On the effects of globalization...
Products and ideas aren't the only things we export. The news that many people have been dreading since the outbreak of the Ebola epidemic has arrived. The first case in the US (apart, of course, from the American doctors that contracted it in Africa). Hopefully cures will become globalized as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/01/health/airline-passenger-with-ebola-is-under-treatment-in-dallas.html?_r=0
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Monday, September 29, 2014
Putting the P in IPE
In Helen Milner's article "International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability", from Foreign Policy in 1998 she gives a general summary of the landscape of IPE and different approached. Milner clearly favors multi-faceted approaches to the topic that analyze domestic and international levels as well as non materialist factors like ideas, popular opinion and sentiment, an other indicators.
Her focus is more political than the other authors we have looked at. She suggests that the distance between the economic theory of free trade and the reality of how it has played out so far in the world can be attributed to politics. In a way this explanation is the same as Wolf and Stiglitz. Both suggest that the particular way that globalization has been done is why it has not lived up to expectations. For Wolf (and sometimes Stiglitz) it is the way that politics has interferes with truly free trade in the form of subsides, tariffs, protectionist maneuvers, and unequal trade policies among other things, that is the root of the underperformance- the cause of the inconstancies between theory and reality.
The value in Milner is, I think, not really in the summaries of different schools, but the focus on the political side. It is one thing to recognize the way that politics can interfere with economic theory. The political side of IPE and what I think Milner adds to the conversation is varying perspectives as to the why? Economics is complex and multifaceted, but so is politics. They are mutually affecting and Milner gives a diving board into the complex pool that is the POLITICS in International POLITICAL Economy.
The econ so far has been tangled and complex. I think the politics is going to be even messier- but I'm excited to get into that mess. So here to the P in IPE....
Her focus is more political than the other authors we have looked at. She suggests that the distance between the economic theory of free trade and the reality of how it has played out so far in the world can be attributed to politics. In a way this explanation is the same as Wolf and Stiglitz. Both suggest that the particular way that globalization has been done is why it has not lived up to expectations. For Wolf (and sometimes Stiglitz) it is the way that politics has interferes with truly free trade in the form of subsides, tariffs, protectionist maneuvers, and unequal trade policies among other things, that is the root of the underperformance- the cause of the inconstancies between theory and reality.
The value in Milner is, I think, not really in the summaries of different schools, but the focus on the political side. It is one thing to recognize the way that politics can interfere with economic theory. The political side of IPE and what I think Milner adds to the conversation is varying perspectives as to the why? Economics is complex and multifaceted, but so is politics. They are mutually affecting and Milner gives a diving board into the complex pool that is the POLITICS in International POLITICAL Economy.
The econ so far has been tangled and complex. I think the politics is going to be even messier- but I'm excited to get into that mess. So here to the P in IPE....
Defining IPE
I promised I'd work on refining the definition of International Political Economy as we went along.
One of our authors Helen Milner just threw her hat in the definition ring.
According to Milner IPE is - "how markets and states affect one another."
Which is really a much more concise version of what I was trying to say earlier.
More on Milner coming- I just wanted to get this definition update on the table.
One of our authors Helen Milner just threw her hat in the definition ring.
According to Milner IPE is - "how markets and states affect one another."
Which is really a much more concise version of what I was trying to say earlier.
More on Milner coming- I just wanted to get this definition update on the table.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Apples and Oranges
Reading Wolf and Stiglitz there are clearly both overt and underlying disagreements there. However they address their subjects from such different points that it is sometimes difficult for me to see them in conversation. They are almost talking past each other. They have fundamentally different approaches to evidence and different perspectives, not necessarily on the underlying idea of globalization, but rather what needs to be argued.
Evidence:
Wolf- talkes about globalization versus what as and what would be without/with less globalization
Stiglitz- criticizes globalization versus what was promised by its proponents and his vision of what the world should be.
The Invisible Hand:
In some ways their differences can be seen clearly in their statements on the invisible hand.
