시험공부 정리: IPE (International Political Economy)

이번 학기 내가 들었던 과목은 20크레딧씩 세 개, 'Contemporary US Foreign Policy', 'The Global Political Economy', 'Modern Political Thought' 이다. 삼학년에 신청한 과목을 보니 필수 과목인 'Political Analysis: Explaining Politics'를 제외하고 나는 'Gender in the Global Political Economy'와 'The Politics of Asylum'을 선택했다. 영국에서 정치학과 국제관계학을 공부하면서 한국에서는 배울 수 없는 한국에서는 학문적 기반이 (아직은) 취약한 분야를 배워가야겠다는 생각과 2학년 1학기부터 스멀스멀 올라오는 젠더와 페미니즘에 대한 관심 때문에 두 모듈을 선택했다. 아직 졸업논문 (12,000자) 주제는 정하지 못했는데 7,000자 프로젝트의 주제는 GPE에서의 젠더가 될 것 같다. 우선 학기말 시험 셋 중, 'Contemporary US Foreign Policy' 모듈 시험은 지난 목요일 끝이 났다. 시원하게 말아먹은 느낌이 들지만 다음 두 개는 잘 정리해서 잘 보려고 한다. 으으- 에세이 점수가 커버해줬으면... 이번 학기 모듈 세개도 내가 스스로 정한 것이었는데, US Foreign Policy를 선택한 이유는 국제 정치에 있어서 미국을 빼는 것은 말도 안된다고 생각했기 때문이고, Economy 과목은 정치와 경제가 어떻게 맞물려 있는지 알아보고 싶어서였고 (신자유주의에 대한 염증도..), 정치철학 과목을 선택한 이유는 정치인들은 왜 저모양일까 하는 궁금증 덕분이었다. 일단 학기가 끝나가니 속은 시원하다. 참 힘든 학기였다. 2학년 1학기에는 그래도 여행을 다닐 여유는 있었는데 2학년 2학기에는 제대로 여행을 간 기억이 없다.(무지 바빴다.) 게다가 잔병치레가 끊이지 않아 몇 번씩이나 멘탈이 붕괴되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 나는 다시 돌아왔고 지금은 끝을 보고 있다. 이번 포스팅에서는 시험공부 겸, 'GPE가 도대체 무엇인지' 에 대해 쓰려고 한다. (이런 기본적인 내용은 렉쳐러가 시험문제에서 제외할 일이 없으니까....-배반하지 말아줘여 렉쳐러느님)

*Dr.Liam Stanley 의 렉쳐노트 참고.

---

What GPE or IPE stands for? (GPE/IPE 란 무엇인가)

GPE (Global Political Economy) or IPE (International Political Economy) as a field of IR (International Relations) in the 1970s. IPE builds on earlier work in 'political economy' that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. Today, IPE is really 'global political economy', but the early label has stuck. 처음에는 IPE라는 이름을 가졌지만, 이젠 더 BROADER한 개념인 GPE 가 나타났다.

What is the focus of IPE? IPE 에서 중점적으로 다루는 것?

1) International Economics (세계 경제학) 2) The economics of international relations (국제 관계에서의 경제학) 3)instances where international politics interferes with the global economy (국제정치가 세계경제를 방해하는 지점들) 4) NONE OF THE ABOVE (여기 있는거 다 아니야...) 

IPE Scholars see politics and economics as inseparable. IPE학자들은 경제학과 정치학을 뗼 수 없다고 보고 있다. 

So, what is IPE? (IPE가 도대체 무엇인가)- COHEN DEBATE

According to Ravenhill, International Political Economy is... a subject matter whose central focus is the interrelationship between public and private power in the allocation of scarce resources'....  희소자원을 분배하는 데에 있어서 public power 와 private power의 상관관계에 초점을 맞추는 과목. 뭐든지 제한된 자원이 문제의 시작...

However, intellectual history of the discipline by Benjamin Cohen that opened up debate about the nature of IPE. Benjamin Cohen이라는 학자가 IPE 학파의 두개를 구분지었는데, 하나는 American School이고, 또 하나는 British School 이다. (they are not necessarily geographical)

First, American School focuses on state behaviour. The purpose of theory is to explain causality. The function of IPE is to solve problems in the systems. (American School 은 약간 mainstream 스멜이 난다)

Second, British School focuses on power relations. The purpose of theory is to judge and find injustice. The function of IPE is to make a better place. ( American School 과 British School 을 봤을때, 나에겐 British School 이 더 맞는 것 같다. )

What is the point of IPE? 굳이 정치학도 있고 경제학도 있는데 IPE가 필요한 이유는?

1. To understand general properties and laws?

2. To understand how unobserved economic structures "out there" really work?

3. In order to make sense of our and others' experiences in and of it?

4. In order to challenge and resist dominant power relations? 

IPE is needed to understand how unobserved economic structures and to challenge and resist dominant power relations.

우선, IPE라는 개념 자체가 초창기의 개념이기 때문에 GPE라고 바뀌는 추세이다. 그 이유는 국제간이라는 개념에서 더 확장된 전지구적 개념이 필요해졌기 때문! 

---

Article1:

The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British IPE so different? Benjamin J. Cohen

-IPE is about the complex linkages between economic and political activity at the level of international affairs.

-Prior to the 1970s, in the English-speaking world, economics and political science were treated as entirely different disciplines, each with its own view of international affairs. 1970년 이전에는 경제학과 정치학이 IR에서 완전히 다르게 분류되어 있었음. 

-In the American School, priority is given to scientific method. Analysis is based on the twin principles of positivism and empiricism, which hold that knowledge is best accumulated through an appeal to objective observation and systematic testing. (과학적 방법과 객관적인 관찰로 쌓인 지식에 기반한 연구가 짱짱맨)

-In the British style, IPE is less wedded to scientific method and more ambitious in its agenda. 

<The Transatlantic divide>

-Ontology (존재론): In social science, it is used as a synonym for studying the world in which we actually live. 

-Epistemology (인식론): From the Greek for knowledge, epistemology has to do with the methods and grounds of knowing. 

-The differences between the American and British schools may be best understood in terms of their contrasting understandings about ontology and epistemology. (존재론과 인식론에 있어서 상반된 이해가 바로 AS 와 BS의 차이) 

-In terms of ontology, the American School remains determinedly state-centric, privileging sovereign governments above all other units of interest. (국가중심적) The main purpose of theory is explanation: to identify causality. The driving ambition is problem solving: to explore possible solutions to challenges within the existing system.  (시스템 안에서 일어나는 문제점들에 대한 해결 방안을 고안)

-The British School, by contrast, treats the state as just one agent among many, if states are to be included at all. The core object of study- the field's 'problematique', to use a term favoured more by British scholars than Americans. For British School IPE is more inclusive-more open to links to other areas of inquiry. (너무 포괄적이라고 비판받는다. 그래서)

-결국! Where the American school aspires to the objectivity of conventional social science, the British School is openly normative in the tradition of pragmatism and classical moral philosophy. (존재론적 관점에서, 미국학파는 전통적인 사회과학에서의 객관성을 중요시하고, 영국학파는 실용주의 전통과 도덕철학에서 대놓고 규범성을 중시하는 편이다)

-in terms of epistemology, the American school remains wedded to the principles of positivism and empiricism- the twin pillars of a hard science model. Deductive logic and parsimonious reasoning are seek out universal truths. The British School, by contrast, embraces approaches that are more institutional and historical in nature and more interpretive in tone. 

---

1. The American School

대표학자: Robert Keohane, Joseph nye, Robert Gilpin ,Peter Katzenstein, and Stephen Krasner

Historical circumstances

-Most striking was the remarkable recovery of the European and Japanese economies after the devastation of World War Two.

-America's moment of economic dominance-of 'hegemony'- appeared just about over. 

-Pressures were mounting for a New International Economic Order that would fundamentally transform the rules governing relations between the wealthy 'North' and the poverty-stricken 'South'. 

-By the end of the 1960s it was evident that the expansion of international economic activity had reached a critical point. 

-Power now seemed to be slipping from states, limiting their ability to attain critical goals. For governments, markets were becoming a distinct threat, whatever their material benefits. 

-Conversely, the salience (중요점) of national security concerns now appeared in abeyance (중지). This was because of a growing detente between the US and the Soviet Union. 

-National security보다도 더 중요하게 market이 새로운 위협으로 발생.

The Pioneers (Keohane&Nye , Gilpin, Katzenstein and Krasd)

-Keohane and Nye began to work out a new conception of the dynamics of international economic relations. In the later, they laid out a vision of the world that remains influential to the present day- the notion of 'complex interdependence'. 

-Complex interdependence was defined by three main characteristics- multiple channels of communications, an absence of hierarchy among issues, and a diminished role of military force. 

