What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Economy of International Relations
After the end of World War II, the United States, by far the dominant economic and military power at that time, joined with the surviving capitalist democracies to create an unprecedented institutional framework. By the 1980s many contended that these institutions--the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organization), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund--were threatened by growing economic nationalism in the United States, as demonstrated by increased trade protection and growing budget deficits.
In this book, Robert Gilpin argues that American power had been essential for establishing these institutions, and waning American support threatened the basis of postwar cooperation and the great prosperity of the period. For Gilpin, a great power such as the United States is essential to fostering international cooperation. Exploring the relationship between politics and economics first highlighted by Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and other thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Gilpin demonstrated the close ties between politics and economics in international relations, outlining the key role played by the creative use of power in the support of an institutional framework that created a world economy.
Gilpin's exposition of the influence of politics on the international economy was a model of clarity, making the book the centerpiece of many courses in international political economy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, when American support for international cooperation is once again in question, Gilpin's warnings about the risks of American unilateralism sound ever clearer.
In this book, Robert Gilpin argues that American power had been essential for establishing these institutions, and waning American support threatened the basis of postwar cooperation and the great prosperity of the period. For Gilpin, a great power such as the United States is essential to fostering international cooperation. Exploring the relationship between politics and economics first highlighted by Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and other thinkers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Gilpin demonstrated the close ties between politics and economics in international relations, outlining the key role played by the creative use of power in the support of an institutional framework that created a world economy.
Gilpin's exposition of the influence of politics on the international economy was a model of clarity, making the book the centerpiece of many courses in international political economy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, when American support for international cooperation is once again in question, Gilpin's warnings about the risks of American unilateralism sound ever clearer.
472 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1987
23 people are currently reading
755 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 9, 2025
This is one of my favorite books about international relations of all time. I enjoy the mixture of economy and politics and the way Robert Gilpin combined realism with liberalism and Marxist in a generous, yet coherent narrative. Alongside Susan Strange works, I recommend The Political Economy of International Relations to anyone interested in current events. V.I. Lenin did something similar, but most of his ideas were borrowed, his style was rigid and polemical, making his writings good mostly for converts and fanatics.
Published in 1987, the book is relevant today, because we live in similar conditions. The US hegemony is in a decline fueled by external economic competitions, troubles with allies and internal contestation, coming from a strong protectionist movement. Now, China replaced Japan as an economic rival, and Donald Trump is closer to mercantilism than Ronald Reagan. Robert Gilpin`s interpretation from The Political Economy may be even more interesting today, than during its publishing, with some adaptation.
This is the main realist version of the hegemonic stability theory. Global economy prospers under a liberal leader and goes through trouble when its power is in decline. According to The Political Economy, domestic factors lead to beggar thy neighbor policies and the former dominant power starts to exploit its allies and the international system as such. Robert Gilpin thought that this process is unavoidable and is fueled by the process of rise and fall of great powers and by the relative nature of power.
This is literally the Trump administration of today. It follows a neo-protectionist agenda, attempting to relocate global value chains to the US, to change the terms of commerce in Washington`s favor by imposing tariffs, to control future technology by restricting its competitors and to control strategic natural resources. At the same time, the United States is evading its former global responsibilities, and it moves away from many international regimes. Washington is coming closer to a predatory hegemony, in the terms used by Robert Gilpin in The Political Economy.
But the book is more than that. The author was very intellectually tolerant and gave a fair audition to the rival interpretation of Classical Liberalism and Marxism. The discipline of International Relations is more open minded than political science, sociology, or economy in part also because of this work. The main drawback of Robert Gilpin`s interpretation is that he underestimated globalization and the IT revolution. Thus, it took a generation for his prediction to become real and with some different actors, but the fundamental logic of The Political Economy is still important today.
Published in 1987, the book is relevant today, because we live in similar conditions. The US hegemony is in a decline fueled by external economic competitions, troubles with allies and internal contestation, coming from a strong protectionist movement. Now, China replaced Japan as an economic rival, and Donald Trump is closer to mercantilism than Ronald Reagan. Robert Gilpin`s interpretation from The Political Economy may be even more interesting today, than during its publishing, with some adaptation.
This is the main realist version of the hegemonic stability theory. Global economy prospers under a liberal leader and goes through trouble when its power is in decline. According to The Political Economy, domestic factors lead to beggar thy neighbor policies and the former dominant power starts to exploit its allies and the international system as such. Robert Gilpin thought that this process is unavoidable and is fueled by the process of rise and fall of great powers and by the relative nature of power.
This is literally the Trump administration of today. It follows a neo-protectionist agenda, attempting to relocate global value chains to the US, to change the terms of commerce in Washington`s favor by imposing tariffs, to control future technology by restricting its competitors and to control strategic natural resources. At the same time, the United States is evading its former global responsibilities, and it moves away from many international regimes. Washington is coming closer to a predatory hegemony, in the terms used by Robert Gilpin in The Political Economy.