Wolf: "Adam Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand remains as illuminating as ever. Self- interest, co-ordinated though the market, motivates people to invent, produce and sell a vast array of goods, services, and assets." (p. 45)
Stiglitz: "My research on the economics of information showed that whenever information is imperfect, in particular when there are information asymmetries -- where some individuals know something that others do not (in other words always)-- the reason the invisible hand seems invisible is that it is not there." (p. xiv)
In a way Wolf and Stiglitz are both a debate and a meeting of the minds. Wolf is defending globalization from what seems to be an unrealistic enemy, but Stiglitz in many ways assumes the basics of Wolf's argument to be true. He is arguing for fixing globalization- doing it better- not getting rid of it altogether. He assumes globalization is going to and should (if done well) happen.Wolf is not arguing against Stiglitz- he put that away early on in the book.
Evidence:
Wolf- talkes about globalization versus what as and what would be without/with less globalization
Stiglitz- criticizes globalization versus what was promised by its proponents and his vision of what the world should be.
The Invisible Hand:
In some ways their differences can be seen clearly in their statements on the invisible hand.
Wolf: "Adam Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand remains as illuminating as ever. Self- interest, co-ordinated though the market, motivates people to invent, produce and sell a vast array of goods, services, and assets." (p. 45)
Stiglitz: "My research on the economics of information showed that whenever information is imperfect, in particular when there are information asymmetries -- where some individuals know something that others do not (in other words always)-- the reason the invisible hand seems invisible is that it is not there." (p. xiv)
In a way Wolf and Stiglitz are both a debate and a meeting of the minds. Wolf is defending globalization from what seems to be an unrealistic enemy, but Stiglitz in many ways assumes the basics of Wolf's argument to be true. He is arguing for fixing globalization- doing it better- not getting rid of it altogether. He assumes globalization is going to and should (if done well) happen.Wolf is not arguing against Stiglitz- he put that away early on in the book.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Bagpipes in the Streets
 |
| "There are no stars so lovely as Edinburgh street-lamps." |
 |
| A Proper Scottish day full of mist and rain. |
There are many complex issues and things to say about the Scottish Problem - as the English of another time may have called it. Independence would certainly cause all sorts of economic and political wrinkles- especially in how to build up and national independent infrastructure in such a short time, and where to draw the line. After all if Edinburgh remains tied to London for the benefit of the pound Sterling then what exactly did they win with independence and was it worth the headache- do the Scots want their own defense policy that badly? (I wouldn't be shocked if the answer is yes...) At the same time hundreds if not thousands of years of history make this desire for independence part of the Scottish identity and national pride even in a somewhat lost cause is something I understand as a Southerner. The Scots I've met were proud to be distinctly Scottish.
 |
| the view from Arthur's seat overlooking Edinburgh |
All that being said, I think my colleagues have done a good job and I'm not really here to give another summary or opinion on the debate. This just seemed an opportune time to display a little of beautiful Scotland (aka shamelessly share pictures from my Scottish adventure).
No matter the economic consequences of the cause for celebration- bagpiping in the street will always be magical.
 |
| Edinburgh Castle in the Mist |
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Take It Inside
The full length title of this post would have been: Take it Inside: the Value of Liberal Arts, Or why sloppy history is a bad idea, but thats obnoxiously long and this isn't a funny and charming autobiography.
I got into an argument yesterday in class. It centered around my deep objection as a history person to some very biased and sloppy history by one Martin Wolf in Why Globalization Works.
I have many problems with doing history badly and I'm sure I'll get a chance to go into that rant another time in the near future. But for now I'll give Wolf the benefit of the doubt and assume that he isn't intentionally doing bad history. Maybe this catastrophe is the result of unrecognized perspective bias and trying to do far to much in far to little space. Both of these factors probably play a role. But I suspect a deeper more insidious and common problem- a serious liberal arts deficiency.
I go to a liberal arts school. I like the concept of liberal arts. Though the rhetoric sometimes gets a bit pompous I agree with the value of well-roundedness. There seems to me to be far to little cross-pollination between disciplines, especially in the humanities and social sciences. This would not necessarily be a problem if economists did not so often try to be historians, or even more disastrously historians try to be economists, and worst of all politicians try to be everything else.
