1

Philippine Women’s University - Helena Z. Benitez

School of International Relations and Diplomacy

Taft Avenue, Manila

!!
!!
!!
!
INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY

Theoretical Foundations
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Submitted by:

Eurlyn Calinagan Rosario

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Submitted to:

Prof. Kritzman G. Caballero

April 24, 2020

!
 Traditionally, International Political Economy is defined as the interaction of markets
and politics, the influence of the market on politics, and the policy-making in states. The
dichotomy of Politics and Economics and not looking it as a unified study have created
perils, in manifestation, Economics tends to neglect political factors that will help shape
economic relations internationally while Politics focuses on the activities more on the
statesmanship and power relationships. In this era of globalization, it is imperative to look
beyond the causal effects of these two in order to avoid global problems. The integrated
study - International Political Economy- provides analysis and assessment in a broader
perspective in order for it to be beneficial for society as a whole. International Political
Economy is about “the relationship of the world economy to the power politics among
nations” (Lairson and Skidmore 2003: 6). National governments are its core actors and
public policymaking is the main concern. The benefits that it offers to scholars is an
extensive understanding of the functions of an international economy that may shape foreign
policies and agreements.

Like the term International Political Economy, theories about the international political
economy have changed constantly throughout the twentieth century, in order to keep up with
events, ideas, and interests. Events in the world and social sciences during the late 1960s
and mid-1970s, helped young scholars conceptualize the theory of the transnational relation.
Transnationalism was challenged by hegemonic stability theory, in which the latter
encountered anomalies in both logical and empirical aspects. During the 1970s and 1980s,
domestic and international elements of the IPE field became more important. As the Cold
war ended (1989), constructivism and rationalism have become more prominent, new
theoretical developments have emerged.

Theories can only be fully appreciated if understood in the context in which they have
begun. From Der Derian and Shapiro, 1989, development of theory is intertextual, whenever
individual scholars embark upon a theoretical, empirical, or policy research enterprise, they
decide as to whom they are responding and/or communicating with. They can choose to
respond to a prior theoretical position or tradition, attack an existing or emerging policy
consensus, or criticize existing empirical analysis. However, they do not write vaguely, and
either consciously or unconsciously locate their research in a particular scholarly context.
Every research enterprise is, therefore, undertaken within a particularly defined scholarly or
"intertextual" context (Der Derian and Shapiro, 1989).

Theories are created as assumptions to help us understand or somehow give us a

sense of how the world works. …” It should be parsimonious, it is simple, it is elegant and it
helps us to explain a lot and ideally, we’ll be able to use that explanation for prediction to
figure out what is likely to happen and how things are going to work but also for policy
response”… (Urlacher).
 Theoretical foundations of Political Economy should start at the historical context with
economic matters in mind primarily its contribution, this understanding will help on the
application of current political-economic problems. The foundation must be firm enough in
order to help the readers on the development of critical thinking skills in the field of political
economy. In return, readers will be able to establish basic political economy analytical
concepts, look into their potential inconsistency, and to use them in empirical researches and
works. it provides a map of the key issues and concepts of the subject and allows the
readers to integrate them into their daily lives.
!
Theories in this field may be viewed as a general theoretical orientations and specific
research programs. General theoretical orientations provide guidelines (patterns and
variables) for developing scientific research programs that provide the tasks and outcomes.
Two sites for research have evolved from IPE, one is the international system, and second
the linkage between domestic politics and international political economy.

As much as the scholars aim for a central-unified theory concerning International

Political Economy, the complexity of social interaction brought by humans and the difficulty
and the conflict of social existence make it harder to achieve that. These conflicting theories
of political economy have some sort of limitations and being able to detect these limitations
and the scope of applications, the readers and scholars will be able to put it into motion in
real and social circumstances.
!
The Emergence of IPE

