This chapter discusses the intellectual history and theoretical traditions of global political economy (GPE). It argues that GPE theories like realism, liberalism, and Marxism have become detached from their original formulations. Rational choice theory constrains critique and obscures the historical trajectory of ideas. Realist GPE differs from 19th century political economic nationalism. Adam Smith was not purely a free market champion. Marxism was concerned with critiquing capitalism rather than managing its expansion. Feminist GPE challenges the predominance of rational choice theory. Examining how modern theories differ from their origins reveals assumptions that call into question typical treatments in textbooks.
This chapter discusses the intellectual history and theoretical traditions of global political economy (GPE). It argues that GPE theories like realism, liberalism, and Marxism have become detached from their original formulations. Rational choice theory constrains critique and obscures the historical trajectory of ideas. Realist GPE differs from 19th century political economic nationalism. Adam Smith was not purely a free market champion. Marxism was concerned with critiquing capitalism rather than managing its expansion. Feminist GPE challenges the predominance of rational choice theory. Examining how modern theories differ from their origins reveals assumptions that call into question typical treatments in textbooks.
This chapter discusses the intellectual history and theoretical traditions of global political economy (GPE). It argues that GPE theories like realism, liberalism, and Marxism have become detached from their original formulations. Rational choice theory constrains critique and obscures the historical trajectory of ideas. Realist GPE differs from 19th century political economic nationalism. Adam Smith was not purely a free market champion. Marxism was concerned with critiquing capitalism rather than managing its expansion. Feminist GPE challenges the predominance of rational choice theory. Examining how modern theories differ from their origins reveals assumptions that call into question typical treatments in textbooks.
This chapter discusses the intellectual history and theoretical traditions of global political economy (GPE). It argues that GPE theories like realism, liberalism, and Marxism have become detached from their original formulations. Rational choice theory constrains critique and obscures the historical trajectory of ideas. Realist GPE differs from 19th century political economic nationalism. Adam Smith was not purely a free market champion. Marxism was concerned with critiquing capitalism rather than managing its expansion. Feminist GPE challenges the predominance of rational choice theory. Examining how modern theories differ from their origins reveals assumptions that call into question typical treatments in textbooks.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 15
Ravenhill: Global Political Economy 6e
Ravenhill: Global Political Economy 6e
Chapter 2: The Nineteenth-Century Roots of
Theoretical Traditions in Global Political Economy
Chapter by Mathew Watson
Lecture Outline
• The importance of the intellectual history of
GPE • Rational Choice Theory and its relationship to this history • Realism • Liberalism • Marxism • Feminist GPE Introduction
• Reading the history of ideas the right way
round • Questioning the mainstream, tripartite distinction between realism, liberalism, and Marxism • Challenging the sidelining of feminist GPE Introduction (2) • Understanding how modern-day articulations of realism, liberalism, and Marxism have become detached from their originating arguments • The problem of considering these as "ideologies" • The importance of GPE's origins in the 1970s, and the fallacy of 1970 as GPE’s Year Zero • new economic conditions diminished the perceived importance of the history of political economy • contesting normative views on stability • the predominance of rational choice theory as the basis of realism, liberalism, and Marxism (and the challenge of this predominance by feminism) Rational Choice Theory
• Based on assumptions about utility maximizing
behavior – presumes human action can be analyzed solely in terms of self interest • This assumption constrains space for critique, and can reinforce normative and ideological claims about economics which were not part of GPE's intellectual heritage, thus obscuring the historical trajectory of ideas Realist GPE (1)
• A problematic descendent of Realist IR
theories • Focus is on how one state seeks to impose its national interest over other state's interests • Realistic GPE is not synonymous with 19th- century political economic nationalism Realist GPE (2)
• A richer understanding: Realist GPE vs
Friedrich List – importance of trade-offs in the short and long- term – a more complex notion of "the" national economic interest – the nation vs. the state Realist GPE (3)
List vs. Adam Smith
• List was anti-market (in the context of competing British and German interests) • List caricatured Adam Smith as a diehard free- marketeer and laissez-faire proponent • List’s ideas continue to resonate for those reacting to neoliberalism and are still echoed in the distorted view of Adam Smith as a hyper-rationalist champion of market forces Adam Smith and Liberalism
• Just as List caricatured Smith, Smith caricatured the
"Mercantilists" • It is questionable whether Smith is rightly considered a "liberal" at all • Smith's particular view of governments' relation to markets • Smith's moral critique of self-interest • Self-command and the "bourgeois virtue" • How the reading of Smith has been made to fit current, predominant rational choice theories Marxism (1)
• There are many routes through the writings of
Marx, all to the same destination: the critique of the social basis of capitalism • Concerned with the nature of capitalism, not with managing the expansion of capitalism • Departed directly from Smith, but incorporated the historical materialism of the Left Hegelians Marxism (2)
• For Marx, capitalism was a machine that required for
its functioning the subordination of true human needs • Surplus Value Extraction: Workers must impart more economic value to the things they produce than they are paid for • From this analytical position comes the normative position: For Marx, capitalism required exploitation of one class (the proletariat) by another (the bourgeoisie) Marxism Today
• Critique of multinational corporations and the
transnational capitalist class (vis-à-vis the state and domestic labour forces) • "Structuralist" Marxist GPE and the influence of Lenin in "internationalizing" Marx's analysis – World System Theory – Dependency Theory • Normative, as opposed to analytical, Marxism prevails today GPE Feminism (1)
• The earlier history of feminist GPE includes
the work of women who struggled to make education in political economy opened all • They also wrote popular accounts of economic theory, making the topic more widely accessible • Their work, however, was politically quite different than current feminist GPE GPE Feminism (2)
• Two prominent writers, Jane Marcet (1769–
1858), and Harriet Martineau (1802–1876), for example, though radical in the way they challenged the male-dominated field of economics, were both inherently conservative in their politics. Conclusion • GPE realism, liberalism, Marxism, and in a different way, feminism, have all greatly shifted away from the originators of these theories • Comparing the modern-day version of the theory to its original articulation helps reveal the (perhaps novel) assumptions embedded in the modern-day versions • It also encourages inquiry into where these novel assumptions came from • All of this should call into question how most introductory GPE textbooks treat the intellectual lineage of the field • GPE's theoretical traditions cannot be considered self-contained, coherent ideologies