I'm currently reading an interesting survey of international political economy by a Princeton scholar whose name slips my mind right now. It's a very well-written and seemingly balanced look at things; the author gives due weight not only to liberal and neoliberal political economy, but to the Marxist and nationalist varieties as well.
I want to talk about this book a little more, but an interesting way of parsing a particular theory came up in the man's discussion of Marxist political economy. That is that a given theory can and often does have normative parts - what "should" happen in a given situation - as well as analytic parts - "how" we approach a given situation.
Vis-a-vis Marxism, the author introduces the subject by way of its early-nineties downfall as the underpinning of large economic and political systems -- its normative aspect. But, the author continues to say, as long as economies undergo fast and unmerciful boom-and-bust cycles, or massive income inequalities exist between haves and have-nots, then Marxism and Marxists will continue to exist as purveyors of an analytical tool capable of asking questions about a given subject.
I found this very interesting, and it's a clean and simple way to look at - and crucially, to explain to others in conversation - a theory or document or ideology or set of ideas.
More on the IPE book later.
(0) Comments