When we look at Global Political Economy it is vital that we understand its importance to International Relations as a sub-discipline. Susan Strange even goes so far as to suggest “IPE should claim that international relations are a sub-discipline of IPE” given the integral roll it plays (Strange, 1994: p218). Though it can be seen to be, Political economy is not a recent concept in the world of international relations. Traditionally its focus is on the security of the states due to anarchy at an international level. GPE first really came into the mainstream discipline of IR during the post-1960s economic crisis. The decline of US hegemony and the economic turmoil throughout the 20th century led to the rise of transnational institutions, treaties, and new ideas about complex interdependence. The discipline of GPE is now vital in the management of world trade, exchange rates, foreign debt, foreign investment, and the running of multinational corporations. Unlike IR, which is centred on separating international politics from domestic politics, global political economics suggests that politics and economics are inseparable and that the domestic is not separated from the international domain. This theory is just one of the complications GPE causes for IR that I will discuss in this essay.
One issue that the Global Political Economy poses to international relations is the view that GPE is conflictual as every state’s economic goals are to increase their own power. This opinion originated in the early modern period as mercantilism. Mercantilism arguably “encouraged states to encroach on individual freedom and engage in the continuous cycle of European wars”, suggesting that even from an early stage of the Global Political Economy it caused issues and lead to volatile relations between states (Cohn, 2015, p59). Mercantilism, along with colonialism, neo-colonialism, and ethno-nationalism, is a sub-theory of the Realist perspective. The resulting opinion is that rather than being positive for the discipline of International Relations, GPE is self-serving and nihilistic and could result in states pulling each other apart in the search for power. This view follows on from the realist opinion that the international system is anarchic and state-centric. If this view is accepted then it causes challenges for the discipline of IR as it goes against the IR theory that states can and must work together for mutual gains, essentially pulling apart the core beliefs of the discipline. However it can be argued that the realist perspective takes into account non-state actors in the determination of international affairs so long as it is accepted that states are the principal actors (Gilpin, 2001, p17). If realists can accept that non-state actors are still present actors in IR and GPE, as Gilpin suggests, then arguably GPE can’t be detrimental to the discipline of IR as the non-state actors should prevent a state-centric system and encourage GPE to be beneficial to all states resulting in sum-sum gains. Nevertheless the realist perspective does demonstrate a core issue with GPE, especially when supported with evidence of GPE having a negative effect on IR throughout history (the evidence being the constant wars between states throughout history over states individual economic gains).
A second theoretical perspectival that claims GPE causes issues for IR is feminism. Some feminist theorists argue that GPE (and globalisation for that matter) relies on the exploitation of women (and other minority groups). Penny Griffin claims that “mainstream GPE is characterised by an underlying economism that writes gender out of the field”, she also goes on to argue that the marginalisation of gender in mainstream GPE means that unpaid work – or ‘womens work’ – is not taken into account (Griffin, 2007). This claim is supported by other scholars, such as Tickner, who claim that GPE depends on the exploitations of women (Tickner, 1993). Marilyn Waring argued that there are negative consequences of conventional approaches to political economy as the resulting policies only attached importance to activities with a marketable value (Waring, 1988). In her book, Gender and International Relations, Jill Steans goes so far as to argue that globalisation is detrimental to gender equality as it pushes women into less important and lower paid jobs – reinforced by the fact many global institutions are still patriarchal (Steans, 2013). She suggests that ethnicity, class, gender, and other ‘differences’, should be included in analysis of GPE to prevent the exploitation and inequality that is still present. This feminist perspective causes issues for the discipline of IR as it essentially claims that the contemporary concept of GPE is discriminative and is based on historical concepts and opinions. The exploitative nature of GPE and the domination of women needs to be overcome before the global political economy should be considered a successful and fully functioning system. On the other hand it could be argued that rather than this causing issues for the discipline of IR it rather gives the subject and its scholars an aim and a scale of which to judge its success.
A similar opinion on GPE and IR (though possibly an even more negative point of view of GPE) comes from the Marxist perspective. This theory suggests that the political economy is conflictual due to being influenced by class interest which causes a growth in capitalism. The basis of the marxist critique of GPE is based on its underlying perspective on capitalism. Marxists argue that “capitalism would fail for economic reasons as the proletariat revolted against its impoverishment”. This claim is the basis of the three rules of Marxist economic law – the law of disproportionality, the law of capital accumulation and concentration among the wealthy capital class, and the law of capital accumulation and rate decline (Gilpin, 1987, p40) – all of which supposedly result in an unsupportable economic and political system so long as capitalism is the core structure of society. Similarly to the realist perspective and mercantilism I discussed earlier, marxist theorists argue that immature economies and less developed states are exploited as a result of a global political economy resulting in only the more economically developed states benefiting from the existence of a global political economy. This theory causes challenges for the discipline of IR as it suggests that GPE is an inherently unjust system as it only benefits powerful countries and suggests that IR is a zero-sum game as it is detrimental to less developed states but beneficial to the top few. Furthermore due to the rising importance of GPE thanks to globalisation, the system prevents these less developed countries from improving their situation. This suggests that currently the discipline of IR is unsuccessful as it promotes a biased GPE and encourages exploitation of both states and individuals.
One theoretical approach that is much more positive about the Global Political Economy is the liberal perspective. Liberalism differs from the other theories already discussed as it argues that GPE is an interdependent structure within a global framework. This perspective suggests that rather than GPE and globalisation being detrimental to certain groups or states it is actually the advancement of an ideal world and encourages states to work together to achieve success – a sum-sum game. Liberals claim that states having inter-dependence increases security as they are less likely to go to war if they rely on each other for trade. Furthermore interdependence has increased prosperity for some states, one example of this is that China has supposedly experienced a growth rate of more than 7% a year for the past 25 years as a result of interdependence (Spence, 2012, p 28). Liberals also point out the involvement of IGOs and NGOs in the Global Political Economy as a reason for its success. Unlike the realist opinion on anarchy at a global level, some liberals believe that IGOs provide rules and regulations that can ensure a successful GPE and well as international relations therefore providing some higher power. However it is often argued that IGOs have no way of reinforcing these regulations though they still have some benefit, especially when they are legally binding (Toffel, Short, and Ouellet, 2013). This view suggests that rather than causing a challenge for IR, GPE is actually an advantageous system that is mutually beneficial for all states.
These arguments demonstrate that GPE is a highly disputed concept with scholars having very differing opinions on its outcomes. Until there is universal agreement on the effects of a Global Political Economy (both positive and negative) it will provide challenges for the discipline of International Relations. However if theorists can come to some agreement then GPE has the potential to be IR’s biggest attribute – so much so that, as said at the start by Susan Strange it is less of a sub-discipline of IR but rather its own separate discipline that would benefit global development. This would subsequently offer a new challenge for IR – GPE could become a rival discipline and, given the ever growing increase in globalisation, a global political economy is potentially a more vital discipline than current International Relations, which strongly risks becoming outdated if the challenges mentioned in this essay are not faced. However these arguments have shown that, as mentioned in the introduction, it is impossible to separate politics and economics both on domestic and international levels due to their success being dependent on the success of the other suggesting that both disciplines are as important as the other.