Internationale Politische Ökonomie

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan A. Schirm
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Politische Ökonomie ◽  
Research And Teaching

In this volume, Stefan A. Schirm provides an introduction to international political economy (IPE), starting with the field’s traditional theories and progressing to today’s policy areas (globalisation, the financial crisis and regional cooperation). He focuses on the foundations of IPE and on conducting an empirical analysis based on theory. In this way, he lays the groundwork for the systematic integration of IPE into political science research and teaching.

From Silos to Barns? Regional Institutions in International Political Economy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Etel Solingen
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Critical Theory ◽  
Transaction Costs ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Regional Economic ◽  
Regional Institutions ◽  
Ongoing Work ◽  
The Common

The explosion of research on regional economic institutions (REI) over the last two decades has led to a richer understanding of why they emerge, what form they take, and what effects they have. This chapter argues that research on REI is not a monopoly of any particular theoretical, methodological, or epistemological approach. Ongoing work leans not merely on standard political science and economics but on sociology, psychology, and critical theory. Yet, REI studies cluster in silos more often than barns, although this chapter highlights some research programs with potential for fostering barns. Exclusive attention to power, economic efficiency, transaction costs, and transnational normative diffusion—the common analytical currency in standard accounts of REI—may conceal deeper domestic drivers underlying REI dynamics.

Comparative and International Political Economy and the Global Financial Crisis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Johnston
Keyword(s):  
International Economic ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Debt Crisis ◽  
European Debt Crisis ◽  
Foreign Credit

The 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and subsequent European Debt Crisis had wide-sweeping consequences for global economic and political stability. Yet while these twin crises have prompted soul searching within the economics profession, international political economy (IPE) has been relatively ineffective in accounting for variation in crisis exposure across the developed world. The GFC and European Debt Crisis present the opportunity to link IPE and comparative political economy (CPE) together in the study of international economic and financial turmoil. While the GFC was prompted by the inter-connectedness of global financial markets, its instigators were largely domestic in nature and were reflective of negative externalities that stemmed from unsustainable national policies, especially those related to financial regulation and household debt accumulation. Many in IPE take an “outward looking in” approach to the examination of international economic developments and domestic politics; analysis rests on how the former impacts the latter. The GFC and European Debt Crisis, however, demonstrate the importance of a (CPE-based) “inward looking out” approach, analyzing how unique policy and political features (and failures) of individual nation states can unleash economic and financial instability at the global level amidst deepened economic and financial integration. IPE not only needs to grant greater attention to variation in domestic politics and policies in a time of closely integrated financial markets, but also should acknowledge the impact of a wider array of actors beyond banks and financial institutions (specifically more domestically rooted actors like households) on cross-national variation in the consumption of foreign credit.

Strategic Debt

2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 411-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Norrlöf
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Economy ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
Trade And Investment

Abstract. Accumulating debt is usually harmful for states, but a cyclical deficit policy and large-scale borrowing have been beneficial for the United States. While structural changes in the international political economy may cap America's future ability to process debt, an empirical analysis of the economic dimensions of hegemony over the last quarter century shows unambiguously that the hegemon reaps disproportionate gains in the area of trade and investment. This finding provides new insight on whether it is advantageous to be a hegemon.Résumé. Les États pâtissent généralement de l'accumulation des dettes, mais une politique de déficit cyclique et le recours à de larges emprunts ont pourtant été bénéfiques aux États-Unis. La capacité future de la puissance américaine à gérer sa dette sera peut-être entamée par les changements structurels subis par l'économie politique mondiale. Toutefois, l'analyse empirique des dimensions économiques de la situation d'hégémonie durant les vingt-cinq dernières années met à jour, et sans ambiguïté aucune, les gains disproportionnés générés par l'hégémon dans les domaines du commerce et de l'investissement. Cette recherche apporte un éclairage nouveau au débat sur les avantages liés à la position d'hégémon.

Welfare State Research and Comparative Political Economy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silja Häusermann
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Comparative Political Economy ◽  
Investment Policies ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
State Research

Which risks are social and which are private? How much of their GDP do states spend on social welfare? Who exactly is entitled to which benefits? Is it still possible to finance an encompassing welfare state in times of deindustrialization, technological and demographic change, and globalization? And why do the answers to these questions differ so much across countries? These and similar questions—all central to social cohesion in capitalist democracies—ensure that the analysis of welfare politics is one of the theoretically as well as methodologically most dynamic and richest research areas within comparative political economy and political science more generally. Besides outlining the comparative development and the difficulty of measuring social policy, the focus of this contribution lies in a critical review of the most important past and current theoretical debates in the field of welfare state research, as a subfield of comparative political economy. These debates include party- and power-resource-centered approaches and their critiques, institutional explanations of welfare state retrenchment and restructuring, and the importance of multidimensional distributional effects for the analysis of social policy. The article concludes with a review of three more recent debates: the importance of public opinion and individual preferences for the development of the welfare state, the interaction of social policy and the changes of party systems, and the increasing relevance of social investment policies. The political and scientific need for innovative political science research will continue for the foreseeable future: Theory building and methodological possibilities are developing quickly, and the welfare states as research subject are constantly being challenged.