After 1968, an intellectual opening was provided for the study of international political
economy, before that little attention was paid to the political analysis of economic issues.
Security issues and high politics ( necessary for the survival of the states) are the focus of
public policies. Moreover, international relations scholars are giving attention to the domestic
determinants of foreign policies- the connection between these two IR and politics, arose
within the field of comparative politics. Comparative analysis discussions can help bridge
and explain the differences in the paths taken by modern states- toward liberal democracy,
fascism, or state socialism.
!
International Political Economy offers a broad range of insights and ideas from these
schools of economic thought, the Classical Political Economy from the likes Adam Smith,
Thomas Robert Malthus, and David Ricardo, the Marxist Critique of Political Economy from
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Keynesianism from John Maynard Keynes, and the
Neoclassical revolutionists like William Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger, and Barry Clark.
!
 Historically, the political economy tackles the key problems of industrial capitalism on
a world scale, which continues to structure the distinction political and economic
predicaments of contemporary society. The stability or instability, the growth or decline, and
competitiveness and unconcerned of economics capitalists and the government policies'
impact on economic development is the principal concern of the classic history.
!
A major source of contemporary political and economic conflict is the disparities in
the levels of personal and regional income that capitalist economic development brings
which the classical political economists like Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus, David
Ricardo, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and John Maynard Keynes, address in the role of
these class divisions.
!
In Economic Nationalism, states secure their position in the international arena
through its military power. Military power is being used to gain an economic advantage in the
aspects of cancellation of debts, opening of markets for trade, and strengthening economic
institutions. In the global arena, states compete against each other in a zero-sum outcome,
wherein one state’s gain is equivalent to another’s state’s loss.
!
In 1500, the term Mercantilism or Statism is heavily popularized, economic power
is seen as a vehicle to military power. In this theory, markets are fixed meaning there is no
room or little room for expansion. On top of that, there is also a fixed competition and a fixed
consumption for everyone. Economic strength is also seen in terms of capital - capital in the
form of exports and of valuable commodities especially gold. According to Jean-Baptiste
Colbert (1617-83), he argued that states should accumulate gold and silver to build a strong
central government. in the Age of Exploration, European powers used this time to increase
their power through colonialism in desperation of finding wealth from another country. One
important principle of mercantilism is to increase its power and decrease its vulnerability,
states should concentrate on domestic economic activities because of foreign transactions,
either as a conduit of market or as a source of supply, create influence and dependency.
!
In a Modern Economic Nationalism system, the focus is on the policies that help
states gain an economic advantage with respect to export-led development. In a global
competition, governments must protect domestic industries by putting a barrier in this case
tariffs to foreign industries enabling domestic industries to grow and survive.

Classical Liberalism is heavily characterized by a global laissez-faire that argues

that markets are rational, objective - taken from John Locke, without the interference of
outside factors- meaning the states and self- regulating- a virtuous circle of capital
accumulation. Early theorists like John Locke, Adam Smith, and David Ricardo. Adam
Smith’s argued that the core of laissez-faire policy was to reserve the decision as to where
wealth should be invested in the private wealth-holders themselves. The growth of wealth
through private initiative generates a broader and deeper market that allows for a more
detailed division of labor, which in turn raises labor productivity and creates more wealth.
Labor productivity is measured fundamentally as a ratio of the output of particular goods, to
the amount of labor required to produce it. The division of labor which he termed the
productive and unproductive labor comprises of factory workers examples of productive
labor, these are the ones that produce a marketable product and yields a profit to its
employer that can be a source of future capital accruals, while unproductive labor, like
domestic servants, reduces the fund available for capital accumulation.
!
In a free market system according to David Ricardo, national currencies should be
bought and sold here. In the system of floating exchange rates, the market determines the
value of one currency as compared with other currencies thus leading it to market balance
and equilibrium. David Ricardo’s comparative advantage theory states that engagement in
international trade of state should be relative to that of other states meaning states should
produce and export those products which they can produce most efficiently relative to other
states. Thus, gains from trade are maximized for all and each state minimizes its opportunity
cost. His analysis of the advantages of international trade, based on the theory of
comparative advantage, continues to be the foundation of modern analyses of trade and
growth policy.
!
Economic Liberalism has some similarities in Liberalism and Idealism. Liberalism
which is defined as freedom, Economic Liberalism centers on economic freedom, free from
the interference of state while Idealism or Mercantilism which was the common practice of
many governments at the time, revolves around the objective of the state to build economic
wealth for its power. Different actors are playing its part in economic liberalism, roles of
states, multi-national corporations (MNCs), firms, international economic institutions, and
these actors wok hand in hand though competition in the market system is still unavoidable.
Competition leads to greater economic efficiency or a positive-sum outcome. Liberal
economists suggest a basic set of policies like open markets, free trade and agreements,
and free flow of goods and services, with the minimal involvement of governments or states
thus downplaying the role of power in this theory. In this theory, the involvement of the states
somehow shapes and oftentimes distorts the competitions’ positive-sum growth or outcome
that liberal economists promote.

Liberals see the role of multinational corporations as positive. They play the key
role as drivers on the growth of the economy by acting as a forerunner of the liberal
economic order by integrating the national economies overseeing trade and money in the
inclusion of the internationalization of production. Multi-national corporations operate in
international markets by finding cheaper labor markets, obtaining the services of foreign
technical personnel, reducing transport costs by moving production closer to customers, and
issuing of taxes and license advantages from local governments. The international liberal
economy may promote peace because of the role of multi-national corporations promote
efficiency and that efficiency drives the economic improvement.

Policies should maximize growth and economic output that encourage competition in
the markets and the markets as well. The Washington Consensus is a set of macro-
economic policies that have been widely accepted and supported by intergovernmental
organizations such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), and the like. it promoted fiscal discipline, wherein budgets should be
maintained rationally. Moreover, tax rates are relatively low so that people can operate in a
companionable market atmosphere. Also, the handling of the supply of money should be
assigned and restricted to professionals and not by politicians because of the emergence of
personal interest. Markets are driven by exchange rates because, in the floating exchange
rates system, the market determines the value of one currency as compared with other
currencies thus leading it to market balance and equilibrium. Markets are also open to trade
and investment. Reasonable spending on the public is welcomed as long as it will yield
economic return and it will be profitable in the long term. Privatizing national industries and
making sure that the state or the government or the state has little direct involvement in it.
Also, the promotion of a system that protects property rights to avoid the spur of insecurities
and to gain confidence by market players. Also, the promotion of a system that protects
property rights to avoid the spur of insecurities and to gain confidence by market players.
!
Transatlantic Divide: American IPE vs British IPE
!
In the early 1970s, economics and political science were treated as entirely different
disciplines, each with its view of international affairs. Quite fairly, minimal efforts were made
to bridge the gap between the two. Recently, a broad-based movement was built to bridge
this gap between the separate specialties of international economics and international
relations in the construction of the fields, International Political Economy.
!
Long before the integration of the two separate discourses, the field is dominated by
two schools, one type predominates in the United States, the Ratiosaurus or the rationalist
species and the other is rooted in the United Kingdom and Canada, the Querimonia.
!
Globally, the dominant version of IPE is one that has developed in the US, where
most scholarship tends to adhere close to the norms of conventional social science. The
Ratiosaurus are fond of theories, relating the role of hegemony in stabilizing the international
economy and in creating the foundation of governing institutions. The priority centers on the
scientific method, a pure or hard science model. Analysis is based on the twin principles of
positivism and empiricism, which held that knowledge is best accumulated through an
implore to rational observation and systematic testing.
!
The Querimonia, on the other hand, spend their time and effort revealing the
disguised mechanisms of hegemony and exposing undesirable effects of both. Scholars are
more receptive than in their American counterparts, in linking the study to other academic
disciplines, beyond mainstream economics and political science; they also demonstrate a
deeper interest in normative issues. They are less married to the scientific method and more
zealous in its agenda.
!
The question on why the American and British versions of IPE so different may be
best understood in terms of their contrasting understandings about ontology and
epistemology. Ontology all is about investigating reality: the nature, essential properties, and
relations of being while Epistemology, has to do with the methods and grounds of
knowledge.
!
The Ratiosaurus or the American is centered on state, prioritizing the interest of
government above all other units. The core of its study is determined by the behavior of the
state and the government system, its main purpose is to explain, to identify causality, to
solve problems, and to create possible solutions to conflicts within the system. While the
Querimonia or the British school is not state-centric, it is not exclusive to states only but to
other networks as well. It is very representative and revolves around all other issues e.g.
social, ethical, legal, etc. Its main purpose is judgment, to identify injustice, ameliorate, and
to make the world a better place.
!
The American School of International Political Economy remains married to the
principles of positivism and empiricism. Parsimonious reasoning and deductive logic are
used to seek out universal truths. Formal research methodologies are also widely used to
test hypotheses and elevate the combination of knowledge. The British School of
International Political Economy is inclined on the institutional and historical approaches. Less
formal methodologies are also used in order to accommodate the school’s diverse and
broader range of analytical concerns. IPE for her should be more open intellectually-
scholarly ecumenism
!
!
!
American IPE
!
Historically, the formation of this school of thought was brought about by the need for
a new understanding that the fundamental changes from political and economic in the global
affairs perspective. There was also an increasing interdependence on national economies,
which seemed to intimidate the ability of governments to manage economic affairs. Every
year, world trade was growing more rapidly, bringing greater openness, and mutual
dependence.
!
Its birth on the late 1960s or early 1970s campaign was the result of wedded
academic specialties of International Economics and International Relations (IR). It is
characterized by various intellectual traditions, reflecting the hybrid nature of the field itself,
though it has become essentially a subspecialty of the study of International Relations- a
focus on the sovereign states and their interactions.

