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.
Good point highlighting the definition. But isn't "markets and states" a bit limiting? Corporations (or private actors) are not the same as "markets". Yet they matter for IPE. Same for NGOs and intergovernmental organizations, which mediate discussions about markets and states, but also other factors. In a sense, the "markets and states" discussion could extend tentacles out into other areas (externalities, etc.), but it seems to me that "politics and economics" captures more of the actors and actions than "markets and states". Happy to hear a contrasting point of view.
ReplyDeleteI agree that politics and economics is more encompassing- but it doesn't really do a good explanatory job of international political economy. While corporations and other private actors are not themselves markets I feel relatively comfortable with that generalization as they are in markets and need markets to exist... I think they are decently implied. Though would agree the neglect of NGOs and intergovernmental organizations in the definition is more serious. To me states does't imply NGOs the same way markets reads- "markets and those who participate in them."
ReplyDelete