THE NOTION OF POWER OR WHAT IS LEFT OUT IN ROBERT GILPIN’S ‘TRICHOTOMOUS CATEGORISATION’: THEORETICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL POSITIONS IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE GROUND FOR THEORETICAL MERGER

The article aims at contributing to philosophical understanding of issues in international political economy (IPE). The philosophical formations of different approaches to conducting research in IPE demonstrate that all its divisions are conditional, with permeable rather than impenetrable boundaries. To simplify introduction, some IPE textbooks follow Robert Gilpin’s “trichotomous categorisation”, or theoretical division of the field into realism, liberalism and Marxism/structuralism, which fails to clearly define cultural and historical roots, ignores alternative philosophical approaches to IPE, and denies the possibility of theoretical mergers. With the main focus on the notion of power, this article aims at exploring the possible ways to overcome this trichotomous theoretical division, making the attempt to find ground for theoretical merger. The paper concludes that the theoretical boundaries can be transcended by merging different concepts (a “horizontal” merger), or by approaching the same phenomena in different epistemological ways (a “vertical” merger).

Robert Gilpin, power, political economy, textbooks of political economy, historical roots of political economy, cultural roots of political economy, political economics, trichotomous categorization, realism, liberalism, Marxism, horizontal merger, vertical merger. Power, Robert Gilpin, IPE, theory, realism, liberalism, marxism

1. Burchill, S., Linklater, A. 2009, Methods and Theorists, in Theories of International Relations, by Burchill, S. Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., True, J., New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 4th edition

2. Burchill, S., 2009, Liberalism, in Theories of International Relations, by Burchill, S. Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., True, J., New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 4th edition

3. Gibson-Graham, J.K., 1996, The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, Cambridge: MA, Blackwell

4. Gilpin, R., with Gilpin J., 2001, Global Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press

5. Cohen, G., 2001, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence, Oxford: OUP, Expanded edition.

6. Cohen, B., 2007, The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE so Different?, Review of International Political Economy, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 197-219

7. Cox, R., 1987, Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History, New York: Columbia University Press

8. Foucault, M., 1979, Discipline and Punish, Harmondsworth: Penguin

9. Gill, S.R., 1991, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Political Economy, in Murphy, C.N and Tooze, R., The New International Political Economy, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

10. Hindmoor, A., 2006, Rational Choice, Basingstoke: Palgrave

11. O’Brien, R. and Williams, M., 2010, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 3d edition

12. Kant, I., 1795, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay, available at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm from 19 May 2010

13. Keohane, R., 2002, Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, Routledge; Electronic version 2012: Taylor and Francis, Hoboken,

14. Keohane, R., 2009, The Old IPE and the New, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 16, No.1, pp.34-46

15. Klotz, A., 1995, Norms in International Relations: The Struggle Against Apartheid, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press

16. Krasner, S., 1976, State Power and the Structure of International Trade, World Politics, Vol. 28, No.3, pp. 317-47

17. Lukes, S., 1974, Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan

18. Poston, T., 2010, Foundationalism; Available from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/

19. Putnam, R., 1988, Diplomacy and Domestic Politics, International Organization, Vol.42, No.3, pp. 427-60

20. Ravenhill, J., 2011, The study of Global Political Economy in Global Political Economy, ed. by Ravenhill, J., Oxford: OUP, 3d edition

21. Reus-Smit, C., 2009, Theories of International Relations, by Burchill, S. Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., True, J., New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 4th edition

22. Savigny, H., Marsden, L., 2011, Doing Political Science and International Relations. Theories in Action, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

23. Strange, S., 1991, An Eclectic Approach, in Murphy, C.N and Tooze, R., The New International Political Economy, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc.

24. Strange, S., 1994, Wake Up, Krasner! The World Has Changed, Review of International Political Economy, Vol.1, No.2, pp. 209-219

25. Talani, L.S., 2004, European Political Economy: Political Science Perspectives,, London: Ashgate, 2d Edition

26. Tashakkori, A, and Teddlie, C, 1998, Mixed Methodology. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage

27. Wade, R., 2009, Beware What you Wish for: Lessons for International Political Economy from the Transformation of Economics, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 16, No.1, pp. 106-121

28. Walt, S., 1990, The Origin of Alliances, Itaca: Cornell University Press, Reissue ed.

29. Waltz, K., 2010, Theory of International Politics, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.; Reissue ed.

30. Watson, M., 2011, The Historical Roots of Theoretical Traditions in Global Political Economy in Global Political Economy, ed. by Ravenhill, J., Oxford: OUP, 3d edition

31. Wendt, A, 1995, Construction international politics, International Security, 20(1), 71-81.