1,721,069 research outputs found
Overcoming the state/market dichotomy
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Accordingly, the chapter is structured as follows. Below, I add flesh to the bones of the above critical comments on IPE and the state/market dichotomy, arguing in the process that even ‘critical’ IPE tends implicitly to adhere to it. This then sets the stage to depart from IPE and consider Antonio Gramsci’s writings on ‘common sense’ – often cited in sociology, cultural studies and other disciplines – which have been neglected in IPE in favour of more ‘political’ concepts such as hegemony (Bruff, 2010). I contend that these, especially when situated in his broader writings on the sociology of knowledge, are particularly useful when seeking to overcome the artificial separation between ‘states’ and ‘markets’. This will be executed via a denaturalization of the state, which, as I assert above, is more strongly insulated from critical scrutiny in IPE than ‘markets’. The implications for IPE are discussed in the conclusion.
Overcoming the state/market dichotomy
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Accordingly, the chapter is structured as follows. Below, I add flesh to the bones of the above critical comments on IPE and the state/market dichotomy, arguing in the process that even ‘critical’ IPE tends implicitly to adhere to it. This then sets the stage to depart from IPE and consider Antonio Gramsci’s writings on ‘common sense’ – often cited in sociology, cultural studies and other disciplines – which have been neglected in IPE in favour of more ‘political’ concepts such as hegemony (Bruff, 2010). I contend that these, especially when situated in his broader writings on the sociology of knowledge, are particularly useful when seeking to overcome the artificial separation between ‘states’ and ‘markets’. This will be executed via a denaturalization of the state, which, as I assert above, is more strongly insulated from critical scrutiny in IPE than ‘markets’. The implications for IPE are discussed in the conclusion.
Overcoming the state/market dichotomy
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Accordingly, the chapter is structured as follows. Below, I add flesh to the bones of the above critical comments on IPE and the state/market dichotomy, arguing in the process that even ‘critical’ IPE tends implicitly to adhere to it. This then sets the stage to depart from IPE and consider Antonio Gramsci’s writings on ‘common sense’ – often cited in sociology, cultural studies and other disciplines – which have been neglected in IPE in favour of more ‘political’ concepts such as hegemony (Bruff, 2010). I contend that these, especially when situated in his broader writings on the sociology of knowledge, are particularly useful when seeking to overcome the artificial separation between ‘states’ and ‘markets’. This will be executed via a denaturalization of the state, which, as I assert above, is more strongly insulated from critical scrutiny in IPE than ‘markets’. The implications for IPE are discussed in the conclusion.
IPE and the international political economy? IPE or the international political economy?
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Our intention in bringing together this collection of scholars has been to begin a process of reflection on why volumes such as these are particularly timely in the current period, for both the discipline of IPE and the study of the international political economy. Although the debates on the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools were an important catalyst for such reflections, they also built upon earlier marginalizations and silencings which were, in our view, unwarranted. Recall, for example, Robert Keohane’s more explicit invitation in the late 1980s to ‘reflectivist’ scholars to produce systematic research agendas and falsifiable claims as a means of engaging with the ‘rationalism’ dominant in IR – in other words, a demand for ‘post-positivist’ research to abandon its raison d'être and engage in narrow specifics which take for granted wider questions about the world in which we live. More recently, the explosion of contributions on ‘globalization’ tended to produce a neat conjuring trick, whereby a globalized world was (magically and tautologically) both the outcome – what needed to be explained – and the explanation of this outcome. In the process, alternative narratives were pushed to the sidelines (Rosenberg, 2000).
'Critical' and 'International Political Economy'
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Since the late 1970s, International Political Economy (IPE) has tended to be divided into those scholars who focus primarily upon empirical research questions in order to understand the dynamics of actors within the international system, and those who prefer to focus upon an ontological enquiry into its historical evolution. In recent developments this division has been extended into the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools, or more vividly into the division of the ‘orthodox/heterodox’ or the ‘positivist’ and the ‘critical’ (Murphy and Nelson, 2001, 2002; Cohen, 2008), which in turn has led to concerns that such divisions might be overplayed (Higgott and Watson, 2008). The development of critical perspectives in IPE has brought with it interpretations that have drawn from Marx, Gramsci, Polanyi, Schumpeter and from poststructuralism (especially Foucault), and have been applied to a wide variety of cases. Yet, for all the work done in developing this critical ontology, precisely what binds the diversity of approaches remains confusing, as core analytical categories are too often assumed to be self-evident (for example, the critical method, methodological eclecticism, and a multidisciplinary approach).
Neopluralistische Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftssoziologie und die konzeptuellen Grundlagen der Vergleichenden Kapitalismusforschung
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph, from the introduction: 'So konnte die VKF eine Reihe wichtiger Arbeiten vorlegen, die alle die Diversität kapitalistischer Ökonomien und deren Beständigkeit deutlich machten. Wir argumentieren allerdings, dass die Stärke dieser Beiträge – wie die eben erwähnte Aufmerksamkeit fürs Detail – uns nicht davon abhalten sollte, ihre Schwächen auszumachen, die insbesondere in zwei Bereichen zum Vorschein kommen: Erstens tendieren sie dazu, ihre volle Aufmerksamkeit spezifischen politischen und sozialen Bedingungen zu schenken. Der Bereich „Wirtschaft“ bleibt hierbei als eine Art ‚Black Box‘ relativ unbeleuchtet. In der Folge wird zweitens „kapitalistische Diversität“ rasch und oft stillschweigend mit „politischer“ oder „sozialer Diversität“ gleichgesetzt (vgl. auch Jessop und May/Nölke in diesem Band). Eine der zentralen, von zahlreichen AutorInnen dieses Sammelbandes ausgemachten, Schwachstellen der VKF, nämlich das Fehlen eines hinreichenden theoretischen Verständnisses kapitalistischer Gesellschaften, reicht allerdings tiefer als die in gegenwärtigen Debatten feststellbaren Beschränkungen. Im Folgenden wollen wir zeigen, dass diese Schwächen in der Forschungstradition begründet liegen, in der die VKF steht. Diesen Zusammenhang gilt es deutlich zu machen, um die Analyse kapitalistischer Diversität neu denken zu können.
Neopluralistische Politikwissenschaft, Wirtschaftssoziologie und die konzeptuellen Grundlagen der Vergleichenden Kapitalismusforschung
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph, from the introduction: 'So konnte die VKF eine Reihe wichtiger Arbeiten vorlegen, die alle die Diversität kapitalistischer Ökonomien und deren Beständigkeit deutlich machten. Wir argumentieren allerdings, dass die Stärke dieser Beiträge – wie die eben erwähnte Aufmerksamkeit fürs Detail – uns nicht davon abhalten sollte, ihre Schwächen auszumachen, die insbesondere in zwei Bereichen zum Vorschein kommen: Erstens tendieren sie dazu, ihre volle Aufmerksamkeit spezifischen politischen und sozialen Bedingungen zu schenken. Der Bereich „Wirtschaft“ bleibt hierbei als eine Art ‚Black Box‘ relativ unbeleuchtet. In der Folge wird zweitens „kapitalistische Diversität“ rasch und oft stillschweigend mit „politischer“ oder „sozialer Diversität“ gleichgesetzt (vgl. auch Jessop und May/Nölke in diesem Band). Eine der zentralen, von zahlreichen AutorInnen dieses Sammelbandes ausgemachten, Schwachstellen der VKF, nämlich das Fehlen eines hinreichenden theoretischen Verständnisses kapitalistischer Gesellschaften, reicht allerdings tiefer als die in gegenwärtigen Debatten feststellbaren Beschränkungen. Im Folgenden wollen wir zeigen, dass diese Schwächen in der Forschungstradition begründet liegen, in der die VKF steht. Diesen Zusammenhang gilt es deutlich zu machen, um die Analyse kapitalistischer Diversität neu denken zu können.
IPE and the international political economy? IPE or the international political economy?
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph (from the introduction): 'Our intention in bringing together this collection of scholars has been to begin a process of reflection on why volumes such as these are particularly timely in the current period, for both the discipline of IPE and the study of the international political economy. Although the debates on the ‘British’ and ‘American’ schools were an important catalyst for such reflections, they also built upon earlier marginalizations and silencings which were, in our view, unwarranted. Recall, for example, Robert Keohane’s more explicit invitation in the late 1980s to ‘reflectivist’ scholars to produce systematic research agendas and falsifiable claims as a means of engaging with the ‘rationalism’ dominant in IR – in other words, a demand for ‘post-positivist’ research to abandon its raison d'être and engage in narrow specifics which take for granted wider questions about the world in which we live. More recently, the explosion of contributions on ‘globalization’ tended to produce a neat conjuring trick, whereby a globalized world was (magically and tautologically) both the outcome – what needed to be explained – and the explanation of this outcome. In the process, alternative narratives were pushed to the sidelines (Rosenberg, 2000).
Comparative Capitalisms research and the emergence of critical, global perspectives
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph from the introduction: 'In a nutshell, the intellectual project which the present book pursues can be described as one of contributing to the development of a new generation of CC scholarship which is simultaneously conscious and critical of capitalism, and has a genuinely global horizon.
Fault and fracture? The impact of new directions in Comparative Capitalisms research on the wider field
No full textThere is no abstract, but this is a representative paragraph from the introduction: 'This chapter will, after a brief reprise of the VoC debate, focus on how mainstream CC scholarship is now coming under pressure from a range of different sources. What unites these alternatives to the mainstream is their wish to engage in CC research in a different manner: conscious and critical of capitalism, but remaining aware of how it exists in multiple forms across the world. The current volume, in explicitly giving centre-stage to several of these new directions, is part of this desired shift towards alternative forms of CC scholarship. As will become clear in the present chapter as well as elsewhere in the volume, this does not entail either the abandonment of the study of institutions in regionally, nationally and locally specific contexts or of attempts to elaborate typological theories of capitalism. Rather, most authors acknowledge that a deep understanding of institutions, and the development of typologies as potentially powerful analytical tools, can help us to understand capitalist diversity on a global scale (see especially the chapters by May and Nölke, Wehr, and Drahokoupil and Myant). Nevertheless, the impact of these new directions as they begin to unfold – both through articulating their critique of mainstream CC perspectives and through developing alternative lines of research and theorization – will undoubtedly have other consequences for the field as it is presently constituted.
- …
