ABSTRACT
The complete purpose of this academic work is to provide a depth assessment of International
Political Economy (IPE) field as study and what the field offers to the understanding of global
politics that shape the economy. This work has assessed critically the multidimensional
character of IPE and defined it, assessed the two main dimensions of IPE economics and
politics that shape the global politics shaping the economy, and this essay also assessed to
American and British school of IPE, these assessments are intended to investigate what the
field of IPE is and about. Finally, this work assessed and investigated what the field of IPE
offers to our global understanding of global politics, it offers a bigger picture consisting of
various actors and global complex processes and patterns to fully understand global politics
and it also assessed variety of lenses that assist in understanding. This academic work follows
an order of introduction, body containing subheading which include multidisciplinary,
political, and economic dimensions, American and British school of thought, global processes
and patterns and variety of lenses. The major conclusion is IPE is a field of study that accounts
politics, economics, and other disciplines to understand global politics that shape the economy.
Words: 200 words
1|Page
TABLE CONTENT
Introduction: 4
Body Multidisciplinary study: 4 -5
Two-dimension economics and politics: 5-6
American and British school: 6-7
Global processes and patterns: 7-8
Variety of lenses: 8 -9
Conclusion:9
Bibliography: 10
2|Page
Introduction
The increasing complexity of global politics and economics required the introduction of a new
study International Political Economy, as global politics and economic could no longer be
understood solely from the study of International Relations. Investigating and exploring the
field of International Political Economy (IPE) is important as it assists to attain a response to
the concern of the way political and economic factors relate and interact in the international
level, to understand the impact that politics has on economic choices and looking into power
dynamics between actors that regulate global interactions, finances, and trade. This essay
intends to assess International Political Economy (IPE) as a study. This will be accomplished
by critically assessing the multidisciplinary, political, and economic dimensions, American and
British schools of thought that characterise IPE, and entail what the study of IPE is and about.
Finally, this essay will examine the values that IPE contributes to the understanding of the
function of international politics which includes consideration of a variety of actors, and a
variety of lenses illustrated through the example of United States of America’s intervention in
internal affairs of The Republic of Islam in 1953 which demonstrates how to utilise the variety
of lenses to understand international politics.
BODY
International Political Economy: Multidisciplinary study
This section of the essay defines the field of Political Economy and its’ multidimensional
character. International political economy (IPE) is also referred to as global political economy.
It analyses the interactions and relationship of politics of the international economics
(Kwilinski and Dalevska [Link] 2022: 8). It also studies the relations between trading states or
other actors. International Political Economy is a multidisciplinary field (Balaam and Dillman
2019: 33). IPE consists of various disciplines; meaning that the study does not only focus on
the two main dimensions, which are economics and politics, when attempting to identify the
causes of global issues and analysing international politics. IPE borrows notions from various
disciplines, including sociology, history, psychology, politics, and economics to produce a
compelling analytic and conceptual framework on global issues (Balaam and Dilman 2011:6).
In assessment, the field of IPE utilises other disciplines in conceptualizing the shape of global
finances and international issues, such as poverty in many African states which may be
understood as the legacy of colonialism through the discipline of history. This field utilises
3|Page
ideas of disciplines that prove to be worthy in understanding a particular event shaping the
global politics and economy. Politics, economics, and international relations are unable to
completely account for such (Sriyani and Nonutu: 2020: 30). IPE reveals that international
political actions may not be driven merely by political goals, but economic benefits, or
historical or sociological reasons between the actors. This means that political actions and
global economics can be explained beyond politics. Philips and Weaver (2011:1) argue that
IPE permits scholars to utilise multidisciplinary methodological tools to tackle and find
resolutions to complex global predicaments. In IPE it is about utilising these disciplines to
produce an analysis of how the global economy may be understood through the perspective of
these disciplines. This paragraph as assessed IPE as a multidisciplinary field borrowing other
disciplines to understand and respond to global issues, politics that shape global economy.
International Political Economy: Economic and Political dimension
This section of the essay assesses the two main dimensions IPE is about, namely politics and
economics. The field of IPE includes an economic dimension that accounts for social
behaviour, global economic activities, and a political dimension that accounts for a variety of
actors and power (Balaam and Dillman 2019: 34-35). The economy may be defined as system
that organises production, consumption, as well as distribution of stocks and services (Eckhardt
2016: 1). The economy aspects are influenced by economic logic, meaning actors in the
international system take actions that are driven by economic benefit. Therefore, the economic
dimension or the market is not a place that only exchanges goods, stocks, and services but it is
a place that coordinates social behaviour (Smith, El-Anis and Farrands 2017: 6). The
interactions (social behaviour) and associations between these actors are means to obtain some
sort of financial benefit, whether individually or for national interests. The economic standpoint
of a particular actor determines the relations that actor has with other actors, hence an
economically struggling state does not have prolific relations as an economical striving state.
Thus, economic position determines a state’s socialization in the international system. This is
what the field of IPE focuses on, that the economic dimension is associated with social
sciences.
Politics focuses on the institutions and actors that regulate economic and social interactions
(Eckhardt 2016: 1). The political dimension accounts for the variety of actors that are
responsible for tangible and non-tangible sectors of the society (Smith and El-Anis [Link] 2017:
6-7). Global political actors include individuals that act independently for self-interest, nation
4|Page
states acting on the interest of the nation or powerful elite class and Non-Government
Organisations (NGOs) that act on the interest of a particular interest or marginalised group, for
example advocating for refugees to be accepted, and Transnational Corporations (TNCs) acting
on networks of related enterprises. These actors are major contributors to the shape of politics
globally as these actors participate in politics internationally. These individual actors engage
in politics to attain their goal; however, a variety of these goals may clash with goals of other
actors. The field of IPE focuses on the relations and interactions between these actors in the
process of accomplishing their individual goals in the international system. This relates to
(Stranges 1999) argument that states are not the only actors on the global level. Therefore,
analysing the state to understand the global political economy provides an incomplete
explanation. Hence why the field of global political economy focus on a variety of actors to
understand global politics that shape the global economy.
The different actors account for an intangible sector power that shapes global political economy
(Balaam and Dillman 2011: 8). Global political economy is attentive to the assumption that
those that have access to power through economic, democratic, or political means have the
potential to shape the political dimension within the local, inter-state or global level. For
instance, in local the ruling party in South Africa the African National Congress (ANC)
possesses the power to shape the political dimension within its borders such as political stability
or instability. Power is very crucial in IPE as powerful actors use their political power to give
a certain group access to economic benefits. In illustration ANC government introduces a
women empowerment policy, this political act ensures that women benefit in terms of
employment consideration and access to financial benefits. Thus, power exercise determines
who benefit “cui bono” (Balaam and Dillman 2019: 33). IPE is about analysing and
understanding who benefits from power exercise. This paragraph has assessed the different
actors that participate in global politics that shape the political economy globally and critically
assessed power exercise and who benefits which is what the field of IPE is about.
International Political Economy: American and British school
This section of the essay assesses the American and the British school of thought of IPE. Both
these schools are the primary means of acquiring knowledge about the field of global political
economy. The principles of the American school include positivism and empiricism whilst the
British school principles include interpretive and ambitious agendas (Maliniak and Tierney
2011: 12). In assessment, the American school utilises the research methodology of economics
5|Page
and scientific means to research and understand the global political economy and provide
knowledge to the field of IPE. The American school places states at the centre of analysis,
however it acknowledges the increase of global institutions and various other actors that
influence global interaction (Farrell and Finnemore 2018: 63). The American school entails
that the state, institutions, and its actors’ economic benefits drive political action that is carried
out in the global system. Thus, the American school assumption is that economics come before
politics, that economics drive political action. The British school is more considerate to social
sciences, then economics and politics as it utilises the normative questions to understand global
phenomenal and carries out research in a less formal manner and interpretive tone. (Philips and
Weaver 2011: 3). This school of thought does not limit its analysis to the state, but it allows
other agents such as actors to be reasoning of particular interest. Thus, this school places
politics before economics.
Evidently, there is a difference between the British and American school of thought this
division and it is termed the transatlantic divide. This division prevents a wholistic field of IPE
with openness. In response to the transatlantic division scholars call for bridging through the
American school including more epistemological and paradigmatic means of research. This
means that the American should consider knowledge and shy away from scientific evaluations.
Whilst there is a call for the elimination of homogenous notion between the schools that are
constructed in opposition to one another (Cox 2011: 120). Bridging the division is in interest
for both schools as both schools may learn from each other in a constructive sense and different
perspective. Integration of the schools will enable an openness and greater inclusiveness, thus
a new collective, innovative and globally accommodative direction for IPE. This paragraph has
assessed the American and British school of IPE. The knowledge these schools acquire are
building mechanisms of IPE and what IPE is about as a study.
International Political Economy: Diverse global processes and patterns
This section of the essay is in response to the values IPE offers to our understanding of global
politics. IPE takes note that various global actors’ activities are accountable for global
phenomenon and finance creating a larger picture (Walzenbach 2016: 6). IPE allows a shift
away from the traditional notion that states are central and responsible for global politics. IPE
focuses on a variety global actor such as individual actors, businesses, NGOs, and other
institutions that act and influence global politics; this shifts the focus from state centralization
to a variety of actors. Acknowledging that there is a variety of actors enables the understanding
6|Page
that global processes that carry out global political action is complex and may not be simplified.
Individual actors are independent actors that are not influenced by state or seeking to attain
benefits for national interest. This groups or individual actor possess the potential to generate
ideas which they independently carry out that may cause tension, thus making the international
system according to (Balaam and Dillman 2011: 7) a state of potential anarchy as war may take
place at any time due to contradicting ideas of actors. It is crucial to acknowledge that these
actors play a major role in shaping global politics and the manner in which international
interaction occurs creating the global economy. The value that IPE offers reveals that global
politics process is complex, this means many actors’ interplays in the global sphere. IPE offers
that value of seeing global politics in a full image as it recognises all actors. This provides a
bigger picture and comprehensive explanation according to (Balaam and Dillman 2011: 10).
