1

INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

IR531/Fall 2011

Dr Caner Bakır Seminar: Thursday: 9.30am-12.15 noon Venue: ENG B15 Office: CAS154 Office hours: Thursday: 15.30-16.45pm, other times by appointment Phone:338 1674 e-mail: cbakir@ku.edu.tr Assistant: Mr Aydin Gunduz Email: kagunduz@ku.edu.tr

Course Description

Objectives

This course is a based on seminars. It explores the international system, and the interaction between domestic politics and International Political Economy (IPE). It has two main objectives. First, it focuses on gaining a greater understanding of the main theoretical and empirical works in the field of IPE. The student should understand the major contemporary debates in the field and the IPE perspectives on key questions. We will adopt multi-actored (e.g., states, markets, non-state actors, and individuals), multi-level (e.g., global, regional, national and sub-national as well as institutional and organizational) and interdisciplinary perspective. Analytically, the course will focus on the relationships between interests, formal and informal institutions and power in our analysis of `who gets what, when, how, and why`. In addition to its theoretical/analytical pillars, this course has a strong empirical/research dimension. Thus, second objective is to prepare students to carry out empirically informed theoretical research at the cutting edge of the IPE. A through guidance tailored specifically to your individual interests and particular needs will be provided. At the end of the semester, each student will produce a significant piece of research in the form of article-length paper leading to a journal article and/or conference paper.

Seminars: Teaching takes place in a seminar format. Each seminar will begin with a student presentation (or two, depending upon numbers) and the comments of another student as a discussant. The presentation will be based upon a draft of a written paper and/or ppt/overhead. (However, it will be presented, not read). The student giving the presentation must give the discussant an advance (2 days) copy of the draft paper and slip one copy of the paper under my door before the class on the day of the presentation. The presentation should be about 15 minutes and no longer than 20 minutes. The presentation should not be a summary of the readings - it should answer the weekly seminar questions by highlighting key

2

issues and articulating an argument around those issues. The discussant should offer a critique of the paper, stressing positive and negative aspects and laying out a series of questions for class discussion (Adapted from Stubbs and O’Brien, PS774/2007).

Requirements

Class Participation (29%). Reading material has been assigned for each week and must be completed before class (See also Appendix A.). All students are invited to present their view and offer critical discussion on one of the readings of their own choice.

Normally, the discussion of readings will be divided into two or three parts each week (see Appendix B). Students will be chosen randomly to lead the discussion on one of the given readings for the week. All students will be expected to come to class with a one page document, which has the following components: 1. List of key concepts and terms 2. Summary statement (four sentences maximum) of the author’s main argument. This statement should be written in your own words as far as possible. It should not be borrowed directly from the text of the reading. 3. Three or four issues or questions in the reading that are important and merit some discussion and that you would like to be addressed by class time permitting. Formulate these in the form of a question. Note that all three of these components should be focused on understanding the readings well, and not on criticizing them. Criticism should only follow in class when we have a good understanding of what the author is arguing. The leader of the discussion should begin with the following questions: 1. These are the several key concepts and terms that I noticed in the reading such as . . . . Are any of these unclear to any of you? Are there any other key concepts that you noted that need to be clarified? (If one or more are unclear) Can anyone help us clarify the meaning of <problematic concept(s)>. Advice: try to keep this part of the seminar to about 10 minutes. Use your discretion here. If a concept or term brought up is interesting but not central to the reading, then suggest that we come back to it if we have time. If a concept is integral to the argument (see below), you can reserve its discussion for when we get to the next step. 2. Would any member of the class like to give us their statement on what the main argument of the author is? Would anyone like to add something to what

3

<the first person> has said? Do you agree or disagree that we have captured the key aspects of the argument? Advice: Try to avoid starting off with your own statement of the argument. See if you can draw it out from members of the class first. You can add some of your own understanding as the argument proceeds. As you see the discussion being finished or beginning to get into key issues arising from the argument, move to the third step. 3. I would like now to identify some of the key issues that arise out of the reading and that we might discuss. One of these might be . . . Are there any others that we might take up? Advice: Your goal here is to get as many key issues discussed as is possible. Try to draw in members of the class who have not had a chance to speak. The aim here is to improve understanding of the reading, not to criticize it. If members move to critique, stop them and say we will do that soon. Keep an eye on your watch or the clock. You want to reserve time for a critical discussion of the reading. The discussion should then flow until members of the class are relatively satisfied with their understanding of the argument 4. With our understanding of the argument and the various issues related to the argument, we can now spend a few minutes to reflect critically on the reading. Are there any points that are particularly problematic in your understanding? Are there any points that are particularly useful or persuasive? Advice: It is important here to ensure that members of the seminar get a chance to comment on both the weaknesses and the strengths of the given reading. Don't just concentrate on the weaknesses. Allocation of the participation grade: a. Leading discussions 10%. (For some thoughts on leading discussions, see Appendix B below) b. Participation in seminar discussions 10%. For some information on the difference between evaluating participating and evaluating knowledge and understanding, see Appendix A below). c. Handing in of summary statements 10%. These will be prepared for each of the substantive discussions of the readings, hence 13 in total. To receive credit, these summaries must be submitted in print prior to the class. Members of the class are permitted one ‘heavy burden’ week without losing points here. Students taking a ‘heavy burden’ week must inform me by the Thursday preceding the next class. (Adapted from Coleman, PS705/2008).

