International political economy

For the study of political economy on a national level, see Political economy.
International relations theory
Constructivism
Liberalism
Marxism
Realism
Other theories
Classifications
Other approaches
Scholars
Categories
International relations
icon Politics portal

International political economy (IPE) is the study of how politics shapes the global economy and how the global economy shapes politics.[1] A key focus in IPE is on the power of different actors such as nation states, international organizations and multinational corporations to shape the international economic system and the distributive consequences of international economic activity. It has been described as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."[1]

A central assumption of IPE theory is that international economic phenomena do not exist in any meaningful sense separate from the actors who regulate and control them.[2][3] Alongside formal economic theories of international economics, trade, and finance, which are widely utilised within the discipline, IPE thus stresses the study of institutions, politics, and power relations in understanding the global economy.[4][5][6][7]

The substantive issue areas of IPE are frequently divided into the four broad subject areas of 1. international trade, 2. the international monetary and financial system, 3. multinational corporations, and 4. economic development and inequality.[8] Key actors of study may include international organizations, multinational corporations, and sovereign states.[9][10][11]

International political economy is a major subdiscipline of international relations where it emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, prompted by the growth of international economic institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, alongside economic turmoils such as the fall of the gold standard, 1973 oil crisis, and 1970s recession.[12] IPE is also a major field of study within history, especially economic history, where scholars study the historical dynamics of the international political economy.[13][14]

History and emergence

[edit]

International political economy has its historic roots in the discipline of political economy; the study of the national economy and its interactions with governance and politics.[15] Adam Smith's publication of The Wealth of Nations profoundly influenced the development of the field of political economy.[16]

While the newly founded discipline of economics; which studies economic phenomena absent political and social considerations; began to diverge from political economy studies in the late 19th century, political economy continued to live as an academic tradition within political science departments, as well as within modern economics as a pluralist approach.[17][18] While notable works from John Maynard Keynes' General Theory and Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation published in the early 20th century are still written in the tradition of political economy, economics in its narrower form was dominating economics departments from the 1920s and onward.[19]

The emergence of international political economy can be traced to the late 1960s and early 1970s, when deepening economic interdependence prompted by the growth of post-war economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, drew increasing attention within international relations scholarship towards the study of these institutions, and more broadly, to the study of governance of the world economy. The need for a more comprehensive understanding on global economic governance within political science circles became increasingly apparent through the crises of the 1970s; with the end of the gold standard, the 1973 oil crisis, 1973-1975 recession and calls for greater trade protection.[20] Influential figures in the emergence of the discipline were international relations scholars Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye and Robert Gilpin in the United States, as well as Susan Strange in the United Kingdom.[21][22] IPE has since become a key pillar in political science departments as well as a major subdiscipline of international relations, alongside traditional international relations scholarship centred on material security.[20]

Topics of enquiry

[edit]

International Finance

[edit]

International finance and monetary relations is one of the core areas of study in IPE.[8] In IPE scholarship, the interrelation of economic and political interests in international finance assumes it impossible to separate the financial system from international politics in any meaningful sense.[23][24][25][26] The IPE of international finance is characterized by political network effects and international externalities,[27][28][29] such as beggar-thy-neighbour effects[30] and contagions.[31]

A key concept in IPE literature on international finance is the impossible trinity, derived from the Mundell–Fleming model, which holds that it is impossible to simultaneously pursue all of the following three economic policies:[32][33]

Another key dilemma in monetary policy is that governments have to balance the inflation rate (the price of money at home) and the exchange rate (the price of money outside the home market).[25]

There is no agreement in the economics literature on the optimal national exchange rate policy.[23] Rather, national exchange rate regimes reflect political considerations.[23] National exchange rate policies can be 1. fixed, floating, or a hybrid of the two, and 2. entail a strong or weak currency.[23] Different groups benefit disproportionately depending on the national exchange rate policies that is chosen.[23]

The liberal view point generally has been strong in Western academia since it was first articulated by Smith in the eighteenth century. Only during the 1940s to early 1970s did an alternative system, Keynesianism, command wide support in universities. Keynes was concerned chiefly with domestic macroeconomic policy. The Keynesian consensus was challenged by Friedrich Hayek and later Milton Friedman and other scholars out of Chicago as early as the 1950s, and by the 1970s, Keynes' influence on public discourse and economic policy making had somewhat faded.

Illustration of the impossible trinity in international political economy.
Illustration of the impossible trinity in IPE finance scholarship; inspired by the Mundell-Fleming model in international economics. The theory postulates that a state may not have any more than two of the following policies in place at the same time; a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, and an independent national monetary policy.

After World War II, the Bretton Woods system was established, reflecting the political orientation described as embedded liberalism.[34] In 1971 President Richard Nixon ended the convertibility of gold that had been established under the IMF in the Bretton Woods system.[35] Interim agreements followed. Nonetheless, until 2008 the trend has been for increasing liberalization of both international trade and finance. From later 2008 world leaders have also been increasingly calling for a New Bretton Woods System.

Topics such as the International Monetary Fund, Financial Crises (see Financial crisis of 2007–2008 and 1997 Asian financial crisis), exchange rates, Foreign Direct Investment, Multinational Corporations receive much attention in IPE.

International Trade

[edit]

There are multiple approaches to trade within IPE.[36] These approaches seek to explain international bargaining between states, as well as the foreign economic policies that states adopt. In terms of domestic explanations for the foreign economic policies of states, the two dominant approaches are the factor model and sector model,[37] both of which build on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage.[38]

The factor model (which has been called the H-O-S-S model) is shaped by the Heckscher-Ohlin model and the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45] According to the Heckscher-Ohlin model of trade, the comparative advantage of countries in trade stems from their endowments of particular factors of trade (land, labor, capital). This means that a country abundant in land will primarily export land-intensive products (such as agriculture), whereas a country abundant in capital will export capital-intensive products (such as high-technology manufacturing) and a country abundant in labor will export labor-intensive products (such as textiles).[46] Building on this model, the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem holds that groups that possess the factors will support or oppose trade depending on the abundance or scarcity of the factors. This means that in a country which is abundant in land and scarce in capital, farmers will support free trade whereas producers in capital-intensive manufacturing will oppose free trade.[46][41] The factor model predicts that labor in developed countries will oppose trade liberalization (because it is relatively scarce), whereas labor in developing countries will support free trade (because it is relatively abundant).[43][47][48]

Building on these insights, influential research by Ronald Rogowski argued that factor endowments predicted whether countries were characterized by class-conflict (capital vs. labor) or urban-rural conflict.[49][39][50][40] Similarly, an influential study by Helen Milner and Keiko Kubota argues that factor endowments explain why developing countries liberalize their trade after they democratize (the abundant factor, labor, supports trade liberalization).[42][51] A 2023 study by Milner and Lindsay R. Dolan found that factor endowments help explain trade preferences in Africa.[52] Research has substantiated the predictions of the Stolper-Samuelsson theorem, showing that trade openness tends to reduce inequality in developing countries, but exacerbate it in advanced economies.[53]

The sectors model of trade, the Ricardo–Viner model (named after David Ricardo and Jacob Viner), challenges the notion that factors are key to understanding trade preferences.[39][41][43][44] Factors can be highly immobile, which means that capital-owners and labor who work in a particular sector may have similar interests. As a consequence, trade preferences are better understood by examining which economic sectors win or lose on trade liberalization. Whereas the factor model assumes that capital-owners in different sectors have similar trade preferences and that labor across different sector have similar trade preferences, the Ricardo-Viner model holds that in sectors where factors are immobile, labor and capital-owners in one sector may have the same trade preferences.[40][54][38][55] As a result, the Ricardo-Viner model predicts that class conflict over trade is more likely when factors are highly mobile, but that industry-based conflict is more likely when factors are immobile.[56]

Adam Dean has challenged the economic assumptions in both models, arguing that workers' wages do not consistently correspond to increases in productivity in a given industry (contradicting Ricardo-Viner) nor do workers consistently benefit from import restrictions when labor is the scarce factor of endowment (contradicting Heckscher-Ohlin).[57][58] The degree to which Ricardo-Viner and Heckscher-Ohlin are correct is conditioned by whether workers have profit-sharing institutions or are unionized (which helps them to bargain for higher wages amid productivity increases).[57][58] He has also challenged Milner and Kubota's study on trade liberalization in developing countries, as he shows that democratic developing countries frequently repressed labor unions amid trade liberalization.[59][60]

Studies by Dani Rodrik and Anna Mayda, as well as Kenneth Scheve and Matthew J. Slaughter have found support for the factor models, as they show that there is greater support for trade openness in developing countries (where labor is abundant and thus benefits from trade openness).[61][62] Other studies find no support for either model,[63] and argue that the models have limited explanatory value.[64] A 2022 study in the Journal of Politics found that comparative advantage predicts attitudes on free trade among individuals and legislators.[65] According to a 2017 assessment by Thomas Oatley, there are "no strong conclusions" in IPE scholarship as to which of these models better characterizes the sources of individual trade policies.[66]

Aside from the sector and factor models, there are firm-specific models of trade preferences (some times described as "New new" trade theory) which predict that those who work for large, productive and globally oriented firms support trade liberalization (as well as free movement of capital and labor), whereas employees in smaller firms are less supportive of free trade.[40][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Economic geography approaches explain trade policies by looking at the regions that benefit and lose on globalization; it predicts that large cities support trade liberalization and that left-behind regions push back on liberalization.[68][74] Other alternative models to the factor and sector models may explain individual preferences through demographic data (age, class, skills,[75] education,[64] gender[76][77]), as well as ideology[78][79][80][81] and culture.[66][82] Some studies have raised questions about whether individuals understand the effects of trade protectionism, which puts doubt on theories that assume that trade policy preferences are rooted in economic self-interest.[63]

Trade may in and of itself alter domestic politics, including the trade preferences of the public. A 1988 study by Helen Milner found that trade openness substantially increased support for free trade by strengthening the position of firms that stand to lose from trade protectionism.[83] Influential studies by David Cameron,[84] Dani Rodrik[85] and Peter Katzenstein[86] have affirmed the insights of the Double Movement, as they show that greater trade openness has been associated with increases in government social spending.[87][88]

In terms of how preferences get aggregated and reconciled into foreign economic policies, IPE scholars have pointed to collective action problems,[44][41] electoral systems,[89][90] regime types,[42][91] veto points,[92] the nature of the legislative trade policy process,[93][94] the interaction between domestic and international bargaining,[95] and the interactions between political elites and epistemic communities.[96] Some IPE scholarship de-emphasizes the role of domestic politics and points to international processes as shapers of trade policy.[97][98][99][100] Some scholars have argued for a "new interdependence" approach, which restores insights from the complex interdependence of the 1970s, but emphasizes network effects, control over central nodes, and path dependence.[101][102][103][104]

Economic development

[edit]

IPE is also concerned with development economics and explaining how and why countries develop.

Historical IPE approaches

[edit]

Historically, three prominent approaches to IPE were the liberal, economic nationalist (mercantilist),[105][106] and marxist perspectives.[107][108]

Economic liberals tend to oppose government intervention in the market when it inhibits free trade and open competition, but support government intervention to protect property rights and resolve market failures.[109] Economic liberals commonly adhere to a political and economic philosophy which advocates a restrained fiscal policy and the balancing of budgets, through measures such as low taxes, reduced government spending, and minimized government debt.[110]

To economic nationalists, markets are subordinate to the state, and should serve the interests of the state (such as providing national security and accumulating military power). The doctrine of mercantilism is a prominent variant of economic nationalism.[105] Economic nationalists tend to see international trade as zero-sum, where the goal is to derive relative gains (as opposed to mutual gains).[111] Economic nationalism tends to emphasize industrialization (and often aids industries with state support), due to beliefs that industry has positive spillover effects on the rest of the economy, enhances the self-sufficiency and political autonomy of the country, and is a crucial aspect in building military power.[111]

Modern IPE approaches

[edit]

There are several prominent approaches to IPE. The dominant paradigm is Open Economy Politics.[12][112][113] Other influential approaches include dependency theory, hegemonic stability theory, and domestic political theories of IPE.[12]

Early modern IPE scholarship employed a diversity of methods and did both grand theory and middle range theory, but over time, the scholarship has become more quantitative and focused on middle-range theories.[114][115][66][116][117][118][119][120] Robert Jervis wrote in 1998, "the IPE subfield, after a marvelous period of development in the 1970s and 1980s seems to be stagnating."[121]

The first wave of IPE scholarship focused on complex interdependence and the evolution of global systems of economic exchange.[116] This scholarship focused on hegemonic stability theory, complex interdependence, and regimes.[39] The second wave sought to explain the domestic sources of global economic cooperation or explain how global processes influence domestic policy-making.[116] The third wave increasingly focused on explaining the micro-foundations of policy.[116] According to Benjamin Cohen, "in terms of theory, consensus is often lacking on even the most basic causal relationships" in IPE scholarship.[10]

Open Economy Politics

[edit]

Open Economy Politics (OEP) can be traced to domestic political theories of IPE; OEP emerged in the late 1990s.[12][122] OEP adopts the assumptions of neoclassical economics and international trade theory.[12][123] It strongly emphasizes microfoundations.[124] It has been characterized as employing rationalism, materialism and liberalism.[98] According to David Lake,[12][66][117][124]

  1. Interests: "OEP begins with individuals, sectors, or factors of production as the units of analysis and derives their interests over economic policy from each unit's position within the international economy."
  2. Domestic institutions: "It conceives of domestic political institutions as mechanisms that aggregate interests (with more or less bias) and structure the bargaining of competing societal groups."
  3. International bargaining: "It introduces, when necessary, bargaining between states with different interests. Analysis within OEP proceeds from the most micro- to the most macro-level in a linear and orderly fashion, reflecting an implicit uni-directional conception of politics as flowing up from individuals to interstate bargaining."

Thomas Oatley has criticized OEP for an overemphasis on domestic political processes and for failing to consider the interplay between processes at the domestic level and macro processes at the global level: in essence, OEP scholarship suffers from omitted variable bias.[98][125][66][126] According to Peter Katzenstein, Robert Keohane and Stephen Krasner, scholarship in this vein assumes that actors' preferences and behavior are derived from their material position, which leads to a neglect of the ways in which variation in information may shape actor preferences and behaviors.[127] Mark Blyth and Matthias Matthijs argue that OEP scholarship essentially black boxes the global economy.[126] Stephanie Rickard has defended the OEP approach, writing in 2021:[112]

OEP has matured and developed over the past decade. As a framework, it has proven to be enormously productive and adaptable—integrating diverse economic phenomena under a common theoretical umbrella and providing a framework flexible enough to react to significant events in the global economy... The accumulating body of scholarship in the OEP tradition has moved our understanding of world politics decisively forward. Critics of OEP have yet to offer an alternative, more empirically powerful theory and as a result, OEP continues to progress as the dominant paradigm in IPE research.

Scholars have questioned the empirical validity of the models derived from OEP scholarship on money[117] and trade,[98][66] as well as questioned the ability of OEP scholarship to explain momentous events in global political economy.[126] Challengers to the OEP framework include behavioral approaches (which do not necessarily accept that individual interests stem from material incentives), and economic geography approaches.[112] According to Stephanie Rickard, OEP scholars have modified their models to incorporate incomplete information (which affects how individual preferences are formed) and economies of scale (which affects the distribution of gains and losses).[112] Erica Owen and Stephanie Walter similarly argue that "second-generation" OEP frameworks incorporate both material and ideational preferences.[124]

Dependency theory

[edit]

Dependency theory is the notion that resources flow from a "periphery" of poor and underdeveloped states to a "core" of wealthy states, enriching the latter at the expense of the former. It is a central contention of dependency theory that poor states are impoverished and rich ones enriched by the way poor states are integrated into the "world system". This theory was officially developed in the late 1960s following World War II, as scholars searched for the root issue in the lack of development in Latin America.[128]

Dependency theory and world systems theory are not mainstream economic theory.[129]

Hegemonic stability theory

[edit]

