International Political Economy: A Bridgeable Divide, A Bridge Too Far, or a Bridge to Nowhere?
Daniel Maliniak (UCSD) and Michael Tierney (W&M)
Paper from William and Mary’s Teaching, Research and International Politics (TRIP) Project. Prepared for the 2007 Meeting of the IPES, Stanford CA
Cohen’s Observation and Challenge
►
The Transatlantic Divide in IPE
The American School
► ►
Positivist, Quantitative, Closed to other disciplines Normative, Qualitative, Critical, Open
The British School
► Need
for Bridge Building and Synthesis
The Transatlantic Gap is Wide and Growing Both Sides would Benefit from Trade
IPE Within IR
Purpose of IPES – Interdisciplinary Bridge ► Nature of IPE to Date – Sub-Field of IR ► Comparing IPE to Broader IR Sub-Field ► TRIP Project and Data
►
2004 Survey – U.S. IR Scholars 2006 Survey – U.S. and Canadian IR Scholars Journal Article Database: Top 12 IR Journals
►
No Books, No Econ Journals, Limited # Journals
Top 12 Journals (Impact)
1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6.
American Political Science Review American Journal of Political Science British Journal of Political Science European Journal of International Relations International Organization International Security
7.
8.
9. 10. 11. 12.
International Studies Quarterly Journal of Conflict Resolution Journal of Peace Research Journal of Politics Security Studies World Politics
All Variables in Coding Project
Year, volume and number Journal publication name Journal Editor Journal Editor Paradigm Total articles/Total IR articles Article Title Author’s Name Number of Authors Author’s Gender Paradigm advanced Paradigms taken seriously by author or used as alternative explanation ► Theoretical Synthesis
► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ► ►
- Ideational Variables Used ► Material Variables Used ► Epistemology ► Time Period Studied ► Contemporary Timeframe ► Policy Prescription ► Issue Area ► Methodology ► Level of analysis ► Region under study ► Substantive Focus ► Author’s Affiliation ► Author’s Rank. ► Citations ► Country of Origin
Paradigm: IPE
80% 70% Marxist
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Paradigm: IPE
80% Liberal 70% Marxist 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Paradigm: IPE
80% Realist Liberal Marxist 60% 70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Paradigm: IPE
80% 70% Realist Liberal Marxist Constructivist Non-Paradigmatic Atheoretic/None
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
80%
Paradigms: IR
70%
60%
Realist Liberal Marxist Constructivist Non-Paradigmatic None
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Paradigmatic and Atheoretic work
80%
Paradigmatic work- IR
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 90 20 00 20 06
Paradigmatic and Atheoretic work
80%
Paradigmatic work- IR Paradigmatic work- IPE
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 90 20 00 20 06
Paradigmatic and Atheoretic work
80% 70%
Paradigmatic work- IR Paradigmatic work- IPE Atheoretic- IR
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 90 20 00 20 06
Paradigmatic and Atheoretic work
80% 70%
Paradigmatic work- IR Paradigmatic work- IPE Atheoretic- IR Atheoretic- IPE
Take home Points
60%
•IPE much more Theoretic and Paradigmatic 50% than the IR field more generally
•Articles in the liberal paradigm dominate 30% American IPE
40% 20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 90 20 00 20 06
100%
Methodology: IR
Qualitative
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
100%
Methodology: IR
Qualitative Quantitative
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
100%
Methodology: IR
Formal Qualitative Quantitative
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
100% Formal 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
80 85
Methodology: IR
Qualitative Quantitative
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Methods Employed by Survey Respondents
Primary Method Secondary Method
Total IPE 58% 90% 17% 5%
26% NonIPE
Method Quantitative Qualitative Formal Modeling Experimental
Counterfactual Analysis
IPE 27% 65% 2% 1%
1%
NonIPE
IPE 31% 25% 15% 3%
25%
Non-IPE 29% 22% 11% 8%
24%
19% 70% 2% 1%
1%
48% 92% 12% 9%
25%
Pure Theory Legal/Ethical Analysis
2% 2%
2% 4%
20% 19%
17% 21%
22% 20%
19% 25%
80%
Primary Method of IPE scholars Quantitative Methods by PhD year Qualitative Methods
Formal Modeling
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 1989 and earlier 1990-1999 2000 and later
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Take Home Points •Qualitative was the majority, now quantitative is by far the leading method employed in 87%.