-The notion was posed as a challenge to the classic 'realist' paradigm of world politics that had long dominated the study of international relations in the U.S. (Realist paradigm을 깼음)

-Keohane and Nye made the concept called 'complex interdependence' which may no longer be particularly fashionable in the IPE literature.

-Gilpin suggested, all-drawn from traditional IR theory-liberalism, Marxism, and realism-each offering students of iPE its own distinct 'model of the future'. Liberals and Marxists shared economic dominance over politics. However, realists retained fiath in the power of political relations to shape economic systems.

-Peter Katzenstein made a significant contribution by drawing attention to the domestic political and institutional influences on a state's policy behaviour in the world economy.

Abdication (포기/기권)

-American version of IPE was constructed essentially as a branch of political science. (a logical extension of their interest in IR)

-In fact, most of the field's earliest work in the US was by economists, before the political scientists took over.  (IPE 학자들보다 경제학자들이 더 먼저 새로운 분야를 이끌었다.)

-Despite the dramatic changes in international environment, the mainstream of the economics profession remained largely indifferent to IPE. (대부분 경제학자들 IPE에 무관심...)

-The reasons were three-fold: ideological, ontological, and epistemological.

-First, there was chilling effect of postwar anti-communism. Political economy tended to be equated unthinkability with Marxism or other unacceptable leftist doctrines. (전후 반공산주의의 바람 덕택에 맑시즘과 다른 좌파이론과 연관된 Political Economy가 채택될 리가...) Economists could not avoid being drawn into the ongoing contest between Marxism and market liberalism.

-Second was a kind of intellectual myopia (근시) in the prevailing ontology of economics. (근시안적 관점이 문제..) Economists were simply not trained to think in terms of the public sphere-the issues of authority and conflict that are inherent in processes of governmental decision making. This created two blind spots. First, the importance of institutions was discounted. Second, attention was directed to the outcomes of policy rather than to its inputs. 

-Finally, there was resistance to IPE on epistemological grounds. Mainstream economists also were understandably hesitant to take up issues that could not be addressed comfortably using the standard toolkit of neo-classical economics. (신자유주의 모델에 맞춘것이 아닌 기준은 거부!)

-"The style was reductionist. The aim was to uncover core relationships-'to predict something large from something small', as economist Harry Johnson once put it (1971:9)"

An irony

-The methodology of neoclassical economics, featuring the same penchant for positivist analysis, formal modelling, and where possible, systematic collection and evaluation of empirical data. (방법론적 측면에서 경제학과 IPE의 방법이 유사하다, 따라서 아이러니)

-The ideas that appear to travel most easily between the social sciences are the simpler, more inclusive ideas; and when gauged by the criteria of simplicity and inclusiveness, neoclassical propositions have had a decisive edge (Vernon, 1989). 

-The increasing standardisation of IPE methods in the US is by no means costless. 

-Today, however, it is clear differences between the disciplines are rapidly disappearing. 

-결국 American School에서 IPE Scholars 가 Economists에게 자리를 내어줄 것 처럼 보인다는 말.

---

2. The British School

대표학자: Susan Strange and Robert Cox

Susan Strange

-Today's field of international political economy can be traced back to 1971, when Susan Strange founded the International Political Group'.

-Her aim, according to two colleagues, was not 'to develop a full theory of IPE, but a way of thinking, a framework for thinking. 

-Leading by example, she freely crossed academic boundaries in pursuit of her scholarly interests. (multidisciplinary)

-For Strange, allowing ownership of IPE to go to the political scientists, as happened in the US, would be a serious error. IR should be viewed as a subset of iPE, she felt, not the other way around. (미국 IPE의 시작부터 잘못되었다고 비판)

-"Far from being a subdiscipline of international relations, IPE should claim that international relations are a subdiscpline of IPE. (Strange, 1994:218)"패기 돋네욤.. IPE가 IR의 부수적인 학문이 아니라, IR이 IPE의 부수적인 학문이라고 주장해야 한다고!

-IPE should be 'about justice', as well as efficiency:  about order and national identity and cohesion, even self-respect, as well as about cost and price' (Strange, 1984)

Robert Cox

-Cox rejected the state-centrism of traditional IR theory. The state could not be analysed in isolation, he insisted. Historical change had to be thought of in terms of the reciprocal relationship of structures and actors within a much broader conceptualisation of international relations, the 'state-society complex'. 