The study of IPE enables reaching out beyond traditional state interaction to understand and
explain the ever-changing relations in globe of politics and economy. This paragraph has
assessed the bigger picture of global politics the value IPE offers to the understanding of global
politics.
International Political Economy: Variety lenses
This section of the essay assesses the value of different lenses in the field of IPE. The goal is
to enable a variety of interpretations of global politics by making it optional to use different
disciplines to explain global politics (Balaam and Dillman 2011:7). Global political economy
does not only display those other disciplines that contribute to political action which ultimately
shapes global politics; however, it also displays that global politics may be viewed from
different disciplines such as sociology, psychology, politics, and economics. For instance, the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States of America’s (USA) interference in
The Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) internal affairs claiming to attempt restoring peace in a
political instable country. After the citizens of Iran overthrew their previous prime minister
Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and replaced him with new a prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
The new prime minister introduced the prominent policy of nationalization of the Iranian oil
industry that had been controlled by the British state. Prime minister Mossadegh concluded the
negotiations and denied the British access to the Iranian oil industry. The British state pleaded
with the USA to intervene to restore power to Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (Wu and Lanz 2019).
IPE entails that global political action is not necessarily driven by politics or political
accomplishment such as restoring peace; however, it may be understood in other lenses such
as economics or psychology. In this case the USA intervened engaging in political action across
7|Page
the global with impression of restoring peace in Iran, assisting the Iranians from a communist
leader that would deprive the citizens of their political liberty as well as individual
independence, this is a political lens to understand the matter. Underneath the surface of
applying an economic lens to this political action reveals that USA intervened in internal affairs
of Iran to attain economic benefit, the oil industry of Iran for Britain. Thus, the USA benefitting
as well. In a psychology lens America being a predominantly capitalist state intervened internal
affairs of Iran as means of contain or eliminating communism to prevent communism from
spreading. This paragraph has assessed the value of lenses variety IPE has provided to the
understanding of global politics and has demonstrated utilising an economic lens to understand
political action between the America and Iran that contribute to shaping global politics.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay as assessed critically what the field of IPE is about ultimately
revealing that the study of IPE seeks to create an understanding of global structures, hierarchies
and power dynamics that govern and shape the global economy. This essay has revealed that
the field of IPE contains multidiscipline namely politics, economics, sociology and
psychology, and the study of IPE utilises the variety of disciplines to understand mentioned
global issues and to articulate responses to global issues poverty. The essay continued to assess
the two dimensions IPE economics and politics that shape global economy. This essay also
assesses critically the two schools of thought the American and British school as primary
source of knowledge of in the study of IPE, the transatlantic divide and scholarly response to
the transatlantic divide as an attempt to secure a globally inclusive study of IPE. This responds
to the question of what the field of IPE is and what it contains. This essay also assessed
critically the values IPE offers to the understanding of global politics a bigger picture which is
analysing global politics in a large space including the roles partaken by other actors besides
the states and finally that IPE provides variety of lens to understand global politics.
WORD COUNT: 2496
8|Page
Bibliography
Balaam, D. N and Dillman, B. 2019. International Political Economy. New York Routledge,
pp30 -59.
Balaam, D.N. and Dillman, B. 2011. Introduction to International Political Economy. New
Jersey: Pearson Education, pp
Balaam, D.N and Veseth, M. 1996. International Political Economy. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, pp. 7.
Cox, R. 2011. International political economy debating the past, present and future. In Phillips,
N., Weaver, C.E. (eds.) The ‘British school’ in the global context. USA and Canada: Routledge,
pp 120.
Eckhardt, J. 2016. International Politics Economy. Researching Corporations and Global
Health Governance: An Interdisciplinary Guide, vol.16, no1, pp1.
Farrell, H and Finnemore, M. 2008. Ontology, methodology and causation in America school
of international political economy. Review of International Political Economy, vol.14, no.3, pp
Kwilinski A, Dalevska, N. and Dementyev, V. V. 2022. Metatheoretical Issues of Evolution of
The International Political. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, vol.2, no3, pp8.
Maliniak, D. and Tierney M, J.2011. International political economy debating the past, present
and future. In Phillips, N., Weaver, C.E. (eds.) The American school of IPE. USA and Canada:
Routledge, pp 12.
Smith, R., El-Anis, I and Farrands, C. 2017. International Political Economy in the 21st
Century. New York: Routledge, pp
Strange, S. 1999. The Westfailure System. Review of International Studies, vol,25, no2, pp.
Sriyani, K and Nonutu, T.E. 2020. International Political Economy: Theories and Case studies.
United Kingdom: UKI [Link]
Phillips, N. and Weaver, C E. 2011. International political economy debating the past, present
and future. In Phillips, N., Weaver, C.E. (eds.) Introduction: debating the divide – reflections
9|Page
on the past, present and future of international political economy. USA and Canada:
Routledge, pp 1-9.
Woods, N. 2001. The Globalization of World Politics. In Balyis., J and Smith, S (eds.)
International Political Economy in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press. Pp
Wu, L and Lanz, M. 2019. How The CIA Overthrew Iran’s Democracy in Days. National
Public Radio org. [Online] Available from:
[Link]
days
10 | P a g e
