Constructivist Political Economy Rawi Abdelal,Mark Blyth,and Craig Parsons January 14,2005 13.330 words,including footnotes Chapter One:The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy
Constructivist Political Economy Rawi Abdelal, Mark Blyth, and Craig Parsons January 14, 2005 13,330 words, including footnotes Chapter One: The Case for a Constructivist International Political Economy
Introduction:Constructivism-Where to Find it,and Where Not Social constructivism focuses on the social facts of the world.These social facts exist only because everyone agrees that they exist.Social facts are very real,and they are the product of intersubjectively (that is,collectively)held beliefs that cannot be reduced to a series or summation of subjective,individual beliefs.Social facts differ fundamentally from material facts,the reality that exists irrespective of collective beliefs about its existence,but they nonetheless have causal properties..As John Ruggie observes,"collectivities of individuals within states hold intersubjective understandings that affect their behavior,,”just as do“collectivities of states.” Although what we think of as"the world economy"is composed of both material and social facts,the field of international political economy (IPE)within political science has tended until recently to focus almost exclusively on the material facts of the economy.Materialist scholars have attempted to map individual,firm,and government preferences over outcomes onto these material facts,thereby privileging the rational, goal-oriented pursuit of policies as the central causal mechanism in accounts of economic policy making.In IPE,the combination of materialism and rationalism has become the dominant,even orthodox,view of the world economy. IPE has been remarkably impervious to inroads from sociological approaches to economic policy making.The intersubjective beliefs that give the world meaning are absent in almost all IPE scholarship.Indeed,IPE is increasingly the last bastion for the materialists and rationalists,who have had increasingly to share the intellectual terrain
Introduction: Constructivism – Where to Find it, and Where Not Social constructivism focuses on the social facts of the world. These social facts exist only because everyone agrees that they exist. Social facts are very real, and they are the product of intersubjectively (that is, collectively) held beliefs that cannot be reduced to a series or summation of subjective, individual beliefs. Social facts differ fundamentally from material facts, the reality that exists irrespective of collective beliefs about its existence, but they nonetheless have causal properties.. As John Ruggie observes, “collectivities of individuals within states hold intersubjective understandings that affect their behavior,” just as do “collectivities of states.” Although what we think of as “the world economy” is composed of both material and social facts, the field of international political economy (IPE) within political science has tended until recently to focus almost exclusively on the material facts of the economy. Materialist scholars have attempted to map individual, firm, and government preferences over outcomes onto these material facts, thereby privileging the rational, goal-oriented pursuit of policies as the central causal mechanism in accounts of economic policy making. In IPE, the combination of materialism and rationalism has become the dominant, even orthodox, view of the world economy. IPE has been remarkably impervious to inroads from sociological approaches to economic policy making. The intersubjective beliefs that give the world meaning are absent in almost all IPE scholarship. Indeed, IPE is increasingly the last bastion for the materialists and rationalists, who have had increasingly to share the intellectual terrain
with the constructivists on virtually all other topics.Constructivists have made contributions that are recognized as fundamentally important to economics and sociology, as well as to every other sub-field in political science.Similarly,economic sociology has produced a vibrant research program that has influenced policy and management scholarship as well.As Frank Dobbin observes, "Sociologists began to explain economic behavior in terms of the same four social mechanisms they had observed shaping all of social behavior.These mechanisms entered the common lexicon under the terms institution,network,power,and cognition. Sociology's core insight is that individuals behave according to scripts that are tied to social roles.Those scripts are called conventions at the collective level and cognitive schemas at the individual level." Similarly,cultural,ideational,and institutionalist theorists have made similar claims in comparative politics for years,without necessarily labeling their focus on intersubjectivity as constructivist.In the study of international relations however,the situation was somewhat different. In IR as a whole,constructivism emerged first in security studies,and with good reason.By the mid 1980s,Realism's jettisoning of any and all social elements from its theoretical core had the effect of making state behavior a reducta of system structure.As with any theory of the social world in which there is no social,anomalies soon began to emerge.For example,if the distribution of capabilities were the only determinant of
with the constructivists on virtually all other topics. Constructivists have made contributions that are recognized as fundamentally important to economics and sociology, as well as to every other sub-field in political science. Similarly, economic sociology has produced a vibrant research program that has influenced policy and management scholarship as well. As Frank Dobbin observes, “Sociologists began to explain economic behavior in terms of the same four social mechanisms they had observed shaping all of social behavior. These mechanisms entered the common lexicon under the terms institution, network, power, and cognition. Sociology’s core insight is that individuals behave according to scripts that are tied to social roles. Those scripts are called conventions at the collective level and cognitive schemas at the individual level.” Similarly, cultural, ideational, and institutionalist theorists have made similar claims in comparative politics for years, without necessarily labeling their focus on intersubjectivity as constructivist. In the study of international relations however, the situation was somewhat different. In IR as a whole, constructivism emerged first in security studies, and with good reason. By the mid 1980s, Realism’s jettisoning of any and all social elements from its theoretical core had the effect of making state behavior a reducta of system structure. As with any theory of the social world in which there is no social, anomalies soon began to emerge. For example, if the distribution of capabilities were the only determinant of
system stability,why did French nuclear weapons not upset the United States as much as Chinese ones? Theoretical concerns soon combined with the failure of such theories to adequately predict or explain major events of the latter part of the twentieth century. Thus,one could conclude,that it was hardly a surprise when more intersubjectivist theories came to prominence.Even within the materialist camp some realist scholars came to rely on beliefs and cognitive scripts to make sense of sovereignty,the fundamental institution of the state system itself.Still others sought to incorporate 'culture'into realism or sought to recover realism's subjectivist roots.Indeed,the last ten years or so has seen a transformation of international relations theory in political science. In 1994 an edited volume of leading scholars declared the "Neorealism and Neoliberalism"to be "The Debate."Yet within a few years some were asking "Is Anybody Still a Realist?"Meanwhile,its much lauded competitor,"neoliberal institutionalism"seemed to have all but disappeared from view -as if Scylla could not persist without her Charybdis. In a way one could write all this off as expected.If a theory purports to be a general theory of politics,and that theory cannot explain what are perhaps the two most important moments of the Twentieth century-namely,World War Two and the end of the Cold War-then the defense that "two data points do not disprove a theory"becomes rather feeble.As such,constructivism in IR is simply the inevitable paradigmatic successor to structural Realism
system stability, why did French nuclear weapons not upset the United States as much as Chinese ones? Theoretical concerns soon combined with the failure of such theories to adequately predict or explain major events of the latter part of the twentieth century. Thus, one could conclude, that it was hardly a surprise when more intersubjectivist theories came to prominence. Even within the materialist camp some realist scholars came to rely on beliefs and cognitive scripts to make sense of sovereignty, the fundamental institution of the state system itself. Still others sought to incorporate ‘culture’ into realism or sought to recover realism’s subjectivist roots. Indeed, the last ten years or so has seen a transformation of international relations theory in political science. In 1994 an edited volume of leading scholars declared the “Neorealism and Neoliberalism” to be “The Debate.” Yet within a few years some were asking “Is Anybody Still a Realist?” Meanwhile, its much lauded competitor, “neoliberal institutionalism” seemed to have all but disappeared from view – as if Scylla could not persist without her Charybdis. In a way one could write all this off as expected. If a theory purports to be a general theory of politics, and that theory cannot explain what are perhaps the two most important moments of the Twentieth century – namely, World War Two and the end of the Cold War – then the defense that “two data points do not disprove a theory” becomes rather feeble. As such, constructivism in IR is simply the inevitable paradigmatic successor to structural Realism
While such a reading has merits,we do not wish to accept it and leave it at that. For another facet of the intellectual developments of the last decade or so is also very revealing.As noted above,while constructivism swept through IR like wildfire,its impact on the field of international political economy has been marginal,at least until recently. Indeed,the collapse of structural and material explanations of international politics has had little effect on such explanations in the IPE literature.This,we suggest,is because in this literature,the economy is generally held to be rather different type of place from the polity. Unlike the polity,with its mess of identities,ideas,cultures and the like,in the economic world,while informational uncertainties abound,actors are seen to have a much more straightforward time of things.They are assumed to have 'interests'and rationally try and follow them,subject to the interests of others and the material environment in which they find themselves.Indeed,such agents'interests are usually derived from the structural position in which they find themselves (sheltered sector employee,export oriented capitalist,dependent state,service sector firm,etc.)and are 'actionable'to the extent allowed by the familiar laws of collective action,resource availability,and individual rationality.International security politics may be opaque and driven by identities,but IPE is supposed to be clear,driven by interests,and best understood rationally. The purpose of this volume is to challenge such a picture of the economic world and argue that political economy's"constructivist turn,"long overdue,is now arriving. Constructivist explanations of economic phenomena are becoming more commonplace in
While such a reading has merits, we do not wish to accept it and leave it at that. For another facet of the intellectual developments of the last decade or so is also very revealing. As noted above, while constructivism swept through IR like wildfire, its impact on the field of international political economy has been marginal, at least until recently. Indeed, the collapse of structural and material explanations of international politics has had little effect on such explanations in the IPE literature. This, we suggest, is because in this literature, the economy is generally held to be rather different type of place from the polity. Unlike the polity, with its mess of identities, ideas, cultures and the like, in the economic world, while informational uncertainties abound, actors are seen to have a much more straightforward time of things. They are assumed to have ‘interests’ and rationally try and follow them, subject to the interests of others and the material environment in which they find themselves. Indeed, such agents’ interests are usually derived from the structural position in which they find themselves (sheltered sector employee, export oriented capitalist, dependent state, service sector firm, etc.) and are ‘actionable’ to the extent allowed by the familiar laws of collective action, resource availability, and individual rationality. International security politics may be opaque and driven by identities, but IPE is supposed to be clear, driven by interests, and best understood rationally. The purpose of this volume is to challenge such a picture of the economic world and argue that political economy’s “constructivist turn,” long overdue, is now arriving. Constructivist explanations of economic phenomena are becoming more commonplace in