Daily news papers and weekly magazines may be distributed/used each week to relate relevant theory with empirical reality and to expose its potential strengths

4

and weaknesses. This may also serve as a basis for discussion. Thus, students will be graded by class participation (29%).

Research Paper. Each student will be responsible for writing a research paper of 5,000-6,000 words (excluding footnotes). The paper should apply one or more of the theories or approaches discussed in class to a case or a problem in IPE of the student’s choosing. It should be written in a form that could be submitted for publication in a professional journal, with appropriate revisions. From the first week of the semester to its deadline, you will be offered hands on individual guidance towards independent research.

You are required to meet with Dr Bakir on an individual basis to discuss topics for the article-length paper. Topic proposals for the research paper must be approved and submitted on or before November 17. You are strongly encouraged to meet with him earlier to discuss possible topics. Papers are due on December 22. Thus students will be graded by research paper (71%).

Plagiarism and Collusion

Plagiarism is the presentation of work which has been copied in whole or in part from another person’s work, or from any other source such as the internet, published books or periodicals without due acknowledgement given in the text.

Collusion is the presentation of work, which is the result in whole or in part of unauthorized collaboration with another person or persons.

Both Plagiarism and Collusion are methods of cheating. Students must observe academic honesty and integrity in order not to face disciplinary actions.

Suggested Reading Materials

Books

There is no prescribed text book for this MA course. I have provided a comprehensive list below that you may find useful. Most of them are introductory materials which are highly accessible.

Susan Strange. 1994. States and Markets. (2nd Ed.). London: Pinter. John Ravenhill. 2008. Global Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Andrew Walter & Gautam Sen. 2008. Analyzing the Global Political Economy Princeton: Princeton Univerwsity Press.

5

Jeffry Frieden. 2006. Global Capitalism: Its fall and rise in the twentieth century. New York: WW Norton.

Robert Gilpin, 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Robert Gilpin. 2001. Global political economy: understanding the international economic order / with the assistance of Jean M. Gilpin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Stephen Gill & David Law. 1987. The Global Political Economy: Perspectives, Problems, and Politics. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Jeffrey A. Frieden & David A. Lake. 1997. International political economy: perspectives on global power and wealth (3rd Ed.) London: Routledge.

Richard Stubbs & Geoffrey R. D. Underhill. 1994. Political economy and the changing global order / edited by.2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Joan E. Spero & Jeffrey A. Hart. 1997. The politics of international economic relations, 5th ed. New York : St. Martin's Press.

George T. Crane & Abla Amawi. 1991. The theoretical evolution of international political economy, a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomas Lawton, James Rosenau & Amy Verdun. 2000. Strange power: shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy. Aldershot, VT: Ashgate.

Journals

If you plan to take preliminary examinations in this field, it is crucial that you read the leading IPE journals including International Organization (IO), World Politics, Review of International Political Economy (RIPE), New Political Economy as well as Public Administration, Governance, International Studies Quarterly, Comparative Politics, and many others.

Required readings are available on the library reserve.

6

Topics, Readings and Questions

Week 1.

Overview and Introduction

Week 2

What is IPE?

Suggested readings

Susan Strange. 1994. Prologue. Chapters 1 and 2. John Ravenhill. 2008. “The Study of Global Political Economy”, in John Ravenhill (ed). Global Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1.

Craig Murphy. 2001. “International Political Economy: A Tale of Two Heterodoxies”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3(3). Pp.393-412.

Amanda Dickins, 2006. “The Evolution of International Political Economy”, International Affairs. 82(3). Pp. 479-492.

Gill & Law. 1987. Chapter 1.

Robert Gilpin. 1987. Chapter 1.

Stubbs & Underhill. 1994. Introduction (pp.1-24), Chapter 1, 2 and 6.

