SGIR 2010 Section Critical IPE by os8lO1GE


									                                     SGIR 2010 Section

  Convenor details – Dr. Ian Bruff, Lecturer in European Politics, School of
Social Sciences, Manchester University, United Kingdom,

Putting critical IPE in its place?

The recent debates in Review of International Political Economy on the ‘transatlantic divide’
between British and American IPE have been problematic in many respects. Principally, the
orthodox and Anglophone framing of the discussion excludes – intentionally or not – a range
of perspectives which offer a more holistic framework. As a result, it appears that there is,
explicitly or implicitly, an attempt to put critical IPE in its place.

This is unwelcome given the flowering of a series of literatures – both within and without IPE
and IR – dedicated to questioning the received wisdom about, for example, states, markets,
world order, (re)production and culture. Moreover, the case against academic orthodoxy as
been strengthened during the current economic crisis, which has overturned numerous
paradigms concerning how economies ‘work’.

This section seeks perspectives including – but not only – historical materialism, feminism,
critical constructivism, historical sociology and post-structuralism in order to address
critically these two developments. Panels and papers considering issues such as the following
are welcome:

          Is it possible to talk of ‘critical’ IPE?
          Is engagement with mainstream IPE possible or desirable?
          The potential for constructive engagement across different critical perspectives
          Foucault’s recently published lectures on political economy
          The evolution of neo-Gramscian IPE
          Uneven and combined development: time to connect theory and practice?
          Where are women in the crisis and in IPE?
          The current crisis: its causes, impacts and consequences
          The crisis and the case against neoliberalism: a missed opportunity?

Please email the convenor of the relevant panel to submit an abstract (it is expected that
there will be four papers and one discussant per panel). In addition, there is still room for an
additional four panels – please email the convenor regarding a panel proposal – panels on
the current economic crisis are particularly welcome.

1). Roundtable on Gramscian and neo-Gramscian IPE

Despite the understandable tendency to view approaches using Gramsci’s writings as largely
similar, there seems to be a developing distinction between what could be called Gramscian
and neo-Gramscian IPE. The former allies Gramsci closely with other Marxists such as Marx
and Poulantzas, while the latter (‘Coxian’) approach draws on a more eclectic range of
schools and traditions, citing Gramsci alongside authors such as Braudel and Polanyi. The
roundtable will explore the issues raised by these different approaches to Gramsci’s work and
its potentials for a critical IPE.

Convenor: Christian May (Bremen University –

Adam David Morton (Nottingham University)
Owen Worth (Limerick University)
Christoph Scherrer (Kassel University)

2). Foucault and critical IPE: theory/practice

This panel focuses on the possible contributions of Michel Foucault to the theory and practice
of critical IPE. The panel critically assesses the relevance of Foucault’s work (particularly his
recently published lectures on political economy and governmentality), and explores the
prospect for constructive engagement between a nascent Foucauldian IPE and other critical
IPE perspectives.

Convenors: Tore Fougner (Bilkent University – and Nicholas
Kiersey (Ohio University –

Tore Fougner (Bilkent University) – ‘Is there space for a Foucauldian voice in critical IPE?’
Nicholas Kiersey (Ohio University) – ‘Neoliberal political economy and the subjectivity of
Owen Parker (Warwick University) – ‘A genealogy of liberal government in Europe:
Foucault on the constitution of a European economic unit’

3). IPE, culture and ideology: developing critical methodologies

The rise to prominence in the 2000s of cultural political economy perspectives presents an
important challenge to IPE. This is two-fold: the demand to look more closely at everyday
life rather than (or in addition to) macro-concepts such as ‘states’ and ‘markets’; and the need
to treat culture in particular as constitutive of the political economy rather than being an
expression of it. This panel considers critically these recent developments in IPE. A major
emphasis lies on the questions about the difference a critical IPE can make (especially
compared with e.g. economic sociology) and which methods and methodologies are suitable
for a critical analysis of culture and ideology within IPE.

Convenor: Christian May (Bremen University –

Christian May (Bremen University) – ‘The materialist analysis of culture and ideology in
IPE: sources and applications’
Claes Belfrage (Swansea University) – ‘A critical grounded theory for a critical political
economy of the everyday?’
Kyle Murray (Limerick University) – ‘The role of religious actors in IR & IPE: applying
Gramsci’s conceptual methods for understanding contradictory worldviews’
4). Feminism and critical IPE…future collaboration possible?

At first sight, critical IPE appears as a potential ally to feminists who seek to understand,
analyse, and challenge social relations of inequality. Yet, at second sight important struggles
between the two traditions are still ongoing, for critical IPE still seems to treat feminist
insights as a challenge that should be paid lip-service to, and potentially ignored. Similarly,
feminism has often been preoccupied with internal debates revolving around the post-
structuralist literature. The panel will contain papers from feminist and/or critical IPE
scholars who are interested in advancing debates between the two traditions, and to
potentially enhance future collaboration.

Convenor: Daniela Tepe (King’s College London –

Daniela Tepe (King’s College London) – ‘What’s ‘critical’ about critical IPE? Critical
theory/feminist theory and the crisis of social reproduction’
Anita Fischer (Goethe University Frankfurt) – ‘Approaching different feminist traditions: can
we bring feminist and critical IPE together?’

5). Uneven and combined development: bringing together theory and practice

The explosion of contributions regarding uneven and combined development is one of the
most significant developments in critical IPE in recent years. However, many of the often-
valuable discussions have taken place at the meta-theoretical level, with illustrations of
uneven and combined development in practice tending to concern cases deep in the past. This
panel seeks to both connect theory and practice more closely and consider more recent
examples which focus explicitly on practical social relations.

Convenor: Adam David Morton (Nottingham University –

Adam David Morton (Nottingham University) – ‘Producing uneven development: state
formation, capital accumulation and industrialisation in Latin America’
Jeremy Green (York University, Toronto) – ‘The uneven development of European labour
movements: reading working class politics through the international’

6). Interrogating the ‘transnational’: scale and geopolitics

There is an incipient, though unacknowledged nation-state centrism in much contemporary
neo-Gramscianism, because their focus remains on the immutability of the nation-state and
inter-state system. Therefore, this panel seeks to interrogate the notion of the transnational
not through seeing it as a layer ‘above’ the nation-state, but as part of the dialectical totality
of structure and agency. We can then develop a more nuanced approach, and this panel
welcomes contributions concerning inter alia questions related to scale and geopolitical
Convenor: Stuart Shields (Manchester University –

Huw Macartney & Stuart Shields (Manchester University) – ‘Demystifying the transnational:
levels, lacunae and dialectics in critical IPE’
Julian Germann (York University, Toronto) – ‘Transnational historical materialism and the
geopolitics of the ‘capitalist heartland’: the seventies’ crisis revisited’

To top