What do you think?
International Political Economy: An Intellectual History
The field of international political economy gained prominence in the early 1970s--when the Arab oil embargo and other crises ended the postwar era of virtually unhindered economic growth in the United States and Europe--and today is an essential part of both political science and economics. This book offers the first comprehensive examination of this important field's development, the contrasting worldviews of its American and British schools, and the different ways scholars have sought to meet the challenges posed by an ever more complex and interdependent world economy.
Benjamin Cohen explains the critical role played by the early "intellectual entrepreneurs," a generation of pioneering scholars determined to bridge the gap between international economics and international politics. Among them were brilliant thinkers like Robert Keohane, Susan Strange, and others whose legacies endure to the present day. Cohen shows how their personalities and the historical contexts in which they worked influenced how the field evolved. He examines the distinctly different insights of the American and British schools and addresses issues that have been central to the field's development, including systemic transformation, system governance, and the place of the sovereign state in formal analysis. The definitive intellectual history of international political economy, this book is the ideal volume for IPE scholars and those interested in learning more about the field.
Benjamin Cohen explains the critical role played by the early "intellectual entrepreneurs," a generation of pioneering scholars determined to bridge the gap between international economics and international politics. Among them were brilliant thinkers like Robert Keohane, Susan Strange, and others whose legacies endure to the present day. Cohen shows how their personalities and the historical contexts in which they worked influenced how the field evolved. He examines the distinctly different insights of the American and British schools and addresses issues that have been central to the field's development, including systemic transformation, system governance, and the place of the sovereign state in formal analysis. The definitive intellectual history of international political economy, this book is the ideal volume for IPE scholars and those interested in learning more about the field.
224 pages, Paperback
First published November 30, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 19, 2011
A multitude of reactions came to me as I read this book. First, I found it hard to believe that a major university press would publish this. Cohen's self glorification and the glorification of his friends is over the top. Second, while the book is not utterly without value, it borders on the campy. Cohen's personal reflections on the main characters is close to ironic mockery but for the fact that he is dead serious. For example, he thinks it relevant to include something about Krasner's or Katzenstein's competitiveness on the squash or tennis court. Third, Cohen's presentation of these people's ideas is almost without criticism -- they are the brave and creative pioneers who have given so much to we peasants. Fourth, while this might be the world as seen from IO (the journal International Organization) with occasional references to Canadaians (Robert Cox) and Britishers (Susan Strange), Cohen misses out on a whole other world of ideas that contested this Ivy league hegemony. How can he and Princeton University Press justify his exclusion of such theorists as Richard Ashley, Wallerstein, Gunder Frank, Robert Brenner, and a host of others. This is less an intellectual history than an example of blinkered US IR/IPE.
Two elements redeem the existence of this book. First, at least 6 times Cohen mentions a serious problem with the theories he covers, namely, their reliance on what he calls "creeping economism." (Didn't he know that Richard Ashely had written a seminal article on this idea, "Three Modes of Economism." And didn't he know that Ashley himself had borrowed the ideas from Marxists of various stripes?) That an IO IPE theorist like Cohen makes "creeping economism" one of the pillars of his account of IPE is a opportunity that I plan to exploit. (So, Cohen does produce one or two criticisms but he does not recognize that these criticisms, like "creeping economism," are in fact fatal to the whole house of IO IPE.)
Second, for those of us too tired and too annoyed to read the full corpus of such magnificent theorists as Keohane, Nye, Gilpin, and Krasner, we can employ Cohen's book for quick and dirty sketches of their major accomplishments -- which in any case turn out to be minor footnotes to real political economy.
Having lived and worked in IPE in the period that Cohen covers, I suspected that there were Ivy League (inhabitants and wannabees) who cited each others work without reference to the hundreds of years of classical political economy -- Polanyi, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and the Scottish Enlightenment. I am happy to receive the verification.
The IO crowd that Cohen celebrates did little more than rip-off elements from classics. Had they known that what they stole was embedded in a larger and richer context, they might have tried to learn a thing or two. But who has the patience to savor context when there are empire's wheels to oil and individual reputations to polish.
One thing fits: one of the poorest periods in political economy received an equally poor book to document its poverty. Sometimes fate produces a kind of justice.
For a more sophisticated academic critique see the work of John Hobson:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/1...
Two elements redeem the existence of this book. First, at least 6 times Cohen mentions a serious problem with the theories he covers, namely, their reliance on what he calls "creeping economism." (Didn't he know that Richard Ashely had written a seminal article on this idea, "Three Modes of Economism." And didn't he know that Ashley himself had borrowed the ideas from Marxists of various stripes?) That an IO IPE theorist like Cohen makes "creeping economism" one of the pillars of his account of IPE is a opportunity that I plan to exploit. (So, Cohen does produce one or two criticisms but he does not recognize that these criticisms, like "creeping economism," are in fact fatal to the whole house of IO IPE.)
Second, for those of us too tired and too annoyed to read the full corpus of such magnificent theorists as Keohane, Nye, Gilpin, and Krasner, we can employ Cohen's book for quick and dirty sketches of their major accomplishments -- which in any case turn out to be minor footnotes to real political economy.
Having lived and worked in IPE in the period that Cohen covers, I suspected that there were Ivy League (inhabitants and wannabees) who cited each others work without reference to the hundreds of years of classical political economy -- Polanyi, Marx, Hegel, Smith, and the Scottish Enlightenment. I am happy to receive the verification.
The IO crowd that Cohen celebrates did little more than rip-off elements from classics. Had they known that what they stole was embedded in a larger and richer context, they might have tried to learn a thing or two. But who has the patience to savor context when there are empire's wheels to oil and individual reputations to polish.
One thing fits: one of the poorest periods in political economy received an equally poor book to document its poverty. Sometimes fate produces a kind of justice.
For a more sophisticated academic critique see the work of John Hobson:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/1...
March 24, 2024
Dramaattinen
January 21, 2016
International Political Economy is one of the fields of Political Science. If you want to get a quick overview of some of the major theories and developments in the subject, then this one is for you. One possible drawback is whether one would agree on the author's choice of who the most influential practitioners of IPE are. But since everyone has a bias, including the author (who is also an IPE scholar), it is understandable.
June 7, 2023
A thorough history of how the field of IPE developed. Wasn't what I was looking for (I was looking for a summary of main takeaways from the field) — but I really enjoyed reading this instead. Much more entertaining, down-to-earth, and at times funny. Some of the stories will continue to stick with me.
February 11, 2021
Great survey of a field's 40+ years of intellectual history. Appropriately critical when needed. Made me better positioned to approach the field's output, now that I have this perspective and grounding. Also very curious now about how the field has evolved since 2009.
January 16, 2015
One of the best books i have ever read about the theoretical perspectives of political economy
September 13, 2015
A not quite as good The Worldly Philosophers meets IPE.
January 14, 2020
Overally, a good book on the field, but suffers from the bias of its author.
The book is one of the few that discuss the study of International Political Economy (IPE) in the academia and provides important insights on the development of the field. It especially focuses on the American and British School of IPE, and especially on the works of Robert Keohane, Robert Gilpin, Susan Strange, Charles Kindleberger, Robert Cox, Steven Krasner and Peter Katzenstein.
The problem of the book is that it emphasizes too much in American IPE, the Realist and Liberal school and state-centric approaches, and ignores other, equally useful and important work, such as the critical and non-state-centric approaches. An example of this is that the word 'feminism' appears only once in the book. Moreover, the book ignores or very briefly mentions the work in international political economy prior to the development of the field of IPE in the academia that followed Strange's article on 'Mutual Neglect...'. An example of this is the fact that there is not a single reference of Marx in the reference list.
Moreover, I believe that it would be useful for books on IPE to include the work of the Chicago School of Economics, whose ideas shaped the relationship between politics and the economy in the 20th and 21st century, as well as the study of IPE.
The book is one of the few that discuss the study of International Political Economy (IPE) in the academia and provides important insights on the development of the field. It especially focuses on the American and British School of IPE, and especially on the works of Robert Keohane, Robert Gilpin, Susan Strange, Charles Kindleberger, Robert Cox, Steven Krasner and Peter Katzenstein.
The problem of the book is that it emphasizes too much in American IPE, the Realist and Liberal school and state-centric approaches, and ignores other, equally useful and important work, such as the critical and non-state-centric approaches. An example of this is that the word 'feminism' appears only once in the book. Moreover, the book ignores or very briefly mentions the work in international political economy prior to the development of the field of IPE in the academia that followed Strange's article on 'Mutual Neglect...'. An example of this is the fact that there is not a single reference of Marx in the reference list.
Moreover, I believe that it would be useful for books on IPE to include the work of the Chicago School of Economics, whose ideas shaped the relationship between politics and the economy in the 20th and 21st century, as well as the study of IPE.
December 26, 2023
Useful for IPE students to better understand our discipline
Read
December 11, 2015Dolla dolla bills y'all
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews