scholarly journals Structural power and political science in the post-crisis era

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 391-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pepper D. Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
International Relation ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
Global Capitalism ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Comparative Political Economy ◽  
Structural Power ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
New Generation

This essay highlights productive ways in which scholars have reanimated the concept of structural power to explain puzzles in international and comparative politics. Past comparative scholarship stressed the dependence of the state on holders of capital, but it struggled to reconcile this supposed dependence with the frequent losses of business in political battles. International relation (IR) scholars were attentive to the power of large states, but mainstream IR neglected the ways in which the structure of global capitalism makes large companies international political players in their own right. To promote a unified conversation between international and comparative political economy, structural power is best conceptualized as a set of mutual dependencies between business and the state. A new generation of structural power research is more attentive to how the structure of capitalism creates opportunities for some companies (but not others) vis-à-vis the state, and the ways in which that structure creates leverage for some states (but not others) to play off companies against each other. Future research is likely to put agents – both states and large firms – in the foreground as political actors, rather than showing how the structure of capitalism advantages all business actors in the same way against non-business actors.

How Politics and Institutions Shape Poverty and Inequality

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Brady ◽  
Agnes Blome ◽  
Hanna Kleider
Keyword(s):  
Labor Unions ◽  
State Policy ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Power Resources ◽  
Poverty And Inequality ◽  
Key Concepts

This article explores the influence of politics and institutions on poverty and inequality. It first considers the general contention that poverty is shaped by the combination of power resources and institutions. On one hand, scholars in the power resources tradition have emphasized the role of class-based collective political actors for mobilizing “power resources” in the state and economy. On the other hand, institutionalists have highlighted the role of formal rules and regulations. The article goes on to discuss the theoretical arguments of power resources theory and the evidence for key power resources (that is, collective political actors like labor unions and parties). It also reviews institutional explanations, focusing on the key concepts and theories and as well as the evidence linking the most salient institutions to poverty. Finally, it examines how state policy influences poverty and presents several challenges for future research.

scholarly journals Livelihood, Market and State: What does A Political Economy Predicated on the ‘Individual-in-Group-in-PLACE’ Actually Look Like?

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (15) ◽  
pp. 4082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Quilley ◽  
Katharine Zywert
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
High Energy ◽  
The State ◽  
Global Markets ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Welfare Systems ◽  
Market State ◽  
State And Market ◽  
The Individual

Ecological economics has relied too much on priorities and institutional conventions defined by the high energy/throughput era of social democracy. Future research should focus on the political economy of a survival unit (Elias) based upon Livelihood as counterbalance to both State and Market. Drawing on the work of Polanyi, Elias, Gellner and Ong, capitalist modernization is analyzed in terms of the emergence of a society of individuals and the replacement of the survival units of place-bound bound family and community by one in which the State acts in concert with the Market. The operation of welfare systems is shown to depend upon ongoing economic growth and a continual flow of fiscal resources. The politics of this survival unit depends upon high levels of mutual identification and an affective-cognitive ‘we imaginary’. Increasing diversity, a political rejection of nationalism as a basis for politics and limits to economic growth, are likely to present an existential threat to the State–Market survival unit. A reversal of globalization, reconsolidation of the nation-state, a reduction in the scope of national and global markets and the expansion of informal processes of manufacture and distribution may provide a plausible basis for a hybrid Livelihood–Market–State survival unit. The politics of such a reorientation would straddle the existing left–right divide in disruptive and unsettling ways. Examples are given of pre-figurative forms of reciprocation and association that may be indicative of future arrangements.

scholarly journals From Comparative Public Policy to Political Economy

1995 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONAS PONTUSSON
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Institutional Analysis ◽  
Comparative Political Economy ◽  
Comparative Public Policy ◽  
Collective Actors ◽  
Structural Variables

The historical institutionalist tradition in comparative politics commonly assigns analytical primacy to political institutions. Whereas this polity-centeredness may be quite justifiable for purposes of comparative public policy, students of comparative political economy should pay systematic attention not only to economic institutions but also to a range of economic-structural variables that lie beyond the conventional confines of institutional analysis. Providing the basis for an analysis of collective actors and their interests, such an approach is needed to account for institutional change and policy realignments within stable institutions.

scholarly journals Structural power in comparative political economy: perspectives from policy formulation in Latin America

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tasha Fairfield
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Structural Power ◽  
Electoral Incentives ◽  
Business Interests ◽  
Business Power ◽  
Proposal A

Structural power is a critical variable that merits more extensive and more explicit attention in Latin American political economy and in comparative politics more broadly. Assessing structural power in conjunction with its counterpart, instrumental power, can provide strong leverage for explaining variation in policy outcomes that affect business interests. However, structural power must be carefully defined and operationalized in order to capture its core attributes and nuances. This task requires wedding the concept's “structural” underpinnings with policymakers’ perceptions and anticipated reactions. Moreover, the relationship between structural power and instrumental power must be carefully theorized. While these concepts encompass distinct channels through which business exerts influence, the two types of power may be mutually reinforcing. I argue that business interests shape policy outcomes when either their structural power or their instrumental power is strong, yet business influence will be more extensive and more consistent when structural power and instrumental power are both strong. However, electoral incentives, and more importantly, popular mobilization, can counteract business power. I illustrate these theoretical points with a case study of Chile's 2014 tax reform proposal, a major policy initiative with important distributive consequences that received international press attention.

Nationalism, Citizenship, and Gender

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce P. Kaufman ◽  
Kristen P. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Complete Understanding ◽  
Sovereign State ◽  
Feminist Literature ◽  
The Public ◽  
Socially Constructed ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Shed Light

Nationalism and the nation-state are both intimately connected to citizenship. Citizenship and nationalism are also linked to gender, as all three concepts play a key role in the process of state-building and state-maintenance as well as in the interaction between states, whether overtly or covertly. Yet women do not figure in the analysis of nationalism and citizenship in the mainstream literature, a gap that feminists have been trying to fill. By interrogating gender, along with the notions of masculinity and femininity, feminist international relations (IR) scholars shed light into the ways that gender is socially constructed. They also investigate the historical process of state formation and show where women are located in nationalist movements. Furthermore, by unpacking the sovereign state, feminist scholars have argued that while mainstream IR views the state as a rational, unitary actor, states are actually gendered entities. Two kinds of feminist literature in IR in regards to the state can be identified: women and the state (how women are excluded in terms of the public–private divide, and through citizenship), and gender and the state (gendered states). In general, feminist scholarship has led to a more complete understanding of the gender-citizenship-nationalism nexus. Nevertheless, some avenues for future research deserve consideration, such as the political and cultural exclusions of women and others in society, the inequalities that exist within states, whether there is such a thing as a “Comparative Politics of Gender,” and the concept of “global citizenship.”

An Agenda for Future Research

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
John L. Campbell ◽  
Ove K. Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Convergence Theory ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Comparative Political Economy ◽  
Knowledge Regime ◽  
The Future ◽  
Cross National

This postscript offers some suggestions for a research agenda for the future, including questions and propositions for scholars to consider regarding globalization and neoliberal diffusion, comparative political economy, and convergence theory. It asks whether the same conclusions can be obtained if different countries and different policy areas were examined. This curiosity about other countries might translate into efforts to change knowledge regimes, such as by doing more cross-national policy analysis. The chapter also asks whether knowledge regimes are a source of legitimation or a source of inspiration. Ultimately, more effort is required to determine whether the overall structure and practices of a knowledge regime influences the type of ideas it tends to produce.

What We Owe One Another

2019 ◽  
pp. 199-212
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Quinn
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Social Life ◽  
The State ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Financial Instruments ◽  
The People ◽  
The Social ◽  
Credit Programs ◽  
Financial Transactions

This concluding chapter summarizes the main points of the book, points out areas for future research, and draws connections with later developments in securitization and credit programs leading up to the crash of 2007–2008. It also argues that understandings of the limits and possibilities of what people owe to each other and can expect from the state are written into the designs of financial instruments. These understandings help determine the distribution of profits and risks within specific financial transactions. This matters because the distributional politics of credit plays out simultaneously on the level of how credit fits within a political economy and on the level of specific exchanges and loans. The issue, in other words, is not just whether the people of a nation generally use credit to pay for housing or college, but the terms built into those loans. What people do in financial markets, what those financial markets are expected to do—together these dynamics make up the social life of credit in a nation.

Professional Skills

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Sako
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Digital Technology ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Professional Skill ◽  
Comparative Political Economy ◽  
Professional Skills ◽  
Skill Formation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Formation Systems ◽  
And Training

This chapter addresses the under-researched area of professional skills formation in a comparative perspective. The first part reviews the main disciplinary frameworks for analyzing the education and training of professionals. The second part develops a comparative political economy typology for categorizing varieties of professional skill formation systems. This section identifies national institutions of relevance for professional skills, which are distinct from the institutions for industrial skills formation. The rest of the chapter discusses specific forces that are transforming the nature of professionals and explores the implications for professional skills and training. In particular, The third part focuses on offshoring and digital technology, and the fourth part on the changing models for legitimizing professions. The chapter concludes by identifying key avenues for future research.

Putting the Political Back into Political Economy by Bringing the State Back in Yet Again

2009 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 516-546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivien A. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
State Action ◽  
Neoliberal Reform ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Financial Governance ◽  
Sentient Beings

Dominant theoretical approaches in political economy today, whether they posit convergence to neoliberal capitalism, binary divergence of capitalisms, or tripartite differentiation of financial governance, downplay the importance of state action. Their methodological approaches, rational choice and historical institutionalism, tend to reinforce their substantive theories either by disaggregating the state into its historical institutional components or by focusing on the strategic actions of its rational actors. This article argues that by not taking state action seriously, they are unable to explain the differences in degree and kind of countries' neoliberal reforms. For this, it is necessary to bring the state back in and to put the political back into political economy not just in terms of political economic institutions but also in terms of policies, polity, and politics. To explore the political in all its variety, however, the article demonstrates that at least one more methodological approach, discursive institutionalism, is also needed. This approach, by taking the role of ideas and discourse seriously, brings political actors as sentient beings back in. This in turn also enables the author to explain the dynamics of neoliberal reform in political economy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document