MA in Global Political Economy

School of Global Studies--Department of International Relations Contemporary Theories in Global Political Economy 936M1 Autumn term 2010 MA in Global Political Economy Course convenor: Kees van der Pijl

Course information and requirements Aims and Objectives The course aims to familiarise students with some of the key conceptual and theoretical debates in global and international social theory, with special reference to the broad field of Global Political Economy which is understood here as the post-disciplinary re-integration of social science dealing with relations of production, exchange, and power. Although the labels in practice are used interchangeably, GPE is preferred to International Political Economy because the latter is often taken as a sub-field of International Relations (IR) whereas this course seeks to transcend such narrow disciplinary divisions. At stake is the possibility of a truly post-, or trans- disciplinary approach that can illuminate in principle all other angles from which the evolving global social reality can be understood. The opening session will be devoted to outlining the main structure of the course, and the different philosophical positions from which social theory and GPE in particular, can be constructed. We then look at the main strands of GPE thinking: neoclassical/rational Choice, positivist sociology, hermeneutics/constructivist, institutionalist, systems theory in its various guises, as well as Marxist/Gramscian, and poststructuralist approaches (since all theories are also contemporary theories, the prefix neo has been omitted). In all cases, the readings help us to elucidate a particular method. The theory is what concerns us: what is the underlying ontology (the assumptions about the constitutive elements of which we consider our world is made up), epistemology (the assumptions about the origins of ideas and knowledge and the possibility of understanding the world), and methodology (by which criteria are findings ordered and assessed). Of course the subject matter of the particular text is what allows us to make statements about these aspects, but otherwise the subject matter covered by the different authors under one approach is often too varied to really be compared. Also, readings are not necessarily themselves exemplars of the approach; they also can be insightful critiques or sociologies of knowledge that are pertinent to it. The status of readings in this respect has been indicated, but otherwise students are encouraged to use the library actively as a means of gaining a sense of what is available and which unexpected combinations are possible as well. The course relies on the accompanying A Survey of Global Political Economy, the latest version of which (2.1) has been posted under a new address and is hyperlinked from here. Just in case the direct address is http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/research/gpe/gpesurvey 2

Every week s readings will be prefaced by those readings that can be accessed straight from the corresponding chapter of the Survey. Students are also strongly encouraged to use the print readings in the Library. Library use is itself a way of discovering unexpected sources by browsing. The readings in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) [2000] are a key print source. Several print readings have been taken from R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) 2001 A useful aid for those students who feel they need some introduction to the field of International Relations generally is Scott Burchill et al., Theories of International Relations (Basingstoke, Palgrave) 1996, 2 nd edition 2001 Course Summary Week 1 Theory and Global Political Economy 2 Rational Choice 3 Positivism and Sociology 4 Hermeneutics and the Weberian Paradigm 5 Pragmatism and Institutionalism 6 Weak Systems: Regulation and Regime Theory 7 World Systems and Long Cycles Theory 8 Historical Materialism 9 Gramscian Class Analysis 10 Post-Structuralism Teaching and Learning Seminars Teaching is by seminars of three hours each, one per week. The first hour of the seminar will be used for a presentation by students (the number depending on the number of participants, and beginning with week 3) of the readings, with questions and comments by the tutor and the other students. The second hour will be used for a general discussion of the subject matter on the basis of written replies to the seminar questions in the course outline. Everybody is expected to have at least read the required readings. The third hour is used by the tutor to make a presentation on the subject matter of the following week, in order to support reading and preparation 3

The corresponding chapter of the course web-text, A Survey of Global Political Economy, supports the lecture and serves as source of e-readings and background to the print readings. Essay The essay requirement for each student is a 2,000 word non-contributory essay to be submitted during the Autumn term. The convenor will fix submission deadlines at the beginning of the term in principle, in week 5 or 6, depending on the requirements for the parallel core course in GPE. Since the aim of the course is to gain an overview of theories and develop the ability to classify them and recognise them in a given reading, contrast and compare titles are especially recommended. Examination The course is examined by means of a three-and-a-half-hour unseen examination in the first week of the Spring term of 2010. Contact Kees van der Pijl s office phone 877452; e-mail K.van-der-Pijl@sussex.ac.uk Office hours are in room Arts C 354 (exact hours announced at the first meeting). Topics and Readings Week 1: Theory and Global Political Economy Global or International Political Economy is one of the ways to approach International Relations. Originally the term political economy referred to the householding of the state, the polis, rather than of the actual household from which the term economy derives (from the Greek oikos, house also used in ecology ). Marx wrote his Capital as a critique of political economy, arguing that the surface level of exchange of equivalents hides a reality of exploitation and unequal exchange. It is this critical approach to political economy, which aims to discover the deep structure from which both politics and economics derive their particular configurations, with which the term itself most often has become associated. There is also a political economy that takes the opposite angle by applying neoclassical economics to the field of politics (e.g. as a field of consumer preferences). Questions: Questions give an indication of the type of exam questions that can be expected and may help to bring some order to the subject matter of the particular week. Every student is expected to have prepared the questions for the second hour of each meeting. 4