scholarly journals Measuring Populism in Political Parties: Appraisal of a New Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 372-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurits J. Meijers ◽  
Andrej Zaslove
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Latent Construct ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
European Parties ◽  
Expert Surveys

Populism has become a pervasive concept in political science research. However, a central and basic question remains unanswered: which European parties are more populist than others? Despite the increasing wealth of studies on populism in parties, we lack data that measures populism in political parties in a valid and precise manner, that recognizes that populism is constituted by multiple dimensions, and that ensures full coverage of all parties in Europe. In this article, we first appraise the weaknesses of existing approaches. Arguing that parties’ populism should be measured as a latent construct, we then advocate a new approach to operationalizing and measuring populism in political parties using expert surveys. Relying on the Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey spanning 250 political parties in 28 European countries, we show that populism is best measured in a multi-dimensional and continuous manner. We subsequently illustrate the advantages of our approach for empirical analysis in political science.

scholarly journals Recent Economic Perspectives on Political Economy, Part II

2008 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
TORUN DEWAN ◽  
KENNETH A SHEPSLE
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Information Aggregation ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Theoretical Work ◽  
The Political ◽  
Arbitrage Opportunities ◽  
Economics Journals ◽  
Economic Perspectives

In recent years some of the best theoretical work on the political economy of political institutions and processes has begun surfacing outside the political science mainstream in high quality economics journals. This two-part article surveys these contributions from a recent five-year period. In Part I, the focus was on elections, voting and information aggregation, followed by treatments of parties, candidates and coalitions. In Part II, papers on economic performance and redistribution, constitutional design, and incentives, institutions and the quality of political elites are discussed. Part II concludes with a discussion of the methodological bases common to economics and political science, the way economists have used political science research, and some new themes and arbitrage opportunities.

scholarly journals Bayesian Approaches for Limited Dependent Variable Change Point Problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Spirling
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Change Point ◽  
American Politics ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Bayesian Approaches ◽  
Limited Dependent Variable ◽  
Good Advice ◽  
Type Data

Limited dependent variable (LDV) data are common in political science, and political methodologists have given much good advice on dealing with them. We review some methods for LDV “change point problems” and demonstrate the use of Bayesian approaches for count, binary, and duration-type data. Our applications are drawn from American politics, Comparative politics, and International Political Economy. We discuss the tradeoffs both philosophically and computationally. We conclude with possibilities for multiple change point work.

Monism vs. pluralism, the global financial crisis, and the methodological struggle in the field of International Political Economy

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joscha Wullweber
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Global Financial Crisis ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
The Core ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
The Global Financial Crisis

In recent years, a comprehensive debate has been taking place over the ontological, epistemological and methodological roots underlying the discipline of International Political Economy. A fundamental and sometimes fierce discussion arose over the questions of which research strategies should prevail, which methods should be applied and what kind of knowledge counts as scientific. The debate has tended to reduce the different positions and International Political Economy approaches to American International Political Economy on the one side and British International Political Economy on the other. Framing the perspectives in this way, however, is misleading. This article argues that the issue at the core of the methodological debate is not the American versus the British school, but rather theoretical monism versus theoretical pluralism. Hence, the core of the debate addresses the question whether scientific work in International Political Economy should ultimately subscribe to one methodology or one fundamental principle or whether the field should make use of a wide variety of theories and methods so as to enable scholars to adapt their research strategy depending on the case under study. A short analysis of existing approaches to the global financial crisis shows the importance of the existence of multiple perspectives, concepts and theoretical approaches. The paper concludes that the 2008 financial crisis in particular has shown how dangerous it is to reduce intellectual endeavour to a narrow mindset. Only pluralism conveys the ability to respond in an adequate manner to the old and new challenges of our times.

International Political Economy, Global Financial Orders and the 2008 Financial Crisis

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel W. Drezner ◽  
Kathleen R. McNamara
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Economic Downturn ◽  
Global Finance ◽  
2008 Financial Crisis ◽  
The Great Depression ◽  
The 2008 Financial Crisis ◽  
Social Logics

The 2008 financial crisis triggered the most severe global economic downturn since the Great Depression. The crisis has provoked soul-searching among economists, yet international political economy (IPE) scholars have been relatively sanguine. We argue that IPE has strayed too far away from studying the geopolitical and systemic causes and consequences of the global economy. IPE must explain the generation and transformation ofglobal financial orders.Both the distribution of political power and the content of economic ideas will shape any emergent global financial order. A Kuhnianlife-cycle frameworkof global financial orders permits a systemic approach to global finance that integrates the study of power and social logics into our understanding of markets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document