Frieden & Lake. 1995. Introduction

Questions: What is IPE? What is the relationship between economics and politics in IPE? Why IPE perspective is needed in IR? What difference IPE makes in understanding global and domestic political economy? Why ‘structural’ and ‘relational’ dimensions of power are important in understanding global political economy? What are the four pillars of IPE? Why did the world economy that had developed prior to 1914 fall into disorder and conflict?

Week 3.

Historical Processes 1: From World War I to Collapse of Bretton Woods

7

Readings:

Karl Polanyi. 1944. The great transformation, Beacon Press, Chapters 3-6, 12, 21.

Charles Kindleberger. 1973. The World in Depression, 1929-39. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 14. “An Explanation of the 1929 Depression” Pp. 291-308

Susan Strange. 1985. “Protectionism and world politics”. IO, 39(2), Pp. 233-59.

Eric Helleiner. 1994. States and Re-emergence of Finance. Chapters 1-2.

Caner Bakir. 2008. “American bureaucratic economic interests at the Bretton Woods monetary agreement in 1944”. A paper presented at American Political Science Association Meeting, Boston. August 2008. (read this paper with Helleiner 1994, above)

Questions: What role did the Bretton Woods agreement play in the rebuilding of an international economy after the Second World War? How useful is Polanyi’s notion of “the double movement” in explaining the interwar collapse and post-war reconstruction?

Week 4

Collapse of Bretton Woods and the Emergence of Global Political Economy

Readings:

Eric Helleiner. 1994. States and Re-emergence of Finance. Chapters 4-8.

Paul Krugman. 2008. The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. New York: W.W. Norton.

Jeffry Frieden. 2006. Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. WW Norton: New York. Chapters 11 and 20.

Peter Hall Ed. 1989. The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism Across Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Chapter 1.

Margaret Weir. 1989. "Ideas and Politics: The Political Sources of Economic Policy." Chapter 3 in The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across nations. Edited by Peter Hall. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Pp. 53-86.

8

Question: ‘Stronger than the thread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come’ Do you agree or disagree, discuss with examples.

Week 5

Economic Nationalism, Liberalism

Core readings:

Crane & Amawi. 1992. Chapters 1-2.

Robert Gilpin. 1987. Chapter 2.

Gill & Law. Chps 3-4.

Questions for mercantilism and liberalism: How do you compare mercantilism and liberalism? Discuss the contribution of classical economic theories and approaches to the development of IPE? What are the main tenets of liberal IPE?

Week 6

Marxism and Critical Theory

Crane & Amawi. 1992. Chapter 3

Gill & Law. Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

Questions for Marxism: What are the weaknesses and strengths of Lenin’s theory linking capitalism to imperialism? How do Marxian theorists differ on state behavior?

Crane & Amawi. 1992. Chapter 5 (pp.236-244).

Robert Cox & Timothy Sinclair. 1996. Approaches to world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1.

Sthepen Gill & David Law. 1989. “Global Hegemony and Structural Power of Capital”. International Studies Quarterly, 33. Pp. 475-99.

John Halloway. 1994. “Global Capital and Nation State”, Capital and Class, 52. Pp. 23-43.

9

Peter Burnham. 2001.“Marx, IPE and globalisation”'. Capital and Class, 75. Pp. 103-112.

Peter Burnham. 1994. “Open Marxism and vulgar international political economy”. RIPE, 1(2). Pp 221-231.

Questions for Critical Theory: Why, for Marxist IPE analysis, is ‘capital’, understood as a set of social relationships? Some argue that ‘Gramscian historical materialism is alternative to realist and liberal perspectives of the IPE’ Do you agree or disagree, why? Who depends on whom, and for what? How do you compare ‘world system’ approach to dependency theory? What is ‘hegemony’ in critical approaches to IPE? Discuss the contribution of critical theories and approaches to the development of IPE; Do they have anything important to say in 21st century?

Week 7

Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), Regime theory, (Neo)Realism and Neoliberalism,

Core readings:

Charles Kindleberger. 1973. The World in Depression, 1929-39. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chapter 14, “An Explanation of the 1929 Depression”. Pp. 291-308 (revisit from week 3)

John Gerard Ruggie. 1982. “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order.” IO, 36(2), Pp. 379-415.

Robert Keohane. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Economy. NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 1.

Susan Strange. 1982. “Cave! Hic Dragones: Critique of regime analysis”. International organization, 36(2), Pp. 479-97.

Suggested readings:

Peter Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane & Stephen Krasner. 1998. “International organization and the study of world politics”, IO, 52(4), Pp. 645-685.

Joseph Nye. 1988. “Neorealism and Neoliberalism” World Politics, 40(2), Pp. 235-51.

Robert Keohane. 1986. “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics,” in Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Robert Keohane. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 1-26.

10

Robert Keohane. 1989. International Institutions and State power, Boulder: Westview Press. Chapter 1.

