Historical Structuralism

January 5, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Social Science, Political Science, International Relations
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download Historical Structuralism...

Description

Unit Four: Historical Materialism & IPE Dr. Russell Williams

 Required 

Cohn, Ch. 5.

 Class 



Reading:

Discussion Reading:

Robert W. Cox, “Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order,” Review of International Studies, 25 (1999), pp. 3-28. Shaun Breslin, “Power and production: rethinking China’s global economic role”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 31, No. 4 (October 2005), pp. 735-53.

 Outline:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction & Key Concepts Marxist Economics Historical Structuralism and IPE Modern Approaches Conclusions

1) Introduction & Key Concepts a) Same origins as liberal approaches – focus on economic relations under capitalism and globalization 

“Possibilities of cooperation” (liberalism) replaced with “structural imperatives” of capitalism 

E.g. Class Conflict

b) Interested in issues “discursively excluded” by Liberalism and Realism 

E.g. Exploitation and Inequality

c) Key Concepts (derived from Marx): 

“Mode of Production”: Basic system of production  Impacts all other social relations



“Relations of Production”: Society’s laws, politics, culture and ideology 

The “social superstructure” 



Determined by mode of production (?)

Importance of history: 

Specific historical & geographical settings have different modes/relations of production



Class: 



Each mode of production organizes individuals into classes A )Those who own and control the means of production; and b) Those who sell their labour

Class Struggle 

Struggle between these classes “drives” history

2) Marxist Economics: a) Labor the basis of all value . . .  Total direct & indirect labor in production determines “true price” of product b) Profits based on “surplus value” . . .  Capitalism always exploitative c) Increases in profit only achieved by increasing extraction of surplus value d) Capitalism was dynamic – would spread

2) Marxist Economics cont. . . . Key analytical claim - Capitalism based on fundamental “tensions”: 1) Economic concentration: Competitive markets produced “concentration” 

E.g. monopolies

2) “Falling rate of profit”: As the ratio of indirect labour (machinery) grew in relation to direct labour, there would be a steady decline in the rate of profit. 3) Growing exploitation of workers:  

Produced “crisis of under-consumption” Recessions and unemployment

Bottom Line: Capitalism prone towards crises and collapse (David Harvey on the Financial Crisis)

3) Historical Structuralism and IPE: Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish?

a) Theory of Monopoly Capitalism:  When capitalism became “monopolistic”, corporations could force the state to support their activities.  Prevent collapse of system  Required consideration of the role of the state . . .

Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish? b) State-Capital relations . . . . Two theories: 

“Instrumental Marxism”: State run by, or run in the direct interest of, capitalists.  State



must be captured by proletariat

“Structural Marxism”: State serves interests of capitalists over the long term. Has relative autonomy in the short term. Post war “class compromise”  Overcame problem of under-consumption

 E.g.



Either way . . . State protects capitalism

Problem: If capitalism should collapse, why does it survive and flourish?

c) “Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism”: 

Argued: Capitalism led to imperialism – overcome domestic falling rate of profit . . . .  Lead to “New Imperialism”, nationalism and WAR!  Monopoly



Implications: must be violently overthrown – imperialism and conflict, inevitable, and good for capitalism  Impact on non-colonial societies . . . ?  Capitalism

4) Modern Approaches: a) “Dependency Theory”:  



(Gunder-Frank and Cardosso and Faletto) Popular in Latin America and Canada

Sources: 1) Marxists: Argued MNC’s from north prevented development in south for “super-exploitation” 2) Latin American Structuralism (Prebisch): Argued free trade didn’t work for South 



Problem of “Declining Terms of Trade”

Claims:  

Developing nations exploited by powerful capitalist states Capitalism uneven: “core and periphery” = underdevelopment  South dominated by “Comprador Classes”



“Dependency Theory” implications: 

Radicals recommended socialist revolutions = Breakout of global capitalism!



Moderates recommended “economic nationalism” – autonomy  



“Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI)”: Tariffs to protect development of local industries Situation could be changed . . .

Problems?   

Unclear concepts - economic nationalism vs. Marxism Importance of state power? Empirical problems – Success of East Asian “NIC’s” thought to disprove theory  Dependencistas do not accept this!

4) Modern Approaches: b) “World Systems Theory”: (Wallerstein) 



Argues:   



Derived from “Dependency Theory” but focuses on geographic exploitation of capitalism Single world capitalist system – power comes from position in system States organized hierarchically (Core, semi-periphery and periphery) Logic of Marxist exploitation applied to states  E.g. Periphery are exploited for their surplus value

Problems:   

Vague, not widely applied Marxists criticize lack of class analysis IR scholars criticize under-theorization of state power

4) Modern Approaches: c) Regulation Theory: (Lipietz – “regulation school”) 

Very “Structural Marxist” approach to IPE

Argues: 

States create different “regimes of accumulation” to adapt to changing “labour process” 

After WWII = “Fordism” and “Taylorism” 



Since 1980s= “Post-fordism” 



Required Keynesianism Profit squeeze requires Neo-liberalism

Political struggle not as important as needs of capitalism 

However, problem of “economism”/“economic-determinism”

4) Modern Approaches: d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory: 

 



(Gramsci, Cox, Gill and others . . .)

Global politics understood through a Neo-Marxist class analysis Rejects economism of Regulation Theory

Concepts: a) Interrelationship of “material capabilities”, “institutions” and “ideas” – all impact class struggle b) “Hegemony”: Seen as class domination - economic and ideological domination of elite class

c) “Organic Intellectuals”: Ideological organizers of class politics – Pro business groups

4) Modern Approaches: d) “Gramscian” or “Neo-Gramscian” Theory: 

Leads to different views of how global relations will evolve . . . . =E.g. Cooperation driven by the interests of MNC’s and their global networks of production =E.g. Cooperation driven by the programmatic replacement of the state 

E.g. The “New Constitutionalism” (Gill)

Further Reading: 

Dependency Theory: 



World Systems Theory: 



Christopher Chase-Dunn and Peter Grimes, “World-Systems Analysis,” Annual Review of Sociology, 21 (1995), pp. 387-417.

Regulation Theory: 



Joseph L. Love, "The Origins of Dependency Analysis," Journal of Latin American Studies, 22 (February, 1990), pp. 143-68.

Michael Dunford, “Globalization and Theories of Regulation,” in Ronen Palan, ed., Global Political Economy: Contemporary Theories, (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 143-167.

Gramscian Methods: 

Robert W. Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method,” Millennium, 12-2 (1983), pp. 162-175.

Conclusions: 

Strengths? 





Focus on concepts ignored by realism and liberalism (Exploitation and inequality) Central emphasis on capitalism and globalization

Weaknesses?   

Lack of “prescription” – What is to be done? (E.g. Regulation Theory) Confusing concepts, not widely applied Role of state power often obscured  Is this a problem?

For Next Time: Unit Five: Contemporary Approaches - Feminism and Constructivism (October 8 & 10)  Required Reading: 

Cohn, Ch. 5.

Class Discussion Readings: 



Penny Griffin, “Refashioning IPE: What and how gender analysis teaches international (global) political economy,” Review of International Political Economy, Oct2007, Vol. 14 Issue 4, pp. 719-736. Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, and Craig Parsons, “The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy,” in Constructivist Political Economy (Unpublished manuscript: http://ducis.jhfc.duke.edu/wpcontent/uploads/archive/documents/ABP.pdf)

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF