Historical Structuralism
Download
Report
Transcript Historical Structuralism
Unit Four: Historical Materialism & IPE
Dr. Russell Williams
Required
Cohn, Ch. 5.
Class
Reading:
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.
Shaun Breslin, “Power and production: rethinking China’s global
economic role”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October
2005), pp. 735-53.
Outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction & Key Concepts
Marxist Economics
Historical Structuralism and IPE
Modern Approaches
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 (David Harvey on the Financial Crisis)
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 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.
Post war “class compromise”
Overcame problem of under-consumption
E.g.
Either way . . . State protects capitalism
Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it
survive and flourish?
c) “Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism”:
Argued:
Capitalism led to imperialism –
overcome domestic falling rate of profit . . . .
Lead to “New Imperialism”, nationalism and WAR!
Monopoly
Implications:
must be violently overthrown –
imperialism and conflict, inevitable, and good for
capitalism
Impact on non-colonial societies . . . ?
Capitalism
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)
Argues:
Derived from “Dependency Theory” but focuses on geographic
exploitation of capitalism
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”
Since 1980s= “Post-fordism”
Required Keynesianism
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 – Pro business groups
4) Modern Approaches:
d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory:
Leads to different views of how global relations will
evolve . . . .
=E.g. Cooperation driven by the interests of MNC’s and
their global networks of production
=E.g. Cooperation driven by the programmatic
replacement of the state
E.g. The “New Constitutionalism” (Gill)
Further Reading:
Dependency Theory:
World Systems Theory:
Christopher Chase-Dunn and Peter Grimes, “World-Systems
Analysis,” Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1995), pp. 387-417.
Regulation Theory:
Joseph L. Love, "The Origins of Dependency Analysis," Journal
of Latin American Studies, 22 (February, 1990), pp. 143-68.
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 8 & 10)
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:
http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/wpcontent/uploads/archive/documents/ABP.pdf)