Kenneth Waltz. 1990. “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory”. Journal of International Affairs, 44, Pp. 21-37.

Questions for HST: What is the idea of the HST? What is hegemony in the HST? what are the main attributes of and role of a hegemonic power? What are the realist critiques of regime theory? How regime theorists responded such critiques? Do you agree that cooperation in international economic issues depends on the existence of a single hegemonic power? What are international public goods, who provides them, why? Questions for Regime Theory: What are regimes and how do they encourage cooperation? What is the difference between an institution and organization? Are there certain conditions under which international institutions will be most effective at promoting international economic cooperation? Does multilateralism matter? Questions for neorealism and neoliberalism: How do ‘neorealism’ and ‘neoliberalism’ portray international relations? What is meant by ‘sensitivities’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ of actors in specific issue-areas in global politics? What are the contribution of ‘neoliberal institutionalism’ to realist and neorealist debate?

Week 8

Introduction to Current Theoretical Debates: British versus American IPE

Core readings:

Benjamin J. Cohen. 2008. International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Introduction, Chapter 1 “American School”. Chapter 2 “British School”; conclusion.

Richard Higgot and Mathew Watson. 2008. “All at Sea in a Barbed Wire Canoe: Professor Cohen’s Transatlantic Voyage in IPE”. Review of International Political Economy, 15 (1). Pp 1-17. Benjamin J. Cohen. 2008 “The Transatlantic Divide: A Rejoinder”. Review of International Political Economy, 15 (1). Pp. 30-34. Suggested reading Mathew Watson. 2008. “Theoretical Traditions in Global Political Economy”, Chapter 2 in Ravenhill (Ed.). Global Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 27-66

11

Questions: How the bridges between American and British IPE can be built? Is it possible to build bridges between American and British IPE in the manner advocated by Cohen? Are the differences between the individual ‘schools’ of IPE anything more than methodological? How, and to what extent, do intellectual gatekeepers structure the production of knowledge within IPE?

Week 9

IPE and Institutional Theory

John L. Campbell 2004. Institutional Change and Globalization, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chp.1

John L. Campbell, 2009. "What Do Sociologists Bring to International Political Economy?" Pp. 260-73 in Routledge Handbook of International Political Economy, edited by Mark Blyth. London: Routledge.

John L. Campbell, 2003. “States, Politics and Globalization: Why Institutions

Still Matter.” Pp. 234-59 in The Nation-State in Question, edited by T.V. Paul, G.

John Ikenberry and John A. Hall. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Peter A. Hall and Rosemary C. R. Taylor 1996. “ Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms” MPIFG Discussion Paper 96/6

Streeck, Wolfgang and Thelen, Kathleen .2005. “Introduction,” in Beyond Continuity Eds. Wolfgang Streeck and Kathleen Thelen, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Steven Steinmo. 2008. “Historical institutionalism”, in Michael Keating and Donatella Della Porta eds., Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: a pluralist perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 118-129.

Mark Beeson, and Stephen Bell, 2005. “Structures, institutions and agency in the models of capitalism debate”, in Phillips, Nicola (ed.), Globalising International Political Economy, (London: Palgrave): 116-40. Hall, Peter A. and David Soskice, 2001. “Varieties of Capitalism: An Introduction to the Varieties of Capitalism”, in Peter A. Hall and David Soskice (eds.). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 1-68.

Suggested readings:

12

Peter Hall. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State”. Comparative Politics, 25(3), Pp. 275-296. Johannes Lindvall. 2006. “The Politics of Purpose”. Comparative Politics, 38(3), pp. 253–272. Questions: Provide discussion and examples on the following questions: how much institutional change occurs, what are the underlying mechanisms or processes by which this change occurs, and how ideas and discourse as well as vested interests affect institutional change, and the degree to which they do this.

Week 10

Power, Ideas, and Interests in IPE: An introduction

Core readings:

Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox. 2011. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research New York: Oxford University Press, pp.3-20. Mark Blyth. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century Cambridge University Press, pp.3-48. Mark Blyth. 2003. “From Comparative Capitalism to Economic Constructivism”. New Political Economy, 8(2), Pp. 263-274. David Marsh. 2009. “Keeping Ideas in their Place: In Praise of Thin Constructivism” Australian Journal of Political Science, Volume 44, Issue 4, pp.679-696. Mark Blyth. 2001. “The Transformation of the Swedish Model: Economic Ideas, Distributional Conflict, and Institutional Change”. World Politics 54(1), Pp. 1-26. Jeffry Frieden. 1991. “Invested Interests: The Politics of National Economic Policies in a World of Global Finance”. International Organization, 45(4), Pp. 425-451.