But the book is more than that. The author was very intellectually tolerant and gave a fair audition to the rival interpretation of Classical Liberalism and Marxism. The discipline of International Relations is more open minded than political science, sociology, or economy in part also because of this work. The main drawback of Robert Gilpin`s interpretation is that he underestimated globalization and the IT revolution. Thus, it took a generation for his prediction to become real and with some different actors, but the fundamental logic of The Political Economy is still important today.
March 23, 2007
This was assigned in college (obviously) and I was shocked to find myself actually enjoying it.
April 19, 2009
Very difficult to get a grip on and a bit of a drag to read, actually, but as a textbook in a course of the name with great teacher, it opened my eyes to the workings of the world economy, and helped me figure out the answers to a lot of questions - china's rise, our decline, the french relationship to the crisis in cote d'ivoire, and to all of west africa...some of the paradoxes of the WTO...the major global economic events and institutions....
really worth it!
really worth it!
September 1, 2007
I read this book when i wrote my final theses. It is really interesting to give us a big picture of how political interest and economic forces intertwined to make our world.
January 9, 2016
Didn't finish the book because it got repetitive and dry, a good read if you are not hung up on the fact that it is written in the 80s and states that Japan will be the next hegemony.
May 27, 2020
this is the hardest subject that I had to learn in college... BIG TIME!
June 30, 2024
As others have pointed out, darn repetitive. I did like the overview of the three main theoretical approaches, the liberal, the nationalist, and Marxist.
However, in all the discussion of imperialism and dependency, Gilpin never mentions the impact of wars or sanctions. No sophisticated economic model is needed to explain why Cuba and Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and a host of other countries have difficulty developing economically. Surely, a major reason is that the first two have been sanctioned for literally decades and the the rest of them have been bombed into abject poverty. In light of this, discussion of benign American hegemonic leadership is obscene. And such heavy-handed policies are not just directed to developing countries. Gilpin reminded me that the Reagan administration did what they could to prevent an economically obvious gas link between Europe, especially Germany, and the former Soviet Union.
One of the solutions to currency instability discussed is for countries to coordinate their money supply, for example McKinnon calls for "complete financial unification among the reserve currency countries" (p. 153). But how does this help when pretty much every government economist is promoting inflation? Coordinated inflation is still inflation.
It may be common economic usage, but I find it hard to think of an oil price shock as somehow an exogenous variable--it's no more exogenous than oil is to our economy.
It's not just politics that makes for strange bedfellows, I suppose it's true for economics as well: Gilpin offers a great example: "In socialist Angola, for example, a paradoxical situation exists in which Communist Cuban troops have protected the oil production facilities of the capitalist Gulf Oil Company from 'freedom fighters' supported by the United States government" (p. 250).
On page 335 there is a nice explanation of why it's not so easy to reverse economic damage: The notion that policies can be reversed and the clock can be turned back betrays the great faith that American economists and policy makers have in the liberal conception of market equilibrium. In the abstract world of American economists, equations run both ways; they believe that by changing the sign of a variable from plus to minus or from minus to plus or the the price and quantity of x or y, the direction of historical movement can be reversed. Similarly, many believe that the damage to the international economy done by the Reagan Administration budget deficit can be set right simply by changing one price, the price of the dollar."
You can call it outdated as there is much discussion of Japan's economic dominance and the Nichibei (Japan-US) economy, I prefer to think of it as a brief history of that period. Gilpin is aware of the potential for China's rise, but it was too early in the game to say much about it. There is also a refresher on GATT and other international agreements and conventions such as the e Lomé Convention and the Cartagena Group but nothing groundbreaking.
However, in all the discussion of imperialism and dependency, Gilpin never mentions the impact of wars or sanctions. No sophisticated economic model is needed to explain why Cuba and Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and a host of other countries have difficulty developing economically. Surely, a major reason is that the first two have been sanctioned for literally decades and the the rest of them have been bombed into abject poverty. In light of this, discussion of benign American hegemonic leadership is obscene. And such heavy-handed policies are not just directed to developing countries. Gilpin reminded me that the Reagan administration did what they could to prevent an economically obvious gas link between Europe, especially Germany, and the former Soviet Union.
One of the solutions to currency instability discussed is for countries to coordinate their money supply, for example McKinnon calls for "complete financial unification among the reserve currency countries" (p. 153). But how does this help when pretty much every government economist is promoting inflation? Coordinated inflation is still inflation.
It may be common economic usage, but I find it hard to think of an oil price shock as somehow an exogenous variable--it's no more exogenous than oil is to our economy.
It's not just politics that makes for strange bedfellows, I suppose it's true for economics as well: Gilpin offers a great example: "In socialist Angola, for example, a paradoxical situation exists in which Communist Cuban troops have protected the oil production facilities of the capitalist Gulf Oil Company from 'freedom fighters' supported by the United States government" (p. 250).