Early IPE scholarship was focused on the implications of hegemony on international economic affairs. In the 1970s, US hegemony appeared to be on the fall, which prompted scholars to consider the likely effects of this falling.[130] Robert Keohane coined the term Hegemonic stability theory in a 1980 article for the notion that the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single nation-state is the dominant world power, or hegemon.[130] Keohane's 1984 book After Hegemony, used insights from the new institutional economics, to argue that the international system could remain stable in the absence of a hegemon.[131]

American vs. British IPE

[edit]

Benjamin Cohen provides a detailed intellectual history of IPE identifying American and British camps. The Americans are positivist and attempt to develop intermediate level theories that are supported by some form of quantitative evidence. British IPE is more "interpretivist" and looks for "grand theories". They use very different standards of empirical work. Cohen sees benefits in both approaches.[132] A special edition of New Political Economy has been issued on The 'British School' of IPE[133] and a special edition of the Review of International Political Economy (RIPE) on American IPE.[134]

Journals

[edit]

The leading journal for IPE scholarship is the generalist international relations journal International Organization.[135] International Organization played an instrumental role in making IPE one of the prominent subfields in IR.[136] The leading IPE-specific journals are the Review of International Political Economy and New Political Economy.[135][137] Examples of journals within the historical study of IPE are Economic History Review and History of Political Economy.

Professional associations

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  2. ^ Frieden, Jeffry; Martin, Lisa (2003). "International Political Economy: Global and Domestic Interactions". Political Science: The State of the Discipline. W.W. Norton.
  3. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  4. ^ Mosley, Layna; Singer, David Andrew (30 November 2009). "The Global Financial Crisis: Lessons and Opportunities for International Political Economy". International Interactions. 35 (4): 420–429. doi:10.1080/03050620903328993. ISSN 0305-0629. S2CID 154921889.
  5. ^ Araghi, Farshad (2008). "Political Economy of the Financial Crisis: A World-Historical Perspective". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (45): 30–32. ISSN 0012-9976. JSTOR 40278747.
  6. ^ Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry A. (2001). "The Political Economy of International Monetary Relations". Annual Review of Political Science. 4 (1): 317–343. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.317. ISSN 1094-2939.
  7. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 39–41. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  8. ^ a b Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  9. ^ "international political economy | economics | Encyclopædia Britannica". britannica.com. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
  10. ^ a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  11. ^ Milner, Helen V. (2004). "Formal Methods and International Political Economy". Models, Numbers, and Cases. ISBN 9780472068616. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 25 August 2021.
  12. ^ a b c d e f Lake, David A. (2009). "Open economy politics: A critical review". The Review of International Organizations. 4 (3): 219–244. doi:10.1007/s11558-009-9060-y. hdl:10.1007/s11558-009-9060-y. ISSN 1559-744X. S2CID 62831376.
  13. ^ Allen, Robert C. (2011). Global Economic History: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
  14. ^ Blyth, Mark. "17". Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy (IPE) IPE as a Global Conversation. Routledshe.
  15. ^ "political economy | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  16. ^ Helleiner, Eric, ed. (2023), "Introduction and Overview", The Contested World Economy: The Deep and Global Roots of International Political Economy, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–16, ISBN 978-1-009-33752-6, The European economic liberal tradition that Smith helped to pioneer was the first perspective on political economy to achieve worldwide influence.
  17. ^ Mark Robbins (2016) "Why we need political economy," Policy Options, [1]
  18. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 17–19. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  19. ^ "political economy - Historical development | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
  20. ^ a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 38–41. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  21. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  22. ^ Brown, Chris (1999). "Susan Strange—a critical appreciation". Review of International Studies. 25 (3): 531–535. doi:10.1017/S0260210599005318.
  23. ^ a b c d e Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry A. (2001). "The Political Economy of International Monetary Relations". Annual Review of Political Science. 4 (1): 317–343. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.317. ISSN 1094-2939.
  24. ^ Broz, J. Lawrence; Frieden, Jeffry A. (2008). Wittman, Donald A; Weingast, Barry R (eds.). "The Political Economy of Exchange Rates". The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-954847-7.
  25. ^ a b Kirshner, Jonathan (2003). "Money Is Politics". Review of International Political Economy. 10 (4): 645–660. doi:10.1080/09692290310001601911. ISSN 0969-2290. JSTOR 4177480. S2CID 153878859.
  26. ^ Kirshner, Jonathan (1995). Currency and Coercion: The Political Economy of International Monetary Power. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv173f2mk. ISBN 978-0-691-03768-4. JSTOR j.ctv173f2mk. S2CID 241262086.
  27. ^ Bauerle Danzman, Sarah; Winecoff, W Kindred; Oatley, Thomas (2017). "All Crises are Global: Capital Cycles in an Imbalanced International Political Economy". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (4): 907–923. doi:10.1093/isq/sqx054. ISSN 0020-8833.
  28. ^ Winecoff, William Kindred (2020). ""The persistent myth of lost hegemony," revisited: structural power as a complex network phenomenon". European Journal of International Relations. 26: 209–252. doi:10.1177/1354066120952876. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 222003135.
  29. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2021). "Weaponized International Financial Interdependence". The Uses and Abuses of Weaponized Interdependence. Brookings Institution Press.
  30. ^ Eichengreen, Barry; Sachs, Jeffrey (1985). "Exchange Rates and Economic Recovery in the 1930s". The Journal of Economic History. 45 (4): 925–946. doi:10.1017/S0022050700035178. ISSN 1471-6372. S2CID 153802154.
  31. ^ Oatley, Thomas; Winecoff, W. Kindred; Pennock, Andrew; Danzman, Sarah Bauerle (2013). "The Political Economy of Global Finance: A Network Model". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (1): 133–153. doi:10.1017/S1537592712003593. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 3817169.
  32. ^ Thompson, Nicholas (2020). "Open economy monetary politics". The Routledge Handbook to Global Political Economy. Routledge. pp. 129–145. doi:10.4324/9781351064545-11. ISBN 978-1-351-06454-5. S2CID 218780961.
  33. ^ Copelovitch, Mark S.; Pevehouse, Jon C. W. (2015). Martin, Lisa L (ed.). "Bridging the Silos". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5. In recent years IPE scholars have reached a broad consensus on the use of the Mundell-Fleming "trilemma"... as the workhorse framework for analyzing the political economy of monetary policy and exchange rate regime choice in an open economy
  34. ^ Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order". International Organization. 36 (2): 379–415. doi:10.1017/S0020818300018993. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706527.
  35. ^ Diebold, William; Gowa, Joanne (1984). "Closing the Gold Window: Domestic Politics and the End of Bretton Woods". Foreign Affairs. 63 (1): 190. doi:10.2307/20042113. ISSN 0015-7120. JSTOR 20042113.
  36. ^ Madeira, Mary Anne (2018). "The Politics of International Trade". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.598. ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7. Retrieved 15 August 2021.
  37. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2010). "Making global markets: Historical institutionalism in international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 17 (4): 609–638. doi:10.1080/09692291003723672. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 153647117.
  38. ^ a b Leamer, Edward; Levinsohn, James (1995). "International trade theory: The evidence". Handbook of International Economics. 3: 1339–1394. doi:10.1016/S1573-4404(05)80006-1. ISSN 1573-4404.
  39. ^ a b c d Milner, Helen V. (1999). "The Political Economy of International Trade". Annual Review of Political Science. 2 (1): 91–114. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.91. ISSN 1094-2939.
  40. ^ a b c d Martin, Lisa L. (2015). "Introduction". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. pp. 5–10. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.20. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5.