Each of these particular disciplines (which are mine and so of course the ones I am biassed towards) has its own wisdom and with all the overlap it amazes me that people rarely take the time to look at and respect other methods of doing things.
This summer I was reading a historian who countering years of one dimensional analysis made the shocking and innovative suggestion to analyze events in both an individual and institutional framework. The literature on the topic considered this approach revolutionary, but I can only laugh. In one of my first days of politics 100 the professor taught a method of analysis, which we regularly used, in which we look at phenomena in light of 4 Is- Individuals, Institutions, Ideas, and Interests. So maybe it wasn't so revolutionary after all. If there was a little more conversation maybe we wouldn't have to make the same discoveries in methodology over and over again.
If economists took a little time to learn about the horror that the word inevitable and single cause explanations evoke in historians their work could be significantly less propaganda sounding- and it would only require a few qualifiers and a word replacement search.
I got into an argument yesterday in class. It centered around my deep objection as a history person to some very biased and sloppy history by one Martin Wolf in Why Globalization Works.
I go to a liberal arts school. I like the concept of liberal arts. Though the rhetoric sometimes gets a bit pompous I agree with the value of well-roundedness. There seems to me to be far to little cross-pollination between disciplines, especially in the humanities and social sciences. This would not necessarily be a problem if economists did not so often try to be historians, or even more disastrously historians try to be economists, and worst of all politicians try to be everything else.
Each of these particular disciplines (which are mine and so of course the ones I am biassed towards) has its own wisdom and with all the overlap it amazes me that people rarely take the time to look at and respect other methods of doing things.
This summer I was reading a historian who countering years of one dimensional analysis made the shocking and innovative suggestion to analyze events in both an individual and institutional framework. The literature on the topic considered this approach revolutionary, but I can only laugh. In one of my first days of politics 100 the professor taught a method of analysis, which we regularly used, in which we look at phenomena in light of 4 Is- Individuals, Institutions, Ideas, and Interests. So maybe it wasn't so revolutionary after all. If there was a little more conversation maybe we wouldn't have to make the same discoveries in methodology over and over again.
If economists took a little time to learn about the horror that the word inevitable and single cause explanations evoke in historians their work could be significantly less propaganda sounding- and it would only require a few qualifiers and a word replacement search.
The More Things Change
Just for fun-
This is an excerpt from a magazine article about America's role in the world in 1941- predicting the 20th century as "The American Century"
 |
| From "The American Century" by Henry Luce in 1941 in Life Magazine |
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
An Introduction
Let me just give the basics: Who, What, When, Where, Why
Who: Me, Amanda. A politics and history double major at Washington and Lee University with perhaps to much hatred for the word inevitable...A love for thunderstorms, an interest in the Middle East, and a massive craving at this moment for a proper English tea...
What: A blog about International Political Economy and the things related (or somewhat related...) to that topic. What, you may ask, is International Political Economy (IPE)? - I'm glad you asked- because I to would like to know. For now lets say its how the interaction of and situations within nations effect the global economy, political landscape, and each other, and generally how the economy and politics mutually affect one another. If you'll work with me with that for now maybe sometime in the next few months we can find a better answer...
When: The fall of 2014- so now. I'm going to be writing about what I'm learning, thinking, and seeing in the world in real time- exciting right?
Where: Here! On this blog- and in conversation with my classmates whose blogs I will refer and respond to. (Sidenote: To anyone who may be reading this and not taking IPE- my classmates are actually kind of brilliant so you might want to check them out...)
Why: Because my professor said so. Because discussions are cool and exciting and I actually enjoy them. Because the internet exists and on a meta level we can talk about the worldwide economy of ideas created/facilitated by the internet by participating in the worldwide economy of ideas on the internet. Because stuff happens in the world that is crazy, and interesting, and amazing, and tragic, and all the other adjectives that just needs to be talked about. And because I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)