Talk:International political economy

Constructivism and Marxism

"The 'Constructivist' view assumes that the domain of international economic interactions is not value-free, and that economic and political identities, in addition to material interests, are significant determinants of economic action. This view is often considered a sub-class of the Marxist approach."

I think that is simply wrong and would like to see some source attached to it, if it is to be included. Marxism in both its political and academic variants are heavily based in materialism, which is opposed the (strong) definition of constructivism. That researchers from both traditions may share political views, subject matter, and other things does not equate them. However, the broader title "critical perspective" might cover both Marxists and Constructivists, or at least a great deal of them. I'm removing the last sentence from the above paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.147.14 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely wrong.Phd8511 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

academic IPE departments / books?

Would someone pls add pointers here to academic departments in "IPE", or to books written in that specific subject area -- not books which might be slotted in, but which identified themselves with "IPE".

The article makes "IPE" sound like a very good idea, but also Establishment, and I'd like to know how much and by whom it was / is Established. The lists seem to be serendipitous collections of various writers in affiliated subject-areas, but the article offers no evidence that they ever were "together" on anything.

--Kessler 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I plan on doing this if I ever get around to it. My school (The University of Puget Sound) has a very popular IPE major and several of our professors have written the authorative textbooks on the subject. --Liface 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a link for universities courses specifically titled IPE. There are several others folk could add. I don’t know about a section for books, I feel this discipline is expanding so rapidly we'd miss many of the best ones out. For that reason I also suggest at some stage we might want to remove the list of notable scholars. The list will soon have to be massive for us to avoid missing out key figures, just like we'd need a huge list for every significant particle physicist. Anyway on text books my personal recommendation is Global Political Economy by John Ravenhill, and that book lists many others in the field.FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Expand this section

This section must be expanded. This article should include,

1. A comparison between realist (mercantilist), liberal, and Marxist perceptions of IPE and general policy recommendations from each tradition. 2. A brief history of economic thought that influenced the field today. 3. An expanded overview of world economic history that influenced IPE studies today.

Comment: Would be interesting to compare the mercantilist, liberal and Marxist view with that of the social-contructivist view. It would also be interesting to draw up the differences between the American and the European schools of IPE (see http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epcglobal/conferences/IPES/papers/cohen_F500_plenary.pdf).

Hope you guys are happy with the expansion. I've only peripherally addressed the social-constructivist view and the differences between America & Europe as Im not all that knowledgeable about them. I haven't included that many references as I've tried to present the different approaches from a neutral POV, I will try add a few web references if I find some good ones. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism versus Realism

Gilpin in Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order (2001) says that Nationalism is a subset of Realism. I think his categorization is superior to the one currently on the page, and recommend that the category be renamed to "Realism" that includes "Nationalism" as a subcategory. While Nationalism has a pejorative sense to it (because of its historical applications), I think that Realism is more neutral because it identifies "what is" (the state as the principal actor) without suggesting it is "what should be". XqRG (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

hey, yes you're right accademics are increasingly prefering the word Realism rather than Nationalism. I note the 2007 edition of John Ravenhill's Global Political Economy has also been updated using Realism as the principle label. The 2005 edition uses Nationlist. So the two sources originally reference have both updated their categorization. I've therefore made the change you reccomend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Constructivism

The section is wrong but thne again most things on Wikipedia are wrong

I agree.Cibwins2885 (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Origin

This article seems to me very similar to the article on IPE in the Oxford Consise Dictionary of Politics (McLean/McMillan (2003). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press) on pg. 270. It is not a direct quote but large parts are quoted and a reference should be added, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettina.rehmann (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you confirm you just mean the Origin section please? I suspect whoever added that may have long since stopped watching this article. You could add the reference yourself if you like just by adding code like the following just after the section(s) that seems derivative:

<ref>Oxford Consise Dictionary of Politics 2nd Edition, by McLean/McMillan (2003). Oxford University Press p. 270 </ref>

FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Traditional approaches

"The Liberal approach is often wrongly traced to the work of Adam Smith - economics as we know it has been viewed as dawning with the Smithian revolution against Mercantalism." Wrongly is not explained clearly. The game theory graph is useless without legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.174.53 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Matthew Watson's Introduction to IPE book to figure out why the liberal school did not start with Adam Smith.Cibwins2885 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

list of IPE Academics

Many of them are not actual IPE academics--some are economists and sociologists.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

International political economy → International Political Economy – Should be capitalised as as the nortmal convetional naming. For example http://www.bisa-ipeg.org/Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the source given, "International Political Economy" is part of a proper name, so it's of course going to be capitalized. However, this article is about the academic discipline, and I see no evidence that its name is normally capitalized (which would be against normal grammatical rules). See [1] for some examples. Ucucha 19:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The source I gave is a group about the academic discipline.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The only use of the phrase on that page is part of the IPEG's name. If their website has a page in which the name of the discipline is capitalized, please show that. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with Ucucha, no indication it is widely used as a proper noun. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you a student of IPE?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Belated comment: This RM concluded correctly; academic and professional disciplines and fields are not proper names. They are frequently capitalized in the titles of courses, academic departments of specific universities, degrees, etc., but that's just because they are part of a title (a proper name), not proper names themselves. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization again

Can we have some shred of evidence for the claim that "All IPE academics capitalise IPE" (other than as an initialism, or as part of a book title or the name of an organisation)? —Tamfang (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess you aren't an IPE student. Sigh. The limits to Wikipedia.Cibwins2885 (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess no one else reading this is an IPE student who knows where to find, say, an IPE webpage to support the claim. —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is "Liberal approach","Marxism","Constructivism" etc all capatalised?Why not not capitalise every thing?Cibwins2885 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because that would look ignorant and unencyclopedic? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The section headings are capitalized because the custom here is to use sentence style for section headings. Otherwise, Marxism is capitalized because it's named after Karl Marx. Many other isms are optionally capitalized, but a field of study is not (one hopes) a factional opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I take it then you are not a student of IPE. The limits to knowledge.Cibwins2885 (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What academics do in text books and journals with regard to style is not of any particular concern to Wikipedia, which (like journals and textbook publishers) has its own house style. See WP:Specialist style fallacy; reliable sources on underlying socio-economics facts and theories are not automagically reliable sources on English usage and style in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Usage in generalist publications trumps them on that point, as does a simple consensus at WT:MOS on any given style matter. PS: <sigh> Oh, the limits to understanding of Wikipedia, its purpose and its audiences... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not reliable then.Phd8511 (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that is correct. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever.Phd8511 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Neo-Gramscianism

There is no mention of this page of the widespread use of the insights of Antonio Gramsci by Marxist and non-Marxist scholars of IPE. Many academics that are assumed in this article to subscribe to the Marxist perspective would more often than not describe their perspective as neo-Gramscian, and this is the more widely discussed and employed framework when compared with the broader and less specific approach of Marxism. Obviously neo-Gramscianism has considerable Marxist roots, however this article needs to show that the perspective has developed considerably since the 1980s. The neo-Gramscian conception of hegemony (where an emphasis is placed on cultural consent) occupies a large proportion of IPE literature, certainly in the UK.

A few neo-Gramscian scholars: Robert W. Cox, Stephen Gill, David Law, Adam David Morton, R.D. Germain, M. Kenny, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.86.183 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Sammartinlai (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International political economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007172421/http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/publications/trinity_papers/TrinityPaper33.pdf to http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/publications/trinity_papers/TrinityPaper33.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)