*What are the grounds on which in the late 19 th century, a distinct economics was lifted out of classical political economy? *Which fields no longer covered by economics, arose as a consequence, and which specific areas did they deal with? *What is meant by economism and what is the connection with a materialist ontology? *Why not just settle for a separate political science and an economics, each with their solid academic traditions, instead of possibly confusing the two? E-READINGS in Chapter 1 of the Survey (all e-readings are also accessible alphabetically in the References of the Survey) Note that the references of classic e-versions are often incomplete and should not be used for referencing in this way. (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Jessop, Bob, and Sum, Ngai-Ling. 2001. Pre-disciplinary and Post-disciplinary Perspectives. New Political Economy, 6 (1) 89-101. Michie. Jonathan, Oughton, Christine and Wilkinson, Frank. 2002. Against the New Economic Imperialism: Some Reflections. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61 (1) 351-365. (cf. et al., 2002) Garnsey, Elizabeth. 1981. The Rediscovery of the Division of Labor. Theory & Society. 10 (3) 337-358. (Classic works/fragments) Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations Ricardo, David. 1817. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation Marx, 1847. The Poverty of Philosophy, method section. Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital Marx, Karl. 1894. Capital, vol iii, Chapter 27.chapter in M-E Archive Mill, John Stuart. 1848. Principles of Political Economy, section on value. Spinoza, Baruch de. 1675. Ethics (theses). Descartes, René. Discourse on Method, 1635 5

PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Chattopadhyay P. 1974. Political Economy: What s in a Name, Monthly Review 25 (11). Origins of the term and resulting confusions The editors, S.D. Krasner, G.M. Hodgson. 1994. The Nature of International Political Economy, Review of International Political Economy 1 (1) Strange, Susan. 1988. The Study of International Political Economy pp. 7-42 of States and Markets, London, Pinter. Tooze, Roger. 1987. International Political Economy and International Relations Millennium 16 (2) Strange, Susan. 1994. Wake up, Krasner! The world has changed, Review of International Political Economy 1 (2) On the inadequacies of state-centric realism Palan, Ronen. 2000. New Trends in Global Political Economy in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Neufeld, Mark. 1995. International Relations Theory and the Aristotelian Project ch. 1 in The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge, CUP) Cox, R.W. 1995. Critical Political Economy in B. Hettne et al., International Political Economy. Understanding Global Disorder (London, Zed) (books) Therborn, Göran. 1976. Science, Class and Society. On the Formation of Sociology and Historical Materialism (London, Verso). Key study on the origins of modern social science Rosenberg, Justin. 2000. The Follies of Globalization Theory. Polemical Essays (London: Verso), Introduction Dangers of taking globalisation in a naturalised sense, as a causal factor Week 2: Rational Choice The approach which extends the models of neoclassical economics to political economy. It proceeds on the assumption of subjective rationality and methodological individualism. This implies the separation of the knowing subject from the social context (just as it assumes the capacity of the subject, be it an individual or a collective, to act independently in society). Action serves to maximise certain preferences on the part of actors; knowledge is likewise centred on the subject, who/which learns by experience. Game theory is the mathematical representation of 6

how subject s preferences are totalised: in the economy, those of individuals; in IR/GPE, of states and other collective actors. Questions: *How can the concept of the rational subject be traced back to the marginalist revolution in the late 19 th century? *In which way did Keynes both confirm and reject the assumptions of marginalism? *Compare and contrast the arguments of the original marginalism, and the neoliberal revolt against Keynesianism. *Why is game theory a logical solution to the claim, famously made by Margaret Thatcher, that there is no such thing as society? E-READINGS in Chapter 2 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Hausken, Kjell, and Plümper, Thomas. 1997. Hegemons, Leaders and Followers: A Game-Theoretic Approach to the Postwar Dynamics of International Political Economy, Journal of World-Systems Research, 3 (1). Hausken and Plümper, 1997 (others under --Classic works/fragments) Jevons, Stanley. pleasure and pain (fragment). Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics Böhm- Bawerk, E. von. 1896. Marx and the Close of His System Keynes, J. M. 1970 [1936]. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money esp. chapters 2, 18, 24 Chapters on classical economic theory, summary of his own, and the euthanasia argument Robinson, Joan. 1972. The Second Crisis of Economic Theory. The American Economic Review, 62 (1/2) 1-10. Hayek, F. A. 1958. Freedom, Reason, and Tradition. Ethics, 68 (4) 229-245. 7

Simon, Herbert. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1) 99-118 Becker, Gary S. 1962. Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, 70 (5) part 2, 9-49. PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Gill, Stephen, and Law, David. 1988. Economic Liberalism and Public Choice pp. 41-54 in The Global Political Economy (New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf) Frey, B.S. 1997. The public choice view of international political economy, in G.T. Crane and A. Amawi (eds) The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy, 2 nd edition. A Reader (Oxford, Oxford University Press) Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford, Oxford University Press) chapters 6, 8 Chapters on games Gowa, Joanne. 1986. Anarchy, egoism and the third images: the evolution of cooperation and international relations International Organization 40 (1) Gowa, Joanne. 1989. Bipolarity, multipolarity and free trade, American Political Science Review 83 (4) Carlson, Lisa J. 2000. Game theory: international trade, conflict, and cooperation in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary Theories (London, Routledge) Argument concerning two-level games Carling, Alan. 1986. Rational Choice Marxism, New Left Review 160. Application of RC to Marxist concepts like exploitation etc. (books) Hayek, Friedrich von. 1976 [1944]. The Road to Serfdom (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, esp. chapter 3, 8, and 11 The chapters in which the core argument most relevant for our aims is developed Bukharin, Nikolai. 1972 [1927]. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. [intro. D. Harris, trans. from the Russian]. New York: Monthly Review Press. Week 3: Positivism and Sociology This method began as a progressive movement intended to remove radical conflict from society by orienting it towards the application of proven scientific insight. It predicted that after an age 8

of religion, one of metaphyics (abstract philosophy not dealing with empirical reality), a golden age of society organised on sound scientific principle would emerge (Comte). This was still a metaphysical philosophy itself. In the years before and right after the First World War, neopositivism sought to remedy this deficiency by concentrating entirely on method, formally by testing hypotheses against observed facts. Like Rational Choice, it is a subjectivist theory but without the assumption of rationality. By assuming the capacity to make sound statements about observables and ultimately, to verify/falsify statements, this approach tends to concentrate on the rules to which valid statements must conform, and to problems of correspondence between language and events. Questions: *What does positive in positivism refer to? *In which sense was the original positivism a philosophy of history and how did neo-positivism strip the method from this philosophical baggage? *Which problems arise when we want to make statements strictly empirically testable and what was the solution offered by Wittgenstein? *How has the connection between managerialism and sociology/ positivism been argued? E-READINGS in Chapter 3 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Turner, Bryan S. 1990. The Two Faces of Sociology: Global or National?, Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 343-358. Giddens, Anthony. 1976. Classical Social Theory and the Origins of Modern Sociology. The American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4) 703-729. Urry, John. 1973. Thomas S. Kuhn as Sociologist of Knowledge. The British Journal of Sociology, 24 (4) 462-473. Roscoe, Paul B. 1995. The Perils of Positivism in Cultural Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 97 (3) 492-504. (Classic works/fragments) Saint-Simon, Henri de. 1807. letter Schlick, Moritz. 1925. Epistemology and Modern Physics Carnap, Rudolf. 1966. Philosophical Foundations of Physics PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) 9

Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics, in Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago, University of Chicago Press) Classical statement of the positivist methodology as applied to economics Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Explaining ch. 3 in Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford, Clarendon). Neufeld, Mark. 1995. Defining Positivism ch 2 and IR Theory and Social Criticism ch 5 in The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge, CUP) Passmore, John. 1967. Logical Positivism in The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (New York, Macmillan,), vol. 5, 52-57 Kaplan, M.A. 1968. Traditionalism versus Science in International Relations in Kaplan, ed. New Approaches to International Relations (New York,) Behaviourist critique of international society approach of Hedley Bull Singer, J.D. 1969 The Behavioral Science Approach in International Relations: Payoff and Prospects chapter 7 in J.N. Rosenau, ed. International Politics and Foreign Policy, rev. ed (New York, Free Press) (books) Benton, Ted. 1977. Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies (London, Routledge,) chapters 2-5. Discusses the positivism of Comte, Durkheim, and the question whether positivism is rightly the methodology of choice in the natural sciences Ayer, A.J. 1971 [1936]. Language, Truth and Logic. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley), especially chapters 2, Laws and Theories and 4, Political Structures Paradigmatic contemporary formulation of the application of the neo-positivist method to IR. delineates the different steps that must be taken if we are to arrive at a sound theory of IR that is not based on a metaphysical first principle (as the quest for power in the classical Realism of a Morgenthau) Holsti, K. 1985.The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, Allen & Unwin) Argues the case for a realism based on positivism Week 4: Hermeneutics and the Weberian Paradigm This set of approaches still belong to subjective rationalism but abandons the strict criterion of observability to include, e.g., introspection ( hermeneutics ). It is to be found in policy-oriented approaches, such as classical political realism in IR, or (neo-) mercantilism in economics/gpe. Its relation to positivism is one of exception; whilst usually acknowledging that positivism is the 10

valid approach to natural phenomena, it claims that the phenomena of the social world are elusive by the standards of a natural-science approach and have to be tackled by methods proper to a human-made world (the world as social construction, hence constructivism as a strand within this broader approach). The separation of the subject from the object is less strictly adhered to by allowing for environmental influences both in the knowing subject and in the acting subject (the state) which again is different from our relation to external nature (e.g. the moon will not blush when observed for longer than an hour). The readings include examples of how ideas and political conceptions structure the arena of global political economy. Questions: *Why must a distinction between natural and social science precede the application of a hermeneutic approach? *How is Weber s analysis of the relation between Protestantism and capitalism related to his own political programme? *How do values and meaning impinge on the perception of social facts? *Which different shades of constructivism can be distinguished and on which grounds? E-READINGS in Chapter 4 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Guzzini, Stefano. 2000. A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6 (2) 147-182. Elkins and Simmons, 2005: Elkins, Zachary, and Simmons, Beth. 2005. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 33-51. Checkel, Jeffrey T. 1997. International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist-Constructivist Divide. European Journal of International Relations, 3 (4) 473-495. Palan, 2000: Palan, Ronen. 2000. A world of their making: an evaluation of the constructivist critique of International Relations. Review of International Studies, 26 (4) 575-598. (Classic works/fragments) Kant, Immanuel. critique of Hume. Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1883. Introduction to the Human Sciences (fragments) Mead, George Herbert. 1938. Science and the Objectivity of Perspectives Heidegger, Martin. 1949. Existence and Being 11

Gadamer, H.-G. 1971. The Idea of Hegel s Logic Habermas, Jürgen. Habermas Archive Weber, Max. 1905. The Protestant Ethic Weber, Max. 1921. Economy and Society Weber, Max. 1897. Sociological Writings PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Hollis, M. and Smith, S. 1991. Understanding ch. 4 in Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford, Clarendon)] Jenkins, Keith. 2000. An English Myth? Rethinking the Contemporary Value of E.H. Carr s What is History? in M. Cox (ed.) E.H. Carr. A Critical Appraisal. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics International Organization 46 (2), 391-425 Key statement of constructivism in IR Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. Ideas do not float freely: transnational coalitions, domestic structures, and the end of the cold war, International Organization 48 (2) Cerny, Ph. 2000. Structuring the political arena. Public goods, states and governance in a globalizing world, in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Palan, R. 2000. The constructivist underpinnings of the new international political economy in Palan, ed., Global Political Economy: contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Teschke, B. and Heine, C. 2002. The Dialectic of Globalisation. A Critique of Social Constructivism in M. Rupert and H. Smith (eds) Historical Materialism and Globalization (London, Routledge) Compares and contrasts Constructivism with Marxism Goldstein, J. 2000. The United States and World Trade: Hegemony by Proxy? in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C. Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy (Aldershot, Ashgate) 12

Helleiner, E. 2000. Still an Extraordinary Power, but for how much Longer? The United States in World Finance in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C. Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy (Aldershot, Ashgate) Krugman, Paul. 1994. Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession, Foreign Affairs 73 (2) (books) Benton, Ted. 1977. Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies (London, Routledge,) chapters 6-7. Discusses the neo-kantian separation of natural from human sciences and Weber s philosophy Week 5: Pragmatism and Institutionalism Institutionalism as an approach to GPE has its founding father in Thorstein Veblen, who argued at the beginning of the 20 th century that social and economic behaviour is guided by habits prevailing in a given society rather than by general principles. It is anchored in the prevailing philosophies of early 20 th -century America: pragmatism, and (to a lesser degree) social darwinism, which notably affects its ideas of survival of the fittest economy. Its contemporary representatives stress the varied ways in which the capitalist economy is imbricated with a concrete society. They look at subtle differences which make the same economic system function differently in different societies, thus fine-tuning the general categories used to analyse the political economy. The most influential thinker in the institutionalist tradition today is Karl Polanyi, best known for his 1944 work The Great Transformation. Questions: *How does pragmatism relate to positivism both in terms of the sociology of knowledge and in actual method (epistemology)? *Which changes in the development of capitalism are articulated in Veblen s concept of business preying on industry? *What are, according to Polanyi, the limits of the self-regulating market? How does this give rise to a double movement? *How many capitalisms can be distinguished and which are the defining criteria for each? E-READINGS in Chapter 5 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Hodgson, Geoff. 1996. Varieties of capitalism and varieties of economic theory, Review of International Political Economy 3 (3) 380-433. 13

Nitzan, 1998, Jonathan. Differential Accumulation: Towards a New Political Economy of Capital. Review of International Political Economy, 5 (2) 189-216. Bichler and Nitzan 2004. Dominant Capital and the New Wars, Journal of World-Systems Research 10 (2).. Scully, Gerald W. 1988. The Institutional Framework and Economic Development. The Journal of Political Economy, 96 (3) 652-662. Hall and Gingerich, 2009: Hall, Peter A. and Gingerich, Daniel W. 2009. Varieties of Capitalism and Institutional Complementarities in the Political Economy: An Empirical Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 449-482. (Classic works/fragments) Peirce, Charles. 1878. How to Make Our Ideas Clear Durkheim, Emile. 1914. critique of pragmatism James, William. What pragmatism means Dewey, John. 1933. The Quest for Certainty (chapter). Veblen, T. 1906. critique of Marx Taylor, Frederick W. 1911. Scientific Management PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Leander, Anna. A nebbish presence. Undervalued contributions of sociological institutionalism to IPE in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) [2000] Note that institutionalism here is seen as covering several approaches we look at here under different labels, e.g. rational choice institutionalism etc. Spruyt, H. 2000. New Institutionalism and International Relations in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Nitzan, J. and Bichler, S. 2000. Capital accumulation. Breaking the dualism of economics and politics, in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Davies, Matt, and Niemann, Michael 2002. The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics: Work, Leisure, Family, New Political Science, 24 (4) 557-77. Everyday life as an aspect of anthropological GPE. 14