  41. ^ a b c d Alt, James E.; Frieden, Jeffry; Gilligan, Michael J.; Rodrik, Dani; Rogowski, Ronald (1996). "The Political Economy of International Trade: Enduring Puzzles and an Agenda for Inquiry". Comparative Political Studies. 29 (6): 689–717. doi:10.1177/0010414096029006004. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 153695085.
  42. ^ a b c Milner, Helen V.; Kubota, Keiko (2005). "Why the Move to Free Trade? Democracy and Trade Policy in the Developing Countries". International Organization. 59 (1): 107–143. doi:10.1017/S002081830505006X. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 8879830.
  43. ^ a b c Owen, Erica (2015). "Labor and Protectionist Sentiment". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.14. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5.
  44. ^ a b c Alt, James E.; Gilligan, Michael (1994). "The Political Economy of Trading States: Factor Specificity, Collective Action Problems and Domestic Political Institutions". Journal of Political Philosophy. 2 (2): 165–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.1994.tb00020.x. ISSN 1467-9760.
  45. ^ Frieden, Jeffry A.; Rogowski, Ronald (1996), Milner, Helen V.; Keohane, Robert O. (eds.), "The Impact of the International Economy on National Policies: An Analytical Overview", Internationalization and Domestic Politics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–47, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511664168.003, ISBN 978-0-521-56587-5, archived from the original on 25 August 2021, retrieved 25 August 2021{{citation}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  46. ^ a b Hiscox, Michael (2011). "The Domestic Sources of Foreign Economic Policies". Global Political Economy. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-957081-2.
  47. ^ Rogowski, Ronald (1990). Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political Alignments. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02330-4.
  48. ^ O'Rourke, Kevin H.; Taylor, Alan M. (2007). "Democracy and Protectionism". The New Comparative Economic History: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey G. Williamson. MIT Press. doi:10.3386/w12250.
  49. ^ Rogowski, Ronald (1987). "Political Cleavages and Changing Exposure to Trade". The American Political Science Review. 81 (4): 1121–1137. doi:10.2307/1962581. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1962581. S2CID 146690244.
  50. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  51. ^ Zucker, Noah (2021). "Free Trade and Forms of Democratization". The Journal of Politics. 83 (4): 1867–1871. doi:10.1086/711624. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 225012680.
  52. ^ Dolan, Lindsay R.; Milner, Helen V. (2023). "Low-Skilled Liberalizers: Support for Free Trade in Africa". International Organization. 77 (4): 848–870. doi:10.1017/S0020818323000206. ISSN 0020-8183.
  53. ^ Dorn, Florian; Fuest, Clemens; Potrafke, Niklas (2021). "Trade openness and income inequality: New empirical evidence". Economic Inquiry. 60: 202–223. doi:10.1111/ecin.13018. ISSN 1465-7295.
  54. ^ Borkakoti, J. (1998), Borkakoti, J. (ed.), "The Ricardo-Viner Model", International Trade: Causes and Consequences: An Empirical and Theoretical Text, London: Macmillan Education UK, pp. 168–176, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-27014-9_12, ISBN 978-1-349-27014-9, retrieved 25 July 2021
  55. ^ Hiscox, Michael J. (2002). International Trade and Political Conflict: Commerce, Coalitions, and Mobility. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08855-6.
  56. ^ Hiscox, Michael J. (2001). "Class versus Industry Cleavages: Inter-Industry Factor Mobility and the Politics of Trade". International Organization. 55 (1): 1–46. doi:10.1162/002081801551405. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 3078596. S2CID 154348021.
  57. ^ a b Dean, Adam (2015). "Power over Profits: The Political Economy of Workers and Wages". Politics & Society. 43 (3): 333–360. doi:10.1177/0032329215584788. ISSN 0032-3292. S2CID 154464583.
  58. ^ a b Dean, Adam (2015). "The Gilded Wage: Profit-Sharing Institutions and the Political Economy of Trade". International Studies Quarterly. 59 (2): 316–329. doi:10.1111/isqu.12200. ISSN 0020-8833. JSTOR 43868275.
  59. ^ Dean, Adam (2022). Opening Up By Cracking Down: Labor Repression and Trade Liberalization in Democratic Developing Democracies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47851-9.
  60. ^ Dean, Adam (2022). "Arresting the Opposition: Labor Repression and Trade Liberalization in Developing Countries". International Studies Quarterly. 66 (3). doi:10.1093/isq/sqac058. ISSN 0020-8833.
  61. ^ Mayda, Anna Maria; Rodrik, Dani (2005). "Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?". European Economic Review. 49 (6): 1393–1430. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2004.01.002. ISSN 0014-2921. S2CID 5100362.
  62. ^ Scheve, Kenneth F.; Slaughter, Matthew J. (2001). "Labor Market Competition and Individual Preferences over Immigration Policy". The Review of Economics and Statistics. 83 (1): 133–145. doi:10.1162/003465301750160108. ISSN 0034-6535. JSTOR 2646696. S2CID 527279.
  63. ^ a b Rho, Sungmin; Tomz, Michael (2017). "Why Don't Trade Preferences Reflect Economic Self-Interest?". International Organization. 71 (S1): S85–S108. doi:10.1017/S0020818316000394. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 157320270.
  64. ^ a b Mansfield, Edward D.; Mutz, Diana C. (2009). "Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety". International Organization. 63 (3): 425–457. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090158. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 2134093.
  65. ^ Amodio, Francesco; Baccini, Leonardo; Chiovelli, Giorgio; Di Maio, Michele (2021). "Agricultural Comparative Advantage and Legislators' Support for Trade Agreements". The Journal of Politics. 84 (2): 1244–1249. doi:10.1086/715590. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 225558377.
  66. ^ a b c d e f Oatley, Thomas (2017). "Open economy politics and trade policy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (4): 699–717. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1325766. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 157673205.
  67. ^ Kim, In Song; Osgood, Iain (2019). "Firms in Trade and Trade Politics". Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 399–417. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063728. ISSN 1094-2939.
  68. ^ a b Flaherty, Thomas M.; Rogowski, Ronald (2021). "Rising Inequality As a Threat to the Liberal International Order". International Organization. 75 (2): 495–523. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000163. ISSN 0020-8183.
  69. ^ Plouffe, Martin (2015), Martin, Lisa L. (ed.), "Heterogeneous Firms and Policy Preferences", The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.13, ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5
  70. ^ Osgood, Iain (2018). "Globalizing the Supply Chain: Firm and Industrial Support for US Trade Agreements". International Organization. 72 (2): 455–484. doi:10.1017/S002081831800005X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 158659236.
  71. ^ Baccini, Leonardo; Pinto, Pablo M.; Weymouth, Stephen (2017). "The Distributional Consequences of Preferential Trade Liberalization: Firm-Level Evidence". International Organization. 71 (2): 373–395. doi:10.1017/S002081831700011X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 157951602.