Colin Hay. 2004. “Ideas, interests, and Institutions in the Comparative Political Economy of Great Transformations”. RIPE, 11(1), Pp. 204-226.

Crane & Amawi. 1992. Chapter 6. Suggested Readings:

13

John Zysman. 1983. Governments, Markets and Growth, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chapters 1 and 2. Peter Katzenstein. 1985. Small States in World Markets. Chapters 2 and 3. Peter Hall. 1986. Governing the Economy. New York: Oxford University Pres. Chapter 9. Peter Gourevitch. 1986. Politics in Hard Times. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pres. Pp. 54-67 and Chapter 4. Ronald Rogowski. 1987. Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political alignments. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1990. Chapter1 Questions: How ideas, interests and institutions interact in domestic and international political economy? How much of policy/institutional change can be attributed to interest-based and ideas-based accounts? Week 11

Policy entrepreneurship and Institutional Change

Core readings:

Caner Bakir. 2009. "Policy Entrepreneurship And Institutional Change: Multi-level Governance Of Central Banking Reform", Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 22:4, pp.571-597.

Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse,” Annual Review of Political Science vol. 11: 303-26.

Guy Peters, 2011. “Implementation Structures as Institutions” (Work in Progress)

John Kingdon. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd Edition, London: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. chapter 1.

Bird, Graham and Thomas D Willett. 2004. “IMF Conditionality, Implementation and the New Political Economy of Ownership.” Comparative Economic Studies, 46: 423-450. Ngaire Woods. 1995. The globalizers: the IMF, the World Bank, and their borrowers. Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 2006 ch.1.

14

Suggested reading:

Caner Bakir. 2007. Merkezdeki Banka, Istanbul: Bilgi Universitesi. Chapters 3 and 9.

Questions: How do you compare and contrast ‘interlocutors’ and ‘policy entrepreneurs’? Why and how IMF/World Bank conditionality is translated policy outcomes in some countries, but not in others? Do international norms matter? Who learns what from whom, how, when and why in a world of global finance? How international norms, rules, laws etc., institutionalized by international intergovernmental institutions penetrate into domestic policymaking, why? How much of domestic policy change can be attributed to extraterritorial sources of influence and how much to domestic forces? What determines success and failure in policy outcomes?

Week 12

IPE and Finance

Core readings:

John L. Campbell, 2011. "The U.S. Financial Crisis: Lessons for Theories of

Institutional Complementarity." Socio-Economic Review 9:211-34.

John L. Campbell, 2010. "Neoliberalism in Crisis: Regulatory Roots of the U.S.

Financial Meltdown." Research in the Sociology of Organizations 30B:65-101.

Susan Strange.1998. Mad Money. Chapters 1 and 2.

Jeffry A. Frieden. 2006. Global Capitalism, Chapters 16-20.

Paul Krugman. 2008. The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. New York: W.W. Norton. Chapters 2, 9 and 10.

Leonard Seabrooke. 2007. “Everyday Legitimacy and International Financial Orders: The Social Sources of Imperialism and Hegemony in Global Finance,” New Political Economy, 12(1), Pp. 2-18.

Andrew Walter & Gautam Sen. 2008. Analyzing the Global Political Economy Princeton: Princeton Univerwsity Press. Ch.5.

Suggested readings

Cohen, Benjamin. 1996. "Phoenix Risen: The Resurrection of Global Finance," World Politics. 48(2), Pp 68-96.

15

Eric Helleiner. 2000. “Still an Extraordinary Power, but for How Much Longer? The United States in World Finance”, in Lawton, Rosenau & Verdun (Eds.). Strange Power: shaping the parameters of international relations and international political economy. Aldershot, VT: Ashgate. Pp. 229-248.

Jonathan Kishner. 2000. “The Study of money.” World Politics, 52(3), Pp. 407-436.

David Held. 2004. Global Covenant: The Social Democracies Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 1.

John Goodman & Louis Pauly. 2000. "The Obsolescence of Capital Controls?: Economic management in an age of Global Markets”. World Politics, 46(1), Pp. 50-82.

Note: It may be useful to examine: Barry Eichengreen, 1997. Globalizing Capital : a history of the international monetary system. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.

Questions: Why money is mad? What’s casino capitalism? What are the structural, institutional and agency related causes of Global financial crisis? Who are the winners and losers in a world of global finance? Why has country after country decided to adopt more liberal domestic and international financial policies, especially during the 1970s and 1980s? Do markets play a role in influencing and constraining behavior of governments? What role do states play in globalization of finance? What are the pressures faced by nation states in a world of global finance? How do they respond to these pressures? How does the US exercise its structural power in global finance? What caused Global Financial Crisis?