Jessop, Bob. 1993. Towards a Schumpeterian Workfare State? Preliminary Remarks on Post-Fordist Political Economy, Studies in Political Economy, 40 (books) Hodgson, Geoff. 1993. Economics and Evolution. Bringing Life Back into Economics (Cambridge, Polity). Veblen, T. 1994 [1899]. The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, Dover) Introductory & ch. 8 General argument and Darwinist understanding of industry Polanyi, Karl. 1957 [1944]. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston, Beacon) chapters 4/6, 11/14 Classic of GPE/IPE Institutionalism Albert, Michel. 1992. Capitalism versus Capitalism (New York, Four Walls Eight Windows) Contrasts neo-american (neo-liberal) and Rhineland (corporate liberal) capitalism Schwartz, Herman. 1994. The Rise of the Modern State: From Street Gangs to Mafias, ch.1, and The Industrial Revolution and Late Development, ch. 4 of States Versus Markets. History, Geography, and the Development of the International Political Economy (New York, St. Martin s) Week 6: Weak Systems: Regulation and Regime Theory Regime and regulation are both examples of a systems approach. We speak of a systems theory when the actions of a given set of agents (be they states, corporations, or individuals) are seen as objectively cohering towards a common outcome irrespective of their motives, and/or derive their meaning from the patterned interaction. Rationality is no longer principally subjective; subjects rather act out a rationality that somehow resides in the whole (objective rationalism, the classical expression of which was Hegel s philosophy). In a system, the actions of the units are expressions of, or at least coordinated by the workings of the principles of that system, which can be weak (a set of rules) or strong (historical forces). In GPE, the regime approach assumes that rules are put in place by states and are adhered to by the force of a hegemonic state or by the force of habit; it is derived from a realist/mercantilist approach and shares many of its assumptions. The regulation approach assumes that capitalist development places agents in a temporarily fixed, systemic arrangement; it stems from the 1950s left mercantilism of F. Perroux and obtained a Marxist reformulation in the 1970s (Aglietta and others). Questions: *Compare and contrast systems theory with subjective action theories. Why is functionalism a characteristic of systems thinking and not of subjectivist approaches? 15

*How can it be that Regime theory has been classified as a public choice approach by some and as a systems theory by others? *What is implied by the claim that Regulation theory is a weak system theory (whereas others would class it as a Marxist theory)? *How do social struggles impact on a given regulatory structure? E-READINGS in Chapter 6 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Wildavsky, 1966, Aaron. The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Systems Analysis, and Program Budgeting. Public Administration Review, 26 (4) 292-310. Jessop, 1995, Bob. The regulation approach, governance, and post-fordism: Alternative perspectives on political and economic change? Economy & Society, 24 (3) 307-333. Kohler, Gernot. 1999. Global Keynesianism and Beyond, Journal of World- Systems Research, 5 (2). Whiteneck, Daniel. 1996 The Industrial Revolution and Birth of the Anti- Mercantilist Idea: Epistemic Communities and Global Leadership. Journal of World-Systems Research, 2 (1). Trubek et al., 2000: Trubek, David M., Mosher, Jim, and Rothstein, Jeffrey S. 2000. Transnationalism in the Regulation of Labor Relations: International Regimes and Transnational Advocacy Networks. Law & Social Inquiry, 25 (4) 1187-1211. (Classic works/fragments) Bertalanffy, 1950: Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1950. An Outline of General System Theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1 (2) 134-165. PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Aglietta, M. 1976. Introduction: The Need for a Theory of Capitalist Regulation pp. 9-36 in A Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The US Experience, (London, Verso) Aglietta, Michel. 1998. Capitalism at the Turn of the Century: Regulation Theory and the Challenge of Social Change. New Left Review [1 st series] 232, November/December Compares regulation approach to rational micro-economics and institutionalism 16

Jessop, B. 1990. Regulation Theories in Retrospect and Prospect, Economy & Society, 19 (2) Dunford, M. 2000. Globalization and theories of regulation, in R. Palan (ed.) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Strange, S. 1982. Cave! Hic Dragones: a critique of regime analysis, International Organization 36 (2)] Adler, E. and Haas, P. M. 1992. Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program International Organization 46 (1) Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination, International Organization 46 (1) Krasner, S. 1985. Third World Goals and Successes ch 3 of Structural Conflict. The Third World Against Global Liberalism (Berkeley. Univ of California Press) [] Book as a whole key statement of the Regime approach Lipietz, A. 1982. Towards Global Fordism?, New Left Review 132 32-47 van Tulder, R. and Ruigrok, W. 1995. The Elusive Concept of post-fordism pp. 12-36 of The Logic of International Restructuring (London, Routledge) Lipietz, A. 2001. The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Post-Fordism, in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) (books) Piore, M.J. and Sabel, Ch. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide (New York, Basic Books) Study of how industry went back to small-shop skilled production under neo-liberalism Week 7: World Systems Theory and Long Cycle Theories The protagonists of this strand of thought adhere to a view of history which is an example of a comprehensive systems theory. This comprehensiveness gives rise to the often-noted problem of functionalism (structures exist because they serve the purposes defined by the system). World Systems Theory has also been termed neo-smithian because it concentrates on the effects of exchange rather than production. History in Wallerstein s major work, The Modern World System (first volume 1974), is the process by which the elements for the system (the capitalist world economy) were put in place in the 16 th century; after that, the system begins to operate in the sense that behaviour of component parts acquires its functional quality successful if it conforms to the requirements of the system, doomed if not. As long as states remain sovereign entities antisystemic movements according to Wallerstein will be absorbed into them (and duly made part of the world system). 17

