Search results
84 DISCIPLINES 6 International Political Economy philip cerny International Political Economy, domestic politics and democracy International Political Economy (IPE) had already achieved prominence as a field of study by the start of the 21st century, but its role has changed dramatically, with issues of democratic governance and policy-making moving to the forefront. Originally, however, the roots of IPE lay in economic aspects of relations among nation-states in the international system – foreign economic policy, trade, the spread of production systems and
Democratization is a major political phenomenon of the age and has been the focus of a burgeoning political science literature. This book considers democratization across a range of disciplines, from anthropology and economics, to sociology, law and area studies. The construction of democratization as a unit of study reflects the intellectual standpoint of the inquirer. The book highlights the use of normative argument to legitimize the exercise of power. From the 1950s to the 1980s, economic success enabled the authoritarian governments of South Korea and Taiwan to achieve a large measure of popular support despite the absence of democracy. The book outlines what a feminist framework might be and analyses feminist engagements with the theory and practice of democratization. It also shows how historians have contributed to the understanding of the processes of democratization. International Political Economy (IPE) has always had the potential to cut across the levels-of-analysis distinction. A legal perspective on democratization is presented by focusing on a tightly linked set of issues straddling the border between political and judicial power as they have arisen. Classic and contemporary sociological approaches to understanding democracy and democratization are highlighted, with particular attention being accorded to the post-1989 period. The book displays particularities within a common concern for institutional structures and their performance, ranging over the representation of women, electoral systems and constitutions (in Africa) and presidentialism (in Latin America). Both Europe and North America present in their different ways a kind of bridge between domestic and international dimensions of democratization.
no rights. Focusing on intermediaries, mediation and in particular on the role of the cadets sociaux enables us to show how social dynamics are re-enacted in a context of crisis. Background Historical analyses have attributed the failure of the Guinean, Liberian and Sierra Leonian governmental responses at the onset of the epidemic to a number of factors related to history and international political economy. They range from the
. , Roberts , A. and Tornhill , S. ( 2018 ), ‘ Corporations, Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment: Feminism Co-opted? ’, in Nölke , A. and May , C. (eds), Handbook of the International Political Economy of the Corporation ( Cheltenham
disciplines have stood still but have evolved over time, so they all exhibit their own domestic disputes concerning democracy and its relationship to surrounding factors. Even in Cerny’s conclusion on the relatively youthful study of international political economy (IPE) we find different accounts of the future possibilities for democracy and democratization in a globalizing world. More particularly, at regional levels such as Latin America Philip tells us that the very meaning of democratic consolidation is very far from being settled. In parts of Africa and Asia where
be summed up as ‘hyper-globalist’. It should be read as an example of international political economy (IPE) theorizing, and is not necessarily representative of every position that IPE scholars adopt towards the topic. Nevertheless, given the enormity of the issues, arcane questions about whether international relations constitutes a separate discipline (and foreign policy analysis just a sub-section of that), or instead refers to just one specialized dimension of political studies, hardly seem important. Why democratization? The benefits to be gained from
extent to which Milibandians have extended their inspiration’s original insights by incorporating within their own work the concerns of international political economy. This has imbued them with a perspective far wider than that possessed by most students of the party, who tend to focus on the internal party mechanics and remain trapped within national boundaries. Thus, Milibandians can now claim to possess a unique insight on the wider implications of ‘New’ Labour policy, based as it is on certain contestable assumptions regarding ‘globalisation’. The second category
). This is a familiar refrain of many authoritative works in comparative and international political economy. These are usually placed in the context of the breakdown of ‘embedded liberalism’2 internationally, and of the rise of the New Right and monetarism ideologically. The supposed repudiation of Keynesianism is often ‘explained’ by a changing international political economic context within which Keynesian economic policies are deemed increasingly incompatible (Giddens 1998: 16–17). Gray’s pessimistic account infers from the assumed centrality of neo
is also constrained by opaque decision-making systems that result from a lack of a separation between public and private, between state and non-state, and between state and market – distinctions that are almost implicitly accepted as the basis for democratization in the West. Accordingly, studies of democratization in East Asia, while not ignoring ‘normal’ processes of democratization, should also consider the importance of political economy, and that marrying democratization perspectives with those in international political economy specifically offers a
own security, others would have to emerge as great or regional powers and behave as independent geopolitical actors.40 This American globalism, then, is compatible with a set of principles that have come to be associated with world order, stability and, hence, vital US interests. Three principal objectives remained as they had for forty years: to maintain a strong European defence capacity, led by the US; to encourage a process of European integration that remained compatible with a ‘US-made’ liberal international political economy; and to continue global