Analytic/non-formal Counterfacutal Descriptive Experimental Formal Policy analysis Qualitative Quantitative
Methodology: IPE
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
The Material Turn in IPE
60%
IPE only
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
The Material Turn in IPE
60%
IPE only All IR
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
The Material Turn in IPE
60%
IPE only All IR
50%
40%
y = 0.005x + 0.3492 R2 = 0.7138
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Epistemology of IPE and IR compared
100% 90% 80% 70% IR Positivist 60% IR Non/Postpositivist 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Epistemology of IPE and IR compared
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Take Home Message •IPE has always been more positivist than IR, and is now 99% Positivist
IR Positivist IPE Positivist IPE Non/Postpositivist IR Non/Postpositivist
Most Read Journals Best Presses in area of in area of expertise expertise
Rank Journal 1 IO 2 ISQ Percent 53% 34% Rank Publisher 1 Cambridge UP 2 Princeton UP 3 Cornell UP Percent 68% 49% 42%
3 Foreign Affairs 4 APSR 5 IS
6 World Politics 7 Foreign Policy 8 JCR
23% 20% 16%
15% 14% 13%
4 Oxford UP 5 Routledge 6 Lynne Rienner
7 U Michigan Press 8 MIT Press 9 Palgrave/MacMillan
34% 23% 17%
15% 13% 8%
8 RIPE 10 AJPS
13% 8%
10 Columbia UP
7%
70%
IPE Publications rates at Highest Ranked journals by IPE respondents
IO ISQ IS APSR
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
70%
Journals publishing the most IPE work
IO ISQ JCR JPR WP
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Top PhD programs in IR, as ranked by IPE scholars
Rank University 1 Harvard University 2 Princeton University 3 Stanford University 4 Columbia University 5 Yale University
6 University of California, San Diego 7 University of California, Berkeley 8 University of Chicago 9 University of Michigan 10 Cornell University
Percent 64% 59% 45% 37% 29%
29% 26% 26% 23% 14%
Summary
Cohen's Claim Epistemology Positivist Literature Positivist, no room to grow (99%) Quantitative and growing American Survey Canadian Survey Positivist and Diverse (40% positivist) growing Quantitative and growing Qualitative (93% primary method)
Method
Quantitative
Paradigm
No specific claim Dominated by liberal paradigm
Liberal Diversity: liberal (8%), (37%), but Marxist (15%), more diverse constructivist (15%), non-paradigmatic (25%) and other (33%)
Faculty Perceptions of IR Literature and Teaching
35%
Literature Teaching
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% Realist Liberal Constructivist Non-Paradigmatic
Paradigm per year 1980-2006
60%
Realist
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Paradigm per year 1980-2006
60%
Realist Liberal
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Paradigm per year 1980-2006
60%
Realist Liberal Constructivist
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Paradigm per year 1980-2006
60% 50%
Realist Liberal Constructivist Atheoretic
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Paradigm per year 1980-2006
60% 50%
Realist Liberal Constructivist Non-Paradigmatic Atheoretic
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
80
85
90
95
00
19
19
19
19
20
20
06
Percent of articles (1990-2006)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Average number of citations (1990-2006)
Realism (17.5) Liberalism (17.2) Constructivism (16.4) Non-paradigmatic (11.1) Marxism (8.2) Atheoretic (7.9)
Non-paradigmatic (45%)1. Liberalism (23%) 2. Atheoretic (12%) 3. Realism (10%) 4. Constructivism (9%) 5. Marxism (1%) 6.
Methods utilized: 1980-2006
60%
Qualitative
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
Methods utilized: 1980-2006
60%
Qualitative Quantitative
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
Methods utilized: 1980-2006
60%
Formal Qualitative Quantitative
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
19 80 19 85 19 90 19 95 20 00 20 06
Methods of Respondents and Methods used in Publication (2000-06)
70%
Primary method used by respondents Methods used in publications since 2000
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Qualitative Quantitative Formal Analytic/non-formal
Epistemology of articles 1980-2006
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
80 85 90 95 00 19 19 19 19 20 20 06
Positivist Non-positivist/Post-positivist
Comparison of Positivists vs. number of positivist articles published
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Positivists Positivist articles
Usefulness of various types of research for Policy
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Theoretical Models Quantitative Studies Historical Case Studies Contemporary Case Studies
Somewhat Useful Very Useful
Research, Importance and Percent of Publications on Different Regions 2000-2007
70% 60%
50%
Research Importance Publications
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Canada & W. Eur FSU MidEast/N. Africa East Asia