Questions: *What is systematic about World System Theory? *What are the pitfalls of functionalist analysis of the world economy, the state, and war? *How do exchange and production relate in World Systems Theory? *Why is chaos theory not about random disorder but systemic? Give an example relating to the current crisis. E-READINGs in Chapter 7 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Frank, 2000, André Gunder. Immanuel and Me With-Out Hyphen, Journal of World-Systems Research 6 (2). Goldfrank, 2000, Walter. Paradigm Regained? The Rules of Wallerstein's World-System Method, Journal of World-Systems Research, 6 (2). Burch, 1995, Kurt. Invigorating World System Theory As Critical Theory: Exploring Philosophical Foundations And Postpositivist Contributions, Journal of World-Systems Research, 1 (1). Chase-Dunn, 1999, Christopher. Globalisation: A World-Systems Perspective, Journal of World-Systems Research, 5 (2) Rennstich, 2005, Joachim K.. Chaos or ReOrder? The Future of Hegemony in a World-System in Upheaval, Journal of World-Systems Research, 11 (2). (Classic works/fragments) Wallerstein, 1995, Immanuel. The Modern World System and Evolution, Journal of World-Systems Research, 1 (1). Modelski, 2005, George. Long-Term Trends in Global Politics, Journal of World-Systems Research, 11 (2). PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Arrighi, G. 1993. The Three Hegemonies of Historical Capitalism in S. Gill (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge, CUP) 18

Thompson, W.R. 1983. Introduction in Thompson, ed. Contending Approaches to World System Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage) Frank, A.G. 1998. Preface and Introduction to Real World History vs. Eurocentric Social Theory, ch. 1 of ReOrient. Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley, University of California Press) Brenner, R. 1977. The Origins of Capitalist Development: a Critique of Neo- Smithian Marxism, New Left Review 104 Compares and contrasts World System Theory and Marxism H.W. Houweling and J.G. Siccama, The Neo-Functionalist Explanation of World Wars: A Critique and an Alternative International Interactions 18 (4) 1993 Arrighi, G. and. Moore, J.W 2001. Capitalist Development in World Historical Perspective in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) Arrighi, G. 1990. Marxist Century, American Century: The Making and Remaking of the World Labour Movement, New Left Review 179 (books) Wallerstein, I. 1983. Historical Capitalism (London, Verso) Short book of the author of the 3-volume Modern World System, contains key methodological argument Taylor, Peter J. 1996. The Way the Modern World Works. World Hegemony to World Impasse (Chichester, Wiley) Applies the WST approach to cultural hegemony, from Dutch genre painting to Doris Day films. Rosenau, J.N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press) Week 8: Historical Materialism Historical materialism combines Hegel s objective idealism and the materialist tradition of Bacon to Feuerbach. It places political economy, via a critique of what we today call economics (in Marx s day, critique of political economy ) in a historical context. Successive modes of production developed out of the contradictions of others (which then survived on the margins of the new). Thus capitalism is re-interpreted not as the natural form of economics, and all other practices as illegitimate aberrations, but as one mode of production/historical form. Each mode of production generates a distinct class antagonism (lord/ slave in the slaver-owning mode of production, landowner / peasant in the tributary/feudal mode, capitalist / wage labourer in the capitalist mode). Revolutionary change occurs when the possibility of a new mode comes in view given advances in the exploitation of nature, and the classes belonging to a new mode rebel against the old order. Dialectics is seen by Marx primarily in its epistemological aspect, as a 19

critical understanding of reality which is associated with revolutionary change; Hegel and many Marxists on the other hand saw it (also) as an objective reality, i.e., that the world itself is contradictory. All theories of imperialism follow this latter interpretation. Questions: *How can the development of historical materialism be reconstructed from the synthesis between Hegel s objective idealism and the materialism of Feuerbach? *How is labour interpreted by Marx as compared to its understanding by Wallerstein? *What is the relation between economism and the return to naturalistic materialism ascribed to Engels, Lenin, and others? *Compare and contrast the positivist and dialectical epistemologies. E-READINGS in Chapter 8 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Knafo, Samuel. 2002. The fetishizing subject in Marx s Capital. Capital & Class, 76. 145-175., 2002. Himmelweit, Susan, and Mohun, Simon. 1977. Domestic Labour and Capital. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1 (1) 15-31. Dos Santos, Theotonio. 1970. The Structure of Dependence. The American Economic Review, 60 (2) 231-236 Harvey, David. 2006. The Geography of Capitalist Accumulation: A Reconstruction of the Marxian Theory. Antipode, 7 (2) 9-21. (Classic works/fragments) La Mettrie (fragment on man is a machine) Feuerbach The Essence of Christianity Feuerbach, Lecture on the Essence of Religion Althusser on Feuerbach s role Kant, section on antinomies Hegel, lecture on Kant Hegel, Science of Logic 20