-Outcomes would depend on the response of social forces. 'International production', he wrote, 'is mobilising social forces that its major political consequences vis-a-vis the nature of states and future world orders may be anticipated' (Cox, 1981). 

-Because of the lengthy time perspective of his analysis, it is difficult to convert his conclusions into empirically falsifiable propositions. 

-Because of his propensity (경향) to mix positivist observation and moral judgements, it is difficult even to assess the fundamental soundness of his reasoning. 

-So rather than engage Cox directly, scholars in the US have found it easier simply to dismiss or ignore him.

-'The work of Robert Cox', remarks one observer, 'has inspired many students to rethink the way in which we study international political economy, and it is fair to say that historical materialism is perhaps the most important alternative to realist and liberal perspectives in the field today' (Griffiths, 1999)

Follow the leaders

-To gain acceptance for their distinctive conception of IPE, they also needed a receptive audience-a critical mass of scholars prepared to heed their message rather than that of Keohane, ye, and company across the Atlantic. 

-On the American side of the Atlantic, international studies grew up in an environment dominated by the norms of conventional social science, with a particular emphasis on training in quantitative methods. 

-In Britain, by contrast, international studies had roots that were spread much more widely into a variety of other disciplines such as sociology, philosophy, religion and law. 

-American scholars understandably accepted the new global order as natural, even desirable. British scholars, by contrast, could be excused for adopting  a more jaundiced (좋지않게보는) view of the status quo and a greater openness to alternative perspectives. 

-Theses broad differences were hardly the whole story. There were also other, more specific factors at work.

-First was a latent anti-Americanism often found in British universities, which helped encourage scholars to define their efforts more in opposition to, rather than in imitation of, American trends of thought. 

-Second was a more relaxed attitude toward Marxism or other leftist doctrines, which reinforced a critical disposition toward markets and their consequences. 

-Attitudes toward Marxism and other left doctrines, by contrast, were far more relaxed than in the US, where most academics were wary of anything that might seem tainted by socialist sympathies. 

-Scepticism regarding markets and their consequences was much more acceptable there than it was in America. After all, was not Britain where many fashionable leftist doctrines, such as Fabianism (점진적 사회주의), had first developed?

-Though divided over issues of ontology and epistemology, most versions of critical theory converge on a revisionist critique of modern capitalism. 

-There was the difference in the British approach to economic studies, which was far less abstract than in the US. As compared with the way that the economics discipline was developing in the US, there was still much less emphasis on reductionism in Britain and certainly less reliance on numeracy. 

Another irony

-'US-based and British school IPE have ...evolved largely separately from each other, identified little with one another as parts of the same enterprise, and spoken largely to their own audiences rather than to each other(Phillips, 2005) -학파간의 교류가 없음...(그들만의 리그랄까?)

-Three years before her death, she suggested that US scholars needed a hearing aid. (ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ)

---

3. A Meeting of the minds?

-The American school tells it one way; the British school, another. 

-The American School may take justifiable pride in its allegiance to the demanding principles of positivism and empiricism. 

-Scholars in the British style, by contrast, help to compensate for such shortcomings with their intellectual ecumenism and their critical attitude toward orthodoxy. 

-Yet, ultimately, room exists for compromise, perhaps, even synthesis. Since the two schools are so complementary, why not seek to take the best from both, for their mutual gain?

-In short, the two sides need to talk to each other more, to overcome the factionalism that currently divides the IPE community. Nothing would be better for the health of the field in the future.

결론은 British School이나 American School이나 대화 없이 따로 나가는 것이 아니라 서로 배울점은 배워야 한다는 것. 하지만 쉽지 않을 것으롭 보인다. 일단 starting point가 다르고, British School의 IPE야말로 Mainstream orthodoxy에 반기를 들고 실눈을 뜨고 시스템의 문제점을 파악하는 것이니까. 반면에 American School은 시스템 상의 문제를 시스템 안에서 해결하려는 status quo의 입장이니까. 나의 경우는 IPE 혹은 GPE가 해야하는 것은 economists 가 비판하지 못한 점을 비판하는 역할이라고 생각하는데, 그 역할을 잘 해낼 수 있는 학파가 British School이기 때문에 British School perspective 로 GPE를 공부할 것 같다. (비록 too broad 라고 비판받긴 하더라도) multidisciplinary 라는 점이 제일 맘에 든다. 하하. 

---

Cohen, J. (2008) 'The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British IPE so different?', Review of International Political Economy, 14(2), pp.197-219.

출처: 본인 / 맨체스터아이.