  72. ^ Kim, In Song (2017). "Political Cleavages within Industry: Firm-level Lobbying for Trade Liberalization". American Political Science Review. 111 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1017/S0003055416000654. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 8029341.
  73. ^ Lee, Haillie Na-Kyung; Liou, Yu-Ming (2022). "Where You Work Is Where You Stand: A Firm-Based Framework for Understanding Trade Opinion". International Organization. 76 (3): 713–740. doi:10.1017/S0020818322000108. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 248472340.
  74. ^ Schonfeld, Bryan (2021). "Trading Places, Trading Platforms: The Geography of Trade Policy Realignment". International Organization. 75 (4): 959–990. doi:10.1017/S0020818321000217. ISSN 0020-8183.
  75. ^ Walter, Stefanie (2017). "Globalization and the Demand-Side of Politics: How Globalization Shapes Labor Market Risk Perceptions and Policy Preferences*". Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (1): 55–80. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.64. ISSN 2049-8470. S2CID 1592702.
  76. ^ Brutger, Ryan; Guisinger, Alexandra (2021). "Labor Market Volatility, Gender, and Trade Preferences". Journal of Experimental Political Science. 9 (2): 189–202. doi:10.1017/XPS.2021.9. ISSN 2052-2630.
  77. ^ Betz, Timm; Fortunato, David; O'Brien, Diana Z. (2023). "Do Women Make More Protectionist Trade Policy?". American Political Science Review: 1–9. doi:10.1017/S0003055422001307. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 256143405.
  78. ^ Hainmueller, Jens; Hiscox, Michael J. (1 April 2006). "Learning to Love Globalization: Education and Individual Attitudes Toward International Trade". International Organization. 60 (2): 469–498. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.407.4650. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060140. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 152381282.
  79. ^ Mutz, Diana; Mansfield, Edward D.; Kim, Eunji (2021). "The Racialization of International Trade". Political Psychology. 42 (4): 555–573. doi:10.1111/pops.12714. ISSN 1467-9221. S2CID 234578803.
  80. ^ Guisinger, Alexandra (2017). American Opinion on Trade: Preferences Without Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-065183-1.
  81. ^ Mutz, Diana C. (2021). Winners and Losers: The Psychology of Foreign Trade. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-20304-1.
  82. ^ Kuo, Jason; Naoi, Megumi (2015). "Individual Attitudes". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.16. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5.
  83. ^ Milner, Helen V. (1988). Resisting Protectionism: Global Industries and the Politics of International Trade. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01074-8.
  84. ^ Cameron, David R. (1978). "The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis". The American Political Science Review. 72 (4): 1243–1261. doi:10.2307/1954537. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1954537. S2CID 143977594.
  85. ^ Rodrik, Dani (1998). "Why do More Open Economies Have Bigger Governments?". Journal of Political Economy. 106 (5): 997–1032. doi:10.1086/250038. ISSN 0022-3808. JSTOR 10.1086/250038. S2CID 11380043.
  86. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J. (2015). Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-0036-1.
  87. ^ Rudra, Nita (2002). "Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed Countries". International Organization. 56 (2): 411–445. doi:10.1162/002081802320005522. ISSN 1531-5088.
  88. ^ Garrett, Geoffrey (1998). "Global Markets and National Politics: Collision Course or Virtuous Circle?". International Organization. 52 (4): 787–824. doi:10.1162/002081898550752. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 56471892.
  89. ^ Chang, Eric C. C.; Kayser, Mark Andreas; Linzer, Drew A.; Rogowski, Ronald (2010). Electoral Systems and the Balance of Consumer-Producer Power. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49218-8. majoritarian electoral arrangements should empower consumers relative to producers
  90. ^ Rickard, Stephanie J. (2015). "Electoral Systems and Trade". The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981755.013.11. ISBN 978-0-19-998175-5.
  91. ^ Milner, Helen V.; Mukherjee, Bumba (2009). "Democratization and Economic Globalization". Annual Review of Political Science. 12 (1): 163–181. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.110507.114722. ISSN 1094-2939.
  92. ^ O'Reilly, Robert F. (2005). "Veto Points, Veto Players, and International Trade Policy". Comparative Political Studies. 38 (6): 652–675. doi:10.1177/0010414004274379. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 154937146.
  93. ^ Goldstein, Judith; Gulotty, Robert (2021). "America and the Trade Regime: What Went Wrong?". International Organization. 75 (2): 524–557. doi:10.1017/S002081832000065X. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 234364920.
  94. ^ Goldstein, Judith; Gulotty, Robert (2014). "America and Trade Liberalization: The Limits of Institutional Reform". International Organization. 68 (2): 263–295. doi:10.1017/S0020818313000490. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 154497001.
  95. ^ Putnam, Robert D. (1988). "Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games". International Organization. 42 (3): 427–460. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706785. S2CID 11086309.
  96. ^ Farrell, Henry; Quiggin, John (2017). "Consensus, Dissensus, and Economic Ideas: Economic Crisis and the Rise and Fall of Keynesianism". International Studies Quarterly. 61 (2): 269–283. doi:10.1093/isq/sqx010. ISSN 0020-8833.
  97. ^ Simmons, Beth A.; Elkins, Zachary (2004). "The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy". American Political Science Review. 98 (1): 171–189. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001078. ISSN 1537-5943. S2CID 13872025.
  98. ^ a b c d Oatley, Thomas (2011). "The Reductionist Gamble: Open Economy Politics in the Global Economy". International Organization. 65 (2): 311–341. doi:10.1017/S002081831100004X. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 23016814. S2CID 9478051.
  99. ^ Greenhill, Brian (2021). Pevehouse, Jon C. W; Seabrooke, Leonard (eds.). "Diffusion Processes in International Political Economy". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.1. ISBN 978-0-19-879351-9.
  100. ^ Bush, Sarah Sunn; Prather, Lauren (2020). "Foreign Meddling and Mass Attitudes Toward International Economic Engagement". International Organization. 74 (3): 584–609. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000156. ISSN 0020-8183. S2CID 226723351.
  101. ^ Ba, Heather (2021). Pevehouse, Jon C. W; Seabrooke, Leonard (eds.). "The Evolving State of the State in International Political Economy". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.19. ISBN 978-0-19-879351-9.
  102. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham (2016). "The new interdependence approach: theoretical development and empirical demonstration". Review of International Political Economy. 23 (5): 713–736. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1247009. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 157812944.
