: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Almeida, Monica Arruda de. University of California, Los Angeles: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Balaam, David. University of Puget Sound: Fall 2005. Introduction to International Political Economy: Capitalism in the 21st Century.
Bova, Russell. Dickinson College: Spring 2004. International Political Economy.
Büthe, Tim. Duke University: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Cohen, Benjamin J. University of California, Santa Barbara: Fall 2005. Introduction to International Political Economy.
Fioretos, Orfeo. University of Wisconsin, Madison: Spring 2005. Politics of the World Economy.
Frieden, Jeff. Harvard University: Spring 2004. International Political Economy.
Gustafson, Lowell. Villanova University: N.d. International Political Economy.
Hart, Jeffrey. Indiana University: Spring 2005. International Political Economy.
Ingersoll, Rob Stewart. University of Arizona: Summer 2004. International Political Economy.
London, Tamar. Pennsylvania State University: Fall 2005. International Political Economy.
Long, Andrew G. University of Mississippi: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Martín, Félix E. Florida International University: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Mertha, Andrew. Washington University in St. Louis: Spring 2006. Global Political Economy.
Montero, Alfred P. Carleton College: Winter 2006. Politics of Global Economic Relations.
Nylen, William R. Stetson University: Fall 2004. The Politics of International Trade and Finance.
Oakes, Amy. Davidson College: Spring 2005. International Political Economy.
Phelan, William. Middlebury College: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Reinhardt, Eric, and Ozlem Elgun. Emory University: Fall 2005. International Political Economy.
Rupert, Mark. Syracuse University: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Shafer, D. Michael. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Singer, David Andrew. Notre Dame University: Fall 2005. International Political Economy.
Skålnes, Lars S. University of Oregon: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Thacker, Strom C. Boston University: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Walker, Robert W. Dartmouth College: Fall 2004. International Political Economy.
Weir, Kimberly. Northern Kentucky University: Spring 2006. International Political Economy.
Comparative political economy
Boix, Charles. University of Chicago: Winter 2006. Comparative Political Economy.
Howell, Chris. Oberlin College: Fall 2004. The Political Economy of Advanced Capitalism.
Iversen, Torben. Harvard University: Fall 2003. Political Economy.
Larsen, Rebecca. Brigham Young University: Winter 2005. Comparative Political Economy.
Stephens, John, and Kitschelt, Herbert. University of North Carolina and Duke University: Spring 2005. Political Economy of Contemporary Capitalism.
Swank, Duane H. Marquette University: Fall 2004. Comparative Political Economy of Advanced Industrial Societies.
Way, Christopher. Cornell University: Spring 2006. Comparative Political Economy.
Wibbels, Erik. University of Washington: Spring 2005. Comparative Political Economy.
Zysman, John. University of California, Berkeley: Fall 2002. The Political Economy of the Advanced Countries: The Study of Politics and Markets.