Marcuse s Reason and Revolution Marx, Theses on Feuerbach Marx, section from the German Ideology Marx, wood theft article, 1842 Plekhanov, (cf. Archive) Labriola (Archive) Kautsky, materialist conception of history, 1903, Kautsky Archive Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism Lenin, Imperialism...(the highest stage of capitalism) Pannekoek, Lenin as a Philosopher Trotsky. (cf. Archive Mandel, section on marginalism Mandel Archive Hilferding Finance Capital Hilferding Böhm-Bawerk s Critique of Marx, 1904, Hilferding Archive Bukharin, Imperialism and World Economy Luxemburg, Accumulation of Capital PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Heine, C. and Teschke, B. 1996. Sleeping Beauty and the Dialectical Awakening: On the Potential of Dialectic for International Relations Millennium 25 (2) 21

Rupert, M. Alienation, capitalism and the inter-state system: towards a Marxian/Gramscian critique in S. Gill (ed) Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) 1983 Wood, Ellen. 1981. The Separation of the Economic and the Political in Capitalism New Left Review 124 66-95 Rosenberg, J. 1994. Secret Origins of the State, ch. 3, and Tantae Molis Erat. Prospectus for an Alternative History of the International System, ch. 6 of The Empire of Civil Society (London, Verso) Applies the Wood thesis to IR Mandel, E. Laws of Movement and History of Capital, ch. 1 of Late Capitalism, London, Verso [latest edition 2000] Laffey, M.and Dean, K. 2002. A flexible Marxism for flexible times in M. Rupert and H. Smith (eds.) Historical Materialism and Globalization (London, Routledge) Discusses the use of the concept of over-determination (here from Althusser) for GPE Callinicos, A. 2001. Periodizing Capitalism and Analyzing Imperialism: Classical Marxism and Capitalist Evolution in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) Clarke, S. 2001. Class Struggle and the Global Overaccumulation of Capital, in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) Kaviraj, S. 1989. On Political Explanation in Marxism, in K. Bharadwaj and S. Kaviraj, Eds. Perspectives on Capitalism. Marx, Keynes, Schumpeter and Weber, New Delhi, Sage] Benton, T. 1989. Marxism and Natural Limits: An Ecological Critique and Reconstruction, New Left Review 178 (books) M. Löwy, The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development, London, Verso [1981] Week 9: Gramscian Class Analysis This strand within GPE is based on the reassessment made by Gramsci of the original Leninist theses concerning imperialist rivalry and socialist revolution, which led him to the conclusion that in developed capitalism, (intellectual) hegemony has to precede any attempt at changing society beyond capitalism. Gramsci was inspired here by the neo-machiavellian Italian political science of the turn of the century (Mosca et al.). Robert Cox has adopted Gramsci s framework in 22

his historical analysis of international hegemonies rooted in different sets of production relations, in which Gramsci s original problematic of Communist party strategy recedes into the background. Transnational class analysis looks at how national class structures are interconnected through specific fractions (bank, commercial, industrial capital) involved in international circuits of capital, interlocking political-economic development in separate countries. A key area of investigation here is the role of semi-permanent networks or fora of consultation organised/dominated by the transnational ruling class. Questions: *What are the key differences between the definitions of the state of Lenin and Poulantzas? *How does Gramsci s rethinking of the fate of the European revolution lead to a differentiation of state/society complexes? *How can the notion of a comprehensive concept of control be traced back to the neo-machiavellians of the early 20 th century? *How can interlocking directorates become part of transnational political processes? E-READINGS in Chapter 9 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) Morton, Adam David. 2007. Waiting for Gramsci: State Formation, Passive Revolution and the International. Millennium. Journal of International Studies, 35 (3) 579-621. Germain, Randall D. & Kenny, Michael. 1998. Engaging Gramsci. International relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24, 3-21. Mueller, Tadzio. 2002. Globalization, Gramsci, and the Globalization-Critical Movement. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 6 (4). Gill, Stephen. 1986. Hegemony, consensus and Trilateralism. Review of International Studies, 12, 205-221. Nollert, 2005, Michael. Transnational Corporate Ties: A Synopsis of Theories and Empirical Findings, Journal of World-Systems Research, 11 (2). Carroll and Carson, 2003: Carroll, William K. and Carson, Colin. 2003. Forging a New Hegemony? The Role of Transnational Policy Groups in the Network and Discourses of Global Corporate Governance, Journal of World- Systems Research, 9 (1) 23