Week 13

Globalization, Governance, and State Capacity

Core readings:

Mark Robinson, 2008. “Hybrid States: Globalisation and the Politics of State Capacity,” Political Studies, 56(3), pp. 566-583.

Jon Pierre & Guy Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics and the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Chapters 1, 8 and 9.

Peter Evans. 1995. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1 and 2, (especially pp. 21-42)

16

Peter Evans. 1997. "The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization," World Politics, 50(1), Pp. 62-87. Linda Weiss. 1997. “Globalization and the Myth of the Powerless State.” New Left Review, 225, Pp. 3-27. Herbert Kitschelt, Peter Lange, Gary Marks and John D. Stephens. 1999. “Convergence and Divergence in Advanced Capitalist Democracies.” in Herbert Kitschelt, Peter Lange, Gary Marks and John D. Stephens (Eds.). Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 427-460.

Suggested readings:

Diane Stone. 2008. “Global Public Policy, Transnational Policy Communities, and Their Networks”. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), Pp. 19-38. Wolfgang Reinicke. 2000. “The Other World Wide Web: Global public policy networks”. Foreign Policy, 117, Winter, Pp. 44-57. Anne-Marie Slaughter. 2003. “Everyday Global Governance”, Daedalus (Winter) 83-90. Anne-Marie Slaughter. 1997.’The Real New World Order”, Foreign Affairs 76, 5; 112-122. William Coleman, 2010. “Governance and Global Public Policy” Prepared for submission to Oxford Handbook of Governance David Levi-Faur, editor 30 August 2010

Questions: What is state capacity, how it is measured? What are the features of weak and strong states, what difference does it make in a world of globalizing economy? What is global public policy? Is it reality or myth? Why?

17

Week 14

IPE and the New MNCs

Core readings:

Ravi Ramamurti (Editor) and Jitendra V. Singh (Eds) 2009. Emerging Multinationals in Emerging Markets Cambridge University Press, chs.1 -3.

Afonso Fleury and Maria Tereza Leme Fleury 2011. Brazilian Multinationals: Competences for Internationalization chs.2, 5, 9, 10, and 11.

Mauro F. Guillén, Esteban García-Canal The New Multinationals: Spanish Firms in a Global Context 2010. Cambridge University Press, chs.1,2,4, and 8. Dunning, J. H. (1995). Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 461-491. Dunning, J. H. (2000). The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9, 163-190. Dunning, J. H. (2001). The eclectic (OLI) paradigm of international production: past, present and future. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 173-190. Dunning, J. H. & Lundan, S. M. (2008). Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. 2nd edition. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar: ch. 10.

John H. Dunning. 2000. "The New Geography of Foreign Direct Investments" in Ngaire Woods (Ed.). The Political Economy of Globalization, Baningstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.20-54

Suggested readings:

Andrew Walter & Gautam Sen. 2008. Analyzing the Global Political Economy Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ch.6.

Robert Grosse. 2005. “The bargaining view of government-business relations”,pp.275-289, International Business and Government Relations in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Louis T. Wells, 1985. “Sovereignty en garde: negotiating with foreign investors”, International Organization 39: 47-78.

18

Thomas Murtha and Stefanie Lenway, 1994. "Country Capabilities and the Strategic State: How National Political Institutions Affect Multinational Corporations'' Strategies," Strategic Management Journal vol15, 113-129.

John Dunning 1998. “An overview of relations with national governments” New Political Economy 3:2, 280-284

Ravi Ramamurti (Editor) and Jitendra V. Singh (Eds) 2009. Emerging Multinationals in Emerging Markets Cambridge University Press, ch.1 -3

Kenneth P. Thomas. 2000. Competing for Capital: Europe and North America in a Global Era. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Chapter 1.

Susan Strange. 1994. “Rethinking Structural Change in the IPE: States, Firms and Diplomacy” in Richard Stubbs & Geoffrey R. D. Underhill (Eds.). Political economy and the changing global order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ravi Ramamurti. 2001. “The Obsolescing ‘Bargaining Model’? MNE Host Country Relations Revisited”, Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), Pp. 23-39.

Susan Strange. 1998. “Globaloney?”. RIPE, 5(4), Pp. 704-711

Susan Strange. 1991. “Big Business and State”. Millennium, 20(2), Pp. 245-50.

John Stopford & Susan Strange. 1991. Rival States, Rival Firms: Competition for World Market Shares, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1 and 4.

Ronan Palan & Jason Abbott, 1996. State Strategies in the Global Political Economy. London/New York: Pinter.

