State, market, and global political economy: Genealogy of an (inter-?) discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Political Economy (IPE), as a diverse and fragmented field of inquiry, has often had trouble situating itself in the social sciences. This article argues that IPE belongs firmly in the broader tradition of political economy in the social sciences and begins by summarizing the emergence of IPE in its contemporary context, starting with the late 1960s and early 1970s debates among IR scholars on the nature and meaning of interdependence, of the importance of ‘high’ versus ‘low’ politics, and of ‘transnational’ versus ‘international’ relations. The article goes on to demonstrate that IPE has emerged in a far from coherent fashion, though this diversity and ecumenism is not to be deplored. The second section of the article argues that the core conceptual issue in IPE remains the nature of the state–market relationship. The way this relationship is viewed has a considerable impact on how the prospects for change in the structures—the normative and material underpinnings—of world order are to be understood. It argues that most IPE scholars, despite their protestations, still see the state and the market as separate and indeed antagonistic dynamics. The logic of the state and the market are distinct. Scholars need to take a final and decisive step in accepting that, in empirical and conceptual terms, the state and the market are part of the same, integrated system of governance: a state–market condominium that operates simultaneously through the competitive pressures of the market and the political processes that shape the boundaries and structures within which that competition (or lack thereof) takes place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".