Staples, 2006, Clifford. Board Interlocks and the Study of the Transnational Capitalist Class, Journal of World-Systems Research 12 (2). (Classic works/fragments) Lenin Archive Lenin, The State and Revolution Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It Althusser, Louis, ideological Marx and the mature Marx of Capital. cf. text Gramsci Archive Pareto, Vilfredo. Mind and Society, fragment PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Cox, R. W. 1983. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in method, Millennium 22 (2) Key statement on Gramscianism in IR Overbeek, H.W. 2000 Transnational Historical Materialism: theories of transnational class formation and world order in R. Palan (ed) Global Political Economy. Contemporary theories (London, Routledge) Schechter, M. 2002. Critiques of Coxian Theory: Backgrounds to a conversation, in R.W. Cox, The Political Economy of a Plural World [with M.G. Schechter] (London, Routledge) Gill, S.1995. Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism, Millennium 24 (3), van der Pijl, K. 2001. International Relations and Capitalist Discipline in R. Albritton et al., (eds.) Phases of Capitalist Development. Booms, Crises and Globalizations (Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave) Cox, R.W. 1987. The Formation of Classes and Historic Blocs, pp. 356-91 in Production, Power and World Order, New York, Columbia UP Gramsci, A. 1971. Americanism and Fordism in Selections from the Prison Notebooks (ed. by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith) (New York, Int. Publishers) 24

Robinson, W.I. and Harris, J. 2000. Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class, Science and Society 64 (1) Holman, O. 1996. Global political economy and the transition to modernity, pp. 3-32 in Integrating Southern Europe. EC Expansion and the Transnationalization of Spain (London, Routledge) Augelli, Enrico, and Murphy, Craig N. 1997. Consciousness, myth and collective action: Gramsci, Sorel and the ethical state in S. Gill and J.H. Mittelman (eds.) Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (books) van der Pijl, K. 1998. Transnational Classes and International Relations (London, Routledge) Week 10: Post-Structuralism Post-structuralism questions the validity of general theoretical systems ( grand narratives ). Its appearance as a cultural trend (post-modernism) has been related to the rise of flexible accumulation within capitalism (Jameson, Harvey), or to the requirements of managerial society to apply flexible arguments to any contingency. From the Freudian understanding of a fragmented ego is subject to neuroses, and the libidinal aspect of work, the re-interpretation of Marxism by the Frankfurt School opened the way for a general rethinking of the way individuals are socialised into society. The post-structuralist thinkers, building on Foucault s idea of dominant discourses as a vehicle of power, abandon the Freudian family context for a social analysis of how neuroses and other malfunctions come about. In the early twentieth century, a powerful anti-modernist current in European philosophy, centred on the figure of Nietzsche, laid the foundations for a general rejection of history as a linear process of cumulative change, as well as for a post-rational way of looking at society. On closer inspection, the more radical forms of constructivism and institutionalism return as strands within post-structuralism, and important continuities with these currents can be detected. Questions: *How does the Freudian theory of the de-centred ego affect the schematic representation of the Cartesian rupture between subject and object? *What are the differences between Freud s original interpretation of libidinal economy and that by Deleuze and Guattari? *How can we argue that power relations are shaped by language? *Is a political economy without or even against history possible? E-READINGS in Chapter 10 of the Survey: (in the order of the link appearing in the text) 25

Selby, 2007, Jan. Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR. International Relations, 21 (3) 324-345. Vighi, Fabio, & Feldner, Heiko. 2007. Ideology Critique or Discourse Analysis? Žižek Against Foucault. European Journal of Political Theory, 6 (2) 141-159. Daly, Glyn. 2004. Radical(ly) Political Economy. Luhmann, Postmarxism and Globalisation, Review of International Political Economy, 11 (1) 1-33. Elbe, 2001, Stefan. We Good Europeans... : Genealogical Reflections on the Idea of Europe. Millennium. Journal of International Studies, 30 (2) 259-283. (Classic works/fragments) Freud Archive Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment(sample chapter) Marcuse, Eros and Civilisation Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man Saussure s Lectures on General Linguistics Foucault, first three chapters of The Archaeology of Knowledge Derrida, What Is Ideology from Spectres of Marx Schopenhauer, (fragments of The World as Will and Representation, 1819) Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886 Lyotard, chapters of the Postmodern Condition PRINT READINGS: (in the order from the general to the specific) Amin, Ash and Palan, Ronen. 2001. Towards a non-rationalist international political economy Review of International Political Economy, 8 (4) 559-577 Tooze, R. 2000. Ideology, Knowledge and Power in International Relations and International Political Economy, in Th. C. Lawton, J.N. Rosenau, A.C. Verdun (eds) Strange Power. Shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy (Aldershot, Ashgate) 26

Harvey, D. 1990. The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Cambridge Mass, Blackwell), part IV Analysis of postmodernism as a by-product of flexible capitalism Saurin, J. 1994. Global Environmental Degradation, Modernity and Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Politics 2 (4) (books) Freud, S. [orig. published 1930]Civilization and Its Discontents [transl. by D. McLintock] (Harmondsworth, Penguin) Deleuze, G.and Guattari, F. 1986. Nomadology: The War Machine (New York, Semiotexte,) Originally in Thousand Plateaus, 1980 Poststructuralist analysis of mobility in political economy Lyotard, J.-F. 1984 [1979].The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester, Manchester University Press) One of the defining statements of this strand of thought Brennan, T. 2000. Exhausting Modernity. Grounds for a New Economy (London and New York, Routledge) A synthesis of Marxism and psychoanalytical social theory applied to ecology Bratsis, Peter. 2006. Everyday Life and the State. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. 27