Questions: Why there is no single IPE work on the Turkish Multinationals (TMCs)? Why countries differ in their ability to attract FDI? What are country-specific and firm specific factors that affect FDI? What are the main features of OLI framework? How is it different from FSA-CSA? How can you benefit from these frameworks to analyze TMNC? What are the weaknesses and strengths of these frameworks in understanding behavior of TMNCs? What are the motivations, strategies and impact of MNEs explained? What are the motivations, strategies and impact of TMNCs? What competitive advantages and capabilities do TMNCs leverage in international markets, and how are those advantages and capabilities shaped by the home-country context? What are their Firm-Specific and Country-Specific Advantages? What internationalization strategies do they follow, and why? What impact is their rise having on global industry dynamics, including established Western MNCs? What impact do they

19

have on host and home country economies/sectors they operate and firms they compete?

Core Readings on Trade

Andrew Walter & Gautam Sen. 2008. Analyzing the Global Political Economy Princeton: Princeton Univerwsity Press. Ch.2 and 3.

Joseph M. Grieco & G. John Ikenberry. 2003. State Power and World Markets: The International Political Economy. New York: WW. Norton. Chapter 2.

Suggested Readings:

Levy, David. 2005. “Offshoring in the New Global Political Economy”. Journal of management studies, 42(3), Pp. 685-693.

Benjamin J. Cohen. 1990. “The Political Economy of International Trade”, IO 44(2), Pp. 261-281.

Questions: Strategic trade theory suggests that governments can –and should- create comparative advantage. Do you agree or disagree?

Week 15

Development, Poverty, IMF, Crisis in Developing Countries and the IPE

Core readings

Caner Bakir and Ziya Onis, 2010. "The Emergence and the Limits of the Regulatory State: The Political Economy of Turkish Banking Reforms in the Age of Post-Washington Consensus" Development and Change, 41:1, 77-106 (January 2010).

James Raymond Vreeland. 2003. The IMF and economic development Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2003. chps. Introduction, 1 and conclusion.

Ziya Onis. 1991. “The logic of the developmental state.” Comparative Politics, 24 (1), Pp. 109-27.

Philip Arestis and Malcolm Sawyer. 2006. Financial Liberalization: Beyond Orthodox concerns. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Chapters 1 and 3.

20

Jeffrey Sachs. 2005. The End of Poverty. New York: Penguin. Chapters 1,2 and 13 William Easterly. 2000. The Elusive Quest for Growth. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chapters. 1,2 and 13 Dani Rodrik. 2007. One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Pres. Pp. 1-55 Dani Rodrik. 1999. The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work. Washington, DC: Overseas Development Council. Pp. 1-41. H. J. Chang. 1999. “The Economic Theory of the Developmental State,” in Meredith Woo-Cumings (ed.). The Developmental State. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Pres. Pp. 182-199.

Joseph Stiglitz, “What I learned at the world economic crisis”. The Insider, April 2000.

Ngaire Woods. 2006. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank and Their Borrowers, Ithaca:Cornell University Press. chapter 3.

Biersteker T J, 1990, "Reducing the role of the state in the economy: a conceptual evaluation of IMF and World Bank prescriptions," International Studies Quarterly, 43(4), pp.477-492.

Joseph Stiglitz. 2000. “Capital Market Liberalization, Economic Growth, and Instability”, World Development 28(6), Pp. 1075-86.

Suggested readings:

Ziya Onis. 1995. “The limits of neoliberalism: toward a reformulation of development theory.” Journal of Economic Issues, 29(1), Pp. 97-120.

Basu Kaushik. 2003.”Globalization and the politics of international finance: The Stiglitz Verdict”. Journal of Economic Literature 41(3), Pp. 885-899.

Caner Bakir. 2009. “Wobbling but still on its feet: Turkish Economy in Global Financial Crisis”. South European Society & Politics 14:1.71-85

Peter Evans. 1992. “The State as Problem and Solution” in Haggard & Kaufman (Eds.). The Politics of Economic Adjustment. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 3.

David Held. 2004. Global Covenant: The Social Democracies Alternative to the Washington Consensus. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 2.

21

Barbara Stalling. 1992. “International Influence on Economic Policy” in Haggard & Kaufman (Eds.). The Politics of Economic Adjustment. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 1.

Stiglitz and Squire (pp. 383-391), Broad, Cavanagh and Bello, (392-404) and Williamson (pp. 405-416) in Frieden and Lake eds, International Political Economy: Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth. 4th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.

Questions: “The Washington consensus [is] US designed neoliberal economic project, and… a political project which underwrites the current US administration’s unilateralist ambitions.” Would you agree or disagree with this statement, why? Is Washington consensus a flawed formula for poor countries, why? What are the causes and consequences of global inequality? Can developing countries adopt and implement alternative strategies to the Washington consensus? Are there any examples?