The works of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, Transnational Relations and World
Politics, 1972 and Power and Interdependence, 1977 respectively are widely hailed as
milestones in the construction of modern International Political Economy. A new conception
of the dynamics of international economic relations- transnationalism was developed. In
traditional realism, states were the only significant actors in world politics, but Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye, their notion of interdependence- wherein it gives a broader
paradigm and wider acceptance to other relevant actors in the economic field. Complex
interdependence is not a substitute for realism but a complement and supplement of the
study. It was defined by three main characteristics – multiple channels of communication, an
absence of hierarchy among issues, and a diminished role for the military force.1
!
In contrast, Robert Gilpin, with his adherence to realist theories, greatly
acknowledged the emergence of transnationalism but argued that these schools of thought
are all drawn from the former. He argued that transnational relations could only be fully
understood within the context of interstate politics- a traditional state system that
concentrates from a Westphalian world- wherein economic relations could only be
successfully managed by hegemony- a supreme power. Liberals and Marxists shared a
belief that economics was bound to dominate politics, with the contradiction of Realists’
belief, that the power to shape economic systems is in the hands of political relations. He
responded by providing a clearer, more convenient and more consistent theory about the
implications of interdependence. 2
!
1 Robert Keohane and Robert Nye. (1977). Power and Interdependence.

2 Robert Gilpin. (1975). U.S. Power and the Multinational Corporation.

 In his work, Between Power and Plenty (1978), Peter Katzenstein is drawing
attention to the domestic structures on a state’s policy behavior in the world economy. His
goal was to open up the unitary state – the necessity to include both levels of analysis- to
complement the systemic (inside government) level of analysis of realism with the domestic
(outside government) level of analysis more characteristic of comparative politics.
!
Stephen Krasner’s work, International Regimes (1983), prompted debate about the
regimes’ role in world politics and laid the foundation for decades of study of international
institutions. The regime theory- is the first comprehensive exploration of institutions
governing global economic relations. Regimes, he argued, are social institutions. “We know
international regimes not simply by some descriptive inventory of their concrete elements,
but by their generative grammar, the underlying principles of order and meaning that shape
the manner of their formation and transformation”.3 Gilpin (1975), Krasner (1976), and
Charles Kindleberger (1973) were the early exponents of the theory of hegemonic stability, a
term coined by Keohane (1980) that global economic health was somehow dependent on
the presence of a single dominant power - hegemony.
!
Some of the challenges of this school of thought, was first the negligence of the
importance of institutions, being the classic state-centric paradigm, they are viewed as a
hindrance to economic activities. States were the only significant players in the global arena-
its motivation lies on the issues of security and power.
!
Second, was the evaluation of policy- the concern was more on the output rather
thatnthe input. Also, scholars of International Relations agreed that International Political
economy has become the subspecialty of their study. Keohane and Nye even considered
IPE as an extension of their interest in the former study.
!
British IPE
!
Susan Strange and Robert Cox were the pioneers of British IPE. Their works using
Neo- Gramscian’ approach, is considered one most recent developments to the study of the
International Political Economy. It is the use of hegemony that Antonio Gramsci defined as a
‘fit’ between power, ideas, and institution to explain the stability of capitalist relations and
national social order which was then used to explain a stable world order. The relationship
between the private and public sectors, the relevance of social forces, and the
transnationalization of class are all relevant to global governance.
!
3 Stephen Krasner. (1983). International Regimes. (Vol1983 p. 196)
 In some of Susan Strange’s writings, she highlighted the state-market interaction.
She contends that “ the authority of the governments of all states, large and small, strong
and weak, has been weakened as a result of technological and financial change and of the
accelerated integration of national economies into one single global market economy”.4 She
also highlighted the issues regarding the dichotomy of the two studies: Economics and the
International Political Economy. The focus is more on the theoretical foundation and the
relationship of politics and strategies between national governments. It was highlighted the
quick pace of change in the international political system and international economic system,
and the effects of it on the international society, and on the relations of states with one
another has gone unnoticed. Her contributions were minimal, limiting it to the development of
a framework for thinking. The main purpose of theory is judgment- to identify injustice -
intellectual inquiry was to find ways to right the wrongs of the world.

Robert Cox rejected the state-centrism of traditional Realist theories, the correlation
between the private and public sectors, the relevance of social forces and the
transnationalization of classes are all important t to global governance. His emphasis on the
‘state-society complex’, a distinctive approach has inspired many students to rethink the way
in which the international political economy is being studied.
!
Attention and criticism were received by Cohen (2007) from the scholars because of
the incorporation of a more ‘British’ schools of thought and authority, linking that this school
of thought has become widely accepted by more scholars. The alternative understanding or
distinctive approach of this IPE is one of the reasons why it became so influential, the study
is also multi-disciplinary and normative in nature, also the pressure of conforming to a
methodological - less formal approach - has been reduced. In the words of Murphy and
Nelson: ‘The success of British school IPE is relatively easy to explain. American hegemony
and the hegemony of school, this IPE created opportunities for those who opposed either or
both projects’ (Murphy and Nelson, 2001: 405).
!
In conclusion, the origins of both schools could not have been more different. In
practice, the two schools complement each other neatly, the strengths of one largely
balancing weaknesses of the other. Though the gap between the two schools has grown
wider, there is still room to compromise. Both schools could learn from each other, it is
important to seek for their mutual gains rather than the forthcoming divisions and confusions
these schools might bring.
!
!
!
4 Susan Strange, (1996). The Retreat of the States. Cambridge University Press.
Realism vs Liberal Institutionalists
!
Realism has been the dominant theory of international relations and also in the
International Political Economy field. This has been a debatable issue since realism’s
principal actors are the states and we are moving in the era of broader discourses, the
growing inclusivity of other actors and the less inclination on power politics. For a realist,
international anarchy promotes competition and conflict among states and international
institutions are unable to attenuate the effects among the states. In contrast with the Liberal
Institutionalism’s belief that these institutions can create synergy among them. The realist
analysis of international anarchy, which limits the states’ cooperation, lies on the preferences
and willingness of the states as well.
!
Realism is comprised of five propositions: first, states are the major actors in world
affairs. Second, states, as unitary agents, must protect the vital interests of their citizens.
Third, international anarchy is the leading force that shapes the actions and motives of
states. Fourth, in international anarchy, states fail to cooperate even in the beset of common
interests. Fifth, international institutions are unable to mitigate anarchy’s constraining effects
on inter-state cooperation. 5 In contrast, liberal institutionalists, divert from the centrism of
states, and embraces the emergence of non-state actors. They departed from the view that
states are unitary or rational agents- and promoted a decentralization of authority. Third, they
are less concerned with power politics, fourth, states are more oriented towards the growth
of the economy and social security. Lastly, international institutions are there to help in the
cooperation and in the partnership of states.
!
In the 1970s, states remained the sole authority in setting foreign policy objectives.
Industrialized states faced challenges like oil shortages, recession, and inflation, thus
invalidating the role of international institutions for strengthening the relationship among
states. However, during the 1980s, international cooperation was strengthened by
successful international economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund, Tokyo
Round Negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), International
Energy Agency, and many others. This set the stage for a renewed liberal challenge to
realism, a nascent theory, Neoliberal institutionalism.
!
Realism vs Neoliberal Institutionalism
!
Neoliberalism, in contrast to liberal institutionalists, embraced most of realist
theories, few of those are that states are the major actors in world affairs and are unitary-
rational agents. Neoliberalists also stress the concept of conditional cooperation- states’

5 Kenneth Waltz. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

interaction can either be mutually beneficial and may pursue a favor for a favor scheme. This
conditional cooperation among states may evolve in the face of international anarchy and
mixed interests through strategies of reciprocity, extended time horizons, and reduced
verification and sanctioning costs.6
!
Realism argues that states having a positional character- seeks to maximize it
absolute gains and worries that other states might gain more than they do, the prevention of
other states from achieving advances is somehow their prime goal. To achieve the equitable
achievement of gains, states offer their partners “concessions”, expecting to get
approximately equal “compensations”. (Morgenthau, 1948)
!
The threat of war that might potentially arise from the joint gains was disregarded by
Neoliberalists. As stated by Robert Jervis, “Minds can be changed, new leaders can come to
power, values can shift, new opportunities and dangers can arise.”7
!
Neoliberalism’s claim is that states are atomistic actors that seek its absolute gains
and not worries about the gains achieved by others. Robert Keohane defined states as
having a utility maximization atomistically; egoism, ergo even their utility functions are
independent of one another. Cheating, which is a major constraint of international
cooperation in diverse interests, can also be overcome by the joint action and cooperation of
the states. International anarchy, both for neoliberalists and realists, is the absence of a
central agency to enforce promises. For Kenneth Waltz, in anarchy, wars can occur
“because there is nothing to prevent them,” and therefore “ in international politics force
serves, not only as the ultimo ratio, but indeed as the first and constant one.” The first
concern of states is their survival, the retention of their position in the system.8
!
In conclusion, neoliberal institutionalism, promotes interstate cooperation more than
realism, just like the new field of international political economy, it encourages economic
mutual interdependence, wherein there is an optimistic result for gains through joint action.
Efforts, characterized by common interests, should be made for a stronger alliance which
can start as economic but later on can develop into political- security interests.

Economic interdependence has been mentioned many times when tackling issues
about International Political Economy, but what does it mean? It is defined as a system in
which many institutions are economically dependent upon each other. It is also a product of
labor specialization. Globalization happens when each nation and their economies are

6 Joseph M. Grieco.(1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. The MIT Press.

7 Robert Jervis. (1978). Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma.

8 Kenneth Waltz. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

dependent on other nations for products and goods. As Carr (1941) predicted, however,
there will be tensions that will arise from the concurrent process of political self-
determination and growing economic interdependence and this would be resolved by the
bifurcation of economic and political organizations.

The construction of more sovereign political units is because of the demand for self-
governance-autonomy of states and the weakening of colonial powers. The creation of
multinational economic blocs, like European Economic Community (EEC), Council of Mutual
Economic Assistance (COMECON), Latin American Free Trade Association (LAFTA),
Central American Common Market (CACM), and the East African Common Market (EACM)
is a result of the lackness of self-sufficiency and the presence of technological
interdependence. For most countries, shielding themselves from the change of
circumstances that international politics may bring, make economic interdependence an
unattractive strategy, however, for some countries, the costs must be continually weighed
against the gains.
!
The term “dependence, which serves a minimal useful analytic purpose, brings
difficulty in constructing a conceptual framework for it. From the literature on dependence,
one can abstract two predominant usages: dependency as the absence of actor autonomy
and dependence as a highly asymmetric form of interdependence.9 Dependence reflects an
imbalance in the relationship between two actors, interdependence -symmetrical, is based
on the idea of mutual control. notes. Dependency is also defined as a causal relationship, a
functional relationship among economies resulting in unequal autonomous developmental
possibilities.10 Dependency theory becomes a logical device that comprises a lot of
numerous where the connections among many of the important concepts are logically, rather
than empirically, supplied.
!
According to Caparoso, there are three sets of factors that are important for
dependency: First is the magnitude of reliance (wherein there should be a large share of
needs supplied externally, a large share of markets are foreign, and a large ratio of foreign to
domestic capital, technology, production facilities, etc.). Second is choice-based measures
(heavy reliance on one partner, high opportunity cost means reliance is not easily shifted,
few opportunities for diversification, for allies, etc. this is for "natural" and for political
reasons, and commodity concentration of exports and commodity concentration of total
domestic production). Third is domestic distortion measures (lack of integration across
economic sectors, lack of responsiveness of production structures to increased or decreased
demand, and responsiveness to externally generated demand).

9 James A. Caporaso(1978). Dependence, Dependency and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis.

10 James A. Caporaso(1978). Dependence, Dependency and Power in the Global System: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis.
!
There are two primary links between dependence and power. First, is structural
asymmetric interdependence creates power. An actor who has more resources can have a
position to influence others by depriving them of the desired goods. Second is that
dependence manifests decisional power. An actor can manipulate other actors’ dependence
on him for the relationship that may benefit the former. Distinct in fundamental aspects,
dependence and dependency concepts may have share similar antecedents but best death
with separately.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
References:
Caporaso, J. (1978). Dependence, Dependency and Power in the Global System: A
Structural and Behavioral Analysis
Cohen, B. (2007). The Transatlantic Divide: Why American and British IPE so
Different
Cohen, B. Multiple Traditions in American IPE
Foley, D.K. 1999. Notes on the Theoretical Foundations of Political Economy. Retrieved from
http://www.economia.unam.mx/jarojas/poleconprintFoley.pdf.
Grieco, J. (1988). Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the
Newest Liberal Institutionalism
Katzenstein, P., Keohane, R., and Krasner, S. (1998). International Organization and
the Study of World Politics
Moravcsik, A. (1997). Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International
Politics
Ruggie, J. (1998). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-utilitarianism and the
Social Constructivist Challenge
Urlacher. B.R. 2018. Theories of International Political Economy.