  103. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2014). "Domestic Institutions Beyond the Nation-State: Charting the New Interdependence Approach". World Politics. 66 (2): 331–363. doi:10.1017/S0043887114000057. ISSN 0043-8871. JSTOR 24577015. S2CID 45047593.
  104. ^ Farrell, Henry; Newman, Abraham L. (2019). "Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion". International Security. 44 (1): 42–79. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351. ISSN 0162-2889. S2CID 198952367.
  105. ^ a b Helleiner, Eric (2021). The Neomercantilists: A Global Intellectual History. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-6014-3.
  106. ^ Helleiner, Eric (2021). "The Diversity of Economic Nationalism". New Political Economy. 26 (2): 229–238. doi:10.1080/13563467.2020.1841137. ISSN 1356-3467.
  107. ^ Gilpin, Robert; Gilpin, Jean M. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02262-8. JSTOR j.ctt19wcct3.
  108. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 33–38. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7.
  109. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition. Routledge. pp. 25, 34–35. ISBN 978-1-351-03464-7. Archived from the original on 21 July 2021. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  110. ^ Simmons, Beth A.; Dobbin, Frank; Garrett, Geoffrey (2006). "Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism". International Organization. 60 (4): 781–810. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060267. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 146351369.
  111. ^ a b Gilpin, Robert (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton University Press. pp. 31–34. ISBN 978-0-691-02262-8.
  112. ^ a b c d Rickard, Stephanie J. (2021). Pevehouse, Jon C. W; Seabrooke, Leonard (eds.). "Open Economy Politics Revisited". The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198793519.013.40. ISBN 978-0-19-879351-9. Retrieved 17 July 2021.
  113. ^ Paul, Darel E. (2010). "Liberal Perspectives on the Global Political Economy". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.32. ISBN 978-0-19-084662-6.
  114. ^ Farrell, Henry; Finnemore, Martha (2009). "Ontology, methodology, and causation in the American school of international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 58–71. doi:10.1080/09692290802524075. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 145230528.
  115. ^ McNamara, Kathleen R. (2009). "Of Intellectual Monocultures and the Study of IPE". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 72–84. doi:10.1080/09692290802524117. ISSN 0969-2290. JSTOR 27756144. S2CID 145476039.
  116. ^ a b c d Winecoff, W. Kindred (2017). "How Did American International Political Economy Become Reductionist? A Historiography of a Discipline". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.345. ISBN 978-0-19-022863-7.
  117. ^ a b c Cohen, Benjamin (2017). "The IPE of money revisited". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (4): 657–680. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1259119. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 33868682.
  118. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J. (2009). "Mid-Atlantic: Sitting on the knife's sharp edge". Review of International Political Economy. 16 (1): 122–135. doi:10.1080/09692290802524158. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 154587700.
  119. ^ Drezner, Daniel W.; McNamara, Kathleen R. (2013). "International Political Economy, Global Financial Orders and the 2008 Financial Crisis". Perspectives on Politics. 11 (1): 155–166. doi:10.1017/S1537592712003660. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 143476037.
  120. ^ Drezner, Daniel (2021). "Power and International Relations: a temporal view". European Journal of International Relations. 27 (1): 29–52. doi:10.1177/1354066120969800. ISSN 1354-0661. S2CID 228821591.
  121. ^ Jervis, Robert (1998). "Realism in the Study of World Politics". International Organization. 52 (4): 971–991. doi:10.1162/002081898550707. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 144123356.
  122. ^ Lipscy, Phillip Y. (2020). "COVID-19 and the Politics of Crisis". International Organization. 74: 98–127. doi:10.1017/S0020818320000375. ISSN 0020-8183.
  123. ^ Lake, David A. (2009). Wittman, Donald A.; Weingast, Barry R. (eds.). International Political Economy. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 757–777. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548477.003.0042. ISBN 978-0199548477.
  124. ^ a b c Owen, Erica; Walter, Stefanie (2017). "Open economy politics and Brexit: insights, puzzles, and ways forward". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 179–202. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1307245. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 152185426.
  125. ^ Oatley, Thomas (2021). "Regaining relevance: IPE and a changing global political economy". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 34 (2): 318–327. doi:10.1080/09557571.2021.1888880. ISSN 0955-7571. S2CID 233235562.
  126. ^ a b c Blyth, Mark; Matthijs, Matthias (2017). "Black Swans, Lame Ducks, and the mystery of IPE's missing macroeconomy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 203–231. doi:10.1080/09692290.2017.1308417. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 157518024.
  127. ^ Katzenstein, Peter J.; Keohane, Robert O.; Krasner, Stephen D. (1998). "International Organization and the Study of World Politics". International Organization. 52 (4): 645–685. doi:10.1017/S002081830003558X. ISSN 1531-5088. S2CID 34947557.
  128. ^ Ahiakpor, James C. W. (1985). "The Success and Failure of Dependency Theory: The Experience of Ghana". International Organization. 39 (3): 535–552. doi:10.1017/S0020818300019172. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 2706689. S2CID 154491620.
  129. ^ Norrlof, Carla (2010). America's Global Advantage: US Hegemony and International Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 9. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511676406. ISBN 978-0-521-76543-5.
  130. ^ a b Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 66–68. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  131. ^ Keohane, Robert O. (2020). "Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times". Annual Review of Political Science. 23 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050918-042625. ISSN 1094-2939.
  132. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press.
  133. ^ New Political Economy Symposium: The 'British School' of International Political Economy Volume 14, Issue 3, September 2009
  134. ^ "Not So Quiet on the Western Front: The American School of IPE". Review of International Political Economy, Volume 16 Issue 1 2009
  135. ^ a b Pepinsky, Thomas (2020). "Is International Relations Relevant for International Money and Finance?". Bridging the Theory-Practice Divide in International Relations. Georgetown University Press.
  136. ^ Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press. pp. 35–36. ISBN 978-0-691-13569-4.
  137. ^ Seabrooke, Leonard; Young, Kevin L. (2017). "The networks and niches of international political economy". Review of International Political Economy. 24 (2): 288–331. doi:10.1080/09692290.2016.1276949. hdl:10398/560a0b04-b5cd-40e3-b2b8-9924ecbbe171. ISSN 0969-2290. S2CID 152218180.

Further reading

[edit]
Library resources about
International political economy
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_political_economy&oldid=1245007195"