Structuralist Perspective of International Political Economy - Coursework Example

Structuralist Perspective of International Political Economy (IPE) College: Name: Students ID: Date: Course Name: Unit Code: Time: Instructor: Introduction International political economy entails the reading of the political and economic organisation of the world in one piece from the viewpoint of a compound worldwide organ. International political economy endeavours to give an explanation of the difficult problems that may well profit from the study involving a multidisciplinary approach. In doing so, International political economy embodies a combination of different social science approaches. These include; International Economics; Sociology; Politics; International Relations; and, Anthropology. Therefore, international political economy merges the political elements that interrelate with the economic system and societal actions in the increasingly globalised arena that is formed and hardened by times past as well as varying cultural ideals (Nixson, 2006). In this study, different authors have proposed different approaches to international political economy. Liberalism points out that states ought to practise more open trade and avoid protecting their countries. Realism takes care of state interests rather than individual interests or general economic efficiency. It postulates that one side will benefit provided that the other loses leading to a zero-sum fixture. Structuralism argues that the state plays a key role given that class is a deep-seated factor in politics and therefore power guides the division of gains. This approach gives more attention to the poor. Constructivism reconciles the differences between Liberalism, Realism, as well as Structuralism. It states that international actors have varying goals, hence, there is need to understand them through research seeing as people change their views and policies must vary from time to time. Lastly, there is Feminism. This approach is founded on the view that other approaches pay no attention to women and gender issues. It argues that women are usually assigned particular roles in economy. However, women are capable of engaging numerous roles at a time. Therefore, there is need to use women as development agents. This has informed the formation of micro lending programs targeting women so as to boost their access to credit (James & Robert, 2001). This paper seeks to have a detailed look at the structuralist perspective of international political economy. Structuralism and International Political Economy Structuralism has its roots in Latin America. The theory was in principle developed by a team of employees working in the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) in the period of the 1950s to the 1960s. They were led by Raúl Prebisch. In that moment, dependency theorists in Latin America were quite extensively spread all over various institutions in the region. However, structuralism was for the most part developed in ECLA along with other partner institutions whereas several key neo-Marxist philosophers were at one time working at the University of Chile’s Centre for Socio-Economic Studies (CESO) (Thirlwall, 2002). Structuralism and dependency theories cropped up out of a critical assessment of existing development concepts. The academics could not find out neither could they deal with Latin America’s exertion of underdevelopment as well as development. Structuralists promoted an in-flowing development policy basically involving import-substituting industrialisation (ISI). Structuralist is based on the resource distribution as the driving force that explains international outcomes. On the other hand, dependency theorists wished-for a fresh global economic order by mainly supporting a shift to communalism to deal with the problem of underdevelopment (Scott & Andrew, 2005). Structuralists, by and large, perceive the state as the main actor in international political economy, but merely from the logic that it embodies various economic interests. Based on Marx’s work on international economics and politics, structuralism perceives states as an outfit of the prevailing economic class as opposed to being separate actors in themselves. International political economy, therefore, is a struggle for control over others. It is a struggle for economic supremacy, and the main fundamental actors are classes. The state is only important in endorsing class interests that lead to the study of international relations in terms of core-periphery dealings (Scott & Andrew, 2005). International politics emerges out of the deep-seated progress on-going in these core-periphery economic relations. International political economy therefore rotates around misuse, imperialism and underdevelopment, whose outcome is the unrelenting utilisation of the poor (proletariat) by the rich (bourgeois). Structuralism focuses on the manner in which resources are distributed. Structuralists perceive resources as a key determinant of a country’s strategy and as the causal power degree of difference in the midst of countries of the world. According to this perspective, actors have differing interests. Therefore, those with the most power obviously win through. To find out which actors have extra power or a lesser amount of power, structuralists look at the resource bits and pieces at the disposal of the actors. In explaining the difference involving developed economies and developing economies, structuralists present a somewhat plain and clear-cut proposition. They argue that if rich and poor countries have differing interests, in view of the fact that rich economies have more resources hence more power, it is expected that their interests will win through the interests of poor