Unit Four: Historical Materialism & IPE Dr. Russell Williams Essay Proposal due in class, October 8!!!!!! Required Reading:  Cohn, Ch. 5. Class Discussion Reading:  Robert W. Cox, “Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order,” Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 3-28. Outline: 1. Introduction & Key Concepts 2. Marxist Economics 3. Historical Structuralism and IPE 4. Modern Approaches 5. Conclusions 1) Introduction & Key Concepts a) Same origins as liberal approaches – focus on economic relations under capitalism and globalization  “Possibilities of cooperation” (liberalism) replaced with “structural imperatives” of capitalism  E.g. Class Conflict b) Interested in issues “discursively excluded” by Liberalism and Realism  E.g. Exploitation and Inequality c) Key Concepts (derived from Marx):

 “Mode of Production”: Basic system of production  Impacts all other social relations

 “Relations of Production”: Society’s laws, politics, culture and ideology  The “social superstructure”  Determined by mode of production (?)

 Importance of history:  Specific historical & geographical settings have different modes/relations of production  Class:  Each mode of production organizes individuals into classes A )Those who own and control the means of production; and b) Those who sell their labour

 Class Struggle  Struggle between these classes “drives” history 2) Marxist Economics: a) Labor the basis of all value . . .  Total direct & indirect labor in production determines “true price” of product b) Profits based on “surplus value” . . .  Capitalism always exploitative c) Increases in profit only achieved by increasing extraction of surplus value d) Capitalism was dynamic – would spread 2) Marxist Economics cont. . . .

Key analytical claim - Capitalism based on fundamental “tensions”: 1) Economic concentration: Competitive markets produced “concentration”  E.g. monopolies 2) “Falling rate of profit”: As the ratio of indirect labour (machinery) grew in relation to direct labour, there would be a steady decline in the rate of profit. 3) Growing exploitation of workers:  Produced “crisis of under-consumption”  Recessions and unemployment Bottom Line: Capitalism prone towards crises and collapse 3) Historical Structuralism and IPE:

Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? a) Theory of Monopoly Capitalism:  When capitalism became “monopolistic”, corporations could force the state to support their activities.  Prevent collapse of system  Required more consideration of the role of the state . . . Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? b) State-Capital relations . . . . Two theories:

 “Instrumental Marxism”: State run by, or run in the direct interest of, capitalists.  State must be captured by proletariat

 “Structural Marxism”: State serves interests of capitalists over the long term. Has relative autonomy in the short term.  E.g. Post war “class compromise”  Overcame problem of under-consumption

 Either way . . . State protects capitalism Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? c) “Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism”:

 Argued:  Monopoly Capitalism led to imperialism – overcome domestic falling rate of profit . . . .  Lead to “New Imperialism”, nationalism and WAR

 Implications:  Capitalism must be violently overthrown – imperialism and conflict, inevitable, and good for capitalism  Impact on non-colonial societies . . . ? 4) Modern Approaches: a) “Dependency Theory”:  (Gunder-Frank and Cardosso and Faletto)  Popular in Latin America and Canada

 Sources: 1) Marxists: Argued MNC’s from north prevented development in south for “super-exploitation” 2) Latin American Structuralism (Prebisch): Argued free trade didn’t work for South  Problem of “Declining Terms of Trade”

 Claims:  Developing nations exploited by powerful capitalist states  Capitalism uneven: “core and periphery” = underdevelopment  South dominated by “Comprador Classes”  “Dependency Theory” implications:

 Radicals recommended socialist revolutions = Breakout of global capitalism!

 Moderates recommended “economic nationalism” – autonomy  “Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI)”: Tariffs to protect development of local industries  Situation could be changed . . .

 Problems?  Unclear concepts - economic nationalism vs. Marxism  Importance of state power?  Empirical problems – Success of East Asian “NIC’s” thought to disprove theory  Dependencistas do not accept this! 4) Modern Approaches: b) “World Systems Theory”: (Wallerstein)  Derived from “Dependency Theory” but focuses on geographic exploitation of capitalism

 Argues:  Single world capitalist system – power comes from position in system  States organized hierarchically (Core, semi-periphery and periphery)  Logic of Marxist exploitation applied to states  E.g. Periphery are exploited for their surplus value

 Problems:  Vague, not widely applied  Marxists criticize lack of class analysis  IR scholars criticize under-theorization of state power 4) Modern Approaches: c) Regulation Theory: (Lipietz – “regulation school”)  Very “Structural Marxist” approach to IPE

Argues:  States create different “regimes of accumulation” to adapt to changing “labour process”  After WWII= “Fordism” and “Taylorism”  Required Keynesianism  Since 1980s= “Post-fordism”  Profit squeeze requires Neo-liberalism  Political struggle not as important as needs of capitalism  However, problem of “economism”/“economic-determinism” 4) Modern Approaches: c) Regulation Theory: (Lipietz – “regulation school”)  Very “Structural Marxist” approach to IPE

Argues:  States create different “regimes of accumulation” to adapt to changing “labour process”  After WWII= “Fordism” and “Taylorism”  Required Keynesianism  Since 1980s= “Post-fordism”  Profit squeeze requires Neo-liberalism  Political struggle not as important as needs of capitalism  However, problem of “economism”/“economic-determinism” 4) Modern Approaches: d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory:  (Gramsci, Cox, Gill and others . . .)  Global politics understood through a Neo-Marxist class analysis  Rejects economism of Regulation Theory

 Concepts: a) Interrelationship of “material capabilities”, “institutions” and “ideas” – all impact class struggle b) “Hegemony”: Seen as class domination - economic and ideological domination of elite class c) “Organic Intellectuals”: Ideological organizers of class politics Further Reading:

 Dependency Theory:  Joseph L. Love, "The Origins of Dependency Analysis," Journal of Latin American Studies, 22 (February, 1990), pp. 143-68.  World Systems Theory:  Christopher Chase-Dunn and Peter Grimes, “World-Systems Analysis,” Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1995), pp. 387-417.  Regulation Theory:  Michael Dunford, “Globalization and Theories of Regulation,” in Ronen Palan, ed., Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories, (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 143-167.  Gramscian Methods:  Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium, 12-2 (1983), pp. 162-175. Conclusions:

 Strengths?  Focus on concepts ignored by realism and liberalism (Exploitation and inequality)  Central emphasis on capitalism and globalization

 Weaknesses?  Lack of “prescription” – What is to be done? (E.g. Regulation Theory)  Confusing concepts, not widely applied  Role of state power often obscured  Is this a problem? For Next Time:

Unit Five: Contemporary Approaches - Feminism and Constructivism (October 15 & 20)  Required Reading:  Cohn, Ch. 5. Class Discussion Readings:  Penny Griffin, “Refashioning IPE: What and how gender analysis teaches international (global) political economy,” Review of International Political Economy, Oct2007, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 719-736.  Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, and Craig Parsons, “The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy,” in Constructivist Political Economy (Unpublished manuscript)