22

Appendix A: Evaluation of Participation Part of the participation grade will come from an evaluation of how much a given class member contributed to the seminar. Remember that evaluation of participation is different from evaluation of knowledge or understanding of a set of given readings. My evaluation of your knowledge and understanding will come from the research paper. If you wish to check out how well you are doing in your participation, you might ask yourself the following questions: Did I initiate a topic or question? Did I provide some information when it was needed? Did I give some positive opinions or reactions? Did I give some negative opinions or reactions? Did I ask for positive or negative opinions or reactions? Did I confront someone whom you thought was wrong? Did I try to restate what someone else had said to ensure I and others understood? Did I ask someone else to restate what he or she had said? Did I give examples when they were needed? Did I ask others to provide some examples? Did I try to synthesize or summarize a part of the discussion? Did I ask if someone might synthesize or summarize a part of the discussion? Did I sponsor, encourage, help or reward others in the group? Did I relieve tension in the group by cracking a joke or calling for a break at an appropriate time?

23

Appendix B: Leading a discussion The following suggestions are adapted from Gale Rhodes and Robert Schaible, A User’s Manual for Student-Led Discussions, available at: http://www.usm.maine.edu/~rhodes/StdLedDisc.html I liked the approach and it is consistent with what we are trying to achieve in the course. Preparing To lead a discussion, you must be familiar with the assigned material. "Familiar with" is just the right phrase. You need not have mastered the material; after all, a goal of discussion is to move everyone towards mastery, that is, to improve everyone's (even the leader's) understanding. To prepare for discussion (leadership or participation), first read and study the assignment, underlining the more important or interesting points, and making notes in the margins. Then think about and write down some of the main issues that the author raises and a few questions pertinent to the issues. Then go back over your notes and the text and note the key concepts or terms and then try to put the author’s argument into your own words. Getting Started Class has started and your name has been drawn from the hat. How do you begin? Simply clear your throat and begin with the questions everyone has been asked to address. Before you know it, the hard part -- getting started -- is done. One word of caution: Start out on a positive note. Avoid beginning with an apology for being poorly prepared or for finding the reading difficult. Treat the day's topic as having real value. Openers like "I didn't get much out of this" or "I don't agree with anything the author said" will stifle, rather then promote, discussion. Remember that a time for critical evaluation will come at the end, but only after the class has worked on its understanding of the author's arguments. If you treat the readings as worthwhile, your classmates will follow your lead, join you in examining the day's assignment, and thus make your job easier. Sustaining Discussion Discussions, like sleepy horses, need some urging to keep them moving. A discussion leader can often keep things moving with only modest prodding, giving the class its head when things are going well. Of course, if you can contribute something useful, do so; but other kinds of comments or actions on your part can sustain the discussion just as well as an injection of insight. Here are some suggestions: 1) Get students to talk to each other. Ask for a response to the most recent comments. (Anyone have a response to Ayse's opinion?) Or ask a specific student to respond. (Clara, do you agree with Ralph?) 2) Get students to defend or explain their opinions. (Marvin why do you say that? What's your evidence or reasoning?)

24

3) Encourage an exploration of differing points of view. When you hear conflicting views, point them out and get the holders of those views to discuss their differences. Perhaps ask a third person to sum up the two positions. 4) Keep the class on the subject. If you are even halfway familiar with the material, you know when the discussion is no longer connected to it. Just say so. (We've gotten pretty far from the readings; let's get back on the subject.) Or simply consult your list of questions. Any sensible response to one of your questions is bound to be pertinent. 5) Point to a particular passage in the text relevant to a comment made by one person, or to a discussion among several. This might be a passage that challenges, or sums up and confirms, the views being expressed. 6) Don't fill every silence with your own voice. Any discussion will lapse occasionally. It is not your job as leader to avoid all silence. Some quiet periods are productive. Students who are not so quick to speak will frequently get the chance they need when others are quiet. If the silence gets too heavy, take advantage of the other students' lists of questions. (Mehmet, give us one of the questions you brought to class.) Remember, as discussion leader you do not have to be the brains for the class. You are not expected to know it all; the class is full of students who have read the same assignment that you read. Your job is to give them a chance to talk about it and thus give others the benefits of their thinking. If any one student begins to do all the talking, gently correct this problem by bringing other students into the discussion. You are there to steer, to keep the class reasonably near the center of the path, by pulling a rein when needed, by loosening the reins when it keeps to the trail, by reining it in when it threatens to gallop away to greener subjects. If students are talking to each other about the reading material, things are going well; relax, listen, and contribute when you can. Note: Appendix A and B are adapted from Coleman, PS 2008