economies which have less resources hence less power. For this reason structuralists look forward to the international political economy to echo the interests of the more developed economies (Smith, 2007). Structuralists also indicate that enhancing administration and shifting the chain of command of values introduces an additional shape of core supremacy. The extensive chronological dominance by capitalism is an indication of its capability to adjust its form to keep on dominating. Structuralism may well offer additional information for thinking on other development approaches for those with a more practical twist. However, for individuals with more radical wits and long-standing visualisation possibly will be attracted by the ideas of dependency theorists (Polanyi, 2001). Structuralism along with the structuralist fibre within dependency theory wanted to reform capitalism globally and on a national scale, whereas the neo-Marxist version of dependency theory sought to bring down capitalism seeing as communism was the solitary system that could deal with underdevelopment problems. Following the fall down of the East European communist system as well as China’s changeover to a market economy, dependency theory’s communist view cannot command a lot of in the developing and less developed states. Structuralism is therefore is seen as a more viable alternative of reorganising the capitalist system, particularly for academics looking for a substitute to the existing neoliberal school of thought. Neoliberals seem to have been defeated by the recently experienced financial crises (Infante & Sunkel, 2009). Neoliberal proposals seemed not to warrant economic stability or growth or level-headed income distribution. Today in the midst of the unstoppable and unrelenting globalisation, the importance of structuralism is expected to stick on given that it looks at the problems of underdevelopment and development from a large-scale perspective. Structuralism views the international system as a component of asymmetric centre-periphery dealings. Dependency theorists accept as true that underdevelopment was as a result of the asymmetrical associations within the system. The economic difference plus the income gap stuck between the developed world (centre) and the underdeveloped world (periphery) has been broadening. This was prevalent all through the debt and transformation decade of the 1980s that justify the philosophy of Marxism and dependency theorists (Dutt & Ros, 2007). In the present day, technology is part and parcel of everyday existence of humanity. Dependency philosophers lay strong emphasis on technological reliance. In the earlier times of the 1960s and 1970s, structuralists had pointed out to the limitations of the Latin American ISI development because of the technical hitches it was going through in transforming the consumer (primary) goods industries to capital (manufacturing) goods industries (Katz, 2001). Nonetheless, the big countries were able to build up a considerable intermediate goods manufacturing sector. A case in point is the steel and chemical industries. Regardless of the growing presence of multinational corporations in Latin America, there has not been much of technological diffusion. This corroborates dependency theorists’ critical assessment of the multinational corporations (Thirlwall, 2002). Moreover, the initiative of the government through policy actions has been unsuccessful in developing home-grown technological competence in Latin America. Instead, the government might have acted with certainty to make sure that multinational corporations chipped in to this course of action. All the same, Brazil and to a large extent Mexico have got hold of a little reasonable technological competence basically due to a focused industrial policy. However in the midst of the latest electronics and communications technological uprising, the highly developed economies have laid their hands on an additional competitive advantage over the less developed economies. This has additionally enlarged the technological reliance of a lot of less developed economies (Katz, 2001). Conclusion Even though the structuralist perspective of international political economy had been washed away, current developments still point to its relevance in explaining the problems of development and underdevelopment. Given the ever-increasing globalisation and technological advancement, the developed world is expected to dominate over the underdeveloped countries seeing as they have more power over the same (Bielschowsky, 2009). References Bielschowsky, R. 2009. Sixty years of structuralism and neo-structuralism. Cepal Review, No. 97. Santiago, Chile. Dutt, K. and Ros, J. 2007. Aggregate demand shocks and economic growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 18: 75-99. Infante, R. and Sunkel, O. 2009. Chile: towards inclusive development. Cepal Review, No. 97. Santiago, Chile. James, E.D. and Robert, L.P. 2001. Contending Theories of International Relations: A comprehensive survey. 5th edn. New York: Longman. Katz, J. 2001. Structural reforms, productivity and technological change in Latin America. Libros de la Cepal Review, No. 64 Santiago, Chile. United Nations publication. Nixson, F. 2006. Rethinking the political economy of development: back to basics and beyond. Journal of International Development, vol. 18, No. 7, John Wiley & Sons Polanyi, K. 2001. The Great Transformation. Boston, Massachusetts, The Beacon Press. Scott, B. and Andrew, L. 2005. Theories of International Relations. 3rd edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. Smith, A. 2007. The Wealth of Nations, Petersfield, Harriman House. Thirlwall, A. 2002. The Nature of Economic Growth. Edward Elgar: Aldershot. Read More