On page 335 there is a nice explanation of why it's not so easy to reverse economic damage: The notion that policies can be reversed and the clock can be turned back betrays the great faith that American economists and policy makers have in the liberal conception of market equilibrium. In the abstract world of American economists, equations run both ways; they believe that by changing the sign of a variable from plus to minus or from minus to plus or the the price and quantity of x or y, the direction of historical movement can be reversed. Similarly, many believe that the damage to the international economy done by the Reagan Administration budget deficit can be set right simply by changing one price, the price of the dollar."
You can call it outdated as there is much discussion of Japan's economic dominance and the Nichibei (Japan-US) economy, I prefer to think of it as a brief history of that period. Gilpin is aware of the potential for China's rise, but it was too early in the game to say much about it. There is also a refresher on GATT and other international agreements and conventions such as the e Lomé Convention and the Cartagena Group but nothing groundbreaking.
January 27, 2024
As someone said about Gilpin
"Gilpin convinces when he argues that the development of the world economy after World War II can only be understood in light of the geopolitical order in which it was embedded. But he founders when he attempts to apply this notion to the 1990s. Uncomfortably for his argument, developing countries embraced openness precisely when the Cold War ended and the geopolitical basis for the U.S.-dominated international order fell apart. "
Checkmate!
It's Huntington and Mearsheimer who keep warning people about the kick in the ass.
......
Gilpin puts too much faith in political, military and economic security with a large elephant ruling everything, the British Empire before the war, and the US War Machine after the war... and when the Cold War ended to a large degree.....
everything fell apart for Gilpin, and he seems to be the opposite of the Maytag repairman
out to say, i know what's wrong with that AMC Gremlin, i can fix it, i know all the flaws with it. And trust me it's a good car!
Gilpin also fixes Yugos and Vega's.
Don't worry about China or Globalization
the international community will fix it up with a nice band-aid that never falls off
August 6, 2019
Large amounts of this book are not really necessary anymore and seem like overly theoretical discussions which don’t really serve any practical purpose, namely the discussions of the application and general perspective of Marxism in an international political economy (eg. Lenin’s imperialism as the highest form of capitalism” etc.)... But that was probably due to the fact that the book was written before the Cold War ended, 1976 I believe. Regardless, Gilpin’s later book, Global Political Economy, is more on point. But the historical information in this text goes far beyond what is in that book, which is why it may still be worth reading.
March 16, 2021
Very interesting book to understand how political economy work at theoretical level, as well as empirical throughout history. After a few chapters it gets repetitive, and has some mislead predictions based on the historical context it was written. Nevertheless, the book is well written, easy to comprehend and proposes intriguing conclusions.
January 14, 2021
berbat çeviri
February 29, 2024
The book is helpful in gaining basic knowledge of international political economy but lacks the latest information since the 1980s.
March 24, 2014
Pagaliau pabaigiau skaityti savo amžinąją knygą, tad jaučiuosi atlikusi metų darbą :) Didelė pagarba R.Gilpin už tokį grandiozinį darbą. Nors viskas užsibaigia XX a. 10 deš., tačiau knyga tikrai aktuali. Čia įdomu tiek tarptautinės politinės ekonomijos vystymosi apžvalga (ir kritika), tiek dėmėsys skirtingų šalių ekonominės politikos bruožams, tiek teorijų aiškinimas bei pavyzdžiai, kada jos suveikė, kada ne ir pan. Nors tai panašu kone vadovėlis (baiiiiisiai didelis ir platus), bet autoriui pavyko labai sudėtingus dalykus parašyti gana suprantamai (bet tai nereiškia, kad kai kurių pastraipų neskaičiau po penkis kartus :) ) Summa summarum - jei atsimenu bent 10 proc., ką skaičiau, tai puiku, o, jei ne, tai labai neliūdėsiu, jei dar kada ateitį teks paimti šią knygą į rankas
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 14, 2015
Gilpin, conoce lo que es el criterio de un internacionalista. Se identifica que el comercio tiene efecto más polémico, su influencia directa en valores, ideas y comportamientos de una sociedad. Establecer el balance entre las teorías del comercio internacional, resulta utópico. Apoyando a los realistas y dejo de lado un poco Keohane que no deja de ser verídico cuando argumenta ¿Representan las alianzas transnacionales la posibilidad de ir más allá del desarrollo desigual o serán temporarias?. Marx, Engels, Smith, Ricardo y Gramsci acompañan con citas una de las mejores perspectivas sobre la economía política y su coyuntura de la transición de un orden económico a otro.
July 27, 2008
Buku kojo skripsi. Karena itu dah banyak coretan di lembar kopian yang gue punya.
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016Discutido en Imperio Pág.19-20
July 10, 2012
Essential reading for anyone who works in the international trade environment.
Want to read
November 